10 ms·

Federal Court Says Public Safety Laws Can Be Locked Behind Paywalls

286 points by DiabloD3 10y ago

icebraining 10y ago
I don't get the criticism against the judge or the ruling. Frankly, the arguments presented by Resource.org seem to be unpersuasive (the claim that these standards are "discovered facts" is just insulting to the engineers that worked on them) and completely unsupported by the law. It's not the judge's fault that your Congress and other governments have sold you out. Go sue them for enforcing laws you can't read.
- oxide 10y ago
  I'd love to. oh, maybe we can use one of those automated lawyers! Do they support 'government sold you out' suits yet or is that a couple years off still?
- pas 10y ago
  Standards shouldn't be copyrightable. Or they're not standards, they're just secret handshakes (or whatevers, after all you can't really talk about parts of it, because all of it is just dry quantitative stuff - yet not simple facts to share) that allegedly work. Also, does ISO pay the C++ standards developers? And how much is the market for C++ standards? (Yes, compiler vendors are usually big firms/organizations, but I doubt all the money paid for the standards so far would be enough to cover all the expenses of the various working group meetings involved.) And sure, the tools of the trade argument is valid, you don't get hammers for free if you want to build a house (or just fix up something), but we can make the mental categorical distinction between information that gains value as more and more people has access vs information that loses value as more and more people has access (trade secrets, hence the licensing cost of patents).
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    I think we need to be careful to distinguish between copyright and access; they're not the same thing. For example open-source software is protected by open-access licenses, which in turn rest on the concept of copyright. We don't need to abolish copyright to establish a right to open access.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  "I don't get the criticism against the judge or the ruling." It's actually directly contrary to rulings in other states, circuits, etc. Even the supreme court has held, consistently, since 1888, that the law is free. 'the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration of unwritten law, or an interpretation of a constitution or a statute' Banks v. Manchester (128 U.S. 244, 1888) I don't think this could be more clear. An argument that you get to lock it away by incorporating by reference is patently absurd and directly contrary to this. You don't get to say "page one of georgia annotated code: for the text of pages 1-100000 of the georgia code, please see 'the real georgia annotated code', published by forprofitco," But that's just what is happening, since these standards are not "voluntary", but binding law that you can be charged with crimes or sued for violating. If they wanted to charge money, they have a simple solution - don't make them law, don't charge people for violations, etc. " Frankly, the arguments presented by Resource.org seem to be unpersuasive (the claim that these standards are "discovered facts" is just insulting to the engineers that worked on them) and completely unsupported by the law." Except they (and others) have repeatedly won in pretty much every other case. This is in fact, the first case i'm aware of that they've lost (or that others have lost in similar situations). Frankly, the idea that you can sue people or charge them with a crime, for a law they have to pay to read is insulting to everyone, and very clearly not constitutional. As mentioned, there is a simple solution - if you want to charge, don't give them binding force of law. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    But that's my point - the question in this trial wasn't whether the State can use closed standards as law, but whether someone can violate the copyright of these standards just because the State refers to them in the law. Frankly, the idea that you can sue people or charge them with a crime, for a law they have to pay to read is insulting to everyone, and very clearly not constitutional. My point exactly! They should be suing the State for doing that! Not trying to invalidate some company's copyrighted standard.
    - DannyBee 10y ago
- naasking 10y ago
  > (the claim that these standards are "discovered facts" is just insulting to the engineers that worked on them) As an engineer, I don't see why. Discovery is still hard and valuable work. I personally also think the use of terminology like "discovery" rather than "invention" reinforces that you don't have some divine, exclusive right to control what you've created, but that discoveries are to benefit all of humanity. The government gives you a time-limited exclusive license as a reward for taking the risk and doing the hard work to make these discoveries.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    That's the point - the government doesn't give you a license for discoveries, only for creative work. The EFF et all weren't trying to rename the term, they were claiming that these standards were merely uncreative "discoveries", unlike every other copyrightable work.
    - naasking 10y ago
      > That's the point - the government doesn't give you a license for discoveries, only for creative work. Creative work is a discovery, and this is trivial to see: you can write a program to enumerate all possible English texts, and so discover every possible written work that has, can or will ever be made. So it's more correct to say that the government gives you a license for certain kinds of discoveries, and the EFF are saying that this sort of work does not belong in the protected category. That's not entirely unreasonable from what I can see.
    - marcosdumay 10y ago
      I'm not following this line. Copyrights are never about facts, and always about their presentation. If the facts are discovered or invented shouldn't have any importance.
tehwalrus 10y ago
Perhaps part of qualifying as a lawyer should involve writing code against someone else's annoying API, just to give them a taste of how the law is for the rest of us.
leereeves 10y ago
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse". "Oh, you want to see the law? That'll cost you."
- imglorp 10y ago
  Came here for this angle. The extreme abuse of that rule would be to bump the price to $1T and thus create secret laws. Without review by the People and their representatives, it's not a democracy.
- clarkmoody 10y ago
  The law is so mindbogglingly large and complex, that ignorance of the law is a fact of life. Very troubling indeed are the regulatory bodies that create new felony-level violations of regulations without any sort of legislative action.
- kefka 10y ago
  Why pretend we're a representative republic with strong ties into democracy (CIA world factbook)? We're an oligopolstic, corporcrato-plutarchy. Welfare for the rich, and capitalism for the poor. Companies get numerous socialist programs to help fund their bottom line, yet average and poor receive little and are berated for it. Drug test welfare recipients? Can't do that to the CEO, can we? You're more "equal" rich again, and good luck with that public defender if you're poor. Kill someone? Poor = eChair. Rich = affluenza, "treatment program". Just accept the idea that this country now espouses that "More Money = More access to being a citizen". We are not equal. The past had that mythic "equal" part; but that time is done and gone. In the end, the following is now what this country stands for: 1$ = 1 Vote
  - ThisIs_MyName 10y ago
    Shit like this is why people don't take HN seriously.
cooper12 10y ago
Copyright law needs some serious reform. It's unconscionable that you can't even share the laws that govern you. We really need an exception for things that are considered "public" knowledge, including freedom of panorama. (I can't even take a picture of my own city if it contains an artwork in it) We also need to do something about orphaned works. Sadly, it's in the interest of Disney and other corporations that the status quo of a restrictive commons continues indefinitely.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  There's no need for a copyright exception, people crafting public laws should simply not incorporate material that cannot be published along with the law.
  - Old_Thrashbarg 10y ago
    Yes, that would be one solution, but you'd have to somehow enforce that governments do that or else local governments may continue with the status quo. Also, there's the question of what to do with historical laws. For example, buildings being renovated sometimes have to follow the building codes corresponding to their original construction date. So the current laws that the publishers are trying to paywall may be relevant for another 100 years.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      The code thing is fairly easy, just make it acceptable to follow the current law rather than the unpublished one. It might bother preservationists or lead to more expensive renovations¹, but oh well. ¹Is it so much that renovations must follow the old code, or are they sometimes allowed to because the new standard is hard to retrofit?
dandare 10y ago
Kafka and Orwell missed an opportunity when they did not incorporate the idea of secret/paywalled laws into their works.
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  this story reminds me of the card game Mao, which was a particular favourite at my college: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_(card_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_(card_game)
paulajohnson 10y ago
The lowest level of the US court system tries hard to stick to what law and precedent say, and to avoid engaging with constitutional issues. If you want to drive change you have to appeal it up a level or two, where the senior judges consider it to be within their pay scale. That is what is going to happen here.
- pc86 10y ago
  And in the interim you can be fined or imprisoned for violating a law which you cannot read without paying a private entity. Either side can appeal a case, and judges should be ruling based on all laws, including the state and federal constitutions. Anything less should be grounds for impeachment (as should consistently having your rulings overturned by higher courts).
jawns 10y ago
I can see troubling consequences that arise from both sides' arguments. If private companies can hold copyrights on portions of the law, that inhibits access to those laws, and I think any reasonable person would agree that citizens have a basic right to access the text of laws and legally binding regulations, and paywalls or other restrictions conflict with that right. But if the government can essentially revoke a private individual or company's copyright merely by incorporating otherwise protected text into legislation, that can have adverse effects on copyright holders. And it would be interesting to see just how far you could stretch a claim on both sides. For instance, let's say that a law specifies that vehicles used by some governmental department must be maintained according to the specifications in their respective owners' manuals. Could that be argued to be a type of "incorporation by reference" of the specifications, thus voiding the copyright of the owners' manuals? Or what if a private company tried to impose absurd restrictions on accessing copyrighted material that has been incorporated by reference, such that even the governmental agencies charged with enforcing the law were unable to access it? Could that be a way of subverting the law? Or what if a lawmaker has it out for a particular publisher or writer, and purposefully quotes their copyrighted texts (beyond what would typically be considered fair use) in legislation as a way of damaging their copyright? And if it is the case that nonprofit groups that devise standards for public safety and device interoperability are deprived of their copyrights because those standards are incorporated into legislation, I would imagine it would disincentivize the work they do, perhaps leading to less well thought out public safety and device interoperability standards.
- Zigurd 10y ago
  Copyright isn't a right. Unlike actual rights it can be nullified by legislation, without recourse. Those nonprofits you mention operate just fine without holding copyright in many cases.
  - cestith 10y ago
    Copyright is simply the right to the fruits of one's own labors to be exclusive for some amount of time. I'd say that's a moral and ethical right. Just because you write novels or develop software rather than build houses or cars doesn't mean you should be deprived of making a living because others are free to duplicate your work with little to no expense, expertise, or time spent doing so.
huffmsa 10y ago
>ruling that private organizations can use copyright to control access to huge portions of our state and federal laws. Then if I decide not to use their copyright, the onus is on the copyholder to file suit against me for violation. If in fact a firm owns it, the government cannot pursue a case, and the firm (with no criminal jurisdiction) cannot impose any penalty. If in fact the government owns the text, it must necessarily be made freely available, unless it pertains to national security (which is shaky justification at best).
skywhopper 10y ago
Even if the companies that wrote these laws get to retain copyright, surely the substantial public interest in making them freely available makes this Fair Use. But current Copyright law is a cancer on our economy. Why not the government, too?
exabrial 10y ago
Seems like an oversimplification of the issue, but the consequences are certainly disturbing.
- edblarney 10y ago
  This is the issue. Some weird corner of the law gets ruled on, but it has odd implications for the rest of us ... questions and concerns abound ...
Old_Thrashbarg 10y ago
The fight is not over yet. Please consider donating to Public Resources, which runs on a shoestring budget, employing just one person, Carl Malamud, at a modest salary.
Old_Thrashbarg 10y ago
Some of these laws are so complex and interdependent that we need tools to help simplify them. If the publishers are allowed to paywall the law, then it'll be harder for startups like UpCodes to operate. UpCodes provides a search engine into the codes, pinning (bookmarking) codes, a collaboration tool and finally weaves in local laws and amendments right into the code.
zzyx1yz 10y ago
It occurred to me that this might the right time for something like Law-Hub (a la Sci-Hub). Oh, the irony.
charonn0 10y ago
On the one hand the law should be freely available in full text to everyone. On the other hand, how many legislators are qualified to write a fire code?
- calibas 10y ago
  Those two points don't really oppose each other...
  - rhino369 10y ago
    The people who put together these codes spend a lot of time and effort doing it. They only get compensated by requiring people to pay for access via a copyright. Some bodies do it without restricting access, like IEEE, but their work in contributed by interested parties who control their IP via other means. Companies will work on the next 802.11x, but they are always trying to guide the standard to benefit their company.
vivekd 10y ago
>We’re disappointed by this misguided ruling, but the case is far from over. Sounds like its going to be appealed. I think the government needs to stop passing regulations that just copy the rules of private standards organizations unless they are also allowed to publish the regulations. Private organizations will do what they will, the public can't control private actors or force them to give up their right to collect money for their standards (at least not without a fight). I juts don't understand why the government would just make laws without ensuring the right to publish them or make them widely available to the people, is just irresponsible and goes to show how little thought goes into all these regulations that govern our lives.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  It's easy to understand. They are just doing what their primary constituents (big corporations) want.
IanDrake 10y ago
The ACA already forces every US citizen to buy a product from a private company. This isn't much different. The Supreme Court has already upheld this as a "tax", so expect the same result.
mnm1 10y ago
How can one possibly respect a law one cannot read or any lawmakers/political bodies who make/encourage such laws or institutions claiming to enforce/defend them? What exactly is the difference for the accused between this situation and having legal cases randomly decided by random rules?
- ar15saveslives 10y ago
  Their weird logic must be "we don't restrict access to the text of a law, you just have to pay for it".
gnicholas 10y ago
interesting facts, from the decision: Importantly, there is no evidence that the ... standards are unavailable to the public. In fact, the undisputed record evidence shows that the standards are required to be available in physical form from OFR; are available for purchase from the [first] Plaintiffs in hard copy and from the [second] Plaintiffs in hard copy and PDFs; and are accessible in read-only format for free in [second] Plaintiffs’ online reading rooms If this information is freely available in electronic format — which seems to be the case for the second plaintiff — then in my mind the concern is greatly mitigated. The defendant could simply link out to the relevant page. I'm surprised the decision doesn't mention the cost that the first plaintiff charges for the hard-copy of their standards (which are apparently not electronically available), since the cost/delay seems relevant. If the cost is hundreds or thousands of dollars, there definitely be cause for concern. On the other hand, if the cost is negligible, I'm somewhat less concerned. To be clear, I still think that whatever agencies incorporate third-party content by reference should always require that the documents be freely available online. I just think these facts about current availability are interesting (and are not mentioned in the EFF post).

286 points by DiabloD3 10y ago

I don't get the criticism against the judge or the ruling. Frankly, the arguments presented by Resource.org seem to be unpersuasive (the claim that these standards are "discovered facts" is just insulting to the engineers that worked on them) and completely unsupported by the law. It's not the judge's fault that your Congress and other governments have sold you out. Go sue them for enforcing laws you can't read.

oxide 10y ago
I'd love to. oh, maybe we can use one of those automated lawyers! Do they support 'government sold you out' suits yet or is that a couple years off still?
pas 10y ago
Standards shouldn't be copyrightable. Or they're not standards, they're just secret handshakes (or whatevers, after all you can't really talk about parts of it, because all of it is just dry quantitative stuff - yet not simple facts to share) that allegedly work. Also, does ISO pay the C++ standards developers? And how much is the market for C++ standards? (Yes, compiler vendors are usually big firms/organizations, but I doubt all the money paid for the standards so far would be enough to cover all the expenses of the various working group meetings involved.) And sure, the tools of the trade argument is valid, you don't get hammers for free if you want to build a house (or just fix up something), but we can make the mental categorical distinction between information that gains value as more and more people has access vs information that loses value as more and more people has access (trade secrets, hence the licensing cost of patents).
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  I think we need to be careful to distinguish between copyright and access; they're not the same thing. For example open-source software is protected by open-access licenses, which in turn rest on the concept of copyright. We don't need to abolish copyright to establish a right to open access.
DannyBee 10y ago
"I don't get the criticism against the judge or the ruling." It's actually directly contrary to rulings in other states, circuits, etc. Even the supreme court has held, consistently, since 1888, that the law is free. 'the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration of unwritten law, or an interpretation of a constitution or a statute' Banks v. Manchester (128 U.S. 244, 1888) I don't think this could be more clear. An argument that you get to lock it away by incorporating by reference is patently absurd and directly contrary to this. You don't get to say "page one of georgia annotated code: for the text of pages 1-100000 of the georgia code, please see 'the real georgia annotated code', published by forprofitco," But that's just what is happening, since these standards are not "voluntary", but binding law that you can be charged with crimes or sued for violating. If they wanted to charge money, they have a simple solution - don't make them law, don't charge people for violations, etc. " Frankly, the arguments presented by Resource.org seem to be unpersuasive (the claim that these standards are "discovered facts" is just insulting to the engineers that worked on them) and completely unsupported by the law." Except they (and others) have repeatedly won in pretty much every other case. This is in fact, the first case i'm aware of that they've lost (or that others have lost in similar situations). Frankly, the idea that you can sue people or charge them with a crime, for a law they have to pay to read is insulting to everyone, and very clearly not constitutional. As mentioned, there is a simple solution - if you want to charge, don't give them binding force of law. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
- icebraining 10y ago
  But that's my point - the question in this trial wasn't whether the State can use closed standards as law, but whether someone can violate the copyright of these standards just because the State refers to them in the law. Frankly, the idea that you can sue people or charge them with a crime, for a law they have to pay to read is insulting to everyone, and very clearly not constitutional. My point exactly! They should be suing the State for doing that! Not trying to invalidate some company's copyrighted standard.
  - DannyBee 10y ago
naasking 10y ago
> (the claim that these standards are "discovered facts" is just insulting to the engineers that worked on them) As an engineer, I don't see why. Discovery is still hard and valuable work. I personally also think the use of terminology like "discovery" rather than "invention" reinforces that you don't have some divine, exclusive right to control what you've created, but that discoveries are to benefit all of humanity. The government gives you a time-limited exclusive license as a reward for taking the risk and doing the hard work to make these discoveries.
- icebraining 10y ago
  That's the point - the government doesn't give you a license for discoveries, only for creative work. The EFF et all weren't trying to rename the term, they were claiming that these standards were merely uncreative "discoveries", unlike every other copyrightable work.
  - naasking 10y ago
    > That's the point - the government doesn't give you a license for discoveries, only for creative work. Creative work is a discovery, and this is trivial to see: you can write a program to enumerate all possible English texts, and so discover every possible written work that has, can or will ever be made. So it's more correct to say that the government gives you a license for certain kinds of discoveries, and the EFF are saying that this sort of work does not belong in the protected category. That's not entirely unreasonable from what I can see.
  - marcosdumay 10y ago
    I'm not following this line. Copyrights are never about facts, and always about their presentation. If the facts are discovered or invented shouldn't have any importance.

tehwalrus 10y ago

Perhaps part of qualifying as a lawyer should involve writing code against someone else's annoying API, just to give them a taste of how the law is for the rest of us.

leereeves 10y ago

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse". "Oh, you want to see the law? That'll cost you."

imglorp 10y ago
Came here for this angle. The extreme abuse of that rule would be to bump the price to $1T and thus create secret laws. Without review by the People and their representatives, it's not a democracy.
clarkmoody 10y ago
The law is so mindbogglingly large and complex, that ignorance of the law is a fact of life. Very troubling indeed are the regulatory bodies that create new felony-level violations of regulations without any sort of legislative action.
kefka 10y ago
Why pretend we're a representative republic with strong ties into democracy (CIA world factbook)? We're an oligopolstic, corporcrato-plutarchy. Welfare for the rich, and capitalism for the poor. Companies get numerous socialist programs to help fund their bottom line, yet average and poor receive little and are berated for it. Drug test welfare recipients? Can't do that to the CEO, can we? You're more "equal" rich again, and good luck with that public defender if you're poor. Kill someone? Poor = eChair. Rich = affluenza, "treatment program". Just accept the idea that this country now espouses that "More Money = More access to being a citizen". We are not equal. The past had that mythic "equal" part; but that time is done and gone. In the end, the following is now what this country stands for: 1$ = 1 Vote
- ThisIs_MyName 10y ago
  Shit like this is why people don't take HN seriously.

cooper12 10y ago

Copyright law needs some serious reform. It's unconscionable that you can't even share the laws that govern you. We really need an exception for things that are considered "public" knowledge, including freedom of panorama. (I can't even take a picture of my own city if it contains an artwork in it) We also need to do something about orphaned works. Sadly, it's in the interest of Disney and other corporations that the status quo of a restrictive commons continues indefinitely.

maxerickson 10y ago
There's no need for a copyright exception, people crafting public laws should simply not incorporate material that cannot be published along with the law.
- Old_Thrashbarg 10y ago
  Yes, that would be one solution, but you'd have to somehow enforce that governments do that or else local governments may continue with the status quo. Also, there's the question of what to do with historical laws. For example, buildings being renovated sometimes have to follow the building codes corresponding to their original construction date. So the current laws that the publishers are trying to paywall may be relevant for another 100 years.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The code thing is fairly easy, just make it acceptable to follow the current law rather than the unpublished one. It might bother preservationists or lead to more expensive renovations¹, but oh well. ¹Is it so much that renovations must follow the old code, or are they sometimes allowed to because the new standard is hard to retrofit?

dandare 10y ago

Kafka and Orwell missed an opportunity when they did not incorporate the idea of secret/paywalled laws into their works.

beaconstudios 10y ago
this story reminds me of the card game Mao, which was a particular favourite at my college: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_(card_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_(card_game)

paulajohnson 10y ago

The lowest level of the US court system tries hard to stick to what law and precedent say, and to avoid engaging with constitutional issues. If you want to drive change you have to appeal it up a level or two, where the senior judges consider it to be within their pay scale. That is what is going to happen here.

pc86 10y ago
And in the interim you can be fined or imprisoned for violating a law which you cannot read without paying a private entity. Either side can appeal a case, and judges should be ruling based on all laws, including the state and federal constitutions. Anything less should be grounds for impeachment (as should consistently having your rulings overturned by higher courts).

jawns 10y ago

I can see troubling consequences that arise from both sides' arguments. If private companies can hold copyrights on portions of the law, that inhibits access to those laws, and I think any reasonable person would agree that citizens have a basic right to access the text of laws and legally binding regulations, and paywalls or other restrictions conflict with that right. But if the government can essentially revoke a private individual or company's copyright merely by incorporating otherwise protected text into legislation, that can have adverse effects on copyright holders. And it would be interesting to see just how far you could stretch a claim on both sides. For instance, let's say that a law specifies that vehicles used by some governmental department must be maintained according to the specifications in their respective owners' manuals. Could that be argued to be a type of "incorporation by reference" of the specifications, thus voiding the copyright of the owners' manuals? Or what if a private company tried to impose absurd restrictions on accessing copyrighted material that has been incorporated by reference, such that even the governmental agencies charged with enforcing the law were unable to access it? Could that be a way of subverting the law? Or what if a lawmaker has it out for a particular publisher or writer, and purposefully quotes their copyrighted texts (beyond what would typically be considered fair use) in legislation as a way of damaging their copyright? And if it is the case that nonprofit groups that devise standards for public safety and device interoperability are deprived of their copyrights because those standards are incorporated into legislation, I would imagine it would disincentivize the work they do, perhaps leading to less well thought out public safety and device interoperability standards.

Zigurd 10y ago
Copyright isn't a right. Unlike actual rights it can be nullified by legislation, without recourse. Those nonprofits you mention operate just fine without holding copyright in many cases.
- cestith 10y ago
  Copyright is simply the right to the fruits of one's own labors to be exclusive for some amount of time. I'd say that's a moral and ethical right. Just because you write novels or develop software rather than build houses or cars doesn't mean you should be deprived of making a living because others are free to duplicate your work with little to no expense, expertise, or time spent doing so.

huffmsa 10y ago

>ruling that private organizations can use copyright to control access to huge portions of our state and federal laws. Then if I decide not to use their copyright, the onus is on the copyholder to file suit against me for violation. If in fact a firm owns it, the government cannot pursue a case, and the firm (with no criminal jurisdiction) cannot impose any penalty. If in fact the government owns the text, it must necessarily be made freely available, unless it pertains to national security (which is shaky justification at best).

skywhopper 10y ago

Even if the companies that wrote these laws get to retain copyright, surely the substantial public interest in making them freely available makes this Fair Use. But current Copyright law is a cancer on our economy. Why not the government, too?

exabrial 10y ago

Seems like an oversimplification of the issue, but the consequences are certainly disturbing.

edblarney 10y ago
This is the issue. Some weird corner of the law gets ruled on, but it has odd implications for the rest of us ... questions and concerns abound ...

Old_Thrashbarg 10y ago

The fight is not over yet. Please consider donating to Public Resources, which runs on a shoestring budget, employing just one person, Carl Malamud, at a modest salary.

Old_Thrashbarg 10y ago

Some of these laws are so complex and interdependent that we need tools to help simplify them. If the publishers are allowed to paywall the law, then it'll be harder for startups like UpCodes to operate. UpCodes provides a search engine into the codes, pinning (bookmarking) codes, a collaboration tool and finally weaves in local laws and amendments right into the code.

zzyx1yz 10y ago

It occurred to me that this might the right time for something like Law-Hub (a la Sci-Hub). Oh, the irony.

charonn0 10y ago

On the one hand the law should be freely available in full text to everyone. On the other hand, how many legislators are qualified to write a fire code?

calibas 10y ago
Those two points don't really oppose each other...
- rhino369 10y ago
  The people who put together these codes spend a lot of time and effort doing it. They only get compensated by requiring people to pay for access via a copyright. Some bodies do it without restricting access, like IEEE, but their work in contributed by interested parties who control their IP via other means. Companies will work on the next 802.11x, but they are always trying to guide the standard to benefit their company.

vivekd 10y ago

>We’re disappointed by this misguided ruling, but the case is far from over. Sounds like its going to be appealed. I think the government needs to stop passing regulations that just copy the rules of private standards organizations unless they are also allowed to publish the regulations. Private organizations will do what they will, the public can't control private actors or force them to give up their right to collect money for their standards (at least not without a fight). I juts don't understand why the government would just make laws without ensuring the right to publish them or make them widely available to the people, is just irresponsible and goes to show how little thought goes into all these regulations that govern our lives.

ryandrake 10y ago
It's easy to understand. They are just doing what their primary constituents (big corporations) want.

IanDrake 10y ago

The ACA already forces every US citizen to buy a product from a private company. This isn't much different. The Supreme Court has already upheld this as a "tax", so expect the same result.

mnm1 10y ago

How can one possibly respect a law one cannot read or any lawmakers/political bodies who make/encourage such laws or institutions claiming to enforce/defend them? What exactly is the difference for the accused between this situation and having legal cases randomly decided by random rules?

ar15saveslives 10y ago
Their weird logic must be "we don't restrict access to the text of a law, you just have to pay for it".

gnicholas 10y ago

interesting facts, from the decision: Importantly, there is no evidence that the ... standards are unavailable to the public. In fact, the undisputed record evidence shows that the standards are required to be available in physical form from OFR; are available for purchase from the [first] Plaintiffs in hard copy and from the [second] Plaintiffs in hard copy and PDFs; and are accessible in read-only format for free in [second] Plaintiffs’ online reading rooms If this information is freely available in electronic format — which seems to be the case for the second plaintiff — then in my mind the concern is greatly mitigated. The defendant could simply link out to the relevant page. I'm surprised the decision doesn't mention the cost that the first plaintiff charges for the hard-copy of their standards (which are apparently not electronically available), since the cost/delay seems relevant. If the cost is hundreds or thousands of dollars, there definitely be cause for concern. On the other hand, if the cost is negligible, I'm somewhat less concerned. To be clear, I still think that whatever agencies incorporate third-party content by reference should always require that the documents be freely available online. I just think these facts about current availability are interesting (and are not mentioned in the EFF post).