Interestingly, both Lexis and Westlaw now offer (limited) "free" case law. West acquired Findlaw, and Lexis offers LexisOne.
Neither Findlaw nor LexisOne offers many of the "value added" features (ie, headnotes) that the full service features offer, and neither is comprehensive. LexisOne only offers the past five years of case law, and no federal district court cases, for instance.
Interestingly, I think that a lot of Findlaw is indexed on Google. Although I use the "real" thing most of the time (because of the value-added features, and the fact that LexisOne is pretty much crippled Lexis), Google is quite useful at searching Findlaw.
As an aside, I would LOVE to be able to do Lexis or Westlaw-style queries on Google...
Like the answer to most legal questions, the answer to your question is probably "it depends".
Caveat: IAAL, but this shouldn't be construed as legal advice. Furthermore, I'm a US lawyer. Consult with a lawyer admitted in your own jurisdiction for actual advice on the laws of Australia (or wherever).
If you're only bringing a consumer suit, a printout of the (dated) Google cache is probably all you'd want to do, since any more would be ludicrously expensive given the amount in controversy.
Under the (US) Federal Rules of Evidence, I don't see any way to make the document self-authenticating. Therefore, you'd have to present testimony that the Google cache page is authentic and accurate. (And the other side could attempt to rebut that testimony.)
I guess it would be pretty cheap to print the cache (which you should definitely do), date-stamp the printout, and swear out a notarized affidavit with the printout attached, stating the date that you got the affidavit.
In a normal civil suit with a sufficient budget for discovery, you could ask the other side to admit that the Google cache is accurate, or that they changed the web page terms and conditions after you purchased your product. If they don't admit it, or willfully lie to you (and you can subsequently prove it), they could be liable for fees and other disciplinary action.
If you had an unlimited case budget, you could even attempt to subpoena Google, or get expert testimony regarding the date that Google cached the page.
No, region coding has been found (IMHO correctly) to be access control. The copyright owners want DVDs to only be accessed (playable) under certain circumstances. Distribution control measure == access control.
I think the simplistic way to look at it is that access control is something that the copyright owner does to protect its bundle rights given under copyright law.
Let's be even more specific why the DMCA doesn't apply here. The provisions of the DMCA/. readers are most worked out about (Section 1201) are the anti-circumvention provisions. These provisions forbid you to circumvent technology that "effectively controls access" to a copyrighted work. It also prohibits trafficing in devices (including software) that circumvent these access controls.
I think we all agree that this is an overbroad, bad law. But hacking a proxy server has nothing to do with circumventing access controls. Controlling general access to the internet (or even specific access to all email and instant messaging) does not constitute the exercising of access control by a copyright owner.
Moreover -- and I suppose this might be disputed by some -- I don't think there's that much of a privacy violation here, either. Students using the school's network during class simply have no reasonable expectation of privacy -- especially if this policy were announced in class.
Other articles in this thread address this. Suffice it to say that US greenbacks are not redeemable (or even "backed") by gold or silver reserves any more, and have not been for quite awhile.
In fact, the Treasury Dept. FAQ you quote states,
Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.
It's been awhile since I've delved into parliamentary procedure as used in the Senate, but I believe that any single Senator can call for an exact tally when there's a voice vote. A voice vote is pretty much like asking for unanimous consent on a motion.
How many people were prosecuted for violations of the Communications Decency Act? What happened there (and what would happen if SSSCA were passed by Congress) was that the ACLU and others filed for a temporary restraining order enjoining the attorney general from enforcing the law until a determination could be made regarding its constitutionality.
Are there people rotting in jail for violations of the (unconstitutional portions of the) CDA? No. Likewise, there wouldn't be legally shot people as a result of your Southern "shot on sight" hypothetical law.
None of this should be taken as an endorsement in any way of SSSCA. But please, let's try to retain some common sense...
Oh -- I know you're asking whether Congress could be sued for dereliction of duty as a rhetorical question, but the answer is "no". The Constitution provides that the sole remedy really is to elect replacements. The Senate and the House are the judges of the qualifications of their members. They could presumably vote to remove members who shirk their duties (or engage in criminal acts, etc.) But Congress as a whole passes laws that are unconstitutional all the time. The courts can strike down the laws, but would decline to sanction Congress directly (ie, contempt of court, court-ordered removal from office). They would most likely declare that a "political question" outside their jurisdiction.
The Newsforge article specifically mentions that Hollings is a Democrat.
In fact, the headline identifies him as "Senator Fritz Hollings (D-Disney)", pretty much alleging that he represents the interests of Big Media and not the people of his state (South Carolina).
Y'know, if the LinuxToday article is accurate, I'm not sure I have that much sympathy for the Colvin, the former employee of Loki; the article says that "Colvin loaned Loki nearly $100,000 via credit card, including at least one occasion when he charged all or part of Loki's semi-weekly payroll, which the company has refused to repay."
I can understand being supportive of your company, or trying to keep your investments out of the red. (Colvin apparantly was both an employee and a company officer and investor.) But this seems like a classic case of throwing good money after bad. If they can't get bridge financing to meet payroll, they're in deep trouble already, and Colvin should have known that.
I can accept a director or investor making an unsecured loan to their company. (It happens all the time with smaller companies, especially closely-held ones.) But charging a CREDIT CARD?!?! What the heck was he thinking?
First, Loki would instantly lose whatever Visa skims off of the top, so it's bad for them. And second, Colvin, the lender, is stuck with interest payments. Last I checked, the borrower usually pays interest, not the lender. Either Colvin was incredibly naive, or Loki's execs who got him to do it were incredibly manipulative, or both.
Opinions my own and not my employer's. This is not legal advice.
Unless Skylarov wrote his program in the US he has committed no US crime. US laws should not be be enforced on citizens of other countries unless such crimes are committed on US territory. [there are exceptions to this, but copyright laws shouldn't be one of them].
Sklyarov offered an anti-circumvention device inside the U.S., and presumably, people in the U.S. downloaded his program.
Specifically, the part of the DMCA he's charged with violating 17 USC s1201(b), states,
(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
The FBI saw Sklyarov's notice on the program that he was the author, and corroborated this with his presentation and actions at DEFCON. Essentially, by selling/offering the eBook processor, he's allegedly guilty of offering, providing, and trafficking in a circumvention device on U.S. territory. He was in the U.S., and was thus arrested.
This has been said in many other/. threads relating to political activism, but here goes:
Generally, email is an ineffective way of contacting many, if not most, Congressmen. For better or for worse, Congressmen attach less of a value to email than they do to regular postal snail mail.
Whenever you write your representative or senator, make sure you include your postal return address in their district. If you don't show that you're one of their constituents, your message will not be seen by anyone besides a low-level staffer or intern (who will summarily discard it).
Some good magic words to use (which are not always effective) are, "I am one of your voting constituents", and "I would appreciate the courtesy of a written response."
Also, form letters will get form responses. Brief, polite, but personal/unique letters get noticed (slightly) more.
I'll say it again: It's better to send snail mail. If you must send email, state that you're one of Congressman ____'s voting constituents right off the bat, and provide your snail mail address in the first paragraph.
So why haven't we see Tony Soprano playing his half-elf warrior on HBO?
Half-elf? Naah. Tony Soprano wouldn't play a pansy half-elf. Half-ORC, maybe. Or maybe even a dwarf.
I think if Tony Soprano were a demi-human, he'd be a troll -- from Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, not the regenerating killed-only-with-acid-or-fire AD&D trolls.
Which raises yet another frightening image. Tony Soprano as a/. troll. Yikes.
Re:How does one even apply for this sort of job?
on
Nostrildamus
·
· Score: 3
Oh, I'm sure we could cook up some great sounding resume entries.
How does:
Directed and supervised team engaged in assessment of olfactory hazards and irritants in controlled environments used in aerospace industry.
sound???
But remember (read the article), this guy is a "chemistry laboratory technician" whose job 90% of the time is probably a little more serious. (read the article). I can't imagine that this is his full-time position, although I suppose coordinating the panels and tabulating results could generate a lot of administrative work.
As with many issues raised by this thread, I think the answer lies in the text of the Fifth Circuit's decision. The crux of the case, I maintain, is the due process argument.
If a model code author restricted the terms under which it published the code such that citizens could not easily obtain copies or learn their content, then due process would be violated, even though the author would be acting within the scope of its rights as a copyright holder. Due process requires that citizens have access to the laws.
Again, I'll ask: Does due process require citizens to have free, instant, online access to the laws, or is physical access at City Hall or the library enough? I think that's the question really posed by this case.
Additionally, the Fifth Circuit explicitly rejected Veeck's argument of copyright misuse; the court said that Veeck presented no evidence of misuse. (Some/. readers might claim that filing of an infringement suit is misuse, I suppose.)
When I referred to the "market for the work", I was addressing the copyright issue -- directed at the comment, "Making it available for public reference sure seems like a fair use of the text of legislation to me."
My comments regarding the market for the work were meant to parallel the Fifth Circuit's decision, which stated, "Veeck's posting of the codes on the Internet could prove harmful by reducing SBCCI's market and depriving it of income used in its socially valuable effort of confecting, promulgating, and revising model codes." The market is not for the law itself, but for SBCCI's book / disk.
Law publishing is an extremely lucrative business. Just ask Lexis or Westlaw...
Okay, I think we must be on completely different wavelengths because when you start talking about a market in what the law that bind you says you sound insane.
I'm not insane -- we're just operating under different assumptions.
I was talking only about fair use. One of the factors in determining fair use is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". See 17 U.S.C. 107.
In the Veeck decision, the Fifth Circuit found that SBCCI had a valid copyright in the text of the building code.
I stated that there's no argument for fair use. SBCCI makes money by selling copies of the codes, so it's commercial use. Veeck took the entire work and put it on his website. Why pay SBCCI for a copy when you can get it online for free?
Your argument that the market is eliminated by submitting the work to the legislature really goes to the constitutional (due process) issue, and not the copyright issue. You're assuming that the model code's adoption as the law makes the copyright unenforceable; the Fifth Circuit, whether rationally or not, rejected that argument.
Thus, when considering the fair use argument, there's no difference between the model building code and the latest Stephen King novel. And so there's no fair use when you copy and republish the entire work.
This is not legal advice. Go to a lawyer, not/., for legal advice.
I think you're missing the Fifth Circuit's point. The Constitution requires "due process of law". "Due process requires that the public have notice of what the law is so that the people may comply with its mandates." (From Vreeck decision.)
According to the Fifth Circuit, "due process" access to the building code requires, at a minimum, avaiability "for inspection and copying at the city offices in towns where they have been adopted".
So, if the laws weren't available for inspection, then there would be violation of constitutional rights.
Anything above and beyond the constitutionally required "minimum", however, is gravy. Domated webservers, etc. would certainly aid in dissemination, and presumably the city would be free to enter into whatever licensing agreements it desired. While it would further disseminate the law, it's not required by the Constitution, at least according to the Fifth Circuit.
I think what's important is where we set the minimum bar for due process -- and whether we recognize whether technological advancements can raise that bar.
This is not legal advice. If you need specific legal advice, consult with a lawyer, and not/.
In the case of many publications submitting material means that you hand over copyright. e.g. letters to a newspaper. Maybe unconditionally maybe only if they publish it.
Actually, I think you're giving the publication an implied license to republish your letter (or create derivative works from it by editing it and then republishing it). For instance, I own the copyright on this post, but by hitting the "Submit" button, gave/. an implied license to publish it, put advertisements on top of it, etc.
I stand corrected; I wish I could edit the parent post.
I'll chalk up my confusion to a conflict in the circuits. The Eighth Circuit, in West Pub. Co. v. Mead Data Cent., Inc., 799 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1986) is in conflict with the Second Circuit in Matthew Bender & Co. v. Hyperlaw, 158 F.3d 693 (2d Cir. 1998).
Further, it's not the first page (for parallel cites) that's being fought over; it's the star pagination to the internal pages. Talk about splitting hairs.
According to the Fifth Circuit, Vreeck (the acccused copyright infringer) could have gone down to the department of public works during business hours and asked to see the code. Or he could have gone to the local library and look at the book there.
I think this case is a lot more important (and complex) than some/. comments seem to indicate. Specifically, the courts need to ask themselves, does the ready availability of access to information raise the bar of due process?
The oft-quoted John Perry Barlow phrase, "Information wants to be free" should be restated for the courts: "Does due process require this information to be freely, instantly available?"
The Fifth Circuit held that due process wasn't violated because the code was "available". What Veeck did was to copy the disk he got from the building code people, and paste it onto his website. Wholesale copying.
The Fifth Circuit thinks that if you can go the library, and see the code there (for free), or go the public works department and ask to see a copy of the code, then due process is satisfied.
Also note that fair use is a real hard argument to make here, since Veeck copied the entire code. By making it freely available online, he eviscerated the market for the work.
Well, in this case, the state government didn't WRITE the buidling code -- they just adopted the code.
So, the code, written by SBC, is still an "original work of authorship" subject to copyright protection.
Take court decisions, for instance. The text of the decision, written by the judge, is not subject to copyright. But the page numbering of certain editions, from, say, West Publishing, are copyrighted by the publisher. So someone can copy the text, but can't cite to the page numbers. Sounds crazy, but that's the state of the law, which is what is giving (other) legal publishers headaches.
This is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see a lawyer, not/.
It's a 2-1 decision from the 5th Circuit. The due process part of the decision appears to turn on the fact that the panel felt that no one was being denied access to the text of the code itself. The Fifth Circuit panel stated that "due process requires at a minimum that the codes should be available for inspection and copying at the city offices in towns where they have been adopted". However, Veeck admitted that the codes were available during times when city officials were available. So, I guess we want to ask ourselves, is 24-hour, online access a part of due process? Before the Internet, how many people had such ready access to the text of laws?
Also note that the Ninth Circuit has held that that the American Medical Association did not lose the right to enforce its copyright when use of its promulgated coding system was required by government regulations, and the Seocnd Circuit upheld the copyright of the "Red Book" projections of used car valuations...
This is not legal advice. If you need specific legal advice, consult with a lawyer, and not/.
Hey, I remember CFN! ai177, right here...The old Cleveland Freenet was my first gateway to internet email. I remember using ftp-by-mail to snare the latest and greatest, all through Freenet.
You could probably argue that Usenet killed CFN -- why chat with locals about Star Trek when you could read Tim Lynch's reviews and get the latest news from Usenet?
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly, both Lexis and Westlaw now offer (limited) "free" case law. West acquired Findlaw, and Lexis offers LexisOne.
Neither Findlaw nor LexisOne offers many of the "value added" features (ie, headnotes) that the full service features offer, and neither is comprehensive. LexisOne only offers the past five years of case law, and no federal district court cases, for instance.
Interestingly, I think that a lot of Findlaw is indexed on Google. Although I use the "real" thing most of the time (because of the value-added features, and the fact that LexisOne is pretty much crippled Lexis), Google is quite useful at searching Findlaw.
As an aside, I would LOVE to be able to do Lexis or Westlaw-style queries on Google...
If you have a (brick and mortar) bank account, the bank will often notarize documents for you for free. Same for stockbrokers.
Like the answer to most legal questions, the answer to your question is probably "it depends".
Caveat: IAAL, but this shouldn't be construed as legal advice. Furthermore, I'm a US lawyer. Consult with a lawyer admitted in your own jurisdiction for actual advice on the laws of Australia (or wherever).
If you're only bringing a consumer suit, a printout of the (dated) Google cache is probably all you'd want to do, since any more would be ludicrously expensive given the amount in controversy.
Under the (US) Federal Rules of Evidence, I don't see any way to make the document self-authenticating. Therefore, you'd have to present testimony that the Google cache page is authentic and accurate. (And the other side could attempt to rebut that testimony.)
I guess it would be pretty cheap to print the cache (which you should definitely do), date-stamp the printout, and swear out a notarized affidavit with the printout attached, stating the date that you got the affidavit.
In a normal civil suit with a sufficient budget for discovery, you could ask the other side to admit that the Google cache is accurate, or that they changed the web page terms and conditions after you purchased your product. If they don't admit it, or willfully lie to you (and you can subsequently prove it), they could be liable for fees and other disciplinary action.
If you had an unlimited case budget, you could even attempt to subpoena Google, or get expert testimony regarding the date that Google cached the page.
No, region coding has been found (IMHO correctly) to be access control. The copyright owners want DVDs to only be accessed (playable) under certain circumstances. Distribution control measure == access control.
I think the simplistic way to look at it is that access control is something that the copyright owner does to protect its bundle rights given under copyright law.
Let's be even more specific why the DMCA doesn't apply here. The provisions of the DMCA /. readers are most worked out about (Section 1201) are the anti-circumvention provisions. These provisions forbid you to circumvent technology that "effectively controls access" to a copyrighted work. It also prohibits trafficing in devices (including software) that circumvent these access controls.
I think we all agree that this is an overbroad, bad law. But hacking a proxy server has nothing to do with circumventing access controls. Controlling general access to the internet (or even specific access to all email and instant messaging) does not constitute the exercising of access control by a copyright owner.
Moreover -- and I suppose this might be disputed by some -- I don't think there's that much of a privacy violation here, either. Students using the school's network during class simply have no reasonable expectation of privacy -- especially if this policy were announced in class.
In fact, the Treasury Dept. FAQ you quote states,
It's been awhile since I've delved into parliamentary procedure as used in the Senate, but I believe that any single Senator can call for an exact tally when there's a voice vote. A voice vote is pretty much like asking for unanimous consent on a motion.
How many people were prosecuted for violations of the Communications Decency Act? What happened there (and what would happen if SSSCA were passed by Congress) was that the ACLU and others filed for a temporary restraining order enjoining the attorney general from enforcing the law until a determination could be made regarding its constitutionality.
Are there people rotting in jail for violations of the (unconstitutional portions of the) CDA? No. Likewise, there wouldn't be legally shot people as a result of your Southern "shot on sight" hypothetical law.
None of this should be taken as an endorsement in any way of SSSCA. But please, let's try to retain some common sense...
Oh -- I know you're asking whether Congress could be sued for dereliction of duty as a rhetorical question, but the answer is "no". The Constitution provides that the sole remedy really is to elect replacements. The Senate and the House are the judges of the qualifications of their members. They could presumably vote to remove members who shirk their duties (or engage in criminal acts, etc.) But Congress as a whole passes laws that are unconstitutional all the time. The courts can strike down the laws, but would decline to sanction Congress directly (ie, contempt of court, court-ordered removal from office). They would most likely declare that a "political question" outside their jurisdiction.
Bottom line: Write your Congressmen and vote.
The Newsforge article specifically mentions that Hollings is a Democrat.
In fact, the headline identifies him as "Senator Fritz Hollings (D-Disney)", pretty much alleging that he represents the interests of Big Media and not the people of his state (South Carolina).
Y'know, if the LinuxToday article is accurate, I'm not sure I have that much sympathy for the Colvin, the former employee of Loki; the article says that "Colvin loaned Loki nearly $100,000 via credit card, including at least one occasion when he charged all or part of Loki's semi-weekly payroll, which the company has refused to repay."
I can understand being supportive of your company, or trying to keep your investments out of the red. (Colvin apparantly was both an employee and a company officer and investor.) But this seems like a classic case of throwing good money after bad. If they can't get bridge financing to meet payroll, they're in deep trouble already, and Colvin should have known that.
I can accept a director or investor making an unsecured loan to their company. (It happens all the time with smaller companies, especially closely-held ones.) But charging a CREDIT CARD?!?! What the heck was he thinking?
First, Loki would instantly lose whatever Visa skims off of the top, so it's bad for them. And second, Colvin, the lender, is stuck with interest payments. Last I checked, the borrower usually pays interest, not the lender. Either Colvin was incredibly naive, or Loki's execs who got him to do it were incredibly manipulative, or both.
Opinions my own and not my employer's. This is not legal advice.
Hm. Given the success of the Naked News, I wonder if a "Naked SDMI Report" is the way to go to attract attention for The Cause!
Come to think of it, it would certainly spice up a lot of scientific/tech presentations.
Then again, since most of the presenters are male and not necessarily prime physical specimens, perhaps it's not so good an idea after all...
Specifically, the part of the DMCA he's charged with violating 17 USC s1201(b), states,
(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
The FBI saw Sklyarov's notice on the program that he was the author, and corroborated this with his presentation and actions at DEFCON. Essentially, by selling/offering the eBook processor, he's allegedly guilty of offering, providing, and trafficking in a circumvention device on U.S. territory. He was in the U.S., and was thus arrested.
This has been said in many other /. threads relating to political activism, but here goes:
Generally, email is an ineffective way of contacting many, if not most, Congressmen. For better or for worse, Congressmen attach less of a value to email than they do to regular postal snail mail.
Whenever you write your representative or senator, make sure you include your postal return address in their district. If you don't show that you're one of their constituents, your message will not be seen by anyone besides a low-level staffer or intern (who will summarily discard it).
Some good magic words to use (which are not always effective) are, "I am one of your voting constituents", and "I would appreciate the courtesy of a written response."
Also, form letters will get form responses. Brief, polite, but personal/unique letters get noticed (slightly) more.
I'll say it again: It's better to send snail mail. If you must send email, state that you're one of Congressman ____'s voting constituents right off the bat, and provide your snail mail address in the first paragraph.
So why haven't we see Tony Soprano playing his half-elf warrior on HBO?
/. troll. Yikes.
Half-elf? Naah. Tony Soprano wouldn't play a pansy half-elf. Half-ORC, maybe. Or maybe even a dwarf.
I think if Tony Soprano were a demi-human, he'd be a troll -- from Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, not the regenerating killed-only-with-acid-or-fire AD&D trolls.
Which raises yet another frightening image. Tony Soprano as a
Oh, I'm sure we could cook up some great sounding resume entries.
How does:
Directed and supervised team engaged in assessment of olfactory hazards and irritants in controlled environments used in aerospace industry.
sound???
But remember (read the article), this guy is a "chemistry laboratory technician" whose job 90% of the time is probably a little more serious. (read the article). I can't imagine that this is his full-time position, although I suppose coordinating the panels and tabulating results could generate a lot of administrative work.
As with many issues raised by this thread, I think the answer lies in the text of the Fifth Circuit's decision. The crux of the case, I maintain, is the due process argument.
/. readers might claim that filing of an infringement suit is misuse, I suppose.)
If a model code author restricted the terms under which it published the code such that citizens could not easily obtain copies or learn their content, then due process would be violated, even though the author would be acting within the scope of its rights as a copyright holder. Due process requires that citizens have access to the laws.
Again, I'll ask: Does due process require citizens to have free, instant, online access to the laws, or is physical access at City Hall or the library enough? I think that's the question really posed by this case.
Additionally, the Fifth Circuit explicitly rejected Veeck's argument of copyright misuse; the court said that Veeck presented no evidence of misuse. (Some
Finally, I'll address the earlier post in this thread that mentioned me by name.
When I referred to the "market for the work", I was addressing the copyright issue -- directed at the comment, "Making it available for public reference sure seems like a fair use of the text of legislation to me."
My comments regarding the market for the work were meant to parallel the Fifth Circuit's decision, which stated, "Veeck's posting of the codes on the Internet could prove harmful by reducing SBCCI's market and depriving it of income used in its socially valuable effort of confecting, promulgating, and revising model codes." The market is not for the law itself, but for SBCCI's book / disk.
Law publishing is an extremely lucrative business. Just ask Lexis or Westlaw...
Okay, I think we must be on completely different wavelengths because when you start talking about a market in what the law that bind you says you sound insane.
/., for legal advice.
I'm not insane -- we're just operating under different assumptions.
I was talking only about fair use. One of the factors in determining fair use is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". See 17 U.S.C. 107.
In the Veeck decision, the Fifth Circuit found that SBCCI had a valid copyright in the text of the building code.
I stated that there's no argument for fair use. SBCCI makes money by selling copies of the codes, so it's commercial use. Veeck took the entire work and put it on his website. Why pay SBCCI for a copy when you can get it online for free?
Your argument that the market is eliminated by submitting the work to the legislature really goes to the constitutional (due process) issue, and not the copyright issue. You're assuming that the model code's adoption as the law makes the copyright unenforceable; the Fifth Circuit, whether rationally or not, rejected that argument.
Thus, when considering the fair use argument, there's no difference between the model building code and the latest Stephen King novel. And so there's no fair use when you copy and republish the entire work.
This is not legal advice. Go to a lawyer, not
What if your city office had a webserver? [etc.]
/.
I think you're missing the Fifth Circuit's point. The Constitution requires "due process of law". "Due process requires that the public have notice of what the law is so that the people may comply with its mandates." (From Vreeck decision.)
According to the Fifth Circuit, "due process" access to the building code requires, at a minimum , avaiability "for inspection and copying at the city offices in towns where they have been adopted".
So, if the laws weren't available for inspection, then there would be violation of constitutional rights.
Anything above and beyond the constitutionally required "minimum", however, is gravy. Domated webservers, etc. would certainly aid in dissemination, and presumably the city would be free to enter into whatever licensing agreements it desired. While it would further disseminate the law, it's not required by the Constitution, at least according to the Fifth Circuit.
I think what's important is where we set the minimum bar for due process -- and whether we recognize whether technological advancements can raise that bar.
This is not legal advice. If you need specific legal advice, consult with a lawyer, and not
In the case of many publications submitting material means that you hand over copyright. e.g. letters to a newspaper. Maybe unconditionally maybe only if they publish it.
/. an implied license to publish it, put advertisements on top of it, etc.
Actually, I think you're giving the publication an implied license to republish your letter (or create derivative works from it by editing it and then republishing it). For instance, I own the copyright on this post, but by hitting the "Submit" button, gave
I stand corrected; I wish I could edit the parent post.
I'll chalk up my confusion to a conflict in the circuits. The Eighth Circuit, in West Pub. Co. v. Mead Data Cent., Inc., 799 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1986) is in conflict with the Second Circuit in Matthew Bender & Co. v. Hyperlaw, 158 F.3d 693 (2d Cir. 1998).
Further, it's not the first page (for parallel cites) that's being fought over; it's the star pagination to the internal pages. Talk about splitting hairs.
This case isn't about ignorance of the law.
/. comments seem to indicate. Specifically, the courts need to ask themselves, does the ready availability of access to information raise the bar of due process?
According to the Fifth Circuit, Vreeck (the acccused copyright infringer) could have gone down to the department of public works during business hours and asked to see the code. Or he could have gone to the local library and look at the book there.
I think this case is a lot more important (and complex) than some
The oft-quoted John Perry Barlow phrase, "Information wants to be free" should be restated for the courts: "Does due process require this information to be freely, instantly available?"
The Fifth Circuit held that due process wasn't violated because the code was "available". What Veeck did was to copy the disk he got from the building code people, and paste it onto his website. Wholesale copying.
The Fifth Circuit thinks that if you can go the library, and see the code there (for free), or go the public works department and ask to see a copy of the code, then due process is satisfied.
Also note that fair use is a real hard argument to make here, since Veeck copied the entire code. By making it freely available online, he eviscerated the market for the work.
Well, in this case, the state government didn't WRITE the buidling code -- they just adopted the code.
/.
So, the code, written by SBC, is still an "original work of authorship" subject to copyright protection.
Take court decisions, for instance. The text of the decision, written by the judge, is not subject to copyright. But the page numbering of certain editions, from, say, West Publishing, are copyrighted by the publisher. So someone can copy the text, but can't cite to the page numbers. Sounds crazy, but that's the state of the law, which is what is giving (other) legal publishers headaches.
This is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see a lawyer, not
The acutal case is Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l, 241 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2001). (Link is to Findlaw version.)
/.
It's a 2-1 decision from the 5th Circuit. The due process part of the decision appears to turn on the fact that the panel felt that no one was being denied access to the text of the code itself. The Fifth Circuit panel stated that "due process requires at a minimum that the codes should be available for inspection and copying at the city offices in towns where they have been adopted". However, Veeck admitted that the codes were available during times when city officials were available. So, I guess we want to ask ourselves, is 24-hour, online access a part of due process? Before the Internet, how many people had such ready access to the text of laws?
Also note that the Ninth Circuit has held that that the American Medical Association did not lose the right to enforce its copyright when use of its promulgated coding system was required by government regulations, and the Seocnd Circuit upheld the copyright of the "Red Book" projections of used car valuations...
This is not legal advice. If you need specific legal advice, consult with a lawyer, and not
Hey, I remember CFN! ai177, right here...The old Cleveland Freenet was my first gateway to internet email. I remember using ftp-by-mail to snare the latest and greatest, all through Freenet.
You could probably argue that Usenet killed CFN -- why chat with locals about Star Trek when you could read Tim Lynch's reviews and get the latest news from Usenet?