MP v. OB: anyone have feelings to share?

The discussion about the legality or ethics of what OB did seems interesting. What I’m not getting is why MP/onX sent a letter.

It’s definitely not onX’s content, so they have no real legal standing, right? But then there was this part:

we have protected the content on our website as a database by registering it with the U.S. Copyright Office. A copy of the certificate of registration is attached for your reference.

That sounds like it is their claim to have a complaint. But presumably the content of the database is still not their copyrighted material?

Is the argument that OB violated the terms and conditions as a user when they scraped data? Doesn’t that end up in the accounts OB used being banned, and that’s about it?

I have a lot of feelings about this and they are all greatly in support of OpenBeta (which im just hearing about now).  With the login required stuff scraping has become even more difficult (I have never scraped, just hypothetically its more difficult now) but to actually host it is a proud move and will reveal a lot to the community about OnX's intentions with MP and I have a feeling it won't be community oriented unless the community is the shareholders!  Cheers OB!

The data on this platform was created by climbers with full intention of sharing it with everyone and anyone openly.  This threat shows that this data is no longer open and that is a huge loss for us.  For folks concerned about attribution. I agree that not citing is plagiarism and shitty and would make me feel wronged but do you think OnX would not have sent this communication had they attributed to your name?  OnX sending this cease and desist is what the focus should be

Yuval Bwrote:

I have a lot of feelings about this and they are all greatly in support of OpenBeta (which im just hearing about now).  With the login required stuff scraping has become even more difficult (I have never scraped, just hypothetically its more difficult now) but to actually host it is a proud move and will reveal a lot to the community about OnX's intentions with MP and I have a feeling it won't be community oriented unless the community is the shareholders!  Cheers OB!

The data on this platform was created by climbers with full intention of sharing it with everyone and anyone openly.  This threat shows that this data is no longer open and that is a huge loss for us.  For folks concerned about attribution. I agree that not citing is plagiarism and shitty and would make me feel wronged but do you think OnX would not have sent this communication had they attributed to your name?  OnX sending this cease and desist is what the focus should be

I'm largely in agreement with this.  Just a few adjustments to perhaps avoid drawing the focus onto misinterpretations:

1. Scraping content from served web pages is different from - has a shittier connotation than - pulling content from the public application programming interface (API) MP created.  The only content transfer I knew of was through MP's API.  And what was on OB at their startup was up to date with MP's route content.
2. In all likelihood, MP itself filtered out names such that attribution wasn't practical by OB. 
3. It was a letter from the MP Admins to OnX that triggered the shutdown of MP's API.  I am not aware of any involvement of other MP content providers with that letter I’m not aware of any involvement of MP content contributors (other than MP admins) to restrict OnX from using said content (e.g., I wasn't).

If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please correct the above.  Truth to power.

I should also note that I advocated early on to OnX that they rely on the MP Admins to guide MP changes going forward. They responded positively without specifics.  And now I wonder if that was naive of me in light of 'c'.  Still, I'm not aware that OnX picked up my other suggestions at the time.  I'd try to dig them up if others are interested.

Bill, you are still conflating OnX's first communications with the recent one requested by Admins. Also, some here don't seem to get the difference between volunteering their work to open beta and having it stolen without request or permission. Yes, we want it able to be seen by all and be not behind a firewall but, no, Yuval, we didn't all expect nor want all our content creation plagiarized willy nilly by anyone, as evidenced by complaints. If one feels like Open beta's management has integrity and is a good depository for what you create, go for it, but I and many others don't feel that way.

M Spraguewrote:

Bill, you are still conflating OnX's first communications with the recant one requested by Admins.

Then it seems I missed your earlier clarification?

I did ask earlier in this thread about the timing of the MP Admin letter relative to the closure of the public API.  But I don’t recall seeing a clear response and still do not.

There are many on both sides, or perhaps I should say all sides.

Bill, M, to my untrained eye, the difference is that this time OnX is asserting a copyright claim over the entire body of work (i.e. the database) as opposed to the individual data (routes, names, descriptions, etc.) itself. Can they do that? No clue. 

It is also my understanding that OpenBeta utilised MP's API to populate its initial database and has not done anything related to "scraping" the MP site since. We're litigating in the court of public opinion over OpenBeta hosting a years-old set of Mountain Project data.

Whether OpenBeta's use of the API was against the Terms of Service is not up for debate — According to OnX, it wasn't and Viet's account got shut down. They're the arbiters of that rule violation.

End of the day OnX has positioned itself as the victim but this letter is a clear shot across the bow from OnX to OpenBeta after three years of silence.

There's merit in insulted parties' saying that they didn't expect their contributions to be used outside of MP. There are some contributors who care, and some here who don't. I'm firmly in the latter (not that it matters, I only have 4 meaningless internet points) — I contributed my edits to local areas and routes for the benefit of MP's visitors (registered or not), not for MP itself. However I recognize that there are those who do not feel that way and did not expect their work reproduced outside of this site. The power of attribution cannot be ignored!

I say we wait for what OpenBeta has to say about that.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I do not represent OnX, Mountain Project, OpenBeta, or any related parties.

Thank you, J L. I have edited my last post accordingly.

(post-limited out for the day.)

I give credit where credit is due, and I thank the MP/OnX admins for letting this debate play out publicly instead of locking or deleting my thread.  I hope you and your overlords (is there a better word?) listen to what the users are saying. Obviously the people who actually posted here are a self-selecting group, with feelings on the issue, so who knows what the silent majority thinks or whether they even care. Just remember this website is NOTHING without free contributions over the past 20 or so years. You gave us a canvas, but it would still be largely blank if not for our collective efforts to fill it in with our free time and labor, in most cases gladly given because we love to climb and see other people climb the great routes out there.  Don't treat Open Beta like a pinata just because you think you can, you may win the battle but lose the war.

M Spraguewrote:

Yuval, we didn't all expect nor want all our content creation plagiarized willy nilly by anyone, as evidenced by complaints.

I never said this just to be clear, "The data on this platform was created by climbers with full intention of sharing it with everyone and anyone openly" does not imply anything about plagiarism being ok, just that the information was shared openly with that intention.

OnX claims exclusive ownership to your content, that should be your concern.

Yuval Bwrote:

OnX claims exclusive ownership to your content, that should be your concern.

What are you talking about?  OnX claims no such thing.

The OP describes a nuanced position where submitted content is licensed from a poster and protected by copyright right.

What is unclear is who benefits economically by the protection of the copyright.  Is beneficiary the licensor, who posted the content or the licensee who published the content?  I suspect the licensee is the beneficiary of copyright protection.

In the sharing economy (gross misnomer) the parties managing the networks take massive value from the givers who for different reasons give away content.  Whether it’s a taxi dispatch app or a photo sharing app, the network managers employ manipulations to encourage the givers to keep giving often to the economic detriment of the giver.

So far, MP is among the least manipulative network provider I have encountered.  

That doesn’t change the fact that giving away value does reserve any right or even ensure good faith dealing on a the part of the taker.  Will OpenBeta be a better steward that MP? Who knows but $5 will get you $10 there is no contractual protection of the givers’ rights.  Will MP turn less benevolent in the future?  Who knows.  

ubuwrote:

What are you talking about?  OnX claims no such thing.

It seems like they are. That’s why we asked “why is onX sending a letter.”

“On someone else’s behalf,” isn’t a real thing. I can ask that a description I wrote be taken down from OB. But I can’t ask that they take down a description you wrote; that’s up to you.

If I claim I CAN ask them to take down your description, that means I am claiming I have some rights to your description and how it is used.

I feel like the idea of “OB vs MP” suggests one of them is right. Seems like OB is wrong not to attribute AND MP is wrong to be sending letters about it.

It is worth nothing that many of the advocates for OpenBeta have contributed little in the way of routes and areas.  In contrast, people who have voiced concerns have made much stronger contributions.  I’ve added about 300 routes and areas in multiple countries – more than some, and a lot less than many of those who have issues with OpenBeta.  There are individual route listings of mine that have been viewed literally thousands of times, and that is a small drop in the sea of content available here.

I have freely shared route information that I have created when asked, both for print and online use.  The difference here, as noted previously, is that OpenBeta neither asked for my permission, nor acknowledged the source of their material.  I write for a living – academic journals, books, and book chapters.  Taking someone’s words without attribution is theft and dishonest, and it doesn’t matter that a route description isn’t War and Peace.  Supporting the current Open Beta model is akin to snagging someone’s cams as you walk by at the Creek, or foraging through a pack hoping for a tasty sandwich to steal.  

Yuval Bwrote:

..OnX claims exclusive ownership to your content, that should be your concern.

Evidence? I don't believe that is true.

Counter evidence is in their letter. "When users contribute to the Mountain Project, they retain ownership of that contributed content. Contributors have the right to decide where their content is posted, and they have given Mountain Project a license to display it." You can choose to share your contributions with others, including open source projects. But until that's happened, OpenBeta has no right to take that content, package it up in downloadable files, and tell anyone that comes along that it's licensed for their use.

M Spraguewrote:

Evidence? I don't believe that is true.

I'm certainly not a  lawyer and after reading other comments and taking a more thorough look at TOS seems I was wrong in saying they have exclusive ownership

Viet has posted a response to the letter from OnX.

https://openbeta.substack.com/p/letter-to-the-climbing-community

We’re planning the following adjustments based on the feedback:

1. Remove descriptions that are not created by OpenBeta users.

2. Create a process for users to import their contributions from other websites.

Seems super reasonable to me based on what I've read from others here.  I'm concerned #2 isn't really actionable without breaking MProj TOS as the only programmatic way I know of to export my contributions would be scraping (which if I understand correctly isn't allowed by TOS even if its just my own data).

The initial letter from OnX to OB said

We ask that you remove all Mountain Project content from the OpenBeta website and any related websites, databases, apps, or other resources by October 5, 2024. This request includes but is not limited to the descriptions of various locations and climbs.

Time to wait and see what OnXs response is, my bet is on them doubling down and extending the definition of what is requested to be taken down and a very legal warning about the process they are talking about creating for importing contributions.

Yuval Bwrote:

Seems super reasonable to me based on what I've read from others here.

Part of the complains a number of contributors and admins expressed was that not only descriptions were reproduced verbatim without attribution, but also the structure/layout of the climbing areas and sub-areas they contributed. IMO, Viet's proposed solution would only do half the job that needs to be done.

Mauricio Herrera Cuadrawrote:

Part of the complains a number of contributors and admins expressed was that not only descriptions were reproduced verbatim without attribution, but also the structure/layout of the climbing areas and sub-areas they contributed. IMO, Viet's proposed solution would only do half the job that needs to be done.

What part of the structure do you object to being re-used? It seems like “y climb is in x state,” or “y climb is left of z climb,” are factual statements that can’t be copyrighted by anyone.

Are you thinking more along the lines of “y area has the sub-areas w, x, and z?” It seems like that would require demonstrating that sub-areas w, x, and z were uniquely created by the admin in question. Which seems hard in many cases, but may be doable in some.