5 ms·

I believe this is about laws such as construction codes, where many cities reference a privately created code. The only way to access that code legally is to pa

I believe this is about laws such as construction codes, where many cities reference a privately created code. The only way to access that code legally is to pay the private company for read access. Based on the actual article, the ABA voted not to demand that all laws should be completely available without copyright. Basically, they voted to maintain the status quo. They didn't make an explicit value judgement of DRM'd laws, though.

tokenizerrr 10y ago
Yet supposedly "ignorance of the law excuses not"
- chillydawg 10y ago
  Well it's not supposedly, that IS the law. Ignorance is not a defence.
  - tremon 10y ago
    Is "can't afford to read the law" a valid defense?
    - evanwolf 10y ago
      heart of the issue.
- mikeash 10y ago
  If you're going to build something, pay for access to the relevant building codes. I don't think you should have to, but it's not absurd on its face.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    I don't get it. So if I want to construct a building, I have to pay the city money just to be able to find out what codes I need to follow, on top of a billion other fees like permits and inspections?
    - mikeash 10y ago
      Yes. What's not to get?
      - enraged_camel 10y ago
        Do you seriously not understand what the problem is with a public entity (i.e. a city government) making private laws and then charging fees to access those laws? Extrapolate it to the federal government. How would you feel if you were trying to look up tax laws and the IRS told you that you needed to pay them $250 before they could send you the information?
        mikeash 10y ago
        I already said I don't think you should have to pay for it. It just doesn't look completely absurd to me. You already have to pay for a bazillion other things, paying a little bit for access to the codes you have to follow is not an unreasonable burden. Edit: to put it concretely, there's no practical difference between paying $X for a permit you're legally required to have before you build something, and paying $X for a copy of building codes you're legally required to have before you build something.
    - jaredklewis 10y ago
      You seem to understand it perfectly.
    - bluGill 10y ago
      That is what the code writers want. The court system currently holds differently though, so today you can legally copy the cities version for cost, and make further copies.
kbenson 10y ago
If that's an accurate assessment, I can't say I'm surprised boingboing editorialized (or perhaps more appropriately, propagandized) it in this way. I get it, DRM is bad. Please stop casting other, unrelated events in this light to get people worked up about them. If they are worthy causes, they deserve an accurate explanation, not to be twisted through wording in the hopes of transferring feelings from other topics to this. I was a daily reader of boingboing long in the past, but it's stuff like this that turned me away.
andrewclunn 10y ago
So lawyers know how to use pointers and protected memory...
rayiner 10y ago
They did not vote to maintain the status quo. They voted to demand that Congress require the codes to be public in at least read-only form.
- bluGill 10y ago
  From what I can tell this is consistent with current precedent already in case law. The law cannot be copyright Peter Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress is the most closely relevant, but case law back to 1834 supports this. Note that the courts hold the law cannot be copyright. Thus I cannot publish the original code that the city used. I can only publish it terms of the building code for that city. I cannot publish, for example, the authors name because who wrote the original is not part of the law. Those wrote that write the code typically will have lots of engineering notes that are not part of the law, and these are valuable to people reading the code.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    The current practice they are addressing is the evasion of this precedent by, rather than incorporating third-party codes into law or regulation directly, legislatures and regulatory agencies are incorporating them by reference (that is, rather than adopting the text of a code written by a private entity as law, the law just says something like "It is illegal to <perform function X> except as specified in <private code Y>." So "the law" that is public is simply the reference to the private code.
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> they voted to maintain the status quo It is my impression the ABA voted for openness (just not as much as the author wanted). Right now, parts of the public register may not be available online and/or in a single place at all. ABA is saying put them in one place, put that place online, and sure, since it's private property, let the owner control access with a price. Requiring tax dollars be spent on giving free access to obscure references forces one to choose between the taking of private property (i.e. your software retails for $10,000 but some legislator incorporated so now you must offer it at the state-mandated price of $10) and running a risk of massive abuse (government ends up paying some ditz $10,000 per view of a one-page PDF, views which have a habit of coming from the author's neighbourhood).
criddell 10y ago
> The only way to access that code legally is to pay the private company for read access. You can usually also get access at public libraries. Not terribly convenient though.

tokenizerrr 10y ago

Yet supposedly "ignorance of the law excuses not"

chillydawg 10y ago
Well it's not supposedly, that IS the law. Ignorance is not a defence.
- tremon 10y ago
  Is "can't afford to read the law" a valid defense?
  - evanwolf 10y ago
    heart of the issue.
mikeash 10y ago
If you're going to build something, pay for access to the relevant building codes. I don't think you should have to, but it's not absurd on its face.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  I don't get it. So if I want to construct a building, I have to pay the city money just to be able to find out what codes I need to follow, on top of a billion other fees like permits and inspections?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Yes. What's not to get?
    - enraged_camel 10y ago
      Do you seriously not understand what the problem is with a public entity (i.e. a city government) making private laws and then charging fees to access those laws? Extrapolate it to the federal government. How would you feel if you were trying to look up tax laws and the IRS told you that you needed to pay them $250 before they could send you the information?
      - mikeash 10y ago
        I already said I don't think you should have to pay for it. It just doesn't look completely absurd to me. You already have to pay for a bazillion other things, paying a little bit for access to the codes you have to follow is not an unreasonable burden. Edit: to put it concretely, there's no practical difference between paying $X for a permit you're legally required to have before you build something, and paying $X for a copy of building codes you're legally required to have before you build something.
  - jaredklewis 10y ago
    You seem to understand it perfectly.
  - bluGill 10y ago
    That is what the code writers want. The court system currently holds differently though, so today you can legally copy the cities version for cost, and make further copies.

kbenson 10y ago

If that's an accurate assessment, I can't say I'm surprised boingboing editorialized (or perhaps more appropriately, propagandized) it in this way. I get it, DRM is bad. Please stop casting other, unrelated events in this light to get people worked up about them. If they are worthy causes, they deserve an accurate explanation, not to be twisted through wording in the hopes of transferring feelings from other topics to this. I was a daily reader of boingboing long in the past, but it's stuff like this that turned me away.

andrewclunn 10y ago

So lawyers know how to use pointers and protected memory...

rayiner 10y ago

They did not vote to maintain the status quo. They voted to demand that Congress require the codes to be public in at least read-only form.

bluGill 10y ago
From what I can tell this is consistent with current precedent already in case law. The law cannot be copyright Peter Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress is the most closely relevant, but case law back to 1834 supports this. Note that the courts hold the law cannot be copyright. Thus I cannot publish the original code that the city used. I can only publish it terms of the building code for that city. I cannot publish, for example, the authors name because who wrote the original is not part of the law. Those wrote that write the code typically will have lots of engineering notes that are not part of the law, and these are valuable to people reading the code.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  The current practice they are addressing is the evasion of this precedent by, rather than incorporating third-party codes into law or regulation directly, legislatures and regulatory agencies are incorporating them by reference (that is, rather than adopting the text of a code written by a private entity as law, the law just says something like "It is illegal to <perform function X> except as specified in <private code Y>." So "the law" that is public is simply the reference to the private code.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

> they voted to maintain the status quo It is my impression the ABA voted for openness (just not as much as the author wanted). Right now, parts of the public register may not be available online and/or in a single place at all. ABA is saying put them in one place, put that place online, and sure, since it's private property, let the owner control access with a price. Requiring tax dollars be spent on giving free access to obscure references forces one to choose between the taking of private property (i.e. your software retails for $10,000 but some legislator incorporated so now you must offer it at the state-mandated price of $10) and running a risk of massive abuse (government ends up paying some ditz $10,000 per view of a one-page PDF, views which have a habit of coming from the author's neighbourhood).

criddell 10y ago

> The only way to access that code legally is to pay the private company for read access. You can usually also get access at public libraries. Not terribly convenient though.