3 ms·
> I can see the argument against this being freely publishable. If I wrote a textbook which explains some badly written and archaic laws really well, and lawyer
by mamon 7y ago
> I can see the argument against this being freely publishable. If I wrote a textbook which explains some badly written and archaic laws really well, and lawyers and judges started to look to it as the de facto law, should that void my copyright?
I would expect any reasonable government to do one of:
- Write their own, non-copyrighted version of the law in question.
- Pay you decent amout of money and become copyright owner prior to including your textbook in the official law code.
I think that's the primary difference between civil and common law: in civil law legal system you cannot have "de facto laws" - either something is codified in form of (non-copyrtightable) parlimentary bill or executive order, or is not a law at all.
- gnode 7y ago> either something is codified in form of (non-copyrtightable) parlimentary bill or executive order, or is not a law at all. This isn't effectively true in practise. While there is no foundation of stare decisis in Civil law, there is the commonly recognised concept of jurisprudence constante (stable law). That is: judges will often look to precedent in making decisions, but are not bound by it. A pattern of past decisions will often be highly persuasive because there is interest in not interpreting the law arbitrarily, and courts tend not to want to make a decision they expect will be overturned on appeal.