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
That would mean that "ignorance of the law" IS a valid excuse.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
If a law is unenforceable, how can it be a law?
It's illegal to commit suicide, but, what's the punishment and how can you carry it out? Therefore, you can infer that it is not actually illegal. (the attempt might be on the other hand)
MABASPLOOM!
That's right, amazingly enough nobody is expected to know their municipal [laws] by heart...
Oh? Really? So you can claim ignorance of municipal and civil laws?
Try explaining that to the next cop who's about to write you a ticket for a civil infraction.
"Oh, but officer, I didn't know that you had to obey the speed limit! I thought that was just a guideline!
Or how about to the impound yard after you've parked your rotting hulk of a car on the street for more than 10 days without moving it. Yep, that's a municipal law.
My blog
A douchebag for "civil disobedience" and standing up against a ridiculous law? I guess Rosa Parks (and all the others that did similar, before and after) was a douchebag who should have not coaxed the state into throwing her into prison wasting taxpayer money...?
He's doing a very important thing because by challenging the law he's effectively testing it and him winning means other people won't be intimidated by this bullshit--you say he should avoid breaking this obviously bogus, incredibly idiotic law, but then, you're just saying that people should bend over backwards to accommodate the state's stupidity. Thus the only time the law would be tested would be, ironically, in a case of ignorance of the law, in a case where the law is copyrighted. Heh!
His goal is to get Californaias laws placed online which will never happen as long as it's illegal to be viewable to everyone for free. Such a project would cost quite a bit, and no one is going to risk putting in the effort if there's risk of it being shutdown.
Coaxing the state government in to suing him will just cost the tax payers extra money
Then maybe, just maybe, California should drop its claim of copyright, instead of suing him to hang on to their useless claim. What an amazing idea! He's not the "douchebag" here.
because it is affecting no one.
And you know this because everyone who it could possibly be affecting would be rich enough and willing to take the time to fight it in court?
Court battles aside, on the face of it, you're wrong. Everyone who has ever had to pay an architect (who in turn has to pay for the current building codes and therefore passes that charge on) has been affected, and that's just the start. Everyone who has hired a lawyer in California has paid to cover that lawyer's access to the law, and everyone who has ever paid for the law is directly affected.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
What the hell are you talking about? Copyright, is the right to print copy of said copyrighted material. This isn't trade secret law (nor would it matter, because a company may have to reveal a trade secret to a judge to show that someone else stole their trade secret, this would not invalidate their trade secret). I don't need copyright to read a book, I need copyright to PRINT a book. He is breaking the law by reproducing their copyrighted material and hoping they will sue him for it so he can have the copyright on laws thrown out. They do not lose any rights by "revealing the copyright". That would mean an author would lose his copyright on a work the moment he printed it. Methinks you need another look at what copyright actually means before you go making jokes about others getting hit in the head.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Malamud wants California to sue him, which is almost a given if the state wants to continue claiming copyright.
This sounds like the usual misunderstanding. Copyright, unlike Trademark, remains in force even if not actively defended. The holder of the copyright could lay low forever, and only sue those who they want to sue.
If they don't sue him, he'll publish all their laws online and the issue becomes moot.
I imagine if California thinks there is a real copyright claim, they'll sue before that happens.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
To be fair to the states, it's simply impossible to write English that is both simple and unambiguous. I spent some time an a standards committee, and learnd that the most clear and simple phrases can be misunderstood in ways that are quite surprising, but make sense in hindsight. For laws, serious money will be spent looking for ways to deliberately twist the meaning of the wording of the law, so it's an even harder task to make the wording unambiguous.
Word sand expressions in English are simply too flexible to write a law in simple, clear terms. You'd find 50 diferent interpretaitons of the law that were each consistant with the wording.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I'm confused, why are you saying its not illegal?
According to the link posted at the top, it is very clear that copyright protection is NOT available for laws specifically.
US.Code-Title 17.Chapter 1.Section 105:
"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."
This clearly states that the government is permitted to receive and hold copyrights for any work that is not created by the United States government (such as from a musical group or author) but works written within the government (such as tax forms and US codes) are NOT protected.
Is there a code that can be sited that contradicts this?
Hold up a minute. You say:
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).
But that's NOT what the Supreme Court said, at not the way I read it. :
So you CANNOT claim copyright on a simple alphabetical listing of names and phone numbers because it is not original or creative enough.
This law is a work of the California state government, not the U.S. Government, so that section doesn't automatically apply.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
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.
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.
"I can't tell you."
So, it comes as no surprise that government wants to hide laws from the people.
You're drawing the wrong conclusion from that exchange.
The judge in your contested ticket can't provide you with legal assistance in preparing or executing your defense or otherwise pursuing litigation on that matter.
What you should have done was contacted an attorney, law school, or legal aid clinic in the area for help.
He wasn't hiding anything from you. In fact, what he said was helping you, although you apparently missed it. He was telling you that you were not conducting yourself in compliance with the established procedures--something which could have prevented you from prevailing in the ticket appeal if for some reason the ticket turned out not to be defective. It's also possible he was telling you that it's rarely appropriate to call the judge presiding over your case. You address your communications formally, in writing, to the court.
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..
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.