—By Elisabeth Oppenheimer

Fascinating: Steven Peterson, a web developer in San Francisco, put together a handy iPhone app called Routesy that gives schedules and arrival times for Muni, the city’s public transit system. The underlying data is collected by a company called NextBus, which puts trackers on the various vehicles. Generativity at its best—the government releases some data, people turn the data into something useful.

Then a guy named Peter Orloff emailed Peterson to say that he was from NextBus Information Systems, he had all the data copyrighted, and Peterson would have to arrange some sort of revenue split if he wanted to keep offering his app. After some research, Peterson says he found that NextBus Information Systems had no real connection to NextBus and was very unlikely to own the data (although there is a dubious legal claim), so he ignored Orloff and went on selling the app. So Orloff went to Apple and demanded that they stop selling Routesy, claiming that it violated his copyrights. Apple pulled it down, and Peterson couldn’t do anything about it—although he got lots of supportive emails, and says that “It’s really heartwarming to see so many people so passionate about using public transportation.”

The thing is, though, Orloff doesn’t seem to have a valid copyright claim. Muni says the data is public and sharing is encouraged. When Eve Batey, a reporter from SF Appeal, confronted Orloff about the copyright issue, he gave a series of truly bizarre excuses. (Article headline: “Muni Arrival Data App Killer Fears Attacks From Enraged Data/Transit Fiends.”)

This actually looks similar to the DMCA notice-and-takedown regime for ISPs. Under the DMCA, copyright holders can inform an ISP that they’re hosting an infringing work, and the ISP must disable access to the site if it wants to retain a blanket-like immunity against a claim for contributory copyright infringement. The site creator can, however, send a counter-notice protesting that the copyright claim is invalid, and the ISP may then restore access to the work unless the copyright holder files a lawsuit within 14 days of the counter-notice. Although there are disagreements over the DMCA standard, which was a compromise between the ISPs’ interests and the copyright holders’ interests, is it relatively clear and workable.

Apple, I think, would do well to adopt some kind of similar standard for claims against existing apps. They certainly ought to have a way for app creators to lodge a counterclaim against protestors. Apple apps are, and will increasingly be, big business, and so people with both good and malicious intentions will be very concerned about copyright. (It doesn’t even need to just be copyright: recall the groups that rallied to get BabyShaker off the iPhone because it was incredibly tasteless.) This is just another aspect of the problem that Apple is trying to be an omnipotent gatekeeper, but without the manpower to be omniscient—to investigate each app for security, copyright, and tastefulness.

More generally, I think we’ll soon need clear standards on the rights and responsibilities of mobile carriers, hardware providers, and OS creators. Who will be given broad, ISP-like immunity, and who won’t? Mobile computing is going to be too important to have very powerful ad hoc gatekeepers with conflicting, overlapping, or unrealistic roles.