FAA To Free Aircraft Hobbled By IP Laws

smellsofbikes writes "The FAA is attempting to develop a legal process that will allow them to release data about vintage aircraft designs that have obviously been abandoned. Existing laws restrict the FAA's ability to release this data because it is deemed to be intellectual property even though the owner of record has long since ceased to exist. This is fundamentally the same problem that copyright laws impose on people looking for out-of-print books. But in the case of vintage aircraft, the owners are legally required to maintain them to manufacturer specifications that the owners cannot legally obtain: an expensive and potentially lethal dilemma. If the FAA, notoriously hidebound and conservative, is willing to find a solution to this IP Catch-22, maybe the idea will catch on in other places."

Comments

Pacific Fighters

[Nimey]

Sadly, this will be too late for Oleg Maddox's Pacific Fighters simulation. Northrop Grumman have been bastards and refused to let 1C:Games use models of N-G aircraft and ships without paying a license fee--something that started when Lockheed claimed the F-22 as their intellectual property, never mind that it's been bought and paid for by the US government.

Results of this include there being no Yorktown-class model in the sim, nor the TBF Avenger, and I think no more American warplanes beyond the ones initially shipped; contrast this to Soviet, German, Italian, and Japanese a/c being added in patches.

About time, though.

Re:Pacific Fighters

[stratjakt]

The US government is a customer of lockheed, and no more owns the rights to F-22 IP than I own the rights to the design of the transmission in my mustang. They may have deals in place to exclusively sell to the US military, but that doesnt make the military own the design.

As for the rest of your complaint, too bad, but it'll improve the game experience in the end. So it's not a TBF-avenger, it's a "TBB-evengor".

The Burnout series doesn't have any real car models, and is still a fun game. Other games with licensed models (NFS) are hampered, because the license owners dont want the game developer to depict a porsche all smashed up with its bumper hanging off.

Licensing is a big deal now that video games are on top of the entertainment industry. But, in the end, do I really care that the virtual car I'm driving around is labelled a "Fernorri Fasterelli"?

Also, I doubt the FAA gives a fuck about video game licensing, and are more worried about getting info into the hands of people needing to maintain aircraft built by now defunct companies.

Re:Pacific Fighters

[jcr]

They may have deals in place to exclusively sell to the US military, but that doesnt make the military own the design.

Actually, it's the development contracts that make the designs the property of the United States. Ever since WW I, the US military has had standard clauses in procurement contracts to ensure that they could have the aircraft built by any vendor(s) they chose. In practice, that right has only been exercised in wartime, since the costs of getting a second source spun up are pretty steep.

-jcr

Re:Pacific Fighters

[Sloppy]

If they're smart they'll talk Grumman into a very low/nonexistent license fee since a game is also an advertisement for the company's designs.

It's true! If it weren't for all the General Dynamics ads and product placement in games I played as a kid, I probably never would have bought all those F-16s that I have sitting on blocks out in the front yard.

Safety concerns driving this

[starseeker]

"Data could be released provided the following circumstances are met: The certificate containing the requested data is inactive for at least three years; the TC owner of record, or the owner of record's heir, cannot not be located; and the designation of such data as public data will enhance aviation safety."

This is a good step, but it seems to pertain to safety concerns much more than "hobbiest" concerns, which was my first thought when I saw "vintage." (It would be really cool to see, say, original blueprints in svg format for the first commercial airplanes, but good luck getting either access to such information or right to do anything with it.)

I doubt the logic used in this process could be generalized to copyright in general (probably the issue of most interest to slashdot), since it's pretty hard to argue that (for example) old software manuals for a long dead image editing system could pertain to public safety. They might be very well written and a good starting point for new efforts, but the benefits of that are much more indirect.

I think the loss of old documents and knowledge is a very unfortunate thing - there is a certain logic to IP holdings of companies that have "lapsed" or vanished becoming defunct in order to allow the knowledge and resources to be used for further progress. Of course, that would require uniquely identifying IP created by that company as opposed to being licensed from somewhere else, virtually impossible without good records. A nasty situation.

Re:Safety concerns driving this

[chopper749]

This would apply to commercial airplanes IF the manufacturer is no longer around and no one
claims rights to the type certificate, AND you have one of the airplanes and need the data to
maintain it in a safe manner. If you just think it would be cool to see, it wouldn't
'enhance aviation safety' in anyway to release the details.

These documents wouldn't be "lost" with out this change. They are part of the Federal Records.
The type certificates contain all of the drawing and details required to build the aircraft.
If the company built a plane that didn't meet the type cert, it would not be certified as airworthy.
This just allows owners of the planes to keep them legally flyable.

...and also...

[Anonymous Coward]

the FAA, notoriously hidebound and conservative

The FAA, possibly even more notorious for their dislike of aircraft crashing, even old ones?

A Summary of the FAA's View

[Shadow Wrought]

"The plane is not safe to fly until the weight of the paperwork exceeds that of the aircraft." They are merely helping themselves;-)

That would just make a patent system

[EmbeddedJanitor]

At least with copyrights there is a level playing field. A peasant sitting in a cornfield can write something and have copyright over it.

Patents require a lot of money and thus are exclusive to those that can afford them.

Re:That would just make a patent system

[cpt kangarooski]

Care to explain? Maybe some linkage, or perhaps an anecdotal example would help to clarify what you mean.

Until the 1976 Copyright Act, published materials that were not formally registered with the Copyright Office (or other bodies, if you go back far enough), were automatically in the public domain. Many unpublished works were as well. And now, after the 1976 Act, unpublished, unregistered works that were created before 1978 and not published by 2003 also automatically entered the public domain. So it's not as though we have to grant copyrights to everything, or something.

But the crappy laws we have these days, which do indiscriminately grant copyrights pretty clearly are not only not benefiting the public (which wants 1) works to be created and published, and; 2) works to be in the public domain as soon as possible and to be minimally protected by copyright if at all), but they aren't even an incentive to authors to begin with. (e.g. architectural works, overly long terms, giving works the full measure of protection without any indication by the author that it is desired)

We can do pretty much anything we want with copyright. It has to provide a public benefit, as described above. It should provide the greatest possible benefit. It has to have limited terms, it has to only protect original works of authorship, and the rights have to vest in the author. So long as these requirements can be met, copyright can be pretty much anything. The current system is no good, though, so at least we know what it shouldn't be.

Let me posit this though: what if I decide that all of my love notes over the years constitute a publishable, marketable product? Since I didn't write them initially to publish have I lost my right to do so?

I think that we ought to take a page from patent law and the old common law copyright, which is pretty closely related to copyright law, in that they use similar means to achieve similar ends. If you're still in the process of creating a work, then you should have some limited rights to prevent people from pirating the manuscript, as it were, but it shouldn't be enough protection that an author would actively want to be at this level of protection if he could avoid it. Otherwise, if you abandon the work in progress, you get one year, and then you lose your rights in it and your eligibility for a registered copyright if you haven't registered it already. If you publish the work (inclusive of publicly performing or displaying it), then you get one year to register before your unregistered rights expire. The whole point of the system should be to weed out authors who are not motivated by the commercial benefits which are the only thing a copyright is good for. Hobbyists shouldn't get copyrights unless they're transitioning over to being professionals; it's not an incentive for hobbyists, who would have done the same work anyway. (It's analogous to paying someone for painting your house after they painted it for free; the charity on both sides is admirable, but it's no way to run a railroad) Once the work is registered, the full measure of protections open up, copies are deposited with the Library of Congress, and you need only renew the copyright periodically (say, every year or two) so that your continuing interest can be judged; fail to renew, and we can safely say that you don't care about the copyright anymore, so the work enters the public domain before the maximum possible term would run through. (Which also is how we used to do things, though with longer terms)

So in your case, you were not inspired by copyright in writing the notes. And while it'd be nice to get them published, which is desirable, it's also nice to not grant copyrights excessively. Often, fewer works but more freedom is more valuable than more works and less freedom. Given that you probably will not have competition for your love letters -- there's so many authors that it's a publisher's market -- you may as well publish it as a public domain work. If there is any money to be mad

Re:I don't know why it's so damned hard...

[Artraze]

> If something, whether it be blueprints, books, records or whatnot is not available via the
> marketplace from any supplier, there seems to be little financial damage done to anyone
> when someone duplicates 'em.

But that's a bit short sighted. The same argument was (is?) used with regards to things like NES/SNES roms, but now Nintendo is reselling the games (virtual console). Sure the new versions may not be quite the same since they play one the Wii, but either way, there's still a potential for damage. So the trick is that you have to determine that something is not only unavailible, but that it will also never be availible.

And while the method the FAA says they'll be using would work for other things, there is more value for things like planes. The trouble is that even if you have a plane, there is very little knowledge obtainable (without massive effort). With a book, all the stuff of value is right there in black and white. The FAA is essentially doing the equivilant of releasing the author's notes along with the book. While the latter is convienent (to say the least), the former actually adds to public wealth.

Re:I don't know why it's so damned hard...

[YrWrstNtmr]

It seems awfully simple to me, really. If something, whether it be blueprints, books, records or whatnot is not available via the marketplace from any supplier, there seems to be little financial damage done to anyone when someone duplicates 'em.

Aircraft are a little different, though. You need an exact, verified, updated from the manufacturer copy. You might die otherwise.

Re:Bringing Back Old Aircraft

[MBGMorden]

Homebuilders can already make damned close copies (and safe ones at that) of just about any design out there. Indeed there are a bazillion copies of things like the Piper Cub out there flying - the look and flying pretty similar, and they are built using the same types of techniques, but underneath they aren't identical to an original cub (indeed most of the newer "copies" of aircraft like the cub are vastly superior to the original). The thing is that any homebuilt aircraft has to go under the Experimental-Homebuilt certification. While this entails a lot of freedom for the operator (there's not much you can't do in a homebuilt aircraft), it does have some limitations. Namely, the airplane cannot be used for hire (so they can't be rented out for instruction for example), and the builder is legally the manufacturer, so he comes under a lot of liability concerns if he ever sells the plane.

For old planes, unless you get a field approval (unlikely) or the mod falls under an STC (Special Type Certificate), repairs and rebuilds of components must be EXACTLY the same as the original if you are to keep the plane Certified as a regular aircraft. So it's not just an issue of rebuilding the plane to a safe working condition to keep it functioning - that's easy; it's a matter of rebuilding it back to exactly the way it was before. That's not so easy to guess at.

Of course, the Piper Cub is not a great example as total blueprints are apparently available for this one. Indeed, salvaged data-plates from wrecked Cubs go for $10k or so by themselves - as long as you have that you can literally build the plane from scratch according the original plans, stick the data plate on it, and it is legally the same plane as the one that was wrecked. Even though it was constructed form scratch, that whole process was considered a "repair" operation. The FAA is a strange critter :).