[OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

[Anthony]

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
> Two recent, very high-profile judgements in Australia both repudiate the
> notion that copyright can protect collections of unoriginal facts. These are
> IceTV vs Nine Network (last year) and Telstra vs Phone Directories (this
> year). These effectively supersede the 2002 Telstra vs Desktop Marketing
> Systems judgement which did support sweat-of-the-brow for databases.
>
> A licence which only works through copyright (such as CC-BY-SA) will
> therefore offer little or no protection in Australia, compared to one which
> also includes a contractual element (such as ODbL).

What makes you think that contractual element will offer any
"protection" in Australia?  Has an Australian court case upheld the
enforcement of contractual restriction on people who didn't even know
the contract existed?

And who told you that OSM is a collection of unoriginal facts?  That
part of the argument is rather obviously untrue.  OSM is a collection
of unoriginal facts about as much as Wikipedia is.  Which is to say,
sure, it *contains* a collection of unoriginal facts, but it expresses
those facts in a unique way.