3 ms·

So, prior to this ruling, there were laws that the public couldn't get access to? I assume you could get them from magistrates and stuff though still, right?

So, prior to this ruling, there were laws that the public couldn't get access to? I assume you could get them from magistrates and stuff though still, right? Or was it a complete lack of access? Obviously online is still way preferred it just is crazy to me to think there was a law somewhere that you couldn't easily get the full text of. How the heck am I supposed to follow a law I can't read? lol

racingmars 3y ago
The problem was that the laws referred to commercial documents from standards bodies. Rather than reproducing the entire text of the standard in the law itself (which would be public), the law says "Buildings must comply with XYZ standard 123," where XYZ 123 has to be purchased from the standards body and they claim copyright on it. This ruling says that providing that XYZ 123 standard online for non-commercial purposes is fair use if that standard is incorporated into the law.
- chankstein38 3y ago
  OK thank you! I legit misunderstood, I appreciate the clarification!
lmkg 3y ago
This is about Incorporation By Reference. For example, ASTM (a standards body) published a safety standard for children's toys. This was just a book that they sell, named ASTM F963. Then, in 2008, Congress passed a law that all toys sold in the US must adhere to ASTM F963. The law itself can be publicly viewed. But the law does not directly include the text of ASTM F963. It just refers to it by name. The standard is copyright ASTM, and they sell copies for about a hundred bucks. For better or worse, the law refers to the current version of the standard. It's been updated a few times, and the legal requirement is to use the most recent version. The law has not changed, but the requirements have. I am given to understand that on the local level this is common for building codes too. A municipality will say that buildings must follow the safety standards put out by some professional body or other relating to fireproofing lumber or framing or whatever.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Someone should publish their own standard titled "ASTM F963" but with obviously different contents. With a little work a lawyer can make your version meet the letter of the law as well.
- f1shy 3y ago
  This is terrible not only because you have made a law which is inaccessible to the population (which is in and out itself a total aberration in the law system). But also: - You made the law a moving target: when the new book is published, how you deal with products that were developed a month before, and went to market a month later? How are companies supposed to comply? - Most important: the state is delegating the most important responsibility of making laws, and putting it in hands of profit driven companies or organisations. That cannot end well.

racingmars 3y ago

The problem was that the laws referred to commercial documents from standards bodies. Rather than reproducing the entire text of the standard in the law itself (which would be public), the law says "Buildings must comply with XYZ standard 123," where XYZ 123 has to be purchased from the standards body and they claim copyright on it. This ruling says that providing that XYZ 123 standard online for non-commercial purposes is fair use if that standard is incorporated into the law.

chankstein38 3y ago
OK thank you! I legit misunderstood, I appreciate the clarification!

lmkg 3y ago

This is about Incorporation By Reference. For example, ASTM (a standards body) published a safety standard for children's toys. This was just a book that they sell, named ASTM F963. Then, in 2008, Congress passed a law that all toys sold in the US must adhere to ASTM F963. The law itself can be publicly viewed. But the law does not directly include the text of ASTM F963. It just refers to it by name. The standard is copyright ASTM, and they sell copies for about a hundred bucks. For better or worse, the law refers to the current version of the standard. It's been updated a few times, and the legal requirement is to use the most recent version. The law has not changed, but the requirements have. I am given to understand that on the local level this is common for building codes too. A municipality will say that buildings must follow the safety standards put out by some professional body or other relating to fireproofing lumber or framing or whatever.

bluGill 3y ago
Someone should publish their own standard titled "ASTM F963" but with obviously different contents. With a little work a lawyer can make your version meet the letter of the law as well.
f1shy 3y ago
This is terrible not only because you have made a law which is inaccessible to the population (which is in and out itself a total aberration in the law system). But also: - You made the law a moving target: when the new book is published, how you deal with products that were developed a month before, and went to market a month later? How are companies supposed to comply? - Most important: the state is delegating the most important responsibility of making laws, and putting it in hands of profit driven companies or organisations. That cannot end well.