3 ms·

There are two cases dealing with a directly analogous issues about to come up for argument in front of the Supreme Court of Canada. The AG of Canada has taken

by ABCLAW 8y ago

There are two cases dealing with a directly analogous issues about to come up for argument in front of the Supreme Court of Canada. The AG of Canada has taken the position that they're immune to copyright and can do whatever they want. By contrast, some amicus filings indicate they want these types of documentation to fall within the public domain. It'll be interesting to see what solution is adopted, but I believe that there's a more intellectually-consistent, scaleable solution which is not in front of the courts that addresses the issues directly and with minimal fall-out to other stakeholders. Unfortunately, I only caught the ear of a few of the counsel after their filings were already done, so I don't think the proper solution will even be in front of the court. That said, there's plenty of hope, and I'm glad the issue is in front of the courts. I do, however, find it strange that UpCodes settled while the founders were named directly but not included in the settlement.

Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
UpCodes cofounder here. I'd be interested to hear your solution. Also, can you link to the Canadian case? I'm curious. In terms of the ASCE settlement, it included us, so the settlement was between ASCE, UpCodes, Inc., and both cofounders.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  There's a few working pieces. There's significant jurisprudence starting as early as Roman times on the idea of 'law like' instruments garnering protections by virtue of their role in public regulation. The UK has a number of very plainly stated cases on the matter that are pursuasive in the US as well. Some attempt to attenuate copyright's ability to exclude in the case of law-like works by using carve-outs in copyright, but this solution isn't scaleable - Fair dealing and Fair use are consistently under siege, attacked in international-level agreements and interpreted fairly inconsistently between jurisdictions. Instead, my proposal is to treat law-like documents as being in the public domain but only to the extent that they are being used for their law-like purpose. Accordingly, even if we change the nature of databased works in the future, we 1) assure the access of the public to codes, regulations, registration documents and other key elements of law, 2) ensure that the government's treating of these documents is not hampered by transmission or duplication restrictions arising out of copyright, and 3) protect stakeholder interests by restricting the scope of use to the areas where there is a public purpose to the dissemination of these works. I can send the case names privately if you'd like.

by ABCLAW 8y ago

Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago

UpCodes cofounder here. I'd be interested to hear your solution. Also, can you link to the Canadian case? I'm curious. In terms of the ASCE settlement, it included us, so the settlement was between ASCE, UpCodes, Inc., and both cofounders.

ABCLAW 8y ago
There's a few working pieces. There's significant jurisprudence starting as early as Roman times on the idea of 'law like' instruments garnering protections by virtue of their role in public regulation. The UK has a number of very plainly stated cases on the matter that are pursuasive in the US as well. Some attempt to attenuate copyright's ability to exclude in the case of law-like works by using carve-outs in copyright, but this solution isn't scaleable - Fair dealing and Fair use are consistently under siege, attacked in international-level agreements and interpreted fairly inconsistently between jurisdictions. Instead, my proposal is to treat law-like documents as being in the public domain but only to the extent that they are being used for their law-like purpose. Accordingly, even if we change the nature of databased works in the future, we 1) assure the access of the public to codes, regulations, registration documents and other key elements of law, 2) ensure that the government's treating of these documents is not hampered by transmission or duplication restrictions arising out of copyright, and 3) protect stakeholder interests by restricting the scope of use to the areas where there is a public purpose to the dissemination of these works. I can send the case names privately if you'd like.