MP v. OB: anyone have feelings to share?

Josh Janeswrote:

I think there's a very good reason, though, why OB would be reluctant to credit authors: Doesn't that kinda fly in the face of the whole open source model? The most relevant example I can think of is Wikipedia - quotes and references are cited, sure, but the actual text of Wikipedia entries are not credited to their authors. 

This is a common misunderstanding of open source. The opposite is actually true: open source depends on accurate content attribution and real open source projects devote considerable resources to getting it right. In Wikipedia, every single change to every single page is tracked with attribution. You can see it with the “View history” tab on any page.

James -wrote:

This is a common misunderstanding of open source. The opposite is actually true: open source depends on accurate content attribution and real open source projects devote considerable resources to getting it right. In Wikipedia, every single change to every single page is tracked with attribution. You can see it with the “View history” tab on any page.

Sweet. Even better. And thanks for explaining.

In that case it sounds like what Viet is doing is quite the bastardization of open source. A shame, really, because if OpenBeta could have been a bit more like this it might actually be something I'd support.

Josh Janeswrote:

Sweet. Even better. And thanks for explaining.

In that case it sounds like what Viet is doing is quite the bastardization of open source. A shame, really, because if OpenBeta could have been a bit more like this it might actually be something I'd support.

He needs to apologize, delete everything and start all over with lessons learned, imo

I support anyone who works to provide free and open beta! I mean isn't that the whole point of posting to Mountain Project, providing free information to climbers? If others replicate that freely available information to other sources isn't that furthering the original mission. Otherwise why are we working to only provide to a community that is now tied to a for profit corporation?

Bora Banjaninwrote:

I support anyone who works to provide free and open beta! I mean isn't that the whole point of posting to Mountain Project, providing free information to climbers? If others replicate that freely available information to other sources isn't that furthering the original mission. Otherwise why are we working to only provide to a community that is now tied to a for profit corporation?

Replicating information (free or paid) without attribution and/or consent is theft of intellectual property. Please carefully read the comments on this thread to understand more clearly what the issue really is about.

Bora Banjanin wrote:

I don't think you can consider anything on Mountain Project intellectual property. Perhaps it is copyright protected, but you probably never had that protection when you posted it to this website :)

Since the law is the main thing that matters in a court of law, have you tried to do a little reading on copyright and intellectual property? Because thoughts and opinions don't matter, whether they're yours or mine. I promise you won't have to read very far before you'll realize just how clear cut this situation is. Which is why people are angry enough to take action.

Heliodor Jalbawrote:

Since the law is the main thing that matters in a court of law, have you tried to do a little reading on copyright and intellectual property? Because thoughts and opinions don't matter, whether they're yours or mine. I promise you won't have to read very far before you'll realize just how clear cut this situation is. Which is why people are angry enough to take action.

After some online reading I realize I am wrong the situation legally is probably complicated. 

Thank you to the OnX team for writing this letter and supporting those of us who take issue with this unfortunate situation.

Everyone should go and read the EFF summary before playing copyright lawyer:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/free-climbing-rock-climbers-open-data-project-threatened-bogus-copyright-claims

"And even if Mountain Project had a legal interest in the content, OpenBeta didn’t infringe on it. Facts, like the names and locations of climbing routes, can’t be copyrighted in the first place. And although copyright might apply to climbers’ own route descriptions, OpenBeta’s use is a fair use. As we explained in our letter:"

The original purpose of the material was to contribute to the general knowledge of the climbing community. The OpenBeta data files do something more: Mr. Nguyen uses it to help others to learn about Machine Learning, making climbing maps, and otherwise using software to generate new insights about rock climbing.

"In other words, a fair use."

I have some sympathy for the users that did not grant permission to Open Beta to use their unique content despite the histrionics form some. However onX is a large corporation that is only interested in making a return for investors. None of us have any idea who the next owner of this data will be or if it will be paywalled.

Right now Open Beta is the only option if you value free and Open Data that caressed and remixed into new and unique applications. 

Anna Brownwrote:

Thank you to the OnX team for writing this letter and supporting those of us who take issue with this unfortunate situation.

This situation is currently legal.  Defending onX is like defending Facebook when you are just a user of the product, or the product as they say.

fred bwrote:

Everyone should go and read the EFF summary before playing copyright lawyer:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/free-climbing-rock-climbers-open-data-project-threatened-bogus-copyright-claims

"And even if Mountain Project had a legal interest in the content, OpenBeta didn’t infringe on it. Facts, like the names and locations of climbing routes, can’t be copyrighted in the first place. And although copyright might apply to climbers’ own route descriptions, OpenBeta’s use is a fair use. As we explained in our letter:"

"In other words, a fair use."

I have some sympathy for the users that did not grant permission to Open Beta to use their unique content despite the histrionics form some. However onX is a large corporation that is only interested in making a return for investors. None of us have any idea who the next owner of this data will be or if it will be paywalled.

Right now Open Beta is the only option if you value free and Open Data that caressed and remixed into new and unique applications. 

Explain to me how taking (without my permission) my creative work that I license to company A, and reproducing it identically without attribution by company B is not plagiarism. Viet tried explaining to me all that open source mumbo jumbo, and in my reading, it's still just plain theft.

You (whomever) put it on the internet kiss it gone, as far as you controlling where that data ends up, and when. The time to keep control expires upon submit. Shoulda coulda woulda

fred bwrote:

Everyone should go and read the EFF summary before playing copyright lawyer:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/free-climbing-rock-climbers-open-data-project-threatened-bogus-copyright-claims

"And even if Mountain Project had a legal interest in the content, OpenBeta didn’t infringe on it. Facts, like the names and locations of climbing routes, can’t be copyrighted in the first place. And although copyright might apply to climbers’ own route descriptions, OpenBeta’s use is a fair use. As we explained in our letter:"

"In other words, a fair use."

I have some sympathy for the users that did not grant permission to Open Beta to use their unique content despite the histrionics form some. However onX is a large corporation that is only interested in making a return for investors. None of us have any idea who the next owner of this data will be or if it will be paywalled.

Right now Open Beta is the only option if you value free and Open Data that caressed and remixed into new and unique applications. 

That linked article only lessens my respect for EFF. I suspect it will eventually be shown in court to be a lame interpretation and analyses.

fred bwrote:

"And even if Mountain Project had a legal interest in the content, OpenBeta didn’t infringe on it. Facts, like the names and locations of climbing routes, can’t be copyrighted in the first place. And although copyright might apply to climbers’ own route descriptions, OpenBeta’s use is a fair use. As we explained in our letter:"

"In other words, a fair use."

"Fair use" is only an interpretation OpenBeta wants to hold-on-to to say what was done (and how) was correct. As it was said in another comment, only the law is the main thing that matters in a court of law. Likewise, whatever say the EFF (or the guy who wrote that blog post on their site) has on the matter is the same, only their (his) interpretation.

I do not at all support the way OB went about scraping data so fast they didn't find a way to credit authors, but this still feels like a lot of pearl-clutching going on about people's precious route descriptions. You didn't write a song, or a screenplay, or a patent to cure cancer. You told people where to find and how to most safely climb a chunk of stone you don't own, and at most drilled some metal into, knowing that when you hit "submit" the platform owner would own your words. Didn't you post the route on MP precisely to reach as many people as possible with the littlest effort, and now OB is simply amplifying your intent? If you truly wanted to protect your unique and precious words, why didn't you publish a guide and copyright them instead? I'm sincerely mystified at the support for MP and the vituperative language towards OB. I can see how MP would be upset to lose some clicks and eyeballs and ad revenue, but how exactly are they harming you the user? 

bryanswrote:

Still feels like a lot of pearl-clutching going about people's precious route descriptions. You didn't write a song, or a screenplay, or a patent to cure cancer. You told people where to find and how to most safely climb a chunk of stone you don't own, and at most drilled some metal into, knowing that when you hit "submit" the platform owner would own your words. Now you're upset to find out another platform owner also displays your words? Most people want their song or screenplay to be heard or read. Why does it hurt people's feelings that OB displays the same thing? Didn't you post the route on MP precisely to reach as many people as possible with the littlest effort, and now OB is simply amplifying your intent? If you truly wanted to protect your unique and precious words, why didn't you publish a guide and copyright them instead?

You guys would lose your minds if you saw how many websites display hiking trail descriptions for the same hike! 

Simply because there is no attribution being made to those "people's precious route descriptions". If you, bryans, had written a song, or a screenplay, or heck, even a patent to cure cancer, and found out that your intellectual work (whatever it might be) is being reproduced verbatim, without mentioning any sort of authorship by you, and only showing it was published by a 'vietnguyen' username, you'd most certainly be upset too.

Mauricio Herrera Cuadrawrote:

Simply because there is no attribution being made to those "people's precious route descriptions". If you, bryans, had written a song, or a screenplay, or heck, even a patent to cure cancer, found out that your intellectual work (whatever it might be) was been reproduced verbatim, without mentioning any sort of authorship by you, and only showing it was published by a 'vietnguyen' username, you'd most certainly be upset too.

Your "intellectual work?" I've posted 20 to 30 routes (as in, my own FAs) on this site. As an english major I sure put some thought into the route descriptions but come on: it's handful of facts with a smattering of clever adjectives I threw in there to amuse myself and maybe others. If I wanted it to be "intellectual work" I would publish a paper guide with color phots and intro sections about history and geography and geology and rest day activities, blah blah blah. A route description is not intellectual property.

Again, I don't totally support the way OB went about things but someone who clips a bolt I installed is taking WAY more away from me (you're literally relying on my bolt, and putting wear on it no matter how negligible) than OB takes away from anyone who posted a route on MP only to see their words pop up on OB.

bryanswrote:

Your "intellectual work?" I've posted 20 to 30 routes (as in, my own FAs) on this site. As an english major I sure put some thought into the route descriptions but come on: it's handful of facts with a smattering of clever adjectives I threw in there to amuse myself and maybe others. If I wanted it to be "intellectual work" I would publish a paper guide with color phots and intro sections about history and geography and geology and rest day activities, blah blah blah. A route description is not intellectual property.

Again, I don't totally support the way OB went about things but I'm texting with Viet right now and he's telling me people can attribute route descriptions to routes if they want to. He's all for connecting the dots. I homestly don't know the full back story but let's be clear: OB offers the chance for attribution, even if they poorly executed that intent.

I'm not an English major (and English is not my native language), but it seems you certainly missed reading the parenthesis in my reply: "intellectual work (whatever it might be)..."

I think Viet had his chance to make things right back in 2021, when this issue first came to surface, but he instead chose to hold on to his rhetoric and interpretation of "free" use of public data. At this point, I can only see his current attempts to make amends as something pretty lame.

fred bwrote:

Everyone should go and read the EFF summary before playing copyright lawyer:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/free-climbing-rock-climbers-open-data-project-threatened-bogus-copyright-claims

"And even if Mountain Project had a legal interest in the content, OpenBeta didn’t infringe on it. Facts, like the names and locations of climbing routes, can’t be copyrighted in the first place. And although copyright might apply to climbers’ own route descriptions, OpenBeta’s use is a fair use. As we explained in our letter:"

"In other words, a fair use."

I have some sympathy for the users that did not grant permission to Open Beta to use their unique content despite the histrionics form some. However onX is a large corporation that is only interested in making a return for investors. None of us have any idea who the next owner of this data will be or if it will be paywalled.

Right now Open Beta is the only option if you value free and Open Data that caressed and remixed into new and unique applications. 

A big part of whether a use is considered fair use is whether the use is 'transformative' or not. IE does it add commentary, parody, or new ideas to the work? This is why reaction videos, where a video creator displays a work (video) in full with their reactions (commentary) overlaid can be considered fair use, but if they uploaded that video to their channel in full with nothing extra added it would likely not be considered fair use.

Is copying a work verbatim and making it more available (mass downloading/etc) via an API a transformative fair use? The EFF seems to think so, MP thinks not. There are many factors in copyright law but IMO this is the main one that would be argued over in court (I'm not a lawyer).

I would not take an EFF blog post as legal advice. Great organization, but they are activists and have a strong point of view that is not always borne out by courts.

Anyway, both the EFF and OB are barking up the wrong tree. The problem is not nonprofit OB vs for-profit MP/onX. The problem is a tech project ripping off long-standing active members of the climbing community, stripping their name from their work, and being sanctimonious about it. You can see it in this thread. OB is burning the relationships they should be trying to build, wearing the fig leaf of "open source" while working against its ideals.