But I can't imagine what is going on at the MTA that they felt compelled to try to take this down in the first place. What on earth do they think they're trying to accomplish with it? Is there some kind of legal liability they think they're protecting themselves against? They're a governmental agency for crying out loud.
My guess is it's one person in a legal department operating somewhat independently trying to make a big splash with some higher-ups. That's the only way it would make sense to me.
I disagree with MTA’s actions here but can imagine some reasons someone would feel the need to act on this. If a third-party representation of the system becomes a dominant way people refer to it then it could impact MTA’s ability to make changes like adding/cutting service to a particular station or building new stations. It’s fine now when the transit system irl and the defendant’s map are in sync, but the problem is keeping it that way.
Why shouldn't they? For the sake of argument, assume that their claim is valid (and it's not obvious to me it isn't). Why shouldn't a government agency be a responsible steward of all of its assets including its intellectual property?
I hav a LOT of problems with the MTA, but this isn't one of them.
>Why shouldn't a government agency be a responsible steward of all of its assets including its intellectual property?
I'll bite. Because it clearly does not benefit the taxpayers that fund the agency.
The taxpayers paid the MTA to make a map. Assume someone creates a derivative work that makes more sense (mind you, this is clearly not what happened -- if it is not obvious to you, you have not really read the article).
There is absolutely no benefit to the taxpayers to have the "derivative" map removed. The availability of the "derivative" map does not affect the availability of the official map, which is given away for free (not for profit).
In other words, if I pay you to develop software, and someone else writes a better manual for it, you'd be an idiot to take that down, and I will not be happy.
I'm not sure I understand your statements, at once you've said it's obvious to you their claim isn't valid but then you say this isn't a problem for you?
Merely looking for clarification, does playing Lawyer's advocate really work if you've already acknowledged the claim has no merit?
My guess is it's one person in a legal department operating somewhat independently trying to make a big splash with some higher-ups. That's the only way it would make sense to me.