Google Earth Plugin for Orbiter (beta)

[Hielor]

Exactly. I don't know the concrete mechanics (maybe FSX itself has a pipe-accessible API), but the client program runs separately. Thus, the only problem will be to examine the sources and find an adequate conversion.

FSX has SimConnect: http://www.fsinsider.com/developers/Pages/AboutSimConnect.aspx

Don't know if that's what it's using, though.

 

[Jebusy]

Just how far away are we from incorporating google earth images into the tex's??? Years?

 

[Hielor]

But in my concept the developer is not using the maps (except maybe for testing) and AFAIK neither is McDucks plugin. The maps are not supplied with the plugin or software: instead, the software downloads the maps from Google when the user starts using the software.

So, the only one who is using and making copies of the maps is the end user of the software, and not the developer.

In fact, I doubt whether even the end user has to agree to the terms of use. When a user follows random links to Google maps locations, Google's servers already send map data without the user explicitly agreeing to any terms of use. Of course the maps are still copyrighted by Google (and/or other companies), but I don't think they can reasonably force people to follow stricter rules than very generic copyright rules. I think that end users automatically have a license for fair use of these images, but not for distributing them in any way (e.g. on their own website).

Though I have to say that my intuition largely fails when trying to understand how copyright can ever make sense on the internet. How can you simultaneously claim copyright on material and distribute it over the internet to anyone who asks for this material? I stick to my opinion that copyright ss, and we should get rid of it in favor of a different system for rewarding authors.

Here's something you may find interesting that the TileProxy author had to say:
From http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=234680 , the release thread for TileProxy 8:

I have to announce the discontinuation of download services for all previous Tileproxy versions effective immediately.

Google Inc. kindly (but authoritatively) asked to block access to any server in the domain *.google.com from the Tileproxy application. In return for my cooperation I was offered a free T-Shirt which I considered to be the better deal - as opposed to a lawsuit. Let me stress that Google was very forthcoming in this matter and contact with me was established by their engineering department - not the legal department.

Beta 8 is available now - it will refuse to contact Google's servers. Please either upgrading to the latest version - or discontinue of any use of the "Service Example #2" (Google Maps) provider from the INI file (that's the nagging one which is throwing captcha requests all the time, anyway).

 

[Artlav]

I wonder, why Google Earth?
What is wrong/insufficient in the free and open-to-use NASA WorldWind data?

 

[cjp]

Sounds a lot like the arguments used by the Napster authors...

Wasn't the problem with Napster that they used a central server for some things? I thought the software itself was perfectly legal, but operating the central server was not.

In fact, when you look at bittorrent, the same applies today. The software is legal (you can openly download it from e.g. sourceforge), and the authors are still free men. Only organizations like thepiratebay.org, which act like centralized meeting points, are sued.

Here's something you may find interesting that the TileProxy author had to say:
From http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=234680 , the release thread for TileProxy 8:

That's certainly interesting. What is the difference between browser software and flightsim software, that browser software is not forced to block google.com? What is the moral justification, and what is the legal justification for this?

I think it's at least plausible that there is no real legal basis for this, but that the TileProxy people just capitulated because Google is a rich and powerful company, and they wanted to avoid all the trouble. I can understand this, but I also believe it is a citizen's duty to defend the rights of himself and of other citizens.

I wonder, why Google Earth?
What is wrong/insufficient in the free and open-to-use NASA WorldWind data?

Nothing. In fact, for libProcTer purposes, making a WorldWind plugin may be a good way to avoid legal trouble and get more consistent map data.

I can imagine that Google map data is more detailed in some places. With some image processing, the low spatial frequencies in the Google images can be replaced by those from WorldWind, to get an optimal result.

I usually prefer A AND B over a OR B.

 

[Notebook]

I wonder, why Google Earth?
What is wrong/insufficient in the free and open-to-use NASA WorldWind data?

Google Earth can give you higher resolution than NASA WorldWind. Here's the resoltions for a base I worked on:-

WorldWind.
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k207/Notebook_04/168959W_5503710N.jpg

Google Earth
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k207/Notebook_04/Newcastle.jpg

N.

 

[tblaxland]

Wasn't the problem with Napster that they used a central server for some things? I thought the software itself was perfectly legal, but operating the central server was not.

Ah yes, I see you are right.

That's certainly interesting. What is the difference between browser software and flightsim software, that browser software is not forced to block google.com? What is the moral justification, and what is the legal justification for this?

If any old application could use the Google Earth data, it is conceivable that Google may view those applications as competition (or potential competition) for products that they derive income from directly (such as Google Earth Pro). I know that sounds anti-competitive, but there is nothing, as far as I can tell, that requires Google to make their data available to even web browsers. They have made it available (like a teaser, or shareware, concept) and you are complaining that they don't make it more available? What right do you think you have to use Google's data in any way you see fit? Or mine, for that matter? (I hope that tone doesn't sound to over-bearing, it is a genuine question...)

I think it's at least plausible that there is no real legal basis for this, but that the TileProxy people just capitulated because Google is a rich and powerful company, and they wanted to avoid all the trouble.

It seems that is exactly what happened, given the mention of the T-shirt. There seems a legal basis to me:

Google Maps Terms of Service:2. Restrictions on Use. Unless you have received prior written authorization from Google (or, as applicable, from the provider of particular Content), you must not:
(a) access or use the Products or any Content through any technology or means other than those provided in the Products, or through other explicitly authorized means Google may designate (such as through the Google Maps/Google Earth APIs);

Google Maps API Terms of Service:
4.3 Limits on Use of the Service. You acknowledge and agree that Google may impose or adjust the limit on the number of transactions you may send or receive through the Service; such fixed upper limits may be set by Google at any time, at Google's discretion.
7.3 Content License. Google gives you a personal, worldwide, royalty-free, non-assignable and non-exclusive license to access, use, publicly perform and publicly display the Content in your Maps API Implementation, as the Content is provided in the Service, and in the manner permitted by the Terms. Specifically, you understand the following:
(a) Content (including but not limited to map data, traffic, and directions) is provided for planning purposes only.

Can you argue that the use is for planning purposes only? It seems more like entertainment to me. That said, just because it is legal doesn't mean it is morally justifiable, but I personally don't have any major disagreements with the policy.

 

[cjp]

If any old application could use the Google Earth data, it is conceivable that Google may view those applications as competition (or potential competition) for products that they derive income from directly (such as Google Earth Pro). I know that sounds anti-competitive, ...

Yes, anti-competitive, but they already have lots of free competition, in the form of web browsers. I know the presentation of the maps in a web browser isn't as fancy as in a 3D application, but why wouldn't the user be free to use and make his own additional software? Morally this looks very dirty, but let's continue looking at the legal aspects.

...but there is nothing, as far as I can tell, that requires Google to make their data available to even web browsers.

No, AFAIK there is no such law. But they do make it available to web browsers. Or, the way I see it, they make it available to anyone on the internet, in a form that is suitable for web browsers. They are not required to, but this is what they do.

They have made it available (like a teaser, or shareware, concept) and you are complaining that they don't make it more available?

No, why would they have to make it more available? Available is available.

What right do you think you have to use Google's data in any way you see fit? Or mine, for that matter? (I hope that tone doesn't sound to over-bearing, it is a genuine question...)

When I send a request to Google's servers, they return this data to me. There is no reason to assume this is done by mistake: it is clear that Google makes these maps available to anyone. So, I have access to this data, and that seems to be OK to Google.

Now when it comes to "use in any way you see fit", I think there are three cases:

1. Not permitted by copyright law, not explicitly permitted by Google: I have legally no right to do this. All that remains is a discussion whether copyright law is a good thing.
2. Permitted by copyright law, explicitly not permitted by Google (or other copyright holders) (through their terms of use): see below.
3. Permitted by Google (and other copyright holders): I see no problem at all in this case.
4. Permitted by copyright law, not explicitly not permitted by Google (or other copyright holders): I guess this defaults to the standard copyright terms.

There seems a legal basis to me:

You refer to the terms of use, as written by Google. This is not the same as copyright law.
AFAIK, these terms of use are a kind of contract, and as such they can contain all kinds of things. But AFAIK contracts are only valid to parties that agreed to them. I could make a contract that says "all your dollars are belong to me", but unless you agree to it, it doesn't force you in any way to give me your dollars.

Usually, terms of use are enforced by the copyright holder by not giving a user a license to use the data, unless he/she agrees to the terms of use. But in this case, Google makes the data available to all internet users, also to the ones who didn't even read the terms of use (and in fact I think most people don't even know of their existence), let alone agree to them.

I think the developers, even those of TileProxy, are safe. Strictly speaking, they only need to reverse engineer the URL system (and probably not even that, as Google provides a lot of documentation), and then set up their own testing server with some public domain maps, to test their software against. Not using it means you don't need a license.

When it comes to the users, as long as they haven't agreed to the terms of use in any way, I don't see how they are bound to them. In fact, if these users use Google maps through e.g. a plugin in Orbiter, they may not even be aware that such terms of use exist.

What Google should do is to let people first agree to the terms of use, and then e.g. give them an access code for private use only. Providing access without any prior signing of terms of use looks to me like giving a license without any additional terms of use. All 'standard terms' written down in copyright law is still valid of course.

BTW, I know legal experts who say that, at least in Dutch law, it is even very questionable whether the license you see in typical software installers has any legal validity, because the user is forced to agree to it after the software was bought. AFAIK this hasn't been tested in court.

I have a book about (Dutch) 'intellectual property' law. I'll read it again with this case in mind, to see if I can find something.

 

[DarkWanderer]

<removed>

 

[the.punk]

For flight simulator there is such project:
Tileproxy.
It downloads the textures during the flight.

 

[cjp]

For flight simulator there is such project:
Tileproxy.
It downloads the textures during the flight.

Please read the other posts.

 

[the.punk]

Oh...
Don't know that is was already posted

 

[cjp]

*finished reading*

Some relevant comments regarding Dutch copyright law (relevant for McDuck and me):

• Promoting violation of the law is not permitted (Art. 6:162 BW). If using a Google earth plugin is illegal, then distributing the plug-in is probably not permitted either. In theory, such a plugin could be used for legal activities (e.g. when connecting to another map database which uses the same protocol), but as long as such databases don't exist, that argument is a lot less convincing than e.g. for P2P software like bittorrent, which is actually used for legal file transfers.
• The law says nothing about licenses or license agreements. The book I have only refers to licenses as giving someone else than the copyright owner the (partial) right to publish copies of the work (Art. 2).
• As long as you got a certain copy of a work in a legally correct way, you don't seem to be limited in what you do with that copy of the work. There are only some limitations e.g. to humiliation or destruction of works of art, but they don't apply here. And, of course, making new copies is not always permitted (temporary copies in computer memory are, and copies for personal use only are too).

I think I'll ask an expert about this.

BTW, the situation for McDuck's plug-in (you know, the main topic of the thread ) could be a bit safer. I haven't read Google's terms of use, but maybe(?) what he does is just simply allowed by Google.

 

[Hielor]

You refer to the terms of use, as written by Google. This is not the same as copyright law.
AFAIK, these terms of use are a kind of contract, and as such they can contain all kinds of things. But AFAIK contracts are only valid to parties that agreed to them. I could make a contract that says "all your dollars are belong to me", but unless you agree to it, it doesn't force you in any way to give me your dollars.

Usually, terms of use are enforced by the copyright holder by not giving a user a license to use the data, unless he/she agrees to the terms of use. But in this case, Google makes the data available to all internet users, also to the ones who didn't even read the terms of use (and in fact I think most people don't even know of their existence), let alone agree to them.

I think the developers, even those of TileProxy, are safe. Strictly speaking, they only need to reverse engineer the URL system (and probably not even that, as Google provides a lot of documentation), and then set up their own testing server with some public domain maps, to test their software against. Not using it means you don't need a license.

When it comes to the users, as long as they haven't agreed to the terms of use in any way, I don't see how they are bound to them. In fact, if these users use Google maps through e.g. a plugin in Orbiter, they may not even be aware that such terms of use exist.

What Google should do is to let people first agree to the terms of use, and then e.g. give them an access code for private use only. Providing access without any prior signing of terms of use looks to me like giving a license without any additional terms of use. All 'standard terms' written down in copyright law is still valid of course.

BTW, I know legal experts who say that, at least in Dutch law, it is even very questionable whether the license you see in typical software installers has any legal validity, because the user is forced to agree to it after the software was bought. AFAIK this hasn't been tested in court.

I have a book about (Dutch) 'intellectual property' law. I'll read it again with this case in mind, to see if I can find something.

Using Google Earth data represents your implicit agreement to the terms of use. If the author of a utility which accesses Google Earth data does not make it obvious to the users that it's using Google Earth data, then he/she is liable for that (since it's misrepresenting Google's work as his own). If the author does make it obvious to the users that it's using Google Earth data, then the users are implicitly agreeing to the Google terms of use.

 

[cjp]

Using Google Earth data represents your implicit agreement to the terms of use.

This is the part that worries me. If visiting maps.google.com implies agreeing to the terms of use, then logically visiting any website implies agreeing to the terms of use of that website.

How many websites did you visit this month? How many of them had terms of use? How many of these did you read? Yet you still implicitly agreed to all of them.

If the author of a utility which accesses Google Earth data does not make it obvious to the users that it's using Google Earth data, then he/she is liable for that (since it's misrepresenting Google's work as his own).

May be true.

If the author does make it obvious to the users that it's using Google Earth data, then the users are implicitly agreeing to the Google terms of use.

This 'implicitly agreeing' is one thing I need to ask my 'expert'.

 

[Artlav]

I usually prefer A AND B over a OR B.

True enough, but most of the world have a weird concept known as "copyright", so using that data will be problematic at best.

Google Earth can give you higher resolution than NASA WorldWind. Here's the resoltions for a base I worked on:

Resolution - often yes, but WW have consistency that GE lacks - GE maps are square patchwork, WW maps is a continuous image, and second is better for planet rendering, as i think.

 

[Notebook]

I agree, and wish that WW had more resolution. I found this when I was exploring surface tiles for a base.

Its the Landsat (Pseudo Colour) setting.

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k207/Notebook_04/183372W_5497141N.jpg

I was trying to combine resoultions from the various Landsat images.
I did ask about it on the Landsat Forum, but its a known problem, so thats all right then...

N.

 

[Artlav]

I agree, and wish that WW had more resolution. I found this when I was exploring surface tiles for a base.

Its the Landsat (Pseudo Colour) setting.

I-cubed dataset is probably the best for consistency.

 

[tblaxland]

This 'implicitly agreeing' is one thing I need to ask my 'expert'.

I await with interest. Also remember that copyright also varies from country to country, ie, something that is permitted in one country may not be permitted in another. Maybe your expect will have some knowledge of other countries too.

Some additional information on the Google Maps Terms of Use and the "implicit agreement" issue: When you visit Google Maps a hyperlink is clearly presented labelled "Terms of Use" (would the plugin need to present that?). The first paragraph states:

By downloading, installing, or using the Google Earth software, accessing or using the Google Maps service (together, the "Products" or "Services"), or accessing or using any of the content available within the Products, you agree to be bound by the following:

You may want to present that specific wording to your expert (the full document here: http://www.google.com/intl/en_au/help/terms_maps.html).

Regarding the validity of installer EULAs, I think that would only be a problem if you didn't agree to the EULA and then the supplier refused to give you your money back, though you could understand their reluctance if they are unable to prove you have not installed the software (which in turn raises other issues of copy protection, online verifications, etc).

Didn't we discuss this before and decide there were no easy answers?

 

[cjp]

I await with interest. Also remember that copyright also varies from country to country, ie, something that is permitted in one country may not be permitted in another. Maybe your expect will have some knowledge of other countries too.

I asked that too. BTW, there is no reason why my expert should reply to me, except for being friendly. He is a professor in intellectual property law (I once took a patent law course there), and who knows he might just be too busy, or not willing to give free legal advice. But if you don't ask, you'll never get anything.

Some additional information on the Google Maps Terms of Use and the "implicit agreement" issue: When you visit Google Maps a hyperlink is clearly presented labelled "Terms of Use" (would the plugin need to present that?). The first paragraph states:

You may want to present that specific wording to your expert (the full document here: http://www.google.com/intl/en_au/help/terms_maps.html).

Mentioned the hyperlink, and provided a link to the Dutch terms of use. For most parts they are just a translation of the English ones, but there are some differences. Might be interesting to pay special attention to the differences.

Didn't we discuss this before and decide there were no easy answers?

Don't know. I remember a hot discussion about the moral foundations of the concept of copyright itself, and I briefly mentioned my opinion here again, but I didn't want to go there in this thread. Instead, I decided for this discussion to accept copyright law as a fact of life, and focus on discussing the consequences of copyright in this particular case.

I apologize to McDuck if this discussion went too far away from the originally intended subject of the thread.

---------- Post added at 01:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 AM ----------

OK, I got a reply.
Basically, he said: "unfortunately I don't know enough about this. Maybe you can try it at the IVIR Amsterdam".