Slashdot Mirror
Is Law Copyrighted?
Guppy06 writes: "There's an
interesting tidbit here at the San Diego Union-Tribune about a guy who posted his local (Denison, TX) building code on the internet and prompty got nasty-grams from copyright lawyers at the Southern Building Code Congress International Inc. The bill in question was copyrighted by the group before it was sent to the local legislature, so the wording of the law belongs to them. So far, two Federal courts agree with the group. In the article, they seem to be taking the Microsoft-esque view of 'Who would write these things for free? Look at all the good it's done!'" And since many laws are written wholly by groups composed of non-legislators (the article lists a few), disseminating them on the Internet is a misdeed?
An odd world indeed where you deny some of the citizens (the ones who can't afford to pay a private organization that presumably can price its "product" however it wishes!) the right to view, share, and circulate the law among themselves. At the very least, non-commercial distribution with any changes clearly marked ought to be allowed if we want the citizenry to have "equal protection of the laws."
The acutal case is Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l, 241 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2001). (Link is to Findlaw version.)
/.
It's a 2-1 decision from the 5th Circuit. The due process part of the decision appears to turn on the fact that the panel felt that no one was being denied access to the text of the code itself. The Fifth Circuit panel stated that "due process requires at a minimum that the codes should be available for inspection and copying at the city offices in towns where they have been adopted". However, Veeck admitted that the codes were available during times when city officials were available. So, I guess we want to ask ourselves, is 24-hour, online access a part of due process? Before the Internet, how many people had such ready access to the text of laws?
Also note that the Ninth Circuit has held that that the American Medical Association did not lose the right to enforce its copyright when use of its promulgated coding system was required by government regulations, and the Seocnd Circuit upheld the copyright of the "Red Book" projections of used car valuations...
This is not legal advice. If you need specific legal advice, consult with a lawyer, and not
IIRC, isn't everything from government SPECIFICALLY excluded from copyright, as it's all done using the people's money? That applies to state governments, too, who write the building codes...
According to the article, the building organization attacking our hero wrote the law and just handed it to the state to pass.
Private groups writing laws and handing them to legislative bodies for rubber-stamping...where have we seen this take place before *coughDMCAcough*? Only this time it looks like the body wants to make a buck off the law people are expected to follow.
This also creates a situation where a powerful private group with certain interests can draft a law heavily in their favour, get it passed by friends in a legislature, and keep it hidden from public view in order to keep people from seeing what their tax dollars went toward passing. Secret bodies of law? Rules that benefit a privileged few while no one else can see they exist? Sounds like paranoid fantasies, but this story goes to show such bizarre thoughts aren't too far from the realm of possibility.
That's it. I'm going to hide under the bed. Call me when the nightmare's over.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
This article discusses the February holding of the Fifth Circuit, and is just the latest incarnation of decades of case law addressing copyrightability of technical building codes. Similar cases dating back into the 80s have emerged from the Second, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits.
My point here is not to argue that the result is a good one (I dislike this on public policy grounds for reasons similar to those laid forth elsewhere in this thread), but to suggest that this is hardly "the beginning of the end," or some new malevolence from the recently copyright-hungry courts. Since the 80's, this is how the law has shaken out on building codes. Over more than twenty years from the earliest opinions in this thread of which I am aware, the sky has not yet fallen.
For a really interesting (and I think sound) discussion of why the case has merit and failings, I suggest reading the opinion and dissent itself, but particularly the dissent. They can be found here. I am most impressed with Judge Little's argument that, once enacted into law, the words of a statute no longer serve just their expressive purposes, but are transmogrified into a functional idea. Clearly a bit too metaphysical for the Courts, but I anticipate that someday this notion may hold sway.
In the meanwhile, building contractors have hardly had difficulty getting their hands on the building codes. They are readily available, both at the county clerk's office and from the original standards organizations.
If, in fact, the parade of horribles had happened -- that is to say that the codes were not available to those who required them, republication would clearly have been fair use.
What's next - speed limit signs with nothing but a toll-free number?
"Call now and mention this sign to learn how fast you may legally go - only $2.95 per call!"
And they say ignorance is no defense...
*scoove*
Seriously. Douglas Adam's really hit the head on the hammer. Compare this passage to the copyrighting building codes :)
"But Mr. Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody of anything."
"But the plans were on display..."
On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes, yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.' "
Chaos, Mayhem, and Destruction: Not
"Sorry kid, ignorance of the law is no excuse."
So I can't publish what laws I'm living under, because I don't own the copyright? That makes sense, now we just need a legislative body that use them, and we've got a *secret* law. Yep, that's right. Not even a law collection could publish it, if the copyright holders refuse.
Is it just me that has Kafka's "The process" (or whatever the correct english translation is) coming to mind?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If the law is illegal, only criminals will know the law!
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
Ignorance of a law is not a defense against it. Ok, now they are passing laws that are "copyrighted IP" which can be sold or published only at the discretion of the copyright holder...
Doesn't this seem to you like a great way for corps to get laws (like the DMCA) passed, then PREVENT the public from being able to even READ it without violating some inane IP law (like the DMCA)?
How would you, as an individual, DEFEND yourself against a law that you wouldn't even be allowed to READ except by license from your accuser?
How can you, as an iddividual citizen, excercise your Constitutionally protected right of PETITION to get a bad law overturned, if you couldn't even inform the public as to what your problems with that law were, except by getting a license from the very people you oppose?
I bet Valenti, et all are kicking themselves at this very moment for not thinking of this idea when they sent the DMCA to be rubber stamped by their bought congress and president...
I'm beginning to think maybe it's time to start thinking of emigrating to some other country that needs IT people.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
"How can anyone prohibit the distribution of written law in a democratic republic?"
Simply, you can't. With that, is proof that the USA has already crossed the line and is no longer a democratic republic, but rather an Oligarchy with a "republic esque" structure.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
"Scary indeed. Thanks for clearing that up.
I think I'm going to hide under my bed now, too. And they say you don't need to be paranoid..."
I feel the same. But there is another law passed by Congress in 1776 that has relevance for this kind of situation... I better post this now, before some anti-freedom 4 letter acronym copyrights it:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
"And because the DCMA makes it illegal to break a protection system, any part of this conversation about changing this copyrighted law is illegal."
When that starts happening, then the intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment becomes obvious...
Judges making stupid rulings like this, in total contempt and defiance of the Constitution that makes this country a Republic, not a Monarchy, need to leard to FEAR and respect the People they serve. They are in office as servants of the Law, the highest Law being the Constutution. The Law is not THEIR servant.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
It is only lately that laws have been made available to the common man.
If you try to find out about trade regulations and stuff, you will need to read a few truckloads of stuff.
For example, in Norway, we had this volunteer project going, where we tried to collect all of Norwegian law online. We had too weed out footnotes that had been added by the publisher of the law books, since those were the intellectual property of the publisher. We did not trust that the publisher would not stop the project, so the homepage was moved to Switzerland.
It was easy to hold us accountable for what we did. However, it should have been the government's duty to make this information available. We shouldn't have had to act as vigilantes to make this information available. It is much harder to hold a government accountable, or force them to do something in a timely fashion. It is written in the law, that the law must be made available to all citizens, but the law fails to mention how that should be done. (Sure, it's available. Just visit the national archives, and you can peruse the documents. We're not stopping you.). The law does state, that not knowing about a law is not a valid excuse for breaking the law.
The common man must use his own common sense to try and keep his nose clean; laws are just to unwieldy to make any sense. But common sense is not enough. How many times have you said "There's gotta be some law agaist that". Or "Is that the law? who thinks up this shit?"
Common sense works great if the law was based on that. But it is not. Law is decided by politicians, who openly receive bribes (or campaign contributions as they call it). Both republican and democrats are prostitutes in this area. Do you really think there will be a campaign reform anytime soon? Forget it. Both parties get too much money, and they would not be so stupid that they would bite off the hand that feeds them . However, they should remember that they are in office toserve the public.
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.