TileProxy and Vista64 woes...

[jdoon5261]

64 bit won't allow some of the drivers to load because there is not a valid digital signature. Any ideas how to get around this.
John

[Irocx]

64 bit won't allow some of the drivers to load because there is not a valid digital signature. Any ideas how to get around this.
John

Hi John,

How to Disable Driver Signing in Windows Vista 64-bit (x64):http://digiex.net/guides-tutorials/1...4-bit-x64.html

Hope it helps - as always do so at your own risk.

[xxmikexx]

Be advised that Maps2BGL probably, and Tile Proxy definitely, are tools that deliberately flout the maps data service agreements for Google and Yahoo for sure, and probably for the Microsoft maps data service as well.

A Tile Proxy article was pulled from the front page of this site, and the Tile Proxy program was removed from the file library of this site, for the reasons cited in the earlier paragraph.

[Paxx]

But if you have not agreed to the service agreements how are you bound by them? It is entirely possible to configure Tile Proxy to use these services without seeing a service agreement. As an end user downloading these 'tiles' there is no liability, the 'tiles' are publicly provided by a legitimate licensee, ie. Google/Yahoo etc.

Downloading is not illegal, nor does it violate copyright law no matter how much IP holders wish that it was and did. Downloading is not theft as some would like to insinuate that it is. Most people really don't understand the fine points of copyright law.

[xxmikexx]

I don't think it matters whether service agreements are signed or not -- because the result of flouting even the not-agreed-to rules is a copyright infringement regarding the original map data provider's imagery, which would stand independent of any service agreement, or so it seems to me, a layman.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I have to include my usual disclaimer. I'm not an attorney and I'm not giving legal advice here. If anybody is seriously concerned about this matter he should consult with a suitably qualified attorney.

EDIT: If there's access without an agreement, wouldn't that be theft of services?

[scruffyduck]

I think that is what it comes down to. I have seen so many of these threads concerning the legality of using tiles and/or maps. The fact is that they are copyright and subject to terms and conditions. Any user has to comply with these and ignorance is generally no defense. If in doubt consult a lawyer must always be the correct way to proceed.

[Paxx]

Uh guys, PROVIDING copyrighted material you don't own the rights to is a copyright law violation and actionable. Both of your arguments are based on a flawed interpretation of the law.

Scruffy, ignorance of a service agreement is no excuse? Ok if this is the case you owe me $100 US dollars because you are ignorant of my "reading my post fee", these are terms and conditions you agreed to by reading my post even though I didn't tell you, remember ignorance is no excuse. If you do not understand the point of this example, then please send that hundred dollars right along.

Mike, the people providing the copyrighted material (google/Yahoo etc.) own a license to do that. It is perfectly legal for anyone to download it under any conditions from them as long as other, in this case, computer crimes are not committed. Repeat any. Downloaders are only bound by an agreement if they agree to it, or access material from a copyright holder in such a way that they have to agree to it. If the material is accessed in a perfectly legal way without having to agree to any agreements, and the content was provided by a lawful copyright holder, then there is no crime and no copyright violation. Period.

[xxmikexx]

Paxx,

In general, when it comes to copyright infringements you can sue only for lost profits. Our reading your posts has cost you nothing therefore any suit you might bring would probably be tossed out by a judge so no, nobody owes you $100, or any other amount for that matter. (Well, I guess that zero is an amount, but you know what I mean.)

I agree with your statement "If the material is accessed in a perfectly legal way without having to agree to any agreements, and the content was provided by a lawful copyright holder, then there is no crime and no copyright violation. Period." That is precisely the situation with respect to your posting on FlightSim.com -- You own the copyright, though this too is debtable since the front of the site says "Content copyright FlightSim.com" or words to that effect, and you posted of your own free will -- like contributing free gratis a Letter To The Editor, or like making a call to a talk radio show.

But anyway, let's say that you DO own the copyright. There is no agreement between us forbidding me to read your stuff, you broke no laws when you posted it, webmaster Nels Anderson broke no laws when he allowed your post to stand (because you yourself rather than some third party posted your copyright content) and so on.

So you're right in what you wrote. However, the question is whether the Tile Proxy situation fits your situation description, and my assertion is that it does not. The situation at hand would be more like unsustainably arguing "I'm off the hook because the lights were on, nobody was home, so I picked the front door lock, went in and took whatever I wanted, including furniture belonging to a rental company, because I never agreed not to."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I believe the whole thing comes down to this: If you accessed the data but did not sign the service agreement then you have stolen the services. That part of it isn't a copyright infringment, it is arguably a more serious criminal offence -- theft of services. If true, and I believe it is, that would mean that your situation description does not apply to the Tile Proxy situation, and your having stolen the services would inevitably be accompanied by an infringement of the original provider's map data copyright.

(This has been a civilized debate so far, and an enjoyable one that I hope will educate the readership. Now ...)

But let's say that you're right, that I'm completely wrong, and that Tile Proxy does not infringe copyrights. Do you agree that Google et al would be within their rights to charge $1,000,000 per minute for allowing access to the map data via Tile Proxy? And that it would be acceptable for them to do this even if they did not charge the users of any other program that accessed the map data? And that failing to pay these fees would be theft of services? And that such criminal theft of the services would result in copyright infringement?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Readers, I'm not an attorney and this stuff isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice you should consult a suitably qualified attorney.

[xxmikexx]

I will also observe that if you're willing to flout Google's terms of service, you should be willing to ignore each and every freeware developer license terms of use statement. In particular, if you're urging others to ignore Google's terms of service then by implication you're jeopardizing the whole freeware and open source movement, are you not?

If not, what's the difference between the two classes of situation?

[Paxx]

No. It would be kind if you didn't continue to put words in peoples mouths but I have noticed that is your way and you can't help it.

But they would be within their rights to control access and keep tile proxy users from accessing their content. As of right now google and yahoo don't so it isn't 'theft of services' as you seem to think. Downloading stuff from an 'open' server isn't theft and it isn't a copyright violation.

If you seriously believe I am attempting to charge people for reading my posts, you completely don't understand my argument or you don't want to. No amount of my explaining anything to you will ever change your mind so I won't even try. Go ahead and disagree, that is your right.

You just like to argue. Have fun. You are better than I mike in every way, I cannot compete with someone who has such an extensive background of all things knowable. My god man you have done everything doable on the planet and no man or woman can debate the infinite knowledge you possess. You are truly a Lord of the Forum. This will the last response to any post by you, its just not worth the time, minutia or being insulted by your 'style' as you say. Welcome to ignore.

Note - I am not a priest , father, rabbi, cleric, monk, archbishop, pope or indian soothsayer, so my assessment of mike as a lord of the forum may be suspect..