5 ms·

Trap Rooms: Deliberate errors to catch copyright infringement

64 points by cwan 16y ago

morisy 16y ago
I was just talking to an old school journalist last night about the same topic. A perhaps apocryphal story (it's not on Google, so it can't be true, can it?) but good nonetheless: Years ago, well before even Murdoch ownership, the NY Post was knicking sports scores from the New York Daily News. Competition being what it was, the Daily News went so far as to not only falsify some scores, but to falsify some schools, making up new institutes of education throughout the 5 boroughs. I can only imagine the page one headlines once the Post was outed.
karzeem 16y ago
Neat, this is like a reverse shibboleth. This sort of stuff has been around for a while. One of the big Supreme Court rulings on the copyrightability of datasets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural) concerned a company that got sued for copying 4000 entries from a competitor's phone book. They got busted because they'd unknowingly copied fake entries.
- jsm386 16y ago
  I wouldn't call it getting busted. The court held that they were allowed to copy the data, overturning the sweat of the brow doctrine: The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable, and that therefore no infringement existed. Prior to this case, the substance of copyright in United States law followed the sweat of the brow doctrine, which gave copyright to anyone who invested significant amount of time and energy into their work. At trial and appeal level the courts followed this doctrine, siding with Rural.
  - randallsquared 16y ago
    The phrase "got busted" can mean merely "was discovered".
    - RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
      This is a term that can lead to mis-communication. Most of the context I know the term "got busted" implies punishment. The exact usage and implications vary from place to place, often varying by very large amounts, so care is required in the usage of such informal terms.
    - karzeem 16y ago
      That's how I meant it.
nostromo 16y ago
> it's actually there for copyright protection Not really - you can't copyright facts. IANAL, but if you want to create a map based on another map's information, you're free to do so. Google Feist v. Rural for more info.
- eli 16y ago
  A map isn't an abstract collection of facts -- it's a picture drawn by a team of cartographers. You can definitely copyright that picture.
  - nostromo 16y ago
    Correct. You can't just photocopy the map, but you can recreate it. iSubwayMaps.com ran into copyright problems with the MTA in New York a while back. Instead of paying the MTA to use their official maps they just recreated the map themselves, using the official map as the only source. This, apparently, doesn't violate copyright law, even though the resulting maps are very similar.
  - yellowbkpk 16y ago
    Two things about this particular case that at the very least complicate (if not invalidate) your point: 1. When you copy a map, you usually don't make a Xerox (i.e. take the map tiles from Google Maps) -- you trace over it or recreate the underlaying data. Thus you're not copying the representation of the map but the abstract collection of facts that were used to generate the creative picture. 2. Is there any creative work being done when you use automated cartography (i.e. a set of human beings aren't hand-drawing the map based on your data from #1)? In the case of automated cartography I can see the cartographic style data being copyrightable but I don't think the actual tiled image representation of the map data is copyrightable. Of course, this is all (theoretically) a moot point because the Terms of Use prohibit automated use of Google Maps' data.
- Someone 16y ago
  But the non-information that is the trap door makes the whole copyrightable. If the trap door shows up on your map, you cannot claim that your map is factual. You cannot claim your map is a 100% copy of mine, either, as that would be copyright infringement. IANAL, but I doubt that a judge would rule otherwise.
freejoe76 16y ago
Related: MapQuest is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. It used to be that if you searched Google Maps for MapQuest, it would point you to the wrong location.... which gave MapQuest a good idea of which MapQuest job candidates used Google for directions to their place.
- danilocampos 16y ago
  I wonder how much this counted against an applicant. In every substantial way, Google Maps was simply a better product than MapQuest from day one. Shockingly better. Would it be such an affront that MapQuest applicants should have a sense of taste? Especially on the road to making their product better, if anything, using Google Maps should've been a bonus in an applicant's favor. Their sense of taste could move the organization forward.
  - jpcosta 16y ago
    But it would demonstrate a homework well done and a genuine interest in the company.
    - danilocampos 16y ago
      Eh. It would demonstrate obedience. It comes down to this bit of dialogue written by Aaron Sorkin: "If you're stupid, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you." The Google Maps debut product was so astonishingly good it instantly changed user behavior. You had to use it just once to realize everything that came before was insultingly bad. Immediate loyalty. It was a cataclysmic shift in the space. So, if it's me, and I'm hiring at MapQuest, and I have IQ that's expressed with at least two digits, I'm in a desperate search for smart people to come help me turn the ship. If they're using the competitor's product, that's fucking awesome. We're going to need as much competitive insight as we can get to make this turd into something people want to use again.
      - blasdel 16y ago
protomyth 16y ago
This type of thing shows up in a lot of fiction books (always as an original idea). Check "Patriot Games" for an example.
- billswift 16y ago
  The "Canary Trap". I don't remember the original source, but there was a real world version that Bruce Schneier linked to some months ago.
brendoncrawford 16y ago
According to Wikipedia, trap streets are not copyrightable: In Nester's Map & Guide Corp. v. Hagstrom Map Co., 796 F.Supp. 729, E.D.N.Y., 1992, a United States federal court found that copyright traps are not themselves protectable by copyright. There, the court stated: "[t]o treat 'false' facts interspersed among actual facts and represented as actual facts as fiction would mean that no one could ever reproduce or copy actual facts without risk of reproducing a false fact and thereby violating a copyright . . . . If such were the law, information could never be reproduced or widely disseminated." (Id. at 733) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street#Legal_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street#Legal_issues
timruffles 16y ago
I can't really resist saying, because it's such a coincidence, that I _live_ in this picture and walk up Lavender Sweep. The trap street wasn't there in Google maps last time I looked, I assume they must move them around.
dctoedt 16y ago
Apple took advantage of this in its lawsuit against Apple II cloner Franklin Computer. Franklin claimed it had independently developed its ROM and OS code. On examining Franklin's code, Apple found some no-op string variables containing, e.g., the name of an Apple developer and "Appleworks." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Franklin_Computer_Corp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Frankli....

64 points by cwan 16y ago

I was just talking to an old school journalist last night about the same topic. A perhaps apocryphal story (it's not on Google, so it can't be true, can it?) but good nonetheless: Years ago, well before even Murdoch ownership, the NY Post was knicking sports scores from the New York Daily News. Competition being what it was, the Daily News went so far as to not only falsify some scores, but to falsify some schools, making up new institutes of education throughout the 5 boroughs. I can only imagine the page one headlines once the Post was outed.

karzeem 16y ago

Neat, this is like a reverse shibboleth. This sort of stuff has been around for a while. One of the big Supreme Court rulings on the copyrightability of datasets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural) concerned a company that got sued for copying 4000 entries from a competitor's phone book. They got busted because they'd unknowingly copied fake entries.

jsm386 16y ago
I wouldn't call it getting busted. The court held that they were allowed to copy the data, overturning the sweat of the brow doctrine: The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable, and that therefore no infringement existed. Prior to this case, the substance of copyright in United States law followed the sweat of the brow doctrine, which gave copyright to anyone who invested significant amount of time and energy into their work. At trial and appeal level the courts followed this doctrine, siding with Rural.
- randallsquared 16y ago
  The phrase "got busted" can mean merely "was discovered".
  - RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
    This is a term that can lead to mis-communication. Most of the context I know the term "got busted" implies punishment. The exact usage and implications vary from place to place, often varying by very large amounts, so care is required in the usage of such informal terms.
  - karzeem 16y ago
    That's how I meant it.

nostromo 16y ago

> it's actually there for copyright protection Not really - you can't copyright facts. IANAL, but if you want to create a map based on another map's information, you're free to do so. Google Feist v. Rural for more info.

eli 16y ago
A map isn't an abstract collection of facts -- it's a picture drawn by a team of cartographers. You can definitely copyright that picture.
- nostromo 16y ago
  Correct. You can't just photocopy the map, but you can recreate it. iSubwayMaps.com ran into copyright problems with the MTA in New York a while back. Instead of paying the MTA to use their official maps they just recreated the map themselves, using the official map as the only source. This, apparently, doesn't violate copyright law, even though the resulting maps are very similar.
- yellowbkpk 16y ago
  Two things about this particular case that at the very least complicate (if not invalidate) your point: 1. When you copy a map, you usually don't make a Xerox (i.e. take the map tiles from Google Maps) -- you trace over it or recreate the underlaying data. Thus you're not copying the representation of the map but the abstract collection of facts that were used to generate the creative picture. 2. Is there any creative work being done when you use automated cartography (i.e. a set of human beings aren't hand-drawing the map based on your data from #1)? In the case of automated cartography I can see the cartographic style data being copyrightable but I don't think the actual tiled image representation of the map data is copyrightable. Of course, this is all (theoretically) a moot point because the Terms of Use prohibit automated use of Google Maps' data.
Someone 16y ago
But the non-information that is the trap door makes the whole copyrightable. If the trap door shows up on your map, you cannot claim that your map is factual. You cannot claim your map is a 100% copy of mine, either, as that would be copyright infringement. IANAL, but I doubt that a judge would rule otherwise.

freejoe76 16y ago

Related: MapQuest is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. It used to be that if you searched Google Maps for MapQuest, it would point you to the wrong location.... which gave MapQuest a good idea of which MapQuest job candidates used Google for directions to their place.

danilocampos 16y ago
I wonder how much this counted against an applicant. In every substantial way, Google Maps was simply a better product than MapQuest from day one. Shockingly better. Would it be such an affront that MapQuest applicants should have a sense of taste? Especially on the road to making their product better, if anything, using Google Maps should've been a bonus in an applicant's favor. Their sense of taste could move the organization forward.
- jpcosta 16y ago
  But it would demonstrate a homework well done and a genuine interest in the company.
  - danilocampos 16y ago
    Eh. It would demonstrate obedience. It comes down to this bit of dialogue written by Aaron Sorkin: "If you're stupid, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you." The Google Maps debut product was so astonishingly good it instantly changed user behavior. You had to use it just once to realize everything that came before was insultingly bad. Immediate loyalty. It was a cataclysmic shift in the space. So, if it's me, and I'm hiring at MapQuest, and I have IQ that's expressed with at least two digits, I'm in a desperate search for smart people to come help me turn the ship. If they're using the competitor's product, that's fucking awesome. We're going to need as much competitive insight as we can get to make this turd into something people want to use again.
    - blasdel 16y ago

protomyth 16y ago

This type of thing shows up in a lot of fiction books (always as an original idea). Check "Patriot Games" for an example.

billswift 16y ago
The "Canary Trap". I don't remember the original source, but there was a real world version that Bruce Schneier linked to some months ago.

brendoncrawford 16y ago

According to Wikipedia, trap streets are not copyrightable: In Nester's Map & Guide Corp. v. Hagstrom Map Co., 796 F.Supp. 729, E.D.N.Y., 1992, a United States federal court found that copyright traps are not themselves protectable by copyright. There, the court stated: "[t]o treat 'false' facts interspersed among actual facts and represented as actual facts as fiction would mean that no one could ever reproduce or copy actual facts without risk of reproducing a false fact and thereby violating a copyright . . . . If such were the law, information could never be reproduced or widely disseminated." (Id. at 733) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street#Legal_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street#Legal_issues

timruffles 16y ago

I can't really resist saying, because it's such a coincidence, that I _live_ in this picture and walk up Lavender Sweep. The trap street wasn't there in Google maps last time I looked, I assume they must move them around.

dctoedt 16y ago

Apple took advantage of this in its lawsuit against Apple II cloner Franklin Computer. Franklin claimed it had independently developed its ROM and OS code. On examining Franklin's code, Apple found some no-op string variables containing, e.g., the name of an Apple developer and "Appleworks." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Franklin_Computer_Corp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Frankli....