3 ms·

We need to rethink how we assign the intangible digital "property" that is intrinsic to the Information Age. Little guys are getting raked over the coals by the

We need to rethink how we assign the intangible digital "property" that is intrinsic to the Information Age. Little guys are getting raked over the coals by the incumbents because our legal system is not equipped to handle these issues fairly.

pc86 11y ago
How would you suggest it be handled in this case? Does the author have a right to access to the Google Maps API even if Google itself offers a similar product? He admits in the article that his product is basically a wrapper for a more full-featured Google alternative.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  My opinion on this is still very much in development, so I don't suggest that this is the only right answer. But here's a potential solution: since API clients are essentially renting the vendor's platform and launching businesses based on this, there needs to be some legally-enforced stability. I would like to see something like a landlord-tenant relationship. Both parties have responsibilities and expectations and the lease can't break the fundamental rules in the law, which usually includes mandatory notice periods to terminate tenancy if a tenant is month-to-month, a prescription for informing the landlord of maintenance issues and giving him time to repair, a legally protected remedy if the landlord fails to repair something that he's legally obligated to maintain (like withholding rent), and finally, an eviction process that the landlord can use to force the tenant out of the property when he's been found in violation of the lease. I think this sort of relationship should exist at a minimum. It would make it so Google et al couldn't just kick you off whenever they got bored and decided your product was cool and they didn't have anything to do with their 20% time so they're gonna clone it, they could only cut you off at the conclusion of your contract. If there's a legitimate reason to kick someone off the API before this time, they can take it to an API tenancy court and get the judge to sign off on the access key's eviction (which should be thousands of times more practical for both parties than the current route, which is a CFAA lawsuit). The ability to "buy land" on the platform and own an API key that can't be deprived from you would be interesting too, but I'm not sure on the details of how that would work right now.
  - pc86 11y ago
    > since API clients are essentially renting the vendor's platform and launching businesses based on this, there needs to be some legally-enforced stability. I would like to see something like a landlord-tenant relationship. Except when a tenant is kicked out of their apartment with no notice, they might literally die. When Routebuilder gets shut down (with at least 2 weeks notice if not more, according to the article), someone organizing a marathon might... have to use a different, also free service? And let's not forget that Google is a private enterprise offering an absolutely insane amount of data and access for free. The bar for "legitimate reason" to revoke API access is (and should be) legally no higher than "Google wants to." They actually go quite a bit above and beyond by having Terms that you can read and that as far as I can tell they abide by.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      A good legal situation might be separating the part of Google that provides services from the part that uses them. The part of Google that uses the services provided by the Maps provider would have to play by the same terms as any competitor.
    - cookiecaper 11y ago
      >Except when a tenant is kicked out of their apartment with no notice, they might literally die. I don't mean to equate becoming homeless with getting your business wrecked (though they're often connected), but I don't think there's an argument that something has to literally make someone homeless before it can be regulated. Stable business relationships are important. >The bar for "legitimate reason" to revoke API access is (and should be) legally no higher than "Google wants to." This would still be open to them in a lease situation; it would simply have to be planned and occur according to at least the law's minimum notice periods.
    - stonemetal 11y ago
      >Except when a tenant is kicked out of their apartment with no notice, they might literally die. When Routebuilder gets shut down ... The owner of Routebuilder loses income, gets evicted, and might literally die. The impact might be small on Routebuilder's end users but destroying someone's business is destroying someone's business even if their business value was trivial.

pc86 11y ago

How would you suggest it be handled in this case? Does the author have a right to access to the Google Maps API even if Google itself offers a similar product? He admits in the article that his product is basically a wrapper for a more full-featured Google alternative.

cookiecaper 11y ago
My opinion on this is still very much in development, so I don't suggest that this is the only right answer. But here's a potential solution: since API clients are essentially renting the vendor's platform and launching businesses based on this, there needs to be some legally-enforced stability. I would like to see something like a landlord-tenant relationship. Both parties have responsibilities and expectations and the lease can't break the fundamental rules in the law, which usually includes mandatory notice periods to terminate tenancy if a tenant is month-to-month, a prescription for informing the landlord of maintenance issues and giving him time to repair, a legally protected remedy if the landlord fails to repair something that he's legally obligated to maintain (like withholding rent), and finally, an eviction process that the landlord can use to force the tenant out of the property when he's been found in violation of the lease. I think this sort of relationship should exist at a minimum. It would make it so Google et al couldn't just kick you off whenever they got bored and decided your product was cool and they didn't have anything to do with their 20% time so they're gonna clone it, they could only cut you off at the conclusion of your contract. If there's a legitimate reason to kick someone off the API before this time, they can take it to an API tenancy court and get the judge to sign off on the access key's eviction (which should be thousands of times more practical for both parties than the current route, which is a CFAA lawsuit). The ability to "buy land" on the platform and own an API key that can't be deprived from you would be interesting too, but I'm not sure on the details of how that would work right now.
- pc86 11y ago
  > since API clients are essentially renting the vendor's platform and launching businesses based on this, there needs to be some legally-enforced stability. I would like to see something like a landlord-tenant relationship. Except when a tenant is kicked out of their apartment with no notice, they might literally die. When Routebuilder gets shut down (with at least 2 weeks notice if not more, according to the article), someone organizing a marathon might... have to use a different, also free service? And let's not forget that Google is a private enterprise offering an absolutely insane amount of data and access for free. The bar for "legitimate reason" to revoke API access is (and should be) legally no higher than "Google wants to." They actually go quite a bit above and beyond by having Terms that you can read and that as far as I can tell they abide by.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    A good legal situation might be separating the part of Google that provides services from the part that uses them. The part of Google that uses the services provided by the Maps provider would have to play by the same terms as any competitor.
  - cookiecaper 11y ago
    >Except when a tenant is kicked out of their apartment with no notice, they might literally die. I don't mean to equate becoming homeless with getting your business wrecked (though they're often connected), but I don't think there's an argument that something has to literally make someone homeless before it can be regulated. Stable business relationships are important. >The bar for "legitimate reason" to revoke API access is (and should be) legally no higher than "Google wants to." This would still be open to them in a lease situation; it would simply have to be planned and occur according to at least the law's minimum notice periods.
  - stonemetal 11y ago
    >Except when a tenant is kicked out of their apartment with no notice, they might literally die. When Routebuilder gets shut down ... The owner of Routebuilder loses income, gets evicted, and might literally die. The impact might be small on Routebuilder's end users but destroying someone's business is destroying someone's business even if their business value was trivial.