5 ms·

Bullshit. There is no way the law is subject to copyright. The contractor may claim copyright but I doubt it would standup in court at all.

by fleitz 14y ago

kylemhill 14y ago
When you live in the District, you get used to a certain level of absurdist federally mandated bullshit.
- darkarmani 14y ago
  It's like getting used to snow, humidity, or traffic in other places (oh, wait you get those too)
jellicle 14y ago
Depends on what you mean by stand up - https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/04/16/can-states-copyright-their-statutes/ https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/04/16/can-states-... Many states, publishers, and other entities try to claim copyright in parts of the published law: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/gacode/ http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/gacode/ Some activists have objected: https://public.resource.org/index.html https://public.resource.org/index.html It's an ongoing problem and is not "bullshit" at all.
- fleitz 14y ago
  There's a world of difference between what a lawyer will claim and what a judge will find. The key is fighting back, copy the laws in California, add misdemeanour barratry as a counterclaim as well as SLAPP.
jbronn 14y ago
Although it's absurd, it's been claimed many times before. For example, municipalities incorporate model building codes as law, which publishers objected to being placed online. In 2002 this issue bubbled up to the 5th circuit which held that the laws were not subject to copyright protection. The case is Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress, 293 F.3d 791: https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/293/293.F3d.791.99-40632.html https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/293/293.F3d.791.99... This is compelling precedent if the copyright dispute ever reaches the federal district court in DC.
- brudgers 14y ago
  I was thinking of Veek as I was reading the article. <IANAL> But my understanding is that model codes can by protected by copyright, but that once they are adopted as law, they cannot be. On the other hand, lack of public access is due to the particular option DC chose - Municode.com has been around for at least twelve years. We used it as the reference for city employees when I worked in city government. http://www.municode.com/Library http://www.municode.com/Library
- mapt 14y ago
  I would argue that if a "law" is not fully in the public domain, it is formally unconstitutionally vague. If the information within is legally a secret, something I cannot acquire without pursuing a commercial arrangement with a private party on a voluntary basis, then the courts cannot reasonably expect me to understand that information, and the legislature has failed to bind me to obey those rules in the eyes of the due process clause of the Constitution. I don't see it as requiring a special prohibition of "copyrighting laws", it stems directly from the fact that 'not public domain' is a variably mitigated example of 'secret'.
tantalor 14y ago
It might be a lot like a cookbook. A recipe (law) cannot be copyrighted, but a book of recipes (laws) can be. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
- antiterra 14y ago
  It's almost never that simple. For example, a (regular) telephone book cannot be copyrighted[1] but medical billing codes for insurance can be[2] (so far.) [1] Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Svc. Co., Inc. - 499 U.S. 340 (1991) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=499&invol=340 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&#3... [2] Practice Management v AMA - 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997) [writ denied by SCOTUS] http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/IP/1997%20PMI%20Abridged.pdf http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/IP/1997%20PMI%20...
fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
Of course it is bullshit. Here is the latest progress (that I am aware of) on that front. https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/293/293.F3d.791.99-40632.html https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/293/293.F3d.791.99... >>For the reasons discussed above, we REVERSE the district court's judgment against Peter Veeck, and REMAND with instructions to dismiss SBCCI's claims. I'm told that this decision does not make precedent for the whole US, but rather only that which is under the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. See also: https://law.resource.org/ https://law.resource.org/

Bullshit. There is no way the law is subject to copyright. The contractor may claim copyright but I doubt it would standup in court at all.

by fleitz 14y ago

Bullshit. There is no way the law is subject to copyright. The contractor may claim copyright but I doubt it would standup in court at all.

kylemhill 14y ago

When you live in the District, you get used to a certain level of absurdist federally mandated bullshit.

darkarmani 14y ago
It's like getting used to snow, humidity, or traffic in other places (oh, wait you get those too)

jellicle 14y ago

Depends on what you mean by stand up - https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/04/16/can-states-copyright-their-statutes/ https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/04/16/can-states-... Many states, publishers, and other entities try to claim copyright in parts of the published law: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/gacode/ http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/gacode/ Some activists have objected: https://public.resource.org/index.html https://public.resource.org/index.html It's an ongoing problem and is not "bullshit" at all.

fleitz 14y ago
There's a world of difference between what a lawyer will claim and what a judge will find. The key is fighting back, copy the laws in California, add misdemeanour barratry as a counterclaim as well as SLAPP.

jbronn 14y ago

Although it's absurd, it's been claimed many times before. For example, municipalities incorporate model building codes as law, which publishers objected to being placed online. In 2002 this issue bubbled up to the 5th circuit which held that the laws were not subject to copyright protection. The case is Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress, 293 F.3d 791: https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/293/293.F3d.791.99-40632.html https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/293/293.F3d.791.99... This is compelling precedent if the copyright dispute ever reaches the federal district court in DC.

brudgers 14y ago
I was thinking of Veek as I was reading the article. <IANAL> But my understanding is that model codes can by protected by copyright, but that once they are adopted as law, they cannot be. On the other hand, lack of public access is due to the particular option DC chose - Municode.com has been around for at least twelve years. We used it as the reference for city employees when I worked in city government. http://www.municode.com/Library http://www.municode.com/Library
mapt 14y ago
I would argue that if a "law" is not fully in the public domain, it is formally unconstitutionally vague. If the information within is legally a secret, something I cannot acquire without pursuing a commercial arrangement with a private party on a voluntary basis, then the courts cannot reasonably expect me to understand that information, and the legislature has failed to bind me to obey those rules in the eyes of the due process clause of the Constitution. I don't see it as requiring a special prohibition of "copyrighting laws", it stems directly from the fact that 'not public domain' is a variably mitigated example of 'secret'.

tantalor 14y ago

It might be a lot like a cookbook. A recipe (law) cannot be copyrighted, but a book of recipes (laws) can be. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

antiterra 14y ago
It's almost never that simple. For example, a (regular) telephone book cannot be copyrighted[1] but medical billing codes for insurance can be[2] (so far.) [1] Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Svc. Co., Inc. - 499 U.S. 340 (1991) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=499&invol=340 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&#3... [2] Practice Management v AMA - 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997) [writ denied by SCOTUS] http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/IP/1997%20PMI%20Abridged.pdf http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/IP/1997%20PMI%20...

fnordfnordfnord 14y ago

Of course it is bullshit. Here is the latest progress (that I am aware of) on that front. https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/293/293.F3d.791.99-40632.html https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/293/293.F3d.791.99... >>For the reasons discussed above, we REVERSE the district court's judgment against Peter Veeck, and REMAND with instructions to dismiss SBCCI's claims. I'm told that this decision does not make precedent for the whole US, but rather only that which is under the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. See also: https://law.resource.org/ https://law.resource.org/