Mailing List Archive: MythTV: Users

weather.com Terms of Use

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

g8ecj at gilks

Jun 28, 2010, 4:26 AM

Post #1 of 14 (932 views)
Permalink

weather.com Terms of Use

Seeing the maps etc from weather.com being dropped from trunk and
0.23-fixes makes me wonder how people are reading the Terms of Use.

The current interpretation seems to be that nobody is allowed to write a
web browser because it would cause the data from weather.com to be
downloaded and displayed - just like MythWeather does in fact.

What am I missing here - the data is NOT being republished, distributed,
or anything else apart for my own eyes. All the pages (in fact even the
images from the maps) have attributes on them so what is the problem?

--
Robin Gilks

_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

jasonfward at gmail

Jun 28, 2010, 4:28 AM

Post #2 of 14 (904 views)
Permalink

Re: weather.com Terms of Use [In reply to]

On 28 June 2010 12:26, Robin Gilks <g8ecj [at] gilks> wrote:

> Seeing the maps etc from weather.com being dropped from trunk and
> 0.23-fixes makes me wonder how people are reading the Terms of Use.
>
> The current interpretation seems to be that nobody is allowed to write a
> web browser because it would cause the data from weather.com to be
> downloaded and displayed - just like MythWeather does in fact.
>
> What am I missing here - the data is NOT being republished, distributed,
> or anything else apart for my own eyes. All the pages (in fact even the
> images from the maps) have attributes on them so what is the problem?
>
> I cannot see any difference between what web browsers does and what
MythWeather does.

Jason

raymond at wagnerrp

Jun 28, 2010, 5:08 AM

Post #3 of 14 (901 views)
Permalink

Re: weather.com Terms of Use [In reply to]

On 6/28/2010 07:26, Robin Gilks wrote:
> Seeing the maps etc from weather.com being dropped from trunk and
> 0.23-fixes makes me wonder how people are reading the Terms of Use.
>
> The current interpretation seems to be that nobody is allowed to write a
> web browser because it would cause the data from weather.com to be
> downloaded and displayed - just like MythWeather does in fact.
>
> What am I missing here - the data is NOT being republished, distributed,
> or anything else apart for my own eyes. All the pages (in fact even the
> images from the maps) have attributes on them so what is the problem?
>

Straight from the ticket related to the closing

"You may not modify, publish, transmit, display, participate in the
transfer or sale, create derivative works, or in any way exploit, any of
the content, in whole or in part."

MythWeather considers itself a derivative work. Unlike a web browser,
there is no good faith attempt to render the content as TWC intended.
According to that interpretation, that would in fact mean browsers like
Opera Mobile which reshape web pages to better fit a mobile device, and
addins like NoScript or GreaseMonkey would not be allowed to use the
service.
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

eric at lisaneric

Jun 28, 2010, 6:35 AM

Post #4 of 14 (902 views)
Permalink

Re: weather.com Terms of Use [In reply to]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Raymond Wagner <raymond [at] wagnerrp> wrote:
> On 6/28/2010 07:26, Robin Gilks wrote:
>>
>> Seeing the maps etc from weather.com being dropped from trunk and
>> 0.23-fixes makes me wonder how people are reading the Terms of Use.
>>
>> The current interpretation seems to be that nobody is allowed to write a
>> web browser because it would cause the data from weather.com to be
>> downloaded and displayed - just like MythWeather does in fact.
>>
>> What am I missing here - the data is NOT being republished, distributed,
>> or anything else apart for my own eyes. All the pages (in fact even the
>> images from the maps) have attributes on them so what is the problem?
>>
>
> Straight from the ticket related to the closing
>
> "You may not modify, publish, transmit, display, participate in the transfer
> or sale, create derivative works, or in any way exploit, any of the content,
> in whole or in part."
>
> MythWeather considers itself a derivative work.

That's quite a stretch. MythWeather is derivative of the content
format, not the content, and the terms of use are specifically about
the content, not the format. You might argue that MythWeather is a
program which can create a derivative work, but copyright law does not
permit the copyright holder to prevent the creation of derivative
works. (It does permit preventing the distribution/public display of
such works.)

I agree with Robin. This interpretation is overly conservative.

Eric
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

jasonfward at gmail

Jun 28, 2010, 6:51 AM

Post #5 of 14 (902 views)
Permalink

Re: weather.com Terms of Use [In reply to]

On 28 June 2010 14:35, Eric Sharkey <eric [at] lisaneric> wrote:

>
> > "You may not modify, publish, transmit, display, participate in the
> transfer
> > or sale, create derivative works, or in any way exploit, any of the
> content,
> > in whole or in part."
> >
> > MythWeather considers itself a derivative work.
>
> If that that's true, then MythTV needs to shut up shop in its entirety, I'm
sure the broadcasters terms and conditions are no less broad.

I see no reason from what has been posted here why MythWeather needed to be
touched or altered.

Jason

gjhurlbu at gmail

Jun 28, 2010, 10:42 AM

Post #6 of 14 (883 views)
Permalink

Re: weather.com Terms of Use [In reply to]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Jason Ward <jasonfward [at] gmail> wrote:

> On 28 June 2010 14:35, Eric Sharkey <eric [at] lisaneric> wrote:
>
>>
>> > "You may not modify, publish, transmit, display, participate in the
>> transfer
>> > or sale, create derivative works, or in any way exploit, any of the
>> content,
>> > in whole or in part."
>> >
>> > MythWeather considers itself a derivative work.
>>
>>
Additionally... "You may not ... display .. any of the content, in whole
or in part."

Obviously, using a web browser is what they intended this data to be used
for, and if displayed from their site, obviously the TOS are likely to apply
as they have written permission from themselves. Retargeting the data to be
used in a standalone app, downloaded and displayed on TVs does NOT fit their
TOS as it's written.

> I see no reason from what has been posted here why MythWeather needed to be
> touched or altered.
>

Well, it's been discussed, and until we get explicit permission to use it, I
am not planning on adding it back. However, I do have a replacement in
mind... It should hopefully be in place in a few days. Patience.

eric at lisaneric

Jun 28, 2010, 11:02 AM

Post #7 of 14 (883 views)
Permalink

Re: weather.com Terms of Use [In reply to]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Gavin Hurlbut <gjhurlbu [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Jason Ward <jasonfward [at] gmail> wrote:
>>
>> On 28 June 2010 14:35, Eric Sharkey <eric [at] lisaneric> wrote:
>>>
>>> > "You may not modify, publish, transmit, display, participate in the
>>> > transfer
>>> > or sale, create derivative works, or in any way exploit, any of the
>>> > content,
>>> > in whole or in part."
>>> >
>>> > MythWeather considers itself a derivative work.
>>>
>
> Additionally... "You may not ... display .. any of the content, in whole
> or in part."

In this context, the word "display" does not mean "render on a screen"
but rather to "publicly exhibit", or put on display. There is no
difference here between MythWeather and Firefox. The difference is
public display vs. private viewing. They're saying public displays of
the data are forbidden (without further licensing).

Eric
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

gjhurlbu at gmail

Jun 28, 2010, 11:10 AM

Post #8 of 14 (885 views)
Permalink

Re: weather.com Terms of Use [In reply to]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Eric Sharkey <eric [at] lisaneric> wrote:

> In this context, the word "display" does not mean "render on a screen"
> but rather to "publicly exhibit", or put on display. There is no
> difference here between MythWeather and Firefox. The difference is
> public display vs. private viewing. They're saying public displays of
> the data are forbidden (without further licensing).

Says you. I'm sorry, I am not a lawyer, and don't wish to be one. However,
I am not debating the interpretation of their TOS. As you are not the
person on the hook for this, it is easy for you to posture how you will. I
don't have that luxury. I don't need the potential of cease & desist
notices, etc. In my reading, and that of several others, we were at *best*
in the grey area, and at worst, flagrantly violating their TOS. I chose to
err on the side of caution and remove it and remove all doubt.

As I said... be patient. I should have a replacement in place fairly soon.

jasonfward at gmail

Jun 28, 2010, 11:21 AM

Post #9 of 14 (887 views)
Permalink

Re: weather.com Terms of Use [In reply to]

On 28 June 2010 19:10, Gavin Hurlbut <gjhurlbu [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Eric Sharkey <eric [at] lisaneric> wrote:
>
>> In this context, the word "display" does not mean "render on a screen"
>> but rather to "publicly exhibit", or put on display. There is no
>> difference here between MythWeather and Firefox. The difference is
>> public display vs. private viewing. They're saying public displays of
>> the data are forbidden (without further licensing).
>
>
> Says you. I'm sorry, I am not a lawyer, and don't wish to be one.
> However, I am not debating the interpretation of their TOS. As you are not
> the person on the hook for this, it is easy for you to posture how you will.
> I don't have that luxury. I don't need the potential of cease & desist
> notices, etc. In my reading, and that of several others, we were at *best*
> in the grey area, and at worst, flagrantly violating their TOS. I chose to
> err on the side of caution and remove it and remove all doubt.
>

I wonder if the EFF (http://www.eff.org/work) would be willing/able to give
legal advice to all the MythTV developers?

Or if we could ask the Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/) lot for where best
to seek some advice for the developers?

I don't mean for the case of weather.com in particular, I mean for the
project as a whole, on an on going basis.

Dean at cognation

Jun 28, 2010, 11:25 AM

Post #10 of 14 (885 views)
Permalink

Re: weather.com Terms of Use [In reply to]

Uhm why don't you just contact weather.com and ask their decision?

Regards,

Dean Collins
Cognation Inc
dean [at] cognation
<mailto:dean [at] cognation> +1-212-203-4357 New York
+61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial).
+44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).

________________________________

From: mythtv-users-bounces [at] mythtv
[mailto:mythtv-users-bounces [at] mythtv] On Behalf Of Jason Ward
Sent: Monday, 28 June 2010 2:22 PM
To: Discussion about mythtv
Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] weather.com Terms of Use

On 28 June 2010 19:10, Gavin Hurlbut <gjhurlbu [at] gmail> wrote:

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Eric Sharkey <eric [at] lisaneric>
wrote:

In this context, the word "display" does not mean "render on a screen"

but rather to "publicly exhibit", or put on display. There is no
difference here between MythWeather and Firefox. The difference is
public display vs. private viewing. They're saying public displays of
the data are forbidden (without further licensing).

Says you. I'm sorry, I am not a lawyer, and don't wish to be one.
However, I am not debating the interpretation of their TOS. As you are
not the person on the hook for this, it is easy for you to posture how
you will. I don't have that luxury. I don't need the potential of
cease & desist notices, etc. In my reading, and that of several others,
we were at *best* in the grey area, and at worst, flagrantly violating
their TOS. I chose to err on the side of caution and remove it and
remove all doubt.

I wonder if the EFF (http://www.eff.org/work) would be willing/able to
give legal advice to all the MythTV developers?

Or if we could ask the Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/) lot for where
best to seek some advice for the developers?

I don't mean for the case of weather.com in particular, I mean for the
project as a whole, on an on going basis.

gjhurlbu at gmail

Jun 28, 2010, 11:41 AM

Post #11 of 14 (884 views)
Permalink

Re: weather.com Terms of Use [In reply to]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Dean Collins <Dean [at] cognation> wrote:

> Uhm why don�t you just contact weather.com and ask their decision?
>
What a novel idea. So glad I didn't think of that... Oh wait, I did. No
response.

If we ever get explicit permission, it is highly likely that they will
return to the code. Meanwhile, chill :)

eric at lisaneric

Jun 28, 2010, 12:37 PM

Post #12 of 14 (870 views)
Permalink

Re: weather.com Terms of Use [In reply to]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Gavin Hurlbut <gjhurlbu [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Dean Collins <Dean [at] cognation> wrote:
>>
>> Uhm why don�t you just contact weather.com and ask their decision?
>
> What a novel idea. So glad I didn't think of that... Oh wait, I did. No
> response.
> If we ever get explicit permission, it is highly likely that they will
> return to the code. Meanwhile, chill :)

Gavin, I think you're misinterpreting the general mood of the thread
(at least on my part). No one is agitated about this topic, except
perhaps you, and no one is trying to tell you what you should or
shouldn't do. It's open source, you're volunteering, of course you
shouldn't do anything you don't feel comfortable doing.

I'm not surprised you didn't get a response when asking about
something like this. The people on the front lines answering email
from random users won't find this sort of thing in their list of faq's
and won't be qualified to answer that sort of thing. From a business
point of view, it makes sense to just drop a request like this.

All we're trying to express is that we think you're incorrectly
interpreting the license. That's all. What you do with that opinion
is up to you.

Eric
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

gjhurlbu at gmail

Jun 28, 2010, 12:56 PM

Post #13 of 14 (876 views)
Permalink

Re: weather.com Terms of Use [In reply to]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Eric Sharkey <eric [at] lisaneric> wrote:

> All we're trying to express is that we think you're incorrectly
> interpreting the license. That's all. What you do with that opinion
> is up to you.

I hope that you are right :) But better safe than sorry, I think. We'll
survive. And we'll have nice maps anyways. Soon, I hope... Even if in the
end, I need to implement my own right off NOAA data... but so far, it looks
good to use wunderground's NOAA-derived maps (they have both static and
animated).

Sorry for those who suffer a temporary loss.

beww at beww

Jun 28, 2010, 2:08 PM

Post #14 of 14 (879 views)
Permalink

Re: weather.com Terms of Use [In reply to]

On Monday, June 28, 2010 01:56:35 pm Gavin Hurlbut wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Eric Sharkey <eric [at] lisaneric> wrote:
> > All we're trying to express is that we think you're incorrectly
> > interpreting the license. That's all. What you do with that opinion
> > is up to you.
>
> I hope that you are right :) But better safe than sorry, I think. We'll
> survive. And we'll have nice maps anyways. Soon, I hope... Even if in
> the end, I need to implement my own right off NOAA data... but so far, it
> looks good to use wunderground's NOAA-derived maps (they have both static
> and animated).

To many of us who are of a certain age in the USA "Weather Underground" means something that has nothing to do with either
meteorology or TOS agreements.

But it certainly sounds like a good source for weather info. After all, we *do* pay for NOAA data.

Names can be confusing at times.

As my Dad once said, he wasn't certain if "Grand Funk Railroad" was a good name for a band or not, but he thought it was a
GREAT name for a Railroad.

_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads