Slashdot Mirror
Don't Share That Law! It's Copyrighted
Nathan Halverson writes "California claims copyright to its laws, and warns people not to share them. And that's not sitting right with Internet gadfly, and open-access hero, Carl Malamud. He has spent the last couple months scanning tens of thousands of pages containing city, county and state laws — think building codes, banking laws, etc.
Malamud wants California to sue him, which is almost a given if the state wants to continue claiming copyright. He thinks a federal court will rule in his favor: It is illegal to copyright the law since people are required to know it.
Malamud helped force the SEC to put corporate filings online in 1994, and did the same with the patent office. He got the Smithsonian to loosen its claim of copyright, CSPAN to stop forbidding people from sharing its videos, and most recently Oregon to quit claiming copyright on state laws." Malamud's talk at Google ("All the Government's Information") is also well worth watching.
Is this a joke? Laws are not "Science" or "useful Arts" as defined in the Constitution. They are practical communications between the government and its people. Since the government is both serves its people and is funded by its people, it cannot hold a copyright. This has been recognized at the Federal level for... oh... ever. ( 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works)
I'm all for state powers, but this is simply rediculous. Even if we assume a valid legal theory exists that allows states to hold copyrights over works created by public officers, laws themselves are still not considered works of art or science any more than a memo reminding my wife to get milk is considered copyrightable.
Of course, being a lawyer and/or lawmaker is a skilled trade. So the argument could be made that the text is the result of those skills. I still don't think it can be copyrighted, but let's say a judge disagrees with me. Well then, what of fair use? The people must have access to laws in order to obey them. Thus laws must be communicated in the open to all citizens under the fair use doctrine.
Under the 4 point balance test, the nature of the works (i.e. laws) is factual and thus not allowed copyright protection. (see: Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates) The purpose of reproducing the laws is that it is information required by the public. The amount copied is irrelevant in this case, as the entirity of the law is required information for every citizen. Last but not least, the value of the law should only be in its improvement upon society, not a dollar value placed upon its reproduction. Coming back to the point the citizens PAID to have those laws created, it only follows that they should not be further charged to obtain copies of them.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I wouldn't keep prodding Arnold like that.
> It is illegal to copyright the law since people are required to know it.
Copyrights on laws may be unenforceable but they are not illegal.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
This view by certain US states that laws are copyrighted material is plexing to me. The laws are written by people, on materials, that are funded by the taxpayer. Therefore, laws are PUBLIC property.
And what point does copyrighting ones' laws serve? Is it about publication rights? If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then why is access not free to all.
Baffling.
It's not "none shall ignore the law", it's "none shall ignore criminal law". That is one of the laws in the list of criminal laws. Look it up.
That's right, amazingly enough nobody is expected to know their municipal by-laws by heart... [rolls eyes]
Because if they tell him he's broken the copyright law, then they are, ipso facto, revealing the copyright law, which invalidates their copyright since they are distributing the copyrighted material.
If charged, he can immediately get the entire idea of the law being copyrighted thrown out on that basis.
Sheesh, what a bunch of whack-jobs they've got running the Kal-ee-forn-ee-uh government. I think Ah-nuld got hit in the head a few too many times while making those movies.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
In Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International, the 5th Circuit held that laws are not copyrightable.
I didn't read the opinion but I'm pretty sure they had precedent.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
1) Copyright state laws for states that haven't copyrighted their own laws yet.
2) Copyright California Bills before they're passed into law (since they're only copyrighting their LAWS.
2) Sue.
4) Profit!
No ??? step?!? Something is seriously wrong here!
That something must be that copyrighting laws is the stupidest idea that's ever been conceived.
Thank you Nathan Halverson, for your unwillingness to accept government corruption. I wish we had more people like you.
That would mean that "ignorance of the law" IS a valid excuse.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
Can you copyright a copyright law?
Webster copyrighted "ridiculous" and you didn't have the money to pay for a license, so you created your own word.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage creativity. See, it works!
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Carl Malamud is aiding the terrists! If the laws are freely available to be known by the public, the terrists will find out and obey them to avoid being caught!
Yep, I can just hear him saying "don't prod me!"
Heh.
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
...every act of Calfornia legislation was found to consist entirely of articles numbered 22.
What is the point? Coaxing the state government in to suing him will just cost the tax payers extra money and make this guy look like a douchebag with no life. Why not just keep an eye out for any case where the government sues someone else for "violating the copyright" and then jump in that case? And if it never happens, it apparently doesn't need to, because it is affecting no one.
Whale
I'm going to start copyrighting laws and charging state governments to enforce them. What should I charge for a royalty? 14 per usage?
If I'm fast enough I should be able to copyright bills before they have a chance to actually pass them.
You mad
"He got the Smithsonian to loosen its claim of copyright, CSPAN to stop forbidding people from sharing its videos, and most recently Oregon to *quite* claiming copyright on state laws." /sigh
*quit*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial
Sometimes I feel that the world is a bit strange. Once again, reality imitates art. Sickening.
Until quite recently many states (Pennsylvania being the last) did not post their laws online at all or make them available to the public for free. In many cases the only way to get access to the actual laws was to purchase a copy from the state's legal publisher or look them up in a legal library, (which exists on ever street corner). This is as true for statutes of the type that Malamud is focusing on as caselaw which is an essential facet of law in the U.S. and other Common Law countries.
Efforts to change this have routinely been fought by legal publishers who hold lucrative monopolies on the publication of laws and their dissemination. There also exists a generational gap in many cases with a generation accustomed to having the law on paper not really understanding why one would look online.
So ironically what Malamud is doing is not "fighting for the norm" of freely accessible laws but fighting for something new. While many people are fond of the cant "ignorance of the law is no excuse", for most of recent U.S. history laws have been hidden.
Good luck to him.
Hoover?
McCarthy?
Nixon?
All that is new is that ALL the politicians don't give a shit about the proles any more. They don't care about you in the least.
Copyrights do not protect statutory law, because the text and every word are purely functional. Laws are not written as original expression, they're written purely functionally, to serve a practical purpose. That's under federal copyright law. California could pass its own copyright law that doesn't have such limitations, but then the law would be violating 1st Amendment rights. Basically, all of copyright law is an exception to the 1st Amendment, which is only allowed according to the Constitutional authority that Congress has to pass copyright laws. Maybe the California State government isn't bound to the 1st Amendment (people think it is, because of the 14th Amendment), but that doesn't matter, because California's own constitution declares that, "A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press."
Claiming copyright on LAWS? Good gawd. We do live in an era of insanity...
So then, how long before people start posting assorted CA laws all over the Internet? I'd start by posting the one about a $500 fine for detonating a nuke inside the Chico, CA city limits. But I can't verify whether or not that is a real law or an urban legend.
This space unintentionally left blank.
I am sorry Sir I cannot tell you that would put me in violation of copyright. However, I can sell you a copy of the Traffic Act and then point out the relivent section. So Sir will that be cash or charge?
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
I thought the copyright was on the layout of the law and the specific id's in the law books and not the actual law. Wasn't this recently decided on too? (in another state or city)
Because this way California can control and forbid derivative works of the copyrighted laws. What if some smug lawyer wants to force you into obeying his threatening letter where he does not verbatim quote the law, but creates a derivative work by plagiarizing it (and thus subtly change its meaning)?
California could still have a copyright on all laws and distribute them with a licence stating that all verbatim copies are allowed, but for all derivative works it requires them to be checked by some "officer of the law" for possible errors. In a certain way it would be a "CLL", a "California Law License", which permits more than normal Copyright Law would, and thus forcing the licensees to obey the "only a complete and verbatim quote" rule.
Does this mean all lawyers are guilty of copyright infringement?
Because I hold the copyright on the copyrighting of copyright laws.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
Government entities can't claim copyright in the US. They can only hire a third party contractor and allow the contractor to hold the copyright.
Feel free to ignore these claims, they they cannot be applied to anyone in any court. And I believe that is essentially Carl Malamud's position.
I'm tempted to post all the CA building codes, etc on my website. I am pretty certain I don't even need a lawyer. This is pretty cut and dry.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
There was a time in the '80s or '90s when rightsholders were suing anyone and everyone who wanted to perform their play or use their fictional characters, even hobbyists. They did it not for the money but because they were afraid that if they didn't their works would fall into the public domain.
I think this was prompted by some court decision, and the change away from that behavior was prompted by a higher court decision that said "it's okay to not pester the little guys."
My memory of this is fuzzy though. Maybe someone else can fill in the blanks.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
so how would they advertise their laws - maybe they can bring back the California Raisins singing trio
Can you claim that ignorance is a defense if the law is copyrighted because you literally don't have open access to it? Making laws inaccessible to the public is a slippery slope... IANAL, could someone tell me why this wouldn't stand?
Laws are drafted by politicians (ok, staffers, but officially, politicians). In a democracy, we elect them. We pay their taxes. The laws the legislators create are therefore works for hire, and the clients who did the hiring are....The People. Therefore, if the laws are copyrightable, the people hold the copyright.
Seen this a few times recently and couldn't contain it any longer.
Me: "But the laws are copyrighted and I don't have access to them!"
Cop: "Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse. You're going to jail."
Civil Prosecutor: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we're here to prove that Mr. Blackthorne over there willfully violated copyright laws by illegally copying California State law text. We'll expect thousands of dollars in damages in addition to a court order preventing Mr. Blackthorne from using a computer ever again."
Me: "But, damnit all, how can I obey the laws if I don't know what they are!?"
Civil Prosecutor: "That's no excuse for violating copyright laws. You're going to pay, Mr. Blackthorne."
Stupid. Just plain stupid. Either that, or it's some sort of Neo-Conservative ploy to create an environment where ANYbody can be arrested and detained with NO CAUSE.
Is Freedom of Speech copyrighted? or Freedom of Certain Speech copyrighted?
For 1) if the CA government "owns" anything, CA taxpayers have access to it since CA taxpayers paid for it.
I get the feeling this dude just hates gov.
"Government, please correct my broken business model."
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
In copyrighting the law, what are they trying to prevent that could be construed as a bad thing? I mean, it's not as if a rival legislature would rise up and "steal" laws and pass them off as their own or something. This is totally confusing.
Mind you, I think that here in the UK, regulations enforced by laws are heavily copyrighted to the extent that if you are building a house and stipulate to the builders that they cold be sued for not building it according to the regulations, many smaller builders will refuse to do the work simply because they cannot pay the thousands of pounds necessary for a current copy of the regulations they would need to follow.
I believe somebody once tried to sell a copy of the UK building regulations and got heavily spanked for doing so. No amount of tea would calm me down after that.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
...create barriers to entry for free speech that make sure only those who are wealthy (i.e. beneficiaries of the status quo) have any chance of speaking.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
1. The State of California provides selected vendors with up-to-date and easy-to-reproduce electronic versions of State laws in exchange for a payment.
2. The vendor then formats and compiles these laws, and includes them in its proprietary database. Lexis-Nexis, the vendor in this case, also provides the public with free access to a limited version of its database, while providing enhanced access through a pay service.
3. In exchange for the payment, the State of California agrees not to provide the same service it provides to Lexis, Westlaw, etc. for free.
What the legal gadfly here is really protesting is the sale by the State of California of copies of its laws that are in a usable form. Anyone is free to comb the public records maintained by the State Legislature and compile its own California Code. These documents are all publicly available and posted as soon as they are passed by the Legislature. What the Legislature provides, however, is not easy to read and not organized in a particularly sensible manner. The State essentially provides the service of compiling these laws and sells that compilation to Lexis. It is this compilation that the State is claiming a copyright on -- not the text of the laws themselves.
In the most famous Supreme Court case on this topic, Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), the Justices held that no one can hold a copyright in a particular phone number. However, a company can collect tens of thousands of phone numbers, organize them alphabetically, and then claim a copyright in the finished product (i.e., the phone book). As the court in Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. describes the holding of the Feist case and subspequent precedent:
What the author of the TFA did get right is that there is no right to copyright the text of particular laws. The court in Veeck did an excellent job describing the history of attempts to copyright laws, so I simply quote it below:
All the more reason for open source governance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_governance
http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Main_Page
either my countryman Arnold thinks he is still acting in a movie
or
citizens are brought back to learn by experience like kids
when you touch the hot plate, you burn your fingers
or you pay us so that you can read first: don't touch or you'll burn
This is very true. But the books usually have their own numbering or index system. They can copyright the way they present the information i.e., font style, numbering system and tables and graphs. But the meat of the code is the code and that cannot be copyrighted. It is the code. That is why ChicagoPlumbingCode.com is still privately owned and free(and kicks their ass in a google search).
Look at your next dental bill also. At the bottom there should be a copyright notice of the service code your dentist used to bill out any procedure.
Eviscerate the Proletariat!
That means you can break the law for free!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Here's the link, in case no one has posted it yet - http://bulk.resource.org/codes.gov/ccr/
Get it so that the copyrights stand, but that the laws become unenforceable since they are not public.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Ever notice when you want to buy a house, you can't get a copy of the Covenants of the local Home Owners' Association until closing? (At least in my area.) If a local community can keep it's "laws" private via a copyright, why can't a state? I think it's wrong, but I can see the logic.
I still don't understand the need for a copyright for something that is clearly a service, bought and payed for by the tax payer. The state cannot own what is already owned by the tax payers. If the state is attempting to copyright the database or methods used to create this catalog used by Lexis-Nexus, then that catalog was also created on the tax payers dime and should not fall under copyright, but rather public domain.
That law will be the first one up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Not too long ago, it was not possible to sue the government or for a dead person (i.e., his/her estate) to sue others.
California could make a novel argument such as "the People need to have a copyright on their laws so no one else (e.g., China) can have such a copyright." Stranger things have happened with this Supreme Court, such as the second amendment (see: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/).
It's bound to be terminated!
The law can't be copyrighted because it was developed using government funds and as such falls under public domain.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Laws are used to shape society. A healthy socitey would want its laws to be freely available, for the benefit of other societies. And limiting access to them suggests that someone believes that they may not actually be good for society.
Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc., 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002) a federal court of appeals case provides a reasonably good discussion of why statutes are not copyrightable.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that judges' opinions are not copyrightable. I can't think of any good reason to distinguish a statute from a court opinion. Neither could the Court in Veeck.
Copyright a statute? HAH!
This was covered last April by William Patry (author of the text, Patry on Copyright), perhaps the most distinguished copyright attorney on the planet, see: http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/04/oregon-goes-wacka-wacka-huna-kuna.html
IMNHO, this kind of action, whether by California or Oregon, is an abomination, anathema to the idea of rule of law.
From Banks & Bros. v. West Pub. Co., 27 F. 50 (C.C.D. Minn. 1886):
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
I'm working on expelling Arnold Schwartzenegger and Morgan Freeman from my mind, so I can hear slashdot articles as they originaly are supposed to sound in my intellect and voice.
sm62704 said: "Come with me if you want to live."
interpretation from Arnold: "I already f*cking said that! Ahhyuhyahhhyuhoooaaahhhh! Give these people their air!"
interpretation from Morgan: "I have to remind myself that some birds aren't meant to be caged. Their feathers are just too bright. And when they fly away, the part of you that knows it was a sin to lock them up DOES rejoice. Still, the place you live in is that much more drab and empty that they're gone. I guess I just miss my friend."
without prejudice
Other way around. If a corporation were to do a study and propose a law paid for with tax dollars, the proposed law and the law that passed are public domain, however, the copyright for the study could be held on behalf of the corporation.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
This does bring up the sticky issue of the browser cache, of course... If it's on the hard disk, then it is affixed...
Easy to fix that problem: Browsers have now just been officially declared to be copyright circumvention devices. Use or possession thereof is a felony. The gubmint will now throw you into prison for the rest of your life and seize all your assets and possessions.
Just like on Naruto when a hidden village creates a new ninja technique or jitsu they seal it away in a scroll and hide it somewhere. Then when people try to take it they send their shinobi and the the anbu black ops after them and they can kill the crap out of people who try to copy their stuff.
Replace:
"Naruto" with "Real Life".
"Hidden village" with "artist"
"Ninja Technique or jitsu" with "song or film"
"seal it away in a scroll and hide it somewhere" with "press a cd or dvd and sell it."
"when when people try to take it" with "you rip the CD/DVD and copy it to your hard drive."
"Shinobi and the the ANBU black ops" with "Lawyers and MPAA/RIAA goons."
"Kill" with "sue".
Now all you Narutards out there can understand what is being said.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
The laws belong to the citizens.
The state belongs to the citizens.
The citizens do not belong to the state.
US Civics 101.
If you work for a Federal, State, County, or city government, and think otherwise, resign now.
I am not joking. You have no business participating in the process which the rest of us call democracy.
Now, I hope he goes after county health regulations for FORCE the counties across the country to once and for all MAKE AVAILABLE not only the regulations/ordinances that say what must be done in order to obtain the permits to operate restaurants and businesses, but also to records of WHAT equipment and fixtures are approved.
I knew a team of young, ambitious Asians (4-8 people) in the Central Valley who in 2000-2001 were trying to open an internet cafe. They hired a respected architect, followed all the know/anticipated rules, and STILL the county planner/permits office kept sending them back to correct things. They even added MORE space than required for ADA-protected patrons and were made to rip out work completed in order to please the county. It was rumored that the head had a friend also opening an internet cafe and he was helping out his friend have less competition. How? Well, if he kept sending them back to do rework, he could burn up their cash and force them to quit. But, these kids were resourceful, determined, and NEEDED to form a business to make money to pay for school and to live.
It is QUITE FUCKING SPECIOUS for counties to deny access to records of APPROVED coffee machines, ice makers, display fridge units, toilet heights flexibility ranges, hand rails range of heights for wheel chair users, reach-in fridge units, and so on. Every time a county planning/permits office functionary rejects plans or revisions to be redrawn, it costs the entrepreneur money in attorney's fees, architect's fees, county inspector fees, time and money lost on start-up delays, and the appearance of entrepreneur unprofessionalism in the eyes of would-be patrons chafing for a place to open its doors. Money is even lost when a toilet 1/2 inch too high is tossed out for another one.
It is as if these people pay gate-keeper of the beholden information as if to mask racism or any other -ism used to suppress or oppress anyone not liked, anyone who demands to be respected, anyone who challenges the county's decision on the plans or modifications not significantly differing from originally-approved plans. I realize, too, that many counties these days computerize the floor plans of EVERYTHING BUILT, ostensibly to facilitate firefighters and law enforcement. Yeh, like they really need to know WHERE the business/home vault is, or if there is a sanctuary from burglars/robbers/cops/et al.
If all that stuff is in a database, then virtually ANYONE following the then-current ordinances should be able to walk into the planning office with a set of complete working/construction drawings without having to fuck around weeks on end wondering why the hell they are losing tens of thousands of dollars before they even open to the public. If such obstructive officials DO exist, they should be sued, THEIR assets taken or frozen or transferred to the aggrieved, and possibly, the offending officials should be jailed post-haste and barred from EVER AGAIN serving in a public official/functionary position in the COUNTRY not just the county.
They got their shop opened up, but they paid dearly for it in money wasted. I gave them a copy of my own internet cafe business plan (spread sheet/stock rotation planning/customer flow modeling & employee head count to cope, and 2 of my new, paid-for computers just to help them out because i was fucking incensed that they were going through that shit. I wasn't going to be able to get started, but boy I was going to make sure I helped them out any way I could before and after startup.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
If the law is protected by copyright and I disagree with the terms of the copyright, what then?
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
Many of the "laws" that humans agree to are not really "laws". In reality they are copyright protected commercial documents (statutes) not laws.
They are statutes that corporate governments and others create and imply that they are laws. Through ignorance on our part and the perception of authority they coerce us into our agreement by signing "contracts".
For instance if Walmart has a corporate policy regarding smoking, does that policy extend beyond the parking lot? Of course not. Can Walmart have a copyright on their private internal documents/communication. Absolutely. I submit that any "law" that is copyrighted is not really a "law" at all.
Laws are public documents, they belong to the citizenry. Copyright documents are PRIVATE, hence they are commercial (corporate).
Most cities, towns, and municipalities are not really governments. They are corporations operating under larger corporations. Hence the terms incorporated and un-incorporated on many city limits.
Many such government agencies (aka corporations) would have you believe that they have legal authority over you. They don't.
These entities and the lawyers behind them are not stupid. If it was done that way some lawyer did it that way for a very specific purpose.
Do the math. Tens of thousands of pages @ $750.00 minimum statutory damages per work infringed - Hey, California just balanced its budget!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
That article is so full of inaccuracies it's astounding.
First: with the exception of the Building Code, California's laws (regulations, specifically) are not copyrighted. They're also free on the Internet, and can be downloaded for free, and saved on your local computer for free. A Google Search for "california regulations" will give you a variety of free sources, including the state's own Office of Administrative Law.
Except for the Building Code. Here the article's alarmist tone (and Malamud's apocalyptic stance) are entirely justified. The California Building Code was written by the International Conference of Building Officials, and the ICBO owns the copyright. It's stupid, and probably illegal, but that's the way things stand.
The 5th Circuit case someone mentioned is a similar circumstance. But unfortunately (for those of us in California) California is in the 9th Circuit, so the 5th Circuit's decision doesn't apply.
That is retarded, is the state of Ca going to sell rights to it's laws to North Dakota? Are the Ca lawmakers afraid of plagiarism?
In the time of Hammurabi, only the elite were literate to be able to read those stone carvings. The elite who could read the laws then told the peasants only what they wanted them to know.
You do know the inspectors and such just weren't being bribed properly, don't you?
They're not holding out to mask some "-ism", they're holding out for cash. They aren't getting the few hundred or whatever it may be) they expect, so they're punishing your friends with thousands in construction do-overs. Yes, local politics is quite corrupt, just about everywhere.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The problem is the multiplicity of little governments, like cities and counties with extra-wide jurisdiction.
That's a pernicious effect of the US constitution that by being vague about who has jurisdiction over what, allows a deliberate power-grab by little governments who should not have such extensive power in the first place.
I mean, why the fuck a county should regulate coffee machines instead of the state???
It is to prevent other states from having the same laws. Without some royalty payments, of course.
Half of writing history is hiding the truth.
The is Lexus Nexus issue. California Laws, as nearly all government material is public information.
They don't care much. IN fact, the only issue they care about is that the laws are updated in a timely manner.
This blaming the government for everything has gotten old.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
How would a Judge rule against him without breaking the law? Better yet, lets say they were "copyrighted". Who do you contact for consent? The lawyer who drafted it? The citizen who paid for it to be drafted? Or the representatives who voted it in?
The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
Now, I hope he goes after county health regulations for FORCE the counties across the country to once and for all MAKE AVAILABLE not only the regulations/ordinances that say what must be done in order to obtain the permits to operate restaurants and businesses, but also to records of WHAT equipment and fixtures are approved.
Are you saying that there are secret regulations not available to the public that they must still follow? How would a building firm know what is an acceptable height for a toilet seat unless that is specified in some regulation? Sounds like you are bullshitting.
Football Odds
I don't respect any claim of a dictionary company that it OWNS copyright over words being defined -- except the fake words they insert in order to catch blatant copyright infringement.
Why should Merriam-Webster/et al OWN the c/r to "photosynthesis", when they did not create it nor spell it nor create the context for which the word arose. The ONLY thing a dictionary firm should hold c/r over is the WORD-FOR-WORD string arrangement they contrive to define the word and any examples they provide as further clarification.
It might be they who are behind the "disappearance" of "rhyme" from Mandriva and any other Linux distro that had "rhyme". Just like laws that need to be publicly available for the public to be upstanding citizens, base words and their variants (not the made-up check-for-c/r-infringement words) should NOT be copyrightable unless they are "original and wild/zany names coined for trademark purposes". Otherwise, dictionary companies can someday start to charge us for the mere act of writing, publishing, and speaking.
So, I HOPE that i am uninformed and that it is my mistake for reading into things that they hold copyright over not only crafted definitions but the words being defined.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Our Boston City Council denied access to the stenographic machine data that are the Minutes of public meetings of the Council. The City Stenographer E. Fritch Associates is included in the City budget.
Oh yeah, here!
7 years ago? God I'm old.
No, they're not secret. Just confusing as hell. But, he had no reason to lie to me about it. After all, i myself was doing lots of research to find out what it would take for me to comply carefully in order to open my own internet cafe. I became quite irritated when i found out that it wasn't enough to find a NEW coffee machine in use in numerous other counties in the US (counties so geographically dispersed that local issues would not alone explain approval in one and rejection in another area...).
There also is a racket in the NSF-specification by some counties. UL/NSF ratings attest to the INITIAL certifications. When you want to buy and use second-hand (electrical) equipment, obviously you don't want to burn down your business and face suits or insurance fraud claims. But, when a coffee shop wants to install well-crafted, inexpensive, heavy duty cycle-capable European coffee and espresso machines that cost a fraction of the domestic ones, one can't help smell "racket/protectionism". If the business plan plans for 100 customers a day, and the entrepreneur purchase a variety and decent number of machines because of reputation and aesthetics, the local county should not demand that each and every machine/model be in the UL/NSF registry if higher or equivalent grading can be found in another country. One possible support for it is that we all know how rife/rampant the product counterfeiting market is. It is entirely possible that 25% of restaurants unknowingly have SOME unauthorized counterfeit UL-tested/rated/NSF-regulated equipment.
OTOH, it's possible that restaurant equipment manufacturers stand to benefit by the fact that counties will de-certify or simply not approve equipment even without proof that it's unsafe or never-tested. If a small office can have a free choice of coffee and tea makers, then a well-managed coffee shop that seats 25-30 people and is not a high-cycle restaurant should be given freer hand in choice of machines that are allowed importation, are in service in other restaurants, and have no product safety/recall issues. Not saying allow ALL imported stuff to be permitted, just stuff that other counties/cities permitted conditionally.
But, when the entrepreneur is disallowed installation of a used, $5,000 range and fire suppression system and has to go and buy a $25,000 system, it DOES benefit the county, since the county assessor will know that new, assessable equipment is in the county. To them, that's revenue to be claimed. They don't want honest people competing with or depriving them of revenues potential.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
OK, I'm confused.
Isn't law made by people who work for the state, people whose paycheck depend on the taxes perceived by it's inhabitants and residing corporations?
If so, which I assume to be the case, again, assuming i'm not too much of a dimwit.
Then the laws of California is "for" the people who live in California "and belongs" to them.
How can you copyright that?
How the hell can they even try to justify that?
If you can't quote from the state laws, how can you defend yourself? or educate people about it?
Take driving laws.
Are the school who teach it, now suppose to pay a stipend everytime they refer to the laws of the road?
What about construction? Building codes and laws, will a lawyer or an architect have to pay in order to refer to it in their documentation?
If California is adopting industry standards as state code, then, isn't the taxpayers really footing the bill for these things anyways?
Anyways, this one can certainly be filled under the "makes no freakin' sense" news department.
Governator Arnold, me think you should get better advisors... and eat less fish in your diet, because, these ideas are really fishy.
Based on the article topic, I'd say that's a safe bet.
Bradley Holt
I know EXACTLY what you MEAN. Everything makes SENSE now! THANK YOU!
This is strange: statutes can not be copyrighted; however text elaborating explaining might be.
Various things could be applied to the Laws of our land. Budgeting, for starters; One can ask the question, "Is it cost effective?"; the step would be to count/acquire the number of times, of total cost of an event, or condition. Now when one says, "that's not good", that person can now apply known events with cost of handling, or stopping those events. Cool
...that counties will de-certify or simply not approve equipment ....
An entrepreneur could ask for PERFORMANCE specifications, rather than a specific manufacturer or model.
Some years ago, we had an enterprising man build some tree-houses and then rent them to tourists. The county wanted to make him tear them down, because they were not built according to the normal building codes that ordinary houses are built. The county took him to court hoping to get their way. His contention was that they were just as safe if not safer than a normal house. To make a long story short, the judge said that because there were no codes for tree-houses, does not automatically allow the county to forbid them. He further ordered the county to work with a man and his engineers to develop proper codes especially for tree houses.
Since trees are natural and varied, with all sorts of shapes and sizes, it was not possible to easily come up with fixed rules of materials and how they are used. Trees also tend to sway in the wind, and the rules have to allow for that fact. Therefore, the codes they came up with do not specify materials or construction techniques, but performance specifications such as load, flexibility and other pertinent factors.
The same sort of principles should be applied in most areas. Instead of specifying a specific manufacturer for fire suppression equipment, specification serve water flow and coverage and other factors germane to extinguishing possible fires should be done. Someone with sufficient money and tenacity can force in court, the authorities to formulate rules in that way. This allows for new, innovative ways of meeting the goals of the safe and functional construction and business.
All theory is gray
Most building/fire/health codes have a clause about being subject to "local regulations" which basically means that the local building/fire/health inspector can say whatever (s)he wants and get away with it. They're also the interpreter of "reasonable", "safe" and other such terms that leave plenty of ambiguity. Basically, they are given a carte blanch.
This is the way it worked when I was out there. Some private company writes the building codes. They put together a package of thousands of building regulations, codes, etc. They call it a model and create/print a book. Then the private company copyrights it. They submit the building codes to the state legislators who adopt it as their building code model and thus they become law.
To get a building code book you have to pay the company who developed them $2,000+ for their printed version. The state didn't have their own version, they used the same books I had to buy from the private company. The state didn't have a copy to give/sell me if they wanted too. When I protested (20 years ago) the state said not our problem we don't control the copyright, the company who developed and prints the books owns the copyright. We just adopted it as law.
The article seems to be saying that now that the state owns the copyright. Things can change in 20+ years. Maybe as part of the deal the private company now transfers the copyright when the model is adopted or the reporter misunderstood. Still doesn't matter. It needs to get fixed. It's definitely a racket by the companies writing all these laws. The state will support them too. If it wasn't for the private companies the state would actually have to write their own laws and they're not setup to do that.
-[d]-
"To make a long story short, the judge said that because there were no codes for tree-houses, does not automatically allow the county to forbid them. He further ordered the county to work with a man and his engineers to develop proper codes especially for tree houses."
Kewl...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Laws are PUBLICLY owned documents, and therefore do not require, nor can they be, copyrighted. Drafted by taxpayer funded public servants, put through by same.
They, by definition, belong to everyone(like it or not). No one person or group of such, unless it is in the majority of said populace, can even start to claim the ownership to the 'IP' in them in order to file copyright.
(the term IP used extremely lightly here, these are politicians we're speaking of)
To me, this shit is coming to bite politicians in the arse. The unending litigation circle is coming back on itself. The trouble here is, California politicians are both too arrogant, AND too ignorant to even see this. They must ask for cash to see a copy of the law in that state when asked, which in itself is probably illegal.
I'm sure it's tied to some horseshit claim of "growth" or "state/national security" or some other dubious nonsense designed to distract us from their misdeeds.
Someone I used to know back in the day built a porch add-on to their house. As everyone knows, there's plenty of codes to follow. He went down to city hall, got the necessary paperwork and guidelines, and built his porch. A month later, the city came and demanded that he knock it down, as it was too close to the road.
He told them where he got the records, from city hall itself. He showed them the copies he made showing the rule he supposedly broke (too close to the road). The city told him that the book was old, and the law had since been revised. He got the whole "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'"
In the end the city made him remove the porch and he never built it back. Eventually, he sold his house and moved.
The worst part about it is that the city couldn't be bothered to keep its laws publicly-available, but they can sure as hell enforce them.
How many of you know the laws of your own city? What about important laws, such as traffic laws? Do you know, down to the letter, what your major and minor traffic laws are? What about self-defense? Do you have to run from an attacker or can you reasonably defend yourself if attacked? This is what I hate about laws in general. Rarely are they concise and simple to understand, but its difficult to get the exact text of the law in a lot of places.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Unfortunately, many Slashdotters are misreading Section 105. That section of the Copyright Act applies only to the Federal government, NOT the several states, nor to local (county, municipal or borough) governments. I absolutely disagree with a state government claiming copyright on its own laws, but it is technically possible.
I have seen in other posts this Veeck case cited. I haven't read the whole thing, but just the summary tells me that the issue came down to a private company claiming copyright on laws that were codified by a legislature. That is not the same as a state claiming copyright in a document (any, document, including the text of a law) it has created. A Westlaw v. Lexis case (see "Legal Disputes" section here) upheld copyright years ago on the entire work simply because Westlaw put casebook style page numbering in their version of the legal text. All Westlaw was doing was taking the government work and matching up the page numbers in their electronic version!
Like I said, I think this type of conduct is reprehensible from a state, but not technically illegal. Malamud is really (IMHO) banking on the PR nightmare of Cali actually filing a copyright infringement suit against him.
Well, it's nothing to do with the federal constitution. Regulatory power in the US is invested by the people in the states, who grant some of it to the federal government, who retain some of it, and who empower municipalities, counties, etc. as they see fit. States are perfectly free to strip municipalities of their authority to regulate businesses, zone property, establish building codes, etc.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I mean, why the fuck a county should regulate coffee machines instead of the state???
Because the State delegated the authority to the counties. Counties are creations of the State. Fortunately, in the Laboratory of Democracy you've got your choice of 50 States, all different (though none currently acting very sovereign when the Feds come knocking).
If your question had instead been, "why the fuck should coffee machines be regulated?" then I would have pointed you here.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Part of the problem is that lobbyists for various trade groups have gotten California to adopt existing books of industry standards as state code.
The State and the authors of the code are SOL. Per the US Court of Appeals For The 5th Circuit in the matter of Veerck v. SBCCI, No. 99-40632, to wit:
Based on the foregoing discussion, I would hold that once a "model code" is adopted into law by the government, a private entity, such as SBCCI, may no longer assert a copyright over the law's content, for the law enters the public domain and should be readily available for access by all citizens. Further, upon enactment, the law transforms into an "idea" that is no longer distinguishable from its expression, causing SBCCI's codes to lose their copyright protection. For these reasons, I would reverse the judgment of the district court.
California may think they'll get a better hearing in the 9th Circuit, but given the 9th's reputation, I wouldn't count on it.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Some cities try this too, because they get free copies of their statutes for the city and their libraries for allowing a company to have an exclusive right to reprint. The Mitchie Company is or was big in this area. However, a federal court has ruled that where a city incorporated a national model code into its city ordinances (with permission of the code publisher) the code as adopted became public domain.
So there is clearly case law supporting that statutes are not copyrightable.
The guy who wants to raise this issue has two possible choices; wait to see if they sue him, or he can go to court himself, if the state is close, and sue for a declaratory judgment that the state's statutes are not copyrightable.
While states do have the capacity to hold copyright - contrary to some posters opinions here, it is only the U.S. Federal government that in many cases does not or cannot copyright its works - it is generally considered that statute laws, even of state governments, are not copyrightable. It's considered against public policy since someone defending a case may have to quote from many statutes, and there can be a point where one's copying would be more than that permissible under fair use.
This also includes court decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court declared more than 100 years ago (in Wheaton v. Peters) that its decisions were not copyrightable, and this has generally been the rule for all court decisions. Even the Berne Convention, which tries to put as many things as possible under automatic copyright protection, indicates that signatory countries have the right to decide whether or not there is protection for statute laws or court decisions.
I think this is mostly inertia among those (lawyers) who supposedly should know better but either think they can get away with it or don't care. I saw some stuff once, in English, on a Japanese website, I think it was a Japanese Government website, that had a copyright notice including "all rights reserved."
That's a "statement of rights reservation" in order to claim certain privileges under the Buenos Aires Convention of 1912. Only thing is, the BA Convention is applicable only for works published by those who are residents (or corporations domesticated under) the countries which are signatories to the convention, which is the U.S., Mexico and about a dozen or so South American countries. Japan is not a signatory to the Buenos Aires Convention, but it is a signatory to the Berne Convention. So is every member of the Buenos Aires Convention, and Berne gives greater protections that Buenos Aires does, so BA has been effectively a dead letter since 2000 when the last member of the BA convention - Honduras - became a signatory to Berne. The use of "all rights reserved" by a Japanese organization provides them with absolutely no benefit whatsoever!
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
No, the truth is much more sinister. Public agencies can't be bothered to make this information available. It would cost them $$$, which they would rather use for their pet projects.
Your best bet (in my experience) it to find out who your inspector will be in advance (not an easy task, but it's worth it) and get everything worked out beforehand. Use a contractor who has worked in the area before, they will likely have a working relationship with the inspector and know what he wants.
I had some greek friends who couldn't understand why we had all the rules and regulations to follow. Apparently it's much easier in their country where you just give the inspector some cash and everything works out better for everyone.
In my particular case it was for getting a container through customs.
Inspector gets money, you get your products out quicker instead of having stock tied up on the dock for weeks on end. Win Win
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
We should copyright the copyright laws with billion dollar royalties for usage.
You could violate any copyrights you want, and when they try to cite the copyright laws, BAM!
*Patent* the laws. Imagine if all 50 states had a completely different law for every subject!
I'm a law student in Melbourne, Australia.
Apart from the fact that all Australian legislation is available (and searchable) online at http://www.austlii.edu.au/ and various government sites (for my state, Victoria, see http://www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au/), printed legislation is also relatively cheap.
The Victorian Acts I've had to buy so far for my courses cost $10 - $20. As far as I know, there's no commercial organisation that bothers to publish Victorian legislation, since the Government Printer sells it at a reasonable price.
The most expensive legislation I had to get was the Family Law Act (which is federal legislation). That cost me about $100. But that particular edition is laid out like a text book, and includes the Act as well as the Regulations & Rules (sub-ordinate legislation), and commentary. It also runs to over 1200 pages. It's published by an academic book publisher. I'm not sure if there's a government version of it, or if the federal government printer even publishes federal legislation in hard copy.
The online version is more convenient anyway, since it's searchable. The only problem is that we don't have internet access (or computer access, for that matter) in exams, whereas we can use printed materials.
"FUCKING SPECIOUS"
Knowing how to put those two words together is a testament to davidseyes' education. He's not wrong.
Copyrighting Law is akin to copyrighting Mathematics, and we know what we feel about that, now don't we?
The problem here is that most lawmakers tend to be poor Jurisprudents. It's hard to imagine many lawyers (I've just asked two as I sit sipping Powers Whiskey (far superior to Jameson imho) and listening to Miles' 'Sketches of Spain', and they find the notion patently preposterous).* It's a real shame, but the vast majority of laws are very poorly drafted, especially the important ones like constitutions. Yes there are limits to natural language, yes there is a vast body of jurisprudence and Common Law precedent we are compelled to use, yes there are many competing interests and rights, yes there are vastly wealthy lobbies, but is there still good reason for such inanity?
Two points are worth your consideration.
Firstly, Mathematics is unimaginably rich** and surely capable of helping us compile logically consistent systems of rule-making for mostly rational agents in a strangely deterministic*** world.
Secondly, this is /.. We know and appreciate, and mostly love and adore, open source software (I sure do). Think of the caliber of contributors to and readers of this wonderful site and tell yourself there isn't another Tim Berners Lee or Linus Torvalds out there (there'll never be another Stallman just as there'll never be another Knuth: these guys helped redefine generosity in the abstract). Look at the phenomenal excellence of such distributed generosity. So many great minds make such an awesome crowd. Say it can't be so.
So here's a meme: the best method of overcoming the natural language constraints on the mathematical expression of contract law both symbolically and consistently is likely quite simple.
Get to it, please. I'm trying but have not yet enough quality to share.
*A /. feed on the convergence device is a great stimulant to conversation. I grew up without a TV due to the wisdom of me Ma, and find "teh habit" wearisome. Also txting is cool. Must get me an asterisk so as to tie it all together.
**One of the first things I was told on entering the Mathematical Logic course offered by Des McHale (an encyclopedia of humour, wickedly funny, and a hugely educating (fully ambidextrous!) gentleman) was that no-one knows how much Mathematics we have uncovered as our learning increases far too rapidly. To my enduring astonishment we have no map of Mathematics!
***In the sense of susceptibility of being modeled within acceptable limits of error as tallied against concrete measurements.
I love parentheses. Must be the Lisp.
science in government
the one that some schmuck was sued for informing either his client, or for informing his lawyer or something for (it was reported here, and I'm too tired to dig)?
This is inevitable.
Secret Laws are the means of the secret police state.
Ask the citizens of the former "soviet union" about secret laws.
America couldn't possibly pass up that kind of tradition of authority..
I am still waiting for someone to tag it catch22 ..
It's not that cut and dried. Law professor Henry Perritt, Jr. summarizes the situation fairly well in this article:
So, while the states can own copyright in certain works, the scope of those works is strictly limited. It cannot include those works compelled by public duty. Laws fall squarely in this category.
Ok, so let's say they do make their laws copyrightable. I think I shall copyright my name and charge them licensing fees for using it in their public documents.
I agree with you with respect to the public policy and (compelling) legal arguments from the Perritt article. However, neither a public policy position from the Copyright Office, nor an article from a law journal are "law". In that sense, they are only persuasive authority, not mandatory authority, such as the Constitution, statute (in this case, Section 105) or case law. There is no case law (that I am aware of anyway) holding that a state cannot copyright a work, including legal texts it publishes.
Well, Perritt cites constitutional text as the key basis for claiming copyright can't apply to public information, but his specific interpretation isn't necessarily the only one possible.
Hmmm... case law....
I don't know enough about precedent to know whether the post-settlement vacation of the case nullifies the court opinion; however, in Georgia v. Harrison Co. (548 F. Supp. 110, 114 (N.D. Ga. 1982)), the court entered an opinion reading: "a state's 'ownership' of its statutes does not preclude anyone from publishing those statutes.... The public must have free access to state laws, unhampered by any claim of copyright, whether that claim be made by an individual or the state itself." This opinion was entered as the reason for denying a preliminary injunction in the case.
Perhaps someone could combine copyrighted laws and laws you have to comply with but will not be told about, i.e. "secret laws", and then maybe patent the whole thing and register it as an aesthetic model and its name as a trademark.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
So. If. Each. Take. The. Text. Of. One. Law. And. Contribute (give). It. To. This. Guy. As. A. Community (group of people). Effort (try). Then. Is. His. New. Compilation (group of things). Infringing (against the law)?
Fair Use means a reasonably short piece for purposes direct use, commentary, example, summary, refutation, etc. A single law is pretty useless unless you get the whole of that law. That means each law could be fairly used by a person.
If the text of the law is fair to use out of these sources, then we each take one from the copyrighted source and strip the formatting. We submit them one by one to this guy's site. He collects them. He organizes them. He formats them. He gets a new copyright on the new compilation. He can then release his compilation under the terms he chooses.
There's nothing derivative because he's not using their font, spacing, organization, or anything. He's just using user-contributed text of the laws of the state. Are they going to try people from all around the world for conspiracy to commit copyright infringement to free the laws? That'd be even funnier than just suing this one guy.
Just wait until various governments start claiming that the text of statutes constitutes a 'state secret'.
Defence: Your Honour, what law did my client break?
Prosecution: Objection! That is 'eyes-only' information!
Judge: Sustained.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
Interesting... I appreciate the case cite and I will have to read it. It says vacated by agreement of parties... which is weird. I have never seen that before. It seems to me that it is not valid precedent, but I can't say without reading the whole case (and it is way to late for me to get started on that!). However, I searched a little further and it looks like Howell v. Miller, 91 F 129 (1898) holds that "no one can obtain the exclusive right to publish the laws of the state in a book prepared by him." That is an old, old case, but certainly can still be good law today. That specifically dealt with attempts to claim copyright on Michigan statutes.
I also found this article through Google Books, which has several cites to some case authority in a footnote (not sure if that link will work, but it was simply the 4th hit on a Google search of "548 F. Supp. 110" (with quotes)). Certainly something worth reading... if you are into this sort of "legal geekiness" anyway!
This thread has provided me with some new insight on the issue. I would note that I appreciate your thoughtful and polite discourse... these Slashdot threads so often devolve into name calling, I get hesitant to follow-up on my posts. Thanks!
me. Typical /. giving the extremists play time.
Of the people, by the people, for the people
Just a legal housekeeping note: the State of California does *not* have to prosecute known violations of its copyright in order to retain its rights under the Copyright Act. The OP suggested otherwise. That requirement only exists for trademarks (and probably for the more vague "trade dress" and "trade secret" rights as well).
For better or for worse, copyrights and patents are unaffected by lack of enforcement.
> Are you saying that there are secret regulations not available to the public that they must still follow?
> How would a building firm know what is an acceptable height for a toilet seat unless that is specified in some regulation?
> Sounds like you are bullshitting.
Actually, building and zoning codes are the worst offenders of this. I'm pretty sure that the National Electric Code, the National Fire/Life Safety Code, or both, are copyrighted, aggressively guarded by their respective owners, and incorporated by reference into just about every building code in America. I *know* at least 2 of the "big 3" model building codes (IRC, BOCA, CABO) are officially copyrighted, though Florida's building code (which is ~98% verbatim IRC) *does* seem to be available online for free perusal (though it seems to be "free as in beer", in the sense that you can download and read it for free, but can't redistribute it yourself).
Most transit info is officially copyrighted, too. Put up a web site with BART or NYC subway maps, timetables, or aggregate their realtime status without their blessing, and they'll have you in court before you can blink. I believe that in New York's case, they actually go so far as to use TRADEMARK law to prohibit the third-party publication of ANYTHING claiming to be a New York City subway map, even if it's a completely novel design with no discernible resemblance to their "official" maps. It would probably go down in flames if it were ever challenged in court, but I believe it's been on the books for at least a few decades.
In any case, I agree 100%... the entire idea of copyrighting a LAW is absolute bullshit, unless ignorance of a copyrighted law IS an ironclad defense in court.
They could probably copyright the layout and formatting but not the contents
Carl is gonna win and lose at the same time.
I seem to recall a situation along these lines being at the root of some events in an obscure book called The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...
(Something about important public notices being made available only through a single, difficult to access location...)
8==8 Bones 8==8
How do you know? Have you worked in or with local governments "just about everywhere"? Or are you just presenting some random libellous navel-gazing as fact?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Here is a satire about what our society would look like if the law was like what lawyers recommend for everyone else:
"Microslaw"
http://www.pdfernhout.net/microslaw.html
"""
My fellow Americans. There has been some recent talk of free law by the General Public Lawyers (the GPL) who we all know hold un-American views. I speak to you today from the Oval Office in the White House to assure you how much better off you are now that all law is proprietary. The value of proprietary law should be obvious. Software is essentially just a form of law governing how computers operate, and all software and media content has long been privatized to great economic success. Economic analysts have proven conclusively that if we hadn't passed laws banning all free software like GNU/Linux and OpenOffice after our economy began its current recession, which started, how many times must I remind everyone, only coincidentally with the shutdown of Napster, that we would be in far worse shape then we are today. RIAA has confidently assured me that if independent artists were allowed to release works without using their compensation system and royalty rates, music CD sales would be even lower than their recent inexplicably low levels. The MPAA has also detailed how historically the movie industry was nearly destroyed in the 1980s by the VCR until that too was banned and all so called fair use exemptions eliminated. So clearly, these successes with software, content, and hardware indicate the value of a similar approach to law.
There are many reasons for the value of proprietary law. You all know them since you have been taught them in school since kindergarten as part of your standardized education. They are reflected in our most fundamental beliefs, such as sharing denies the delight of payment and cookies can only be brought into the classroom if you bring enough to sell to everyone. But you are always free to eat them all yourself of course! [audience chuckles knowingly]. But I think it important to repeat such fundamental truths now as they form the core of all we hold dear in this great land.
First off, we all know our current set of laws requires a micropayment each time a U.S. law is discussed, referenced, or applied by any person anywhere in the world. This financial incentive has produced a large amount of new law over the last decade. This body of law is all based on a core legal code owned by that fine example of American corporate capitalism at its best, the MicroSlaw Corporation.
MicroSlaw's core code defines a legal operating standard or OS we can all rely on. While I know some GPL supporters may be painting a rosy view of free law to the general public, it is obvious that any so called free alternative to MicroSlaw's legal code fails at the start because it would require great costs for learning about new so-called free laws, plus additional costs to switch all legal forms and court procedures to the new so called free standard. So free laws are really more expensive, especially as we are talking here about free as in cost, not free as in freedom.
In any case, why would you want to pay public servants like those old time -- what were they called? -- Senators? Representatives? -- around $145K a year out of public funds just to make free laws? Laws are made far more efficiently, inexpensively and, I assure you, justly, by large corporations like MicroSlaw. Such organizations need the motivation of micropayments for application, discussion or reference of their laws to stay competitive. MicroSlaw needs to know who discusses what law and when they do so, each and every time, so they can charge fairly for their services and thus retain their financial freedom to innovate. And America is all about financial freedom, right! [Audience applause]. ...
"""
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
The judge is really not allowed to tell you what the procedures are. That would be giving legal advice, and one thing judges are emphatically NOT allowed to do is give legal advice to disputants. To get an explanation of the procedure, talk to a lawyer, such as a public defender if you don't want to hire a private lawyer.
Actually I have no idea what the public defender situation is like in a small town. I live in a big city and got a traffic ticket in federal jurisdiction once though, so I had to go deal with it in federal court (!). I showed up in the waiting area and there were a lot of public defenders milling around helping people, and one of them represented me in a conference with the prosecutor (result: ticket was partially but not totally bogus, so they threw out half of it and I agreed to pay the other half).
...are belong to us?
(T)he (O)ld (M)an
Realistically, if you are building from scratch and are paying an architecture firm who's reputable, then the said firm should be well aware of all Federal/State/Local ordinances. And it should also be understood that if the architecture or builder fails to follow the codes, then it is on their dime not yours, being you are the paying customer for their expertise and knowledge.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
"States are perfectly free to strip municipalities of their authority to regulate businesses, zone property, establish building codes, etc."
Er, sort of. At least here in Illinois the power of the municipalities is laid out in the state constitution. It is called "home rule".
For the state legislature to take away any powers from a home rule city/county they need a 60% super-majority. That is really hard to get in our state, especially since home rule is quite popular, and the democratic "machine" in Chicago rules more than about 50% of the legislators, and the downstate Republican "combine" rules the rest.
At the next level, the counties can pass ordinances, but if they conflict with a city/village ordinance, the city ordinance takes precedence.
It is nearly impossible to coordinate anything at the state or even county level and override local ordinances. The result is a hodge-podge of laws city to city, county to county.
The classic example of this is the number of gun laws. State laws are fairly strict (but mostly resonable), but then you have individual towns with their own stricter laws. And there is the reverse, Cook County (contains Chicago and a lot of suburbs) has super-strict laws, but some towns have overruled them with less strict laws. You almost have to be a lawyer just to drive from home to the range.
The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
Someone I used to know back in the day built a porch add-on to their house. As everyone knows, there's plenty of codes to follow. He went down to city hall, got the necessary paperwork and guidelines, and built his porch. A month later, the city came and demanded that he knock it down, as it was too close to the road.
You know, a lot of cities have a neat little system where they send an inspector to each building site before construction is complete to sign off on issues like that. Sounds like this city should look into that.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
At least here in Illinois the power of the municipalities is laid out in the state constitution. It is called "home rule".
That's fine. I didn't say that states could necessarily discard their own sub-polities with ease, just that it is the state which creates and empowers them, and which can ultimately undo them. So long as the state follows the requirements the federal constitution has for states, e.g. having a republican form of government, it can be organized internally however it likes. The organization can be established in the state constitution, or a statute, or whatever; it doesn't matter.
For example, in my state, there's been a trend lately to abolish counties, leaving behind the cities and towns in their former geographic boundaries to assume all the duties that the counties performed.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Back before word-processors, getting all these laws published at all was an improvement for the public. Being able to go to an official publisher and just buy a copy was much better than having to go down to the court house, do research, and write out the parts you needed by hand. By licensing that public's copyright to a vendor who could handle typesetting and mass production, the government improved access to the laws. That was then.
This is now. Now, word-processors and web sites are everywhere. Now, restricting the right to publish the laws decreases access to them by the public (who are the ultimate owners of these copyrights). It is time for our governments to relicense these copyrights -- to us. In today's world, restrictive licensing serves only an entrenched and useless monopoly. It disserves the public.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
I would bet that practically nobody, lawyers included, is actually aware of each and every law that applies to them. I would further wager that each and every person is at least technically in violation of several laws on a routine basis.
It is beyond a full time job just to know and understand all of the laws. Unfortunately, if someone should dedicate themselves to actually understanding every law that applies to them, they will be forced to violate several anyway since it is not actually possible to obey some of them unless you have money.
Beware of he who denies you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Are you saying that there are secret regulations not available to the public that they must still follow?
Yup; google for "secret law" to read about it. Here's an article about one recently-passed US secret law that might affect a few /. readers.
The wikipedia article on secret law is short, but has a few good links to other informative articles.
The old saw that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" no longer applies in the US; it's more like "Ignorance of the law is legally enforced". We have laws on the books that you must obey, but you can't read. Unauthorized knowledge of the text of the secret laws is itself a crime, as is informing anyone else of the laws' text.
There have recently been reports of judges recusing themselves from a case on the grounds that they didn't have clearance to read the applicable laws.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I am sure that the kids building tree-houses really appreciates this!
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
Um, I think you meant to reply to the parent to my post (since that's where the quote you used came from).
Bradley Holt
PRECEDENT - this happened in North Texas and Peter Veeck actually won. http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/Veek_vs_Southern_Bldg_Code.htm
Barack Obama has pledged to make all Federal agencies (other than military and intelligence) post pretty much everything on the Internet in a manner that the public can effectively navigate. Presumably this can be extended to any state and local programs receiving Federal funds.
I would like to see the disclosure laws about voting actually followed, so that the public can routinely audit elections when partisan election officials won't. At least in California we will have records.
Wait, would anybody try to copyright the voter registration records? %-[
"A knot!" said Alice, ever ready to be useful. "Oh, do let me help to undo it!"
I know this is nitpicking, but it's not just the taxpayers, but also citizens who are too young, disabled, or poor to be required to pay taxes, and even foreigners who are bound by California laws because they are residents, or are here as tourists or are under California's jurisdiction by more questionable means (for example, the state of New York has been suing companies outside of New York based on their stock being trade on an exchange incorporated in New York).
For example, in the case of the working poor, their low wages might be due to competition in their job field pushing the surplus value that they generate several stages up the purchasing chain, but that does not mean that they did not produce the surplus value. For example, picking artichockes might not be very profitable due to the availability of a lot of willing farm workers, operating a farm might not be very profitable due to competition between farms, and food distributors might not be profitable due to competition between each other, but, none of these competitions destroy the surplus value created by the act of picking artichokes that (that some people enjoy eating artichokes enough to be willing to pick them or trade enough money that someone else is voluntarily willing to pick artichokes for). The competitions just move the surplus value further along the supply chain.
Slashdot visited in 2003 the precedential Veeck case (went to the Supreme Court) mentioned several times in this discussion see http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/08/204225 I support a "full daylight" policy for public access to laws and regulations with which compliance is mandatory. Indeed there are such transparency obligations on central and local governments within the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e.htm "2.11 Members shall ensure that all technical regulations which have been adopted are published promptly or otherwise made available in such a manner as to enable interested parties in other Members to become acquainted with them." See also Legislative and Regulatory Underpinnings of US Government use of Standards in Technical Regulations and Procurements and the development by Government of voluntary standards http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/Legislativeunderpinning.html So for "technical regulations" with which compliance is mandatory, central and local governments could meet this expectation by posting them to the web. Central and local governments could also charge reasonable fees for paper copies of such "technical regulations" when requested. However the issue becomes complicated when "technical regulations" embody text of standards from private sector standards developers. There is a precedent case http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/veeck.htm In the Supreme Court of the United States Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc, Petitioner Peter Veeck, D/B/A Regional Web No. 02-355. I have copied below relevant text: "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." The Supreme court in making its decision not to hear the case essentially accepted the US solicitor General's advice about a June 10, 2002 decision of the court of appeals from the Fifth Circuit "Supreme Court need not reconsider a June 10, 2002 decision of United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002)). The Fifth Circuit had concluded that SBCCI retains the copyright in its standard, but that "[w]hen those codes are enacted into law ... they become to that extent 'the law' of the governmental entities and may be reproduced or distributed as 'the law' of those jurisdictions." The Fifth Circuit further observed that laws are not subject to federal copyright law, and "public ownership of the law means that 'the law' is in the 'public domain' for whatever use the citizens choose to make of it."
Many private sector standards developing organizations SDOs depend on the sale of standards to support their infrastructure. The implication for such SDOs was identified by the Dissenting opinion to the Fifth court decision by WIENER, Circuit Judge, joined by KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, dissenting:
"Technical codes and standards have become necessary, pervasive, and indispensable ingredients of Twenty-First Century life in this country; regrettably, today's majority opinion has a real potential of d