Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Law
Russ Nelson writes "The U.S. Supreme Court just announced its refusal to review the 5th
Circuit's en banc decision that there can be no copyright of
privately authored laws offered to U.S. governmental bodies for adoption. The
model law itself may be copyrighted, but once it's adopted, the law
must be open source. The entire case is laid out on Peter Veeck's
page." Slashdot touched on this before, but never really covered this dispute in depth. Here's a nice legal summary of the case.
"The Primary Purpose of Copyright Law is not to Provide a Benefit to Authors, But to Provide the Public With Access to Authors' Works."
Fascinating, isn't it?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Freakin common sense strikes court system. Film at 11:00
Someone should slip the source code for Linux in one of those mamoth appropriation bills Congress passes right before the end of session. Since the lawmakers never read the bills they vote on, and law becomes uncopyrightable *presto* no more SCO problems.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
This should really be considered "Public Domain" law rather then OpenSource. OpenSource, by definition is copyrighted material. While material in the public domain is without copyright.
Mecworks BLOG
The problem is that they won't allow anonymous CVS commits.
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
Without private ownership of our laws, what incentive will there be for corporations to write innovative new laws? Now that there is no way for businesses to make money writing laws, our nation's lawmaking process is going to wither up and die.
The law is public domain. Use the correct term, desire for buzzword compliance notwithstanding.
sulli
RTFJ.
it makes little sense to refer to any law as 'open source.' Laws aren't like open source computer code that can be tinkered with by anybody with the proper knowhow. Laws are altered by a constitutionally defined procedure by the various branches of our government.
A much better term would be that these laws enter the public domain.
sig my booty, check my website
http://regionalweb.texoma.net/cr/VEEKbrief.html This may be a bit easier to read...
Kids these days. They don't know the difference between classic, and just plain old.
Imagine if it hadn't passed.
Ignorance would have to be an acceptable defence.
It would allow lawyers to rambus the legal system.
Seinfeld described lawyers as those annoying people that actually read the back of the box for the odd rules in the game. Imagine if they could now cut out parts of the rules and hide them.
I sympathize with the standards organizations, but a free society cannot tolerate hidden laws. The standards organizations created the standards specifically to be placed into law, and that means full knowledge that it must be public. The people that care about the standards will still participate, as it's in their own interest to do so.
s/open source/in the public domain/g
whatever lameness they used to code that page has been eliminated here:
:
In the Supreme Court of the United States
Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc, Petitioner
v.
Peter Veeck, D/B/A Regional Web
No. 02-355
Update June 3065, 2003
Summary
On June 27 the Supreme Supreme Court decided not to hear an appeal of the Fifth Circuit court June 7, 2002 decision in Veeck vs. SBCCI No. 99-40632 that when a copyrighted standard or code is referenced into law (particularly if it thereby becomes "the law"), the developer cannot enforce its copyright against a free distribution of the standard
June 27, 2003 02-355 SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE V. VEECK, PETER
The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
This case is a matter of considerable concern to the Southern Building Code Congress International (SBBI) and to many other standards developers who depend upon the sales of their published and copyrighted standards to support their continued operation. On June 6 the Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. (SBCCI) had filed a Supplemental Brief with the United States Supreme Court in response to a brief filed with the Supreme Court on May 30 by the Office of the Solicitor General.
The Solicitor General distills the essence of the dispute below:
Question Presented (to the Solicitor General) by the Supreme court on December 2, 2002 as discussed in the May 30 amicus
This case concerns model codes written and copyrighted by a private organization. The codes apply to the construction, alteration, use, occupancy, and maintenance of buildings and the electrical, plumbing, mechanical and gas systems in them and provided criminal misdemeanor penalties for failure to comply. The private organization offers the codes to government entities for enactment into law. Two municipalities enacted ordinances that adopted the model codes by reference. The question presented is: Whether copyright law gives the private organization the right to restrict individuals from making copies of the material incorporated by reference in the municipal codes of the two municipalities.
Peter Veeck provides free access to information about the rural areas of Texas north of Dallas, including the codes and ordinances of the cities of the area, Veeck filed suit in federal district court in Sherman, Texas, against the Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI) for a declaration that the SBCCI standard codes which are adopted by reference by the cities in the Texoma area are in the public domain and not subject to the copyright claimed by SBCCI. He filed suit in Texas after being threatened with suit by SBCCI which is located in Alabama. Amicus Curae by SDOs
On May 30, 2003 the Solicitor General of the United States Department of Justice essentially concluded that copyright law does not give a private organization the right to restrict individuals from making copies of the material incorporated by reference in the municipal codes of the two municipalities. The Solicitor General stated, "This case involves a comprehensive code specifically created for enactment into law and designed broadly to regulate the primary conduce of private parties, The court of appeals' holding that such a code may be copied by interested members of the public is correct, it is consistent with the views of the only other court of appeals to address the same issue and it does not conflict with any decision of any other court of appeals. There is a broad range of differing governmental uses of a wide variety of different types of privately copyrighted materials, In a few cases, the courts of appeals have addressed the issues arising form such uses; they have divide between those involving the incorporation of copyrighted codes into laws that directly regulate primary conduct and those involving laws that reference copyrighted materials. In
No. The situation is this:
A private organization creates some specifications for building. They hold the copyright on this, as they are the creators.
The organization offers the codes to municipal governments for adoption into law.
The private organization wants to keep the copyright over the material itself. They don't want to lose control of these specifications; if that happened then another individual or private organization could freely use the specifications in their own work (such as in building handbook).
The court decided that since the private organization in question had offered the specifications to governments for use, they didn't retain ownership over what was adopted into law.
Now I think the courts made a wise decision. But, you know, it's not a cut-and-dried issue; you can make arguments for both sides. The plaintiffs in this aren't trying to copyright laws--their copyright existed BEFORE the laws were enacted. The question is whether their copyright survives the process of being adopted by governmental entities, and I know this is heresy on slashdot, but not every legal case is a matter of common sense--these are complicated issues.
105. Subject matter of copyright:
United States Government Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. If public interest groups draft model laws that they want enacted, they should be prepared to lose any copyright in those model laws if, in fact, they get adopted. What the hell would they want to keep the copyright for, anyway? Other than cock-strocking.
I suppose, however, that applies only to US government works and not US State Government works. Just another reason why we don't need states, and they sure as hell shouldn't have any rights. When has "state's rights" ever been used as an argument for anything worthy and moral?
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Open Source laws would require that the human-readable source english be freely distributed with the lawyernary files executed by the court.
paintball
- James Madison (Fourth President of the United States)
while making sure laws remain open is a good and necessary thing to maintain a transparent state with de jure authority, it only goes so far. if the laws are open but the interests, motivations and business dealings of lawmakers remain opaque then the openess is not complete.
mit (yep, the massachussets institute of technology) has been running a site for a while now dedicated to allowing citizens to monitor and research their legislators (and executives). the mission statement says it all:
To empower citizens by providing a single, comprehensive, easy-to-use repository of information on individuals, organizations, and corporations related to the government of the United States of America.
To allow citizens to submit intelligence about government-related issues, while maintaining their anonymity. To allow members of the government a chance to participate in the process.
the full site is at: http://opengov.media.mit.edu/
it's a good read.
2 1337 4 u!
The question is whether their copyright survives the process of being adopted by governmental entities
Sort of, but not exactly. The court agrees that their copyright survives the process of being adopted by government entities. However, it also becomes an uncopyrightable fact, in its entirety and without modification.
It's kind of an anomoly of copyright law. If two people independently come up with the exact same poem (for instance), they both have independent copyrights on the exact same text. This ruling creates something similar. As law, it is public domain, but as model codes, the copyright stands.
Copyright is automatic you write something it has Copyright even this what I am typing has Copyright. The question for the Copyright holder is will I or will I not protect it. As a Copyright holder I have the right to say that you can use it how you wish.
Now Copyright does Not mean that all stuff you have the right to charge money on. Once decared public domain all right to charge money for it are gone. As in this case they said that laws once passed were public domain. This mean If I think up a good law and someone wants to pass it for the first time at least they have to give me credit unless I tell them that they can take the credit.
Now if it might be required to buy me out or hire me or do something to get the law. What do you think some of the public servents get payed to do.
Basicly Copyright does go on. Now a goverment might try to place a law with a read fee but this is not good as if this is required the best you could get in court
judge: did you know about xyz law.
defendat: No I could not afford to pay the fee to find out about it.
judge: You are Free to go.
Now the reason why is simple you can not be charged for doing something wrong if they was not a fair chance to find out about it. And the judge could not tell you the law with out paying the fee if the judge to tell you the law there is a fair chance that you would just get of with a warning and get to know the law for free anyhow.
Now lets get to the tricky bit there is no reson why laws could not be a licence simlar to gpl not this would have to be stated when the law is passed. That another ruling body (goverments) who wanted to use the law would have to buy it. But every one else could read it for free and use it for free so no Judge problem.
Now there is no reason why the law could not be rewrite by working backward how the law effected people and writing a new law that did the same thing just a different way. Basicly copyright is extramelly weak. And normally from a developers point of view can not afford code around.
Actually, you have it reversed. Peter Veeck did not write the codes. He published the codes that SBCCI wrote.
SBCCI threatened to sue him for publishing the codes. Peter Veeck sued first for a declaratory judgment in a Texas federal court. He probably did this to eliminate the risk that they would drag him to federal court in Alabama (their location).
the average citizen has no chance in HELL of even possibly knowing a fraction of a percent of them, much less understanding them
Fortunately, the average citizen has no chance in HELL of ever needing to know most of them. Quick! What's the statutory quorum for a meeting of your local water board? How many days before trial can you file a motion for summary judgment in your state? How many parts per million of formaldehyde can you have in crazy glue? Answer: who cares? If for some reason it matters to you, you can go and seek *that particular fact* out. Or hire a professional to find it out for you. But the average reader sitting in his chair reading Slashdot is not going to go to jail over his ignorance of these matters.
The laws that *matter* on a day to day basis are the ordinary criminal laws - and you already know those. Don't run anybody over. Don't shoplift. Don't steal money that somebody asked you to look after.
The law isn't secret. It's just complicated. It's complicated because the scope of human interactions is complicated. Some people buy houses from each other. Some people sail ships in waters that don't belong to any country. Some people steal things in complicated ways. Some people die and ask for unusual things to be done with their property afterwards.
The legislature's job is to make laws as clearly as possible to help keep all this running smoothly. The lobbyist's job is to suggest legislation, or keep an eye on others peoples' suggestions, in hopes that laws favorable to them will be created. (And legislators listen to them because it's hard to be an expert in both, say, environmental water quality regulation and securities oversight. Lobbyists have sway not merely because they have money, but because they have expertise which they can share with legislators. Wise legislators, of course, listen to both sides.) The judge's job is to interpret the legislature's laws, as well as the traditions passed down from earlier judges. The appellate judge's job is to create law in the cracks where the legislature hasn't, like putty joining everything together. The lawyer's job is to make sense of all this and act as an interface between the system and an individual person.
None of this is mysterious. And none of it is a conspiracy against you. Nobody likes having complicated laws. It's a pain in the ass for judges, and for lawyers, and for ordinary citizens. Want to know why so many corporations are based in Delaware? It's because they have really good corporate laws that are straightforward and easy to understand. Makes it a good place to set up shop.
ASA
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
Laws are enacted for the benefit of the public. One of the bedrocks of jurisprudence is that the law must be publicly known for it to have any benefit at all, otherwise ignorance would be used as a defence. Righly so, to ask the public to remit a fee to obtain a copy of the laws that we are to keep completely undermines this principle.
Yes, there is a cost in establishing certain standards. If you wish these standards to become law, you either must be willing to bear the cost or work with the government to fund the cost.
It completely baffles me that anyone would submit an idea to government for inclusion as a law and expect to retain ownership of that idea. Ubsurd.
When dealing with such a complex subject as building codes, having the county/city buy a few copies for the courthouse/city hall and a few more for each library, and 'incorporating by reference' made some kind of sense. But now we have the technology to communicate law for virtually zero transaction cost, so I propose this simple idea for governments to consider enacting if they want to open up the whole business of law to make it accessible to the citizenry:
Making the law open to the people electronically will be far cheaper and effective than doing it by just printing fat books that sit in law libraries.[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
There you can search or browse through all editions of the Federal Register from 1994 to now. You can also:
Access to the information is free. If you want an official hardcopy version, you have to pay for it.
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
What's the motivation for a third party to write a model building code and get it enacted as a law?
Is it an altruistic urge to ensure the safety of the general public?
I submit that, if such an urge were the chief reason for writing a model building code, groups like SBCCI wouldn't care if people copied the code. After all, if you keep people from easily getting the code -- which is supposed to keep people safe -- you're encouraging people to be less safe. No code, no idea if you're doing it right.
What other motivation could there be?
By trying to assert copyright on the enacted model laws, groups like SBCCI show that money is a major motivation. As long as the drafting group holds a legally-recognized copyright, they can soak the populace for any amount they wish. People need access to these codes, whether it's a contractor building a skyscraper or a homeowner building a deck. If the only source for the text of the code is the drafting group, it's a huge opportunity for profit.
If you agree with my opinion that money, not safety, seems to be the biggest motivation for the drafters of model codes, consider this: The codes are frequently updated. When the code is updated, those who needed it must have purchased it again. I think that perhaps this might have lead to code revisions that weren't strictly necessary for safety, but rather, revisions that ensured everyone would need to buy a new copy of the code.
Kind of like how a lot of software upgrades work. Remember the days when word processors changed file formats with every major revision?
I hope this court decision will ensure that building codes are about safety, and not profit. Those who draft the code need to be concerned about safety first and foremost, not about the money to be made in publication.