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.
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.
That would mean that "ignorance of the law" IS a valid excuse.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
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.
Can you copyright a copyright law?
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE! You've opened a universe paradox! WE'RE GONNA DIEEeeeeeeeeee
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.
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."
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
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
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.
Kal-ee-forn-ee-uh
I think you mean GAL-ee-forn-ee-uh.
Your ad here.
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 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)?
I'm pretty sure that's called fraud and it's already illegal.
"Government, please correct my broken business model."
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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.
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:
Building codes, in most places, aren't written by the state. They're mostly adaptations of the International Building Code written by the International Code Council. The 2007 version of the California Building Code is the 2006 IBC with updates. The ICC says they own the copyright to the IBC (and they hold a trademark on it, too) in the hardcopy of the book. It may be that states charge exorbitant fees for a print copy because ICC charges the state.
By posting the CBC, you are certainly posting large portions of work copyrighted by the IBC. Some states publish an addendum to the IBC containing modifications of the IBC, essentially just a booklet saying, "replace section 1609.1.1 with the following...." Those are clearly written by the state and are public information.
Some states post their entire code online at the ICC website, such as Florida, New Jersey and Connecticut. You can read and print, but not save. New York City has their 2008 code (it is based on IBC with heavy modifications) up on the Department of Buildings website available for download. Washington, DC posts their modifications online at their own site. There doesn't seem to be a consensus as to the best way, just what each state wants. Each state has a differing degree of customization, from exact cut-and-paste of the IBC to very specific tailoring in in the structural section.
Why does my coffee mug smell like trout?
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!"
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...
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
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.
Oh yeah, here!
7 years ago? God I'm old.
...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
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]-
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.
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)
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.