On the one hand the law should be freely available in full text to everyone. On the other hand, how many legislators are qualified to write a fire code?
Those two points don't really oppose each other...
Federal Court Says Public Safety Laws Can Be Locked Behind Paywalls
51–60 of 70 posts
Re: Federal Court Says Public Safety Laws Can Be Locked Behind Paywalls
#52How can one possibly respect a law one cannot read or any lawmakers/political bodies who make/encourage such laws or institutions claiming to enforce/defend them? What exactly is the difference for the accused between this situation and having legal cases randomly decided by random rules?
Their weird logic must be "we don't restrict access to the text of a law, you just have to pay for it".
Re: Federal Court Says Public Safety Laws Can Be Locked Behind Paywalls
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only reason why copyright exists is for the benefit of society. If copyright is ever used to the detriment of society, an adjustment is in order.
At what point in history would you say patent laws became beneficial to society? Patent law was created as a way for oligarchs to maintain economic power over their subjects[1], and it is still used as such[2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_roll [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
Patents represent a deal: You publish specifications, and society will grant you exclusive use for X years. Thankfully, unlike their copyright cousins, patent laws have not seen an increase in X. This serves to prevent knowledge from being locked away as trade secrets.
Beneficial to society? Drug companies have patents, and patents expire. Upon expiration, generics become available because the synthesis of the drugs is public knowledge, which creates a competitive market and lowers the price.
Without patents, the drug companies could (modulo other regulations) keep synthesis of their chemicals a trade secret, which may not be replicable in a reasonable time-frame.
Re: Federal Court Says Public Safety Laws Can Be Locked Behind Paywalls
#54I 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…
The moment it becomes a law, it should become a work of the Federal Government. If they draft it as a law, and it becomes a law, it should enter the standard of non-copyrightable public works (as we see on wikipedia for many releases from the federal government).
We're also ignoring something really troubling in this entire situation: the fact that private entities and lobbyists are drafting so much of our legislation (typically for their benefit). Sure there are some things like safety standards that I can see as best being worked on by several trade groups, but there is a considerable about of legislation drafted by banks, security firms and defense contractors that directly benefits those industries at the expense of the people.
Let's not forget the 2008 financial crisis, that was created by much of this type of legislation. Many of those banks committed outright fraud:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6khYSTqHrqM
..and none of those people from the bottom to the top, have never been charged with crimes. As they write more laws, they make the types of corruption they often engage in, legal.
Re: Federal Court Says Public Safety Laws Can Be Locked Behind Paywalls
#55interesting facts, from the decision:
Importantly, there is no evidence that the ... standards are unavailable to the public. In fact, the undisputed record evidence shows that the standards are required to be available in physical form from OFR; are available for purchase from the [first] Plaintiffs in hard copy and from the [second] Plaintiffs in hard copy and PDFs; and are accessible in read-only format for free in [second] Plaintiffs’ online reading rooms
If this information is freely available in electronic format — which seems to be the case for the second plaintiff — then in my mind the concern is greatly mitigated. The defendant could simply link out to the relevant page.
I'm surprised the decision doesn't mention the cost that the first plaintiff charges for the hard-copy of their standards (which are apparently not electronically available), since the cost/delay seems relevant. If the cost is hundreds or thousands of dollars, there definitely be cause for concern. On the other hand, if the cost is negligible, I'm somewhat less concerned.
To be clear, I still think that whatever agencies incorporate third-party content by reference should always require that the documents be freely available online. I just think these facts about current availability are interesting (and are not mentioned in the EFF post).
Re: Federal Court Says Public Safety Laws Can Be Locked Behind Paywalls
#56Earlier 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…
That would fit the definition of 'freely licensed'
Re: Federal Court Says Public Safety Laws Can Be Locked Behind Paywalls
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (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…
That's the point - the government doesn't give you a license for discoveries, only for creative work. The EFF et all weren't trying to rename the term, they were claiming that these standards were merely uncreative "discoveries", unlike every other copyrightable work.
I'm not following this line. Copyrights are never about facts, and always about their presentation.
If the facts are discovered or invented shouldn't have any importance.
Re: Federal Court Says Public Safety Laws Can Be Locked Behind Paywalls
#58I 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…
"But if the government can essentially revoke a private individual or company's copyright merely by incorporating otherwise protected text into legislation, that can have adverse effects on copyright holders." This is a settled area of law; revoking the copyright would be a "taking", inarguably for the public good, and the copyright holder would be entitled to just compensation. IMO that is the appropriate way to han…
> the copyright holder would be entitled to just compensation.
I would suggest that for a lot of organizations whose code has become written into laws, the organizations actually benefit from their incorporation even if they were to be required to release the copyright. They may lose some 'access-control' revenue from release of the copyright, but overall their closeness to the rules gives them ample opportunity to make money from associated services (e.g. training, consulting, membership and influence on revisions to name a few).
Re: Federal Court Says Public Safety Laws Can Be Locked Behind Paywalls
#59On the one hand the law should be freely available in full text to everyone. On the other hand, how many legislators are qualified to write a fire code?
Those two points don't really oppose each other...
The people who put together these codes spend a lot of time and effort doing it. They only get compensated by requiring people to pay for access via a copyright.
Some bodies do it without restricting access, like IEEE, but their work in contributed by interested parties who control their IP via other means. Companies will work on the next 802.11x, but they are always trying to guide the standard to benefit their company.
Re: Federal Court Says Public Safety Laws Can Be Locked Behind Paywalls
#60I 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…
Sue the government for taking your copyright.