| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15142
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:35 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| xspartx wrote: |
If the updates were "perfect" then £19 would be fine, but my experience is that they contain many out of date camera's that are simply not there. I realise that it is very hard to monitor things like mobile camera's ofc, but when you are charging £20 a year, the expectation level increases.
|
please submit them then! you may just qualify for a free lifetime subscription!
MaFt |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GPS_fan
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jan 04, 2007
Posts: 2789
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MaFt wrote: | | the figures speak for themselves! nearly all of the pirated copies were from users who subscribed on the monthly option presumably because the loss of £2 isn't too much to worry about. it was never said that ALL monthly subscribers shared the database though. |
Could it help to quash the argument if these figures were published, showing the actual number of monthly, annual and lifetime (if any) subscribers who have received a ban?
I believe that listing user IDs would be a real deterrent, but that's only my personal view and others may disagree - you would be giving a user ID rather than a name, so there would still be an element of anonymity.
_________________
Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darren
Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:35 am Post subject: Re: IPR ? |
|
|
| mrg2003 wrote: | If I submit a camera to PGPSW, and also to another database, who owns the IPR?, surely me, as I identified it and I can submit it to whom I like? IS every item in the PGPSW database recorded against individuals, or PGPSW?
Are the databases somehow keyed (MD5?) to each user?
I'm sure i asked this before, but didn't get an answer |
You cannot claim ownership of a co-ordinate because a location is public domain. You are of course free to submit it to as many sites as you choose. What we claim ownership of is the compiled database as a 'collective work'. A good analogy is the PostCode Database or the Phone Book. The individual entries are not copyrighted but the collective result is.
Every submission can be tracked back to an individual, this is necessary both to identify a user if he/she qualifies for lifetime subscription and also to ensure our database isn't being abused with false reports etc.
As has been said many many times in this thread and elsewhere we can uniquely identify each download and track it back to a single subscriber even if the database has been manipulated in an attempt to remove any traces.
_________________
Darren Griffin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darren
Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GPS_fan wrote: | Could it help to quash the argument if these figures were published, showing the actual number of monthly, annual and lifetime (if any) subscribers who have received a ban?
I believe that listing user IDs would be a real deterrent, but that's only my personal view and others may disagree - you would be giving a user ID rather than a name, so there would still be an element of anonymity. |
It's something we could calculate quiet easily, I'll look at the records.
As for identifying users, I'd love to do it but it's a very grey area and I don't want to step over what we are permitted to do within the law. User ID's are not always anonymous.
_________________
Darren Griffin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darren
Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| xspartx wrote: | I haven't read all the posts on here (not time!) but my threepennyworth is:
£19 a year is too much for the occasional user
£2 for "one month" was too little.
Maybe £10 for a one month one-off would have been better, with a £19 option for all year? |
A nice idea but I doubt anyone would take up the option of £10 for one month.
| Quote: | | If the updates were "perfect" then £19 would be fine, but my experience is that they contain many out of date camera's that are simply not there. I realise that it is very hard to monitor things like mobile camera's ofc, but when you are charging £20 a year, the expectation level increases. |
I'm never sure how to reply to such statements. I do know that excluding mobiles our database is very very accurate and does not contain out of date cameras. Mobiles is of course the hardest type to accurately capture but if there is a location in our database it has been identified as a mobile site by multiple reports, how do you determine when these are no longer active sites?
_________________
Darren Griffin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xda
Lifetime Member
Joined: Mar 11, 2004
Posts: 1199
Location: Park Gate
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Darren wrote: | | I'm never sure how to reply to such statements. I do know that excluding mobiles our database is very very accurate and does not contain out of date cameras. Mobiles is of course the hardest type to accurately capture but if there is a location in our database it has been identified as a mobile site by multiple reports, how do you determine when these are no longer active sites? |
Darren, could not some form of time limit be applied to the mobile sites.
Something along the lines, that if a mobile site has not received a new confirmation, change or verification in 12 months or other suitable time span it is removed from the database, or transferred to the Pmobile. A sort of annual pruning.
_________________
Graham.
TT Go720, App:9.510(1234792.1) OS:842337
GPS: V1.20, Boot: 5.5279, Home: V2.9.5.3093
Map: Europe V910.4892
Map: Europe_Truck V870.3421, Kingston 8GB SD
Nokia 925 Windows 8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darren
Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| xda wrote: | Darren, could not some form of time limit be applied to the mobile sites.
Something along the lines, that if a mobile site has not received a new confirmation, change or verification in 12 months or other suitable time span it is removed from the database, or transferred to the Pmobile. A sort of annual pruning. |
We have considered this but it presents many problems. The risk of removing a site that is still active but has not been witnessed in operation is high and then that brings the possibility of being caught at a later date.
It's the balance between having a cut-off which would automatically wean inactive sites and the risk of removing valid and active locations simply because we do not have a recent report.
If there was an easy answer to this we'd take it!
_________________
Darren Griffin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tigre64
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Mar 11, 2004
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If the updates were "perfect" then £19 would be fine, but my experience is that they contain many out of date camera's that are simply not there. I realise that it is very hard to monitor things like mobile camera's ofc, but when you are charging £20 a year, the expectation level increases. |
So why don't you go and try another comercially available database such as Cyclops , which in my experience is a lot less accurate and concise than the PGPSW one, oh and it cost a lot more, and as far as i know all the other comercial camera databases cost a lot more as well. -
there just no pleasing some people !!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skippy
Pocket GPS Verifier
Joined: 24/06/2003 00:22:12
Posts: 2946
Location: Escaped to the Antipodies! 36.83°S 174.75°E
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| xda wrote: | | if a mobile site has not received a new confirmation, change or verification in 12 months or other suitable time span it is removed from the database, or transferred to the Pmobile. A sort of annual pruning. |
I reported a mobile site (which I passed twice a day) and then didn't see it working for 18 months or more. I felt bad about reporting it and started to wonder if it was used anymore, then one day it was back.....
_________________
Gone fishing! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josev
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Mar 23, 2005
Posts: 3
Location: Harleston, Norfolk
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm wondering if it would be possible to purchase the speed camera database by region at a reduced cost?
I live in East Anglia and don't travel out of this area yet would have to pay the £19 for the complete coverage which I do not need. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darren
Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josev wrote: | I'm wondering if it would be possible to purchase the speed camera database by region at a reduced cost?
I live in East Anglia and don't travel out of this area yet would have to pay the £19 for the complete coverage which I do not need. |
We have no easy way of breaking the database down by region.
_________________
Darren Griffin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dickiemint
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2006
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:20 pm Post subject: Annual subscription |
|
|
I totally agree with your decision and would like to suggest that perhaps you consider longer term memberships at current value.
Example this year will cost £19.00 with potential increases for year 2 and 3 when I renew (at least £57).
I would suggest a 3 year for memebership for say £47.00 a £10 saving over 3 years but those of us who use your database and appreciate all the hard work would I suspect opt for 3 year memberships, hence securing future development etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
electron278ts
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jun 01, 2007
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: Database |
|
|
| I fail to see how a person who would pay the monthly charge to pass on a database would not pay the yearly charge and pass on one that was always up to date. Sounds more like an excuse for a price hike to me. Sorry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GPS_fan
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jan 04, 2007
Posts: 2789
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:16 am Post subject: Re: Database |
|
|
| electron278ts wrote: | | I fail to see how a person who would pay the monthly charge to pass on a database would not pay the yearly charge and pass on one that was always up to date. Sounds more like an excuse for a price hike to me. Sorry. |
The ID of the person downloading a database is encoded within that database, so even if it's an old database that's passed on, they still pass on their ID.
If someone subscribed £2 for a month and got banned, they stood to lose less than paying an annual subscription of £19 and getting banned and figures show that the vast majority of offenders have been monthly subscribers.
_________________
Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
electron278ts
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jun 01, 2007
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If you know who they are anyway it proves my point. When they have to subscribe for a year to do it how do you intend stopping them. Or will that have to be accepted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
![]() Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising |
|
|
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
