Comments on Should WMATA agree to Google's license terms? - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Alex

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:13:36 EDT

What does Google Transit give back to Metro as part of the arrangement ? Metro should require that Google give back usage stats, or revenue figures, or something. Why should Metro give Google something without any reciprocity ? Last I checked, Google can index the entire internet without anyone's help, why can't they compile schedule information for WMATA on their own dime. Then they wouldn't need to sign a license they don't like.

Comment by Mike

Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:06:32 EDT

If google wants its own special license, then perhaps they should act the part of a private company and *gasp* offer to pay for the data that will attract customers to their advertisers. I don't understand how google's give it to us for free this way or we won't republish it with ads is turned into the good guy.

Maybe if metro wanted to deal w/ google, they would tell google to release an api for all of transit. But then again that would allow people to view transit outside of google's control

Comment by Michael Perkins

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:38:48 EDT

@Omari: the indemnification WMATA is asking for is much broader than the one Google is asking for, and Google's terms of service make it perfectly clear to the final customer that neither they nor WMATA will be held liable for any use of the data. On the other hand, WMATA's indemnity clause is very general.

If we could get a deal as David suggests, with no indemnity either way, I'd advocate for that. Personally, I don't see that happening. I think Google puts out the standard agreement and they've found willing partners.

I'm waiting for the result of FOIA requests to San Francisco and NYC to see what those large agencies were able to get. Maybe David's right and they got a different deal. My guess is not.

If you agree with David, please write to your representative on the board and ask them to get WMATA to loosen the terms on the developer agreement. If you agree with me, write to them and ask that they go ahead and sign the Google agreement. If you agree with neither of us, write to them anyway with your suggestion.

Comment by Omari

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:23:37 EDT

Google also requires Metro to indemnify them against any other lawsuits arising from Gogole's use of the transit data.

You think WMATA is being unreasonable because it wants indemnification from Google. Meanwhile, Google is being reasonable in its indemnification clause. So it is reasonable for Google to seek indemnification from WMATA, but it is not reasonable for WMATA to seek indemnification from Google? It is reasonable for a highly profitable private entity to seek indemnification from a public entity, but it is unreasonable for a public agency which is funded by taxpayers rich and poor and that has rolling stock over thirty years old to seek indemnification from the rich private company?

Wow. I mean, that's all I can say. Wow.

Comment by Chuck Coleman

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:04:39 EDT

The simplest fix to lots of Metro's problems is make WMATA's Directors elected by the voters. That should create some accountability, which is sadly lacking now.

Comment by Joshua Davis

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:46:57 EDT

Why can't the publicly elected board members force Metro to sign an agreement with Metro? I'm sure there must be a reason for this happening by now.

Comment by Michael Perkins

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:40:43 EDT

WMATA is not the federal government. They have their own public access to records policy, which allows them to decline to release information for free if they already offer that information for sale to the public.

And those issues about whether it's in the public interest to make this information available get to be decided by Metro's Board of Directors, who are among the people we're trying to convince with these articles. I would love for them to treat this information as if it's owned by the public. But they don't.

Metro claims sovereign immunity explicitly in their license agreement.

Comment by Cullen

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:30:29 EDT

Metro is an intra-state compact between DC, Maryland and Virginia. Under Maryland law (Public Information Act) public agencies AND CONTRACTORS are required to disclose public information with the usual restrictions on personal and private information.

Comment by Anderkoo

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:05:58 EDT

Please stop using IP as the lens of analysis of Metro's schedule data. As a federal or quasi-federal agency, Metro should not hold any intellectual property interests in anything. Even if it it isn't a federal agency, as a matter of public policy it should not hold intellectual property over a schedule, which -- like a telephone directory -- should not be subject to copyright.

Someone should also look into whether Metro, as a federal or quasi-federal agency, enjoys sovereign immunity. If so, the entire indemnification clause is garbage language inappropriately imported from the private sector.

The Obama administration is able to publish huge tracts of data freely at Data.gov with nary a licensing clause in sight. Metro is behaving like some kind of corporation when it should be what it is: a public agency acting in the public good. Enough with this "business model" crap. Metro should be looking into how making the data freely available will save them money AND benefit commuters. Win Win Win.