Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

First Google Maps Hack Takedown

Posted by timothy on Wed Jun 08, 2005 03:54 PM
from the how-about-an-ellroy-crime-site-map-of-LA dept.
Businesses Google The Internet
An anonymous reader writes "Despite "users accelerating innovation" with Google Maps the 'hacks' are not immune from Google's legal team, who have taken down "Google Wallpapers for violating the terms of agreement. From a quick skim through the terms it would seem that most sites using the Google Maps data are in violation. Are Chicago Crime and Google Sightseeing next to go?" It may be a shame to shut down Google Maps offshoots, but that has to be the nicest take-down note I've ever seen; it's polite, friendly and reasonable. Update: 06/08 21:22 GMT by T : Below, a few more of the current uses for Google Maps.
An anonymous reader submits "The AP is running a story about the multiple uses for Google Maps. Among the uses, Tracking sexual predators in Florida, Guiding travelers to the cheapest gas nationwide, Pinpointing $1,500 studio apartments for rent in Manhattan, and Finding crime in Chicago. It'll be interesting to see if Google allows these sites to remain online or not."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

First Google Maps Hack Takedown 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Funny, you can still get to the python script that generates the wallpapers from the cached pages of http://gmerge.2ni.net/ [2ni.net] on Google itself:

    http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:lNdeCgLHUdwJ:le vinux.org/~2ni/gmerge/+google+maps+wallpaper&hl=en [66.102.7.104]

    Get it while its still there! :)

  • Nicest Shut down? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fembots (753724) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @03:55PM (#12761780) Homepage
    So if RIAA sent you a bouquet of flowers with a cute, humorous, handwritten greeting card personally signed by the PR manager informing your court appearance date, it wouldn't be so bad?

    I don't think there is anything wrong for a listed company to protect its interest, control its IPs and maximize its profit, but the fanboy twist is totally unnecessary.
    • I didn't notice anything about google requesting a court appearance. If RIAA did what you stated above and came across in a manner that made you feel they were doing this for the greater interests of their other customers (Artists and Music License Purchasers) then it would be a whole different story. If they sent a bouquet of flowers ... and all, along with a simple request to have it taken down for the good of the upstart artist and other music patrons, I'm sure your take on it would be far different.
    • No, Google was polite they explained themselves, did not start with "we'll sue your @$$"...

    • Oh spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nobodyman (90587) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @04:32PM (#12762139)
      So if RIAA sent you a bouquet of flowers with a cute, humorous, handwritten greeting card personally signed by the PR manager informing your court appearance date, it wouldn't be so bad?
      Well, if I was serving up MP3's of $.50's latest album, yeah, it wouldn't be as bad. But your question is apples/oranges anyway. Yours is a piracy issue whereas Gogglemaps is a Terms of Use violation. Me and a friend were discussing just this very thing. In spite of what some Google employees might say about how they like to foster innovation and so on, if the terms of use say you can't do it you can pretty well expect that you will probably run afoul of Google. Without getting into the legality argument of certain Terms of Use, let me limit this to just an analysis of likelihood of getting on the wrong side of a lawyer. Caveat Scriptor. You are asking for trouble if:
      • You take someone elses content and pass it off as yours (even if you say "gee thanks google")
      • Violate a Terms of Use agreement. Even if it's the ToU is hopelessly vague you can bet that you'll get a call as soon as your site gets popular enough
      • You rush headlong into making a beta API the centerpiece of your website. Yeah, do it because it's neat, but don't whine when it breaks unless you want people to say "what the hell were you even thinking?". Even if it's Google's endless beta phase, if you rely on behaviour of a beta app, and then your site/app breaks... tough noogies.
      The gyst is that Google is a company that makes a product and wants to make money and has investors blah blah blah..., just like Microsoft or Wallmart. You can argue tell your blue in the face about right/wrong, nice/not nice, good/evil, but the simple fact is that if you do something that legalize says you shouldn't do, and you get burned... don't be surprised. Google is going to oversee what people are doing with the googemaps... if they like it, they'll take the idea and incorporate it into their business model, if they don't like it (don't like == taxes resources or threatens revenue), the lawyers come knocking.

      • Paging the fanboys... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mattgreen (701203) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @10:12PM (#12764950)
        AOL Instant Messenger's Terms of Use forbid use of third party clients from connecting to the network. How come whenever AOL tries to lock out third party clients it is evil, but when Google does it, it's okay? Both are terms of service violations.

        Grandparent hit it head on: enough fawning over Google.

    • I don't think there is anything wrong for a listed company to protect its interest, control its IPs and maximize its profit

      Google's demeanor aside, this is the real question.

      Google is in somewhat of a special position, because virtually 100% of their content comes from other websites! While issuing takedown notices, Google must remember it's only a matter of time until somebody challenges the google cache, or even of including textual context on the search results page.

      For now, I'm sure google i

    • Actually, yes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sterno (16320) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @05:57PM (#12763030) Homepage
      I have to say that sending a polite, could you not do this, e-mail is very cool of google. For a time, I ran a radio station off of my server. Not many people listened to it, but anyhow, I got a letter from ASCAP asking me to not do it.

      There's letter was much more legalese ridden, etc, ultimately, they had the decency to send me a warning notice before they sicked a pack of lawyers onto me. After it was clear to me that they were serious about it, I stopped.

      If I was swapping songs and the RIAA sent me a letter saying, "hey could you please stop?", I probably would. Instead, they'd probably just sue me, and charge me a lot of money I don't have.

      So yeah, there's something to be said for how you say things.
    • On a related note, the gmail invite spooler [isnoop.net] has also been taken down recently.

  • If you must be evil... (Score:5, Funny)

    by straponego (521991) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @03:56PM (#12761785)
    ...at least be nice about it?

  • Noooooooooo! (Score:3, Informative)

    by professorhojo (686761) * on Wednesday June 08 2005, @03:56PM (#12761789)
    i hope my favorite mashup, google housing, that uses the craigslist rental pages won't get taken down!!

    http://www.housingmaps.com/ [housingmaps.com]

    • Re:Noooooooooo! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by alphakappa (687189) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @04:05PM (#12761879) Homepage
      I don't think they will take down the craigslist-googlemaps mashup since they themselves praised it as a featured project on Google Code.

      There is a reason why this particular project got the takedown notice:
      1. The satellite/air imagery is probably not owned by Google - they must have licensed it from AirphotoUSA or whoever else is the supplier.
      2. The wallpaper site simply takes the images and stitches them together as a wallpaper - which means that are not simply incorporating a google product, but appropriating the images therein. Google's terms of use with their provider would necessisate the takedown.

  • That is friendly, (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MrByte420 (554317) * on Wednesday June 08 2005, @03:56PM (#12761790) Journal
    No...

    1. Lawyers
    2. Due Dates
    3. Use of the word "compliance"
    4. Use of the word "further action"
    5. Nice invitation to a developers conference.

    I'll take that over the .*AA any day.

  • Interesting wording (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jandrese (485) * <kensama@vt.edu> on Wednesday June 08 2005, @03:58PM (#12761808) Homepage Journal
    It sounds like Google Maps had to sign an agreement not to let the image data be used for commercial purposes. I wonder if they got a letter telling them to take down the offending site or be sued?

  • Go Google! (Score:5, Informative)

    by oldosadmin (759103) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @04:00PM (#12761826) Homepage
    I must say... they really are, "not being evil".

    I've recieved a DMCA takedown notice before. Most aren't pretty. Personally, I never understood why most DMCA takedown notices were taken directly to ISP level, without even a word to the webmaster.

    In this case, Google sent a nice letter, requesting they take it down, and even explaining why. This is far superious to any other company takedown letter I've ever seen.

  • Google starts the takedown.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ErikTheRed (162431) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @04:01PM (#12761838) Homepage
    ...and then we finish the job with a Slashdotting. Nice.

  • Down.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by devross (524605) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @04:01PM (#12761842) Homepage
    Are Chicago Crime and Google Sightseeing next to go?

    Unfortunately yes, but that's because of us, not their violation of terms with Google.

  • I'm surprised Google let others leech like this (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jugalator (259273) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @04:02PM (#12761858) Journal
    I'm actually surprised Google let others leech on their bandwidth like this without paying them or anything. Same with e.g. GoogleFS and other hacks. Either this is a sign of more things to come, or it's just one of few sites they didn't like even with their highly relaxed stance about others leeching on their services.

    • Leech? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Colin Smith (2679)
      You couldn't *pay* for the publicity that people like /. readers, admins, developers give for Google.

      Know the first thing I tell a new user who know bugger all about the Internet? www.google.com. In fact, I usually set it as their home page to make my life easier.

      That translates directly into advertising revenue, and I do it because they have a spectacularly good search system, very cool add on tools and they let us play with them for free. They know *exactly* what they're doing and I'm fine with it.
    • I'm actually surprised Google let others leech on their bandwidth like this without paying them or anything.

      Google is flush with IPO cash.
      Bandwidth is cheap, but ideas are expensive.

      By letting others "leech on their bandwidth" google fosters creativity. Creativity that has google at its foundation. If the result is even just a couple of good and new marketable uses of google's product, then the investment in bandwidth will have paid for itself a hundred-fold.

      Think of it as a cooperative model of devel

  • Google Maps are awfully distorted anyway (Score:5, Informative)

    by product byproduct (628318) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @04:03PM (#12761861)
    Google Maps uses a fixed longitude/latitude distance ratio of ~0.772, while the true ratio depends on latitude (the ratio should be cos(latitude)). So Google Map is optimized for 39.5 of latitude (N or S), and the maps are increasingly distorted as you go toward the poles or the equator.

    For example, Anchorage is stretched horizontally by a factor of 1.60 [google.com] (yup those should be right angles).

    MapQuest is similarly distorted, but Yahoo Maps is not.
    • For reference, here are all the links.
      Google [google.com]
      Yahoo [yahoo.com]
      MapQuest [mapquest.com]

      The reason Google is distorted is because the satellite image matches with the road maps. The satellite isn't nearly as far north as it would need to be to properly take the images it has. It is closer to the horizon so it gives a distorted looking image. Google most likely distorts the maps on purpose.

    • All maps are distorted. The earth is round(ish) and maps are flat, and you can not represent a curved surface using a flat surface without distorting it. For a demonstration of this concept, try flattening an orange peel without squishing/stretching it.

      however, different map projections can minimize distortion at different locations. What Google could (and maybe should) do is dynamically change the map projection used depending on the location currently being viewed to minimize distortion at that locati
      • Not sure you are correct. If you zoom out two levels, you see blocks and blocks of perfectly right angle rectangular city blocks.

        This is because those blocks are oriented perpendicular to the compass points, so stretching the map East-West doesn't affect the angles.

        I don't see it as a big deal: the only perfect map projection is a globe, and my monitor's flat.

  • One day... (Score:5, Funny)

    by LegendOfLink (574790) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @04:04PM (#12761877) Homepage
    "but that has to be the nicest take-down note I've ever seen; it's polite, friendly and reasonable."

    Many years from now, we will see a similar Slashdot post when Google becomes the New World Order:

    Dear Bill,

    The GoogleOS team recently noticed that you guys have had your asses handed to you, by us. We commend you on your many years of somehow staying at the top, despite the fact that you sorely neglected securing your software. Sorry we had to break your record; but your evil violated the official Evil Google TOS, listed on our home page.

    Lots of love and warm tapioca,
    Larry and Sergei

  • Google maps are inaccurate.....still like MapQuest (Score:4, Informative)

    by compmanio36 (882809) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @04:07PM (#12761904)
    I used Google maps once, and I got SO lost in downtown Seattle. Their service is nice and full of features, but I prefer simple accuracy over fancy graphics anyday, especially when it means getting lost in the maze of one-way streets and idiot drivers that is downtown of any major city.

    No, Google is good at a lot of things, but right now, maps is NOT one of those things.
      • The real problem with both Google Maps and MapQuest is the underlying data. Both get their street data (at least in large part) from the same company: TeleAtlas.

        This is the company that still hasn't picked up on the fact that many roads near here were renumbered four years ago to meet 911 law requirements. My company's official postal address is 2075 High Hill Rd., but TeleAtlas still thinks the only valid block number for this road is 200-299.

  • Google's Merits (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ikegami (793066) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @04:23PM (#12762050)

    I don't see anyone arguing the merits of Google's action, so I will. From what I can see from the Google cache [66.102.7.104] of the web site, I see that following:

    1. They perform automated queries on Google to get the map pieces in order to produce composite images. (Terms of Service violation)
    2. They produced composite images from Copyrighted material. (Copyright violation)
    3. They hosted (distributed) the composite images made from Copyrighted material. (Copyright violation)

    This gives Google good reason to shut down "Google Wallpapers" as it stands. I don't think it Google has any claims against the python script itself, just its users (which includes "Google Wallpapers").

    This differs from "Google Sightseeing" and "Chicago Crime" (as far as I know, since I can't verify util the sites are back up), which only link to maps on Google, which means

    1. There are no automated queries. The user must click on the link to view the image.
    2. No derivative product is made. They only provide a link to Google.
    3. No distribution is made. The maps are solely on Google's server.

  • In other Google news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by uberdave (526529) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @04:31PM (#12762125) Homepage
    Google is releasing a new beta project called Google Posters. With it, you will be able to have large poster sized satellite maps of any point of interest.

  • A more open content provider: USGS (links++) (Score:5, Informative)

    by expro (597113) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @05:27PM (#12762696)

    It is ludicrous to claim that Google invested that much in the original content, since everyone just gets it from US Geological Survey.

    So, go to the National Atlas [nationalatlas.gov] and download and use to your heart's content. If that is not good enough, then go download all the data you can imagine [nationalatlas.gov]. Still not enough, you can access all the layers via web services that comply with specifications published by the Open Geospatial Consortium [opengeospatial.org] at run time from your own web pages.

    Now, write your congressmen and tell them how you appreciate that they made all this available to you, the citizen, for free, instead of spending all that tax money only to add a fee that makes it prohibitive for all but corporations who can be gatekeepers to keep you out. And hope that this doesn't become another casulty of Iraq budgets.

    While you are at it, start a USGS support mailing list and an open source project to keep this sort of alive.

  • NASA World Wind (Score:4, Informative)

    by fourtyfive (862341) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @08:42PM (#12764378)
    http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov] I just wanted to let people know that the latest CVS of NASA World wind has a plugin engine that allows people to do the same thing (Their is even a plugin already made to do it!)

    • Re:Tough call (Score:5, Informative)

      by xiando (770382) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @04:11PM (#12761941) Homepage Journal
      Making such a site would not be a problem if you simply ask Google for the proper permissions. Who knows, if you are lucky then you might get a deal. And if you don't, at least you have tried, all they can do is say No. IP and Copyright does not need to be a problem if you are willing to talk and explain your intentions. Takedown notices generally come when you violate Copyright without even trying to get a permission deal.
      • As someone who has tried to get a number of permission deals from various industries, I'll let you know right now that RIAA and MPAA related companies tend to completely ignore you, even when you've emailed, faxed and sent snail mail (there's no way to get to a real person in charge of such things at the phone numbers I've tried).

        Software publishers (I've never tried to contact a BSA publisher) and other independent media publishers are usually delighted to make a deal; often, even for free, or with a small percentage kickback if you're doing something for-profit.

        I'm glad Google has decided to side with the independents instead of the corporate behemoths on their treatment of individuals in this case, and actually acknowledge that corporations share the world with individual human beings.

    • Re:Tough call (Score:5, Informative)

      by holovaty (678950) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @04:34PM (#12762158) Homepage
      Here are two pieces of evidence that Google does *not* disapprove of Google Maps hacks:

      1. A post to the official Google blog: http://google-code-featured.blogspot.com/2005/04/m apscraigslist-mashup.html [blogspot.com]

      "While we have no official API for Maps yet, work like this really is amazing and deserves recognition."

      2. http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/05/google_m aps_hac.html [oreilly.com]

      "They responded that they had every intention to not shut them down as long as their licenses permit it, and one of the engineers insinuated that they might be working on a Google Maps API or a similar way to build on top of Maps (he actually said, "to make them not hacks," by which I think he meant not unauthorized)."

      Disclaimer: I'm the guy that did chicagocrime.org, so I'm biased in favor of openness.
    • You almost had it. Google's ownership of copyrights actually does allow them to set the terms that they have. You can use their service however you see fit for the most part, but you can't COPY (or rebroadcast, or make a derivative work from, etc.) the information except under the rights they grant. It's not a contract; it's a license. It's the same mechanism the GPL uses to restrict what can be done with GPL-licensed software.

    • Re:Sorry Google, but there ain't no contract (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sierra Charlie (37047) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @04:32PM (#12762135)
      How did the parent get modded insightful?

      The maps are a copyrighted work. By default, you can't redistribute derivatives of that work unless the copyright holder explicitly grants permission.

      The terms of service explain your rights to the content... they don't restrict them.

      And yes... Fox can't dictate how you watch television. But try recording their lineup, stripping the commercials, and putting them on the Internet. :)

    • TerraServer relies on PD USGS data, so they don't have to worry about their data providers limiting redistribution. Unfortunately, this means that they don't have any vector street capabilities, as TIGER doesn't quite cut it for routing.

      For the most part, though, I prefer looking at the topo image anyway.

    • Re:Does anyone have a mirror? (Score:4, Informative)

      by AyeRoxor! (471669) on Wednesday June 08 2005, @06:16PM (#12763218) Homepage Journal
      Yes. Google does, in fact.

      The cache for the page, Linked here [64.233.161.104], has a link to the executable. The link still works. Get it while it's hot.

      In fact, I think every person that makes a google utility should make an executable version for this very reason. It would save you bandwidth, it would save me loading time. Release it GPL and someone can make a multi-utility. Sounds great. Get to it, programmers!

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.