UK Royal Mail Uses Copyright Claim To Shut Down Postal Code Info Online
from the address-not-found dept
One good thing in US copyright law compared to other countries is that we don't allow copyright on pure facts or on gov't produced information. Other countries aren't nearly as good about that, with ridiculous concepts like "Crown Copyright." Over in the UK, for example the Royal Mail has apparently bullied some site for making postal code data available. The info has now been taken offline, as the site claims it doesn't have the legal resources to fight this. The Royal Mail says that it was a violation of its intellectual property, and, of course, wants to license the database of postal codes at a mere £4,000 per year -- a bit steep for smaller community or non-profit sites. So, can anyone explain how copyright makes sense here? Was copyright really the incentive necessary to create postal codes?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, postal data, uk
Companies: royal mail
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That said - the story does show the stupidity of government officials
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if someone hosts the data in Nepal or Ukraine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish things were better in the U.S. than they are in the U.K. but they're not. Regardless of what Congress has enacted into law, or the Supreme Court has said about government works, the Post Office continues to "enforce" a copyright in their works.
The Copyright Office treats Post Office works as non-governmental works and grants registration, unquestionably due to some inter-agency lobbying -- licensing is a good money maker for the Post Office.
Now, you could, of course, use the Post Office's works without permission and you would never get sued (because they will never sue anyone for infringement and risk the precedent.) But if you have a company with anything to lose, you can't piss off the Post Office. The agency has an investigatory wing and you can't afford to make enemies.
It's the classic chilling effect; an agency that leverages their influence to break U.S. law and silence its citizens.
What can you do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What can you do? Easy answer....
Solution: STOP USING THE CODES.
Make these avaricious, lazy, good for nothing, suction devices attached to the Public Tax Teat look up the damn codes themselves for EACH and EVERY Piece of MAIL.
Of all the unmitigated gall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
e.g. the real story :
* has nothing to do with "crown copyright"
* might have legitimate legal basis "Harry Metcalfe, co-founder of Ernestmarples.com, declined to say how it got access to the postcode data."
* there are other sources of postcode data available although they might not be so accurate.
You'll never replace real journalism with this approach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The story sounds like Ernestmarples.com was hacking into their database to get the data. Whether that is or is not the case, declining the write your story evenhandedly has hurt your credibility.
Sad. =/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Hey! You wrote a love letter to your girlfriend! It's not fact checked! You're never going to replace real journalism with this approach!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But in this case, I think he's re-interpreting the article that he linked to. That's not fact checking, that's actually reading the article.
It's a key difference that I think is important. I think he's made a lot of great points and has pointed out some interesting things here. The problem is, if I can't trust that he's accurately relayed the details in the linked article how can I trust his conclusions?
Mike - I'd love to see a response, but I'm sure this comment is hidden under hundreds of others so I've had to resort to talking about you, not to you. Sorry!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A lot of the problem seems to be vague language: "We have simply asked a third party to stop allowing unauthorised access to Royal Mail data, in contravention of our intellectual property rights,"
There's some doubt as to what is meant by "unauthorised access" - did they mean "unauthorised use" (which would make sense since they go on to say it was in violation of IP rights) - or did they actually mean unauthorized access obtained through some nefarious means (which I agree is slightly suggested by the Metcalfe declining to comment and saying there are "questions" about how they obtained the data).
I'm not sure which is the case. Maybe this wasn't Mike's most thorough post ever, but I'm not ready to accuse him of "adding Masnick facts to make more of a splash"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The ROYAL Mail's "copyright" isn't crown copyright? Either it is, or they're misrepresenting themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The fact that they have any copyright at all means 'crown copyright.' Or as we say on this side of the pond, 'douchebag governmental copyright for no good reason.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is sadly enforcable.
The Royal Mail licenses the postcode database to businesses (this database can lookup addresses via postcodes, and look up postcodes via addresses). If another site is doing the same thing, thus getting around the pay-for option (It's £75,000 for a corporate license, you do the math for the $ cost), the Royal Mail has every right to protect its interests and IP.
Do I like it? No. But the company has certain rights to protect its income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is sadly enforcable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is sadly enforcable.
If you ahve a Sat Nav then ALL of this information is in there - in fact you can do the Address-post code and Post Code-> address thing quite easily and you can also link that data to a Latitude and Longitude.
The same information is also available via Google Maps.
Are they threatening Google?
No?
I wonder why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is sadly enforcable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is sadly enforcable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But now it's a private company, it doesn't fall under the government in anyway, it's therefore not - it's just "copyright"... surely? I can see how it *was*... "Royal Mail" is just a trademark now. It means nothing in the context of the public sector or government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But since the Royal Mail distributes postcode information freely online (on their website anyone can search an address and get the free zipcode, or vice versa) this case seems absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And just because you can find out postcode information freely online from the Royal Mail does not give you permission to scrape their site or allow you to redistribute that information, as I'm sure the Royal Mail website points out.
This is very much a non-issue.
Also with regards to Google, I think there is a licensing restriction (probably for a cheaper fee) that prevents them from displaying the full postcode on Google Maps (hence you only see the first half), although you can search with the full postcode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that of my workplace: L9 7AL
Public information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not so anonymous?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not so anonymous?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fact a quick google tells me that guy lives in Hornsey Road, Liverpool, Merseyside.
This is what's ridiculous. They aren't exactly hidden! Do I have to pay the Royal Mail every time I tell someone my address and use 'their' postcode?
The Posties are stiking over here AGAIN soon by the way.
And if you think 'not using the code' is going to force them to do more work? Beep - wrong answer! They just 'lose' the letter! 14.4million letters are lost every year according to BBC News. And thats WITH Post Codes!
I've spoken to post men about this before, to which they reply that the management are paid dispraportionate wages while they do all the leg work...Well fucking der?! That's how companies work! You knew that when you signed up for the job dipshit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Ernestmarples wants to make its own database of every postcode in the UK then I think that would be a different story - one RM may not like but would have less of a legal stand point. However I'm pretty sure that would be ridiculously time consuming.
As for people talking about other companies that offer postcodes, maybe they do have their own database or maybe, heaven forbid, they pay for a licence.
Royal Mail has to make money like every other company, would you rather they put up postage or cut workers pay so we have even more bloody strikes?
(PS The ROYAL Mail's "copyright" isn't crown copyright? Either it is, or they're misrepresenting themselves - this is a joke right?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope. No one has a right to "get paid" for their work. If the market/technology/climate changes and their business model can't handle it, that's THEIR problem, not those who demonstrated the problems with the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you saying they haven't been? Or just that they should *continue* to get paid.
If the latter, are the guys who actually did the work going to see any of that money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with Mike on this one and would also love an answer to his question, to "explain how copyright makes sense here? Was copyright really the incentive necessary to create postal codes?" I would especially love to hear an answer to this from those whom agree with the actions of Royal Mail et al.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hm !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2) As to 'government' having greater copyright privileges in the UK than in the USA, that is not true anymore. In the USA federal government is virtually untouchable, so cannot be sued successfully and they abuse that by claiming copyright and charging licensing for anything they get their hands on, including publicly owned art, documents, databases etc.
3) One can of course always move the copy of the postal database in the UK to a country that has no copyright treaty with the UK, and voila, the Royal Mail cannot touch you. The question is of course then how you can get any revenue from UK users sent to your country, since the UK can in theory confiscate any such revenue then as 'illegitimate'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In all, no professional would use Google as there are specialists such as Bing and ViaMichelin would have the full kit available for business's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]