4 ms·

Federal law determines copyright, not the constitution. > The obligation to ensure free access to the law rests squarely with the government. Equal protectio

Federal law determines copyright, not the constitution. > The obligation to ensure free access to the law rests squarely with the government. Equal protection clauses and First Amendment control here. Otherwise there is secret law. In a degenerate example, "the crime of murder and a proper defense shall be determined by standard 451 from the Bradbury Institute." The Bradbury Institute will be happy to sell a copy of that standard for $100 million.

rayiner 8y ago
Copyright is created in the constitution. Once granted, it is a constitutionally protected property right. Equal protection and first amendment “control” but so does copyright. All must be given effect. To use a different example: the government makes a law establishing yor back yard as a polling place for federal elections. Surely, you agree that peoples’ right to vote cannot to be vindicated if they can’t freely access polling locations. But that doesn’t mean that you are obligated to let everyone onto your property! The law is the problem, and the government is at fault for failing to ensure that polling locations are publicly accessible.
- pm24601 8y ago
  > Surely, you agree that peoples’ right to vote cannot to be vindicated if they can’t freely access polling locations. There is no right to vote. So the rest of your case does not apply. Furthermore, I don't agree at all with your analogy. I feel that it is fundamental requirement to have complete access to the law. So any examples, that result in arguing to the contrary I disagree with up to and including the "taking of property". > But that doesn’t mean that you are obligated to let everyone onto your property! This is also not true. The legal concept of "Easement by Necessity" ( https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/easement-by-necessity.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/easement-by-n... ) applies so once again your example is incorrect.
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  Copyright is not created by the Constitution. The ability to create and enforce copyright is created by the Constitution.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  Copyright is not created in the constitution as some right that inherently applies to all inventors/creators. The particular constitution clause only permits congress to grant copyright exclusivity if (and to the limits) it wishes to; it doesn't require the congress to grant this exclusive right in any particular scope or even at all - it's up to the congress to decide.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Except this case addresses standards which are already copyrighted. (The laws incorporated pre-existing standards). Congress can decide the scope of the grant, just as it could decide the terms on which to grant someone 40 acres in the west. But once granted, it is a property right. Congress can’t just retroactively take it away.

rayiner 8y ago

Copyright is created in the constitution. Once granted, it is a constitutionally protected property right. Equal protection and first amendment “control” but so does copyright. All must be given effect. To use a different example: the government makes a law establishing yor back yard as a polling place for federal elections. Surely, you agree that peoples’ right to vote cannot to be vindicated if they can’t freely access polling locations. But that doesn’t mean that you are obligated to let everyone onto your property! The law is the problem, and the government is at fault for failing to ensure that polling locations are publicly accessible.

pm24601 8y ago
> Surely, you agree that peoples’ right to vote cannot to be vindicated if they can’t freely access polling locations. There is no right to vote. So the rest of your case does not apply. Furthermore, I don't agree at all with your analogy. I feel that it is fundamental requirement to have complete access to the law. So any examples, that result in arguing to the contrary I disagree with up to and including the "taking of property". > But that doesn’t mean that you are obligated to let everyone onto your property! This is also not true. The legal concept of "Easement by Necessity" ( https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/easement-by-necessity.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/easement-by-n... ) applies so once again your example is incorrect.
TheCoelacanth 8y ago
Copyright is not created by the Constitution. The ability to create and enforce copyright is created by the Constitution.
PeterisP 8y ago
Copyright is not created in the constitution as some right that inherently applies to all inventors/creators. The particular constitution clause only permits congress to grant copyright exclusivity if (and to the limits) it wishes to; it doesn't require the congress to grant this exclusive right in any particular scope or even at all - it's up to the congress to decide.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Except this case addresses standards which are already copyrighted. (The laws incorporated pre-existing standards). Congress can decide the scope of the grant, just as it could decide the terms on which to grant someone 40 acres in the west. But once granted, it is a property right. Congress can’t just retroactively take it away.