31–40 of 70 posts
Seems like an oversimplification of the issue, but the consequences are certainly disturbing.
Some weird corner of the law gets ruled on, but it has odd implications for the rest of us ... questions and concerns abound ...
I don't get the criticism against the judge or the ruling. Frankly, the arguments presented by Resource.org seem to be unpersuasive (the claim that these standards are "discovered facts" is just insulting to the engineers that worked on them) and completely unsupported by the law. It's not the judge's fault that your Congress and other governments have sold you out. Go sue them for enforcing laws you can't read.
"I don't get the criticism against the judge or the ruling." It's actually directly contrary to rulings in other states, circuits, etc. Even the supreme court has held, consistently, since 1888, that the law is free. 'the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration of unwritten law, or an interpretation of a constitution…
Frankly, the idea that you can sue people or charge them with a crime, for a law they have to pay to read is insulting to everyone, and very clearly not constitutional.
My point exactly! They should be suing the State for doing that! Not trying to invalidate some company's copyrighted standard.
I can see troubling consequences that arise from both sides' arguments. If private companies can hold copyrights on portions of the law, that inhibits access to those laws, and I think any reasonable person would agree that citizens have a basic right to access the text of laws and legally binding regulations, and paywalls or other restrictions conflict with that right. But if the government can essentially revoke a…
I think this is how it works with aircraft. The manufacturer issues at POH (Pilot Operating Handbook), and the pilot must operate the aircraft in accordance with this POH. Also the pilot is required to have the POH available in the aircraft anytime it is being flown.
More info on the POH/AFM: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/a...
Copyright law needs some serious reform. It's unconscionable that you can't even share the laws that govern you. We really need an exception for things that are considered "public" knowledge, including freedom of panorama. (I can't even take a picture of my own city if it contains an artwork in it) We also need to do something about orphaned works. Sadly, it's in the interest of Disney and other corporations that the…
There's no need for a copyright exception, people crafting public laws should simply not incorporate material that cannot be published along with the law.
Also, there's the question of what to do with historical laws. For example, buildings being renovated sometimes have to follow the building codes corresponding to their original construction date. So the current laws that the publishers are trying to paywall may be relevant for another 100 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. I think the pragmatic reponse is to say that from now on laws shouldn't be able to incorporate by reference works that aren't freely licensed. That means that law makers would have to create their own work (perhaps based on the concepts in the trade group's documents). If the trade groups wanted regulations to reflect their work exactly, they would have to freely license, at which point they could be referenc…
"Our works are free. But you have to contact an unlisted phone number, at a specified time we don't state, to a man who is only authorized to grant access when funds are available. And the times of access are limited to 100 hours per month, or less when restricted. And the location in which to meet is in the capitol at a building with no parking, and the hardest to get to. Or you can buy the code for the low price of…
UpCodes provides a search engine into the codes, pinning (bookmarking) codes, a collaboration tool and finally weaves in local laws and amendments right into the code.
I don't get the criticism against the judge or the ruling. Frankly, the arguments presented by Resource.org seem to be unpersuasive (the claim that these standards are "discovered facts" is just insulting to the engineers that worked on them) and completely unsupported by the law. It's not the judge's fault that your Congress and other governments have sold you out. Go sue them for enforcing laws you can't read.
As an engineer, I don't see why. Discovery is still hard and valuable work.
I personally also think the use of terminology like "discovery" rather than "invention" reinforces that you don't have some divine, exclusive right to control what you've created, but that discoveries are to benefit all of humanity. The government gives you a time-limited exclusive license as a reward for taking the risk and doing the hard work to make these discoveries.
I don't get the criticism against the judge or the ruling. Frankly, the arguments presented by Resource.org seem to be unpersuasive (the claim that these standards are "discovered facts" is just insulting to the engineers that worked on them) and completely unsupported by the law. It's not the judge's fault that your Congress and other governments have sold you out. Go sue them for enforcing laws you can't read.
> (the claim that these standards are "discovered facts" is just insulting to the engineers that worked on them) As an engineer, I don't see why. Discovery is still hard and valuable work. I personally also think the use of terminology like "discovery" rather than "invention" reinforces that you don't have some divine, exclusive right to control what you've created, but that discoveries are to benefit all of humanity…