6 ms·

If the law mandates use of (privately manufactured) safety mechanisms it doesn't mean that you are entitled to get those safety mechanisms for free. Similarly,

by flexie 13y ago

If the law mandates use of (privately manufactured) safety mechanisms it doesn't mean that you are entitled to get those safety mechanisms for free. Similarly, if the law mandates that manufacturers comply with certain (privately manufactured) technical standards it doesn't mean that everybody is entitled to get a copy of those standards for free. That being said it is unfortunate that the law refers to non open standards. And the penalties this guy risks are outrageous.

DannyBee 13y ago
"it doesn't mean that everybody is entitled to get a copy of those standards for free." Can you cite some case law for this assertion? At least in the US, every court i'm aware of to confront the issue has decided that if they incorporate a standard by reference into a law, you must be allowed to access it for free, or it cannot be enforced against you. Some even go further, and state it is no longer copyrightable. See, e.g., VEECK v. SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE CONGRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC (293 F.3d 791) "Our short answer is that as law, the model codes enter the public domain and are not subject to the copyright holder's exclusive prerogatives. As model codes, however, the organization's works retain their protected status." If you have contrary authority, i'd love to see it (veeck has, last i looked, 283+ citations). Even those commentators who criticize the Veeck decision all agree that the public must be given access to the code, for free. The only portion they disagree on is whether incorporation causes the copy to enter the public domain or not (IE whether it's still copyrightable).
- flexie 13y ago
  You are quoting an American ruling. This is a European case.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Please cite any european decision to the contrary to support your decision ... Germany's official copyright law (which i only have english translations of, so apologies) says: "(3) The copyright on private collections of standards is not affected by section 1 and 2 if they are referred to in laws, regulations, decrees or official announcements without reproduction of their wording. In this case, the originator is obliged to grant each and every publisher the right to copy and distribute on reasonable terms. If a third party is the holder of the exclusive right to copy and distribute, that party is obliged to grant the license of use in accordance with sentence 2." I doubt 103 euros per copy is going to be found to be reasonable terms ... (And if it was not by reference, it would be covered by the sentence one that i didn't copy, which would just make it plain old not copyrightable) But enough of this, you made an assertion (and not even about german law, mind you, but about 'the law'), it's your job to support it.
    - Amadou 13y ago
      You seem to be correct, for others reading along here is a reference to the law you quoted - starts at the bottom of page 5: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/regulations.gov.docket.02/0900006481024f7f.pdf https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/regulations.gov.docket.0... However, while that appears to be the law in Germany, that doesn't mean it ought to be the law in Germany (or anywhere else). Sounds like iRights.Law is looking to get that changed.
    - flexie 13y ago
      I made an assertion and now it's my "job to support it"?! How is that for an assertion. Stating that everybody is not entitled to get a free copy of copyrighted material is hardly an assertion in the first place and I think you maybe have a very strong sense of entitlement if you think you should tell me what my job is ;-) I am not a German lawyer but a Danish one. The Danish copyright law doesn't have such provision but in Denmark charging manufacturers 100 euro for a standard would not upset any judge. 100 Euro is the price of a meal at an average restaurant, 20 minutes of lawyer time or a text book on insolvency law (if you can't pay for it). Things are cheaper in Germany so maybe 100 Euro is too much. I don't know. Lawmakers often prefer that technical standards are made by private and semi private bodies because politicians and government clerks have absolutely no clue about technicalities. manufacturers prefer it for the same reason. Even if these technical bodies sell 1,000 "baby pacifier standards" all over Germany, and I doubt they sell that many, the proceeds barely cover the direct cost of creating the standards, including hiring lawyers, engineers and other experts, negotiating with different interest groups, printing etc. If the alternative would be to let the taxpayers bear the full price I think it's fine to have manufacturers pay a few hundred euros yearly to get the standards they need. In most of Europe compliance with product safety regulations is not ensured through the courts by lawyers hired by those who have suffered damage. Yes, these cases exist but in much smaller numbers than in the US. The real enforcement of the rules is carried out by public agencies that control that the rules are followed, issue fines and bans, close factories etc. So there are very few readers of most of these standards. As for court cases, I don't know of any on this subject.
      - crististm 13y ago
rsingel 13y ago
What kind of citizen thinks that required legal standards can be private property and uses the word "entitled" to refer to public standards? The answer: a corporatist with no sense of the notion of public goods. This generation scares the shit out of me.
- flexie 13y ago
  There's nothing new in this. Publishing of laws and court rulings has been a mostly private industry for a couple of hundred years - also in the US. In fact, with Internet now is the only time ever that you are able to find most laws and a large number of important court rulings for free. If you are scared of generations you should be more scared of the older ones. Now, laws and court rulings were not copyrighted, but what good did that do before the digital age made it free to copy them. In 1790, 1890 or even 1990 you had little chance of knowing the law if you didn't buy magazines or books with laws and court rulings.

by flexie 13y ago

DannyBee 13y ago

"it doesn't mean that everybody is entitled to get a copy of those standards for free." Can you cite some case law for this assertion? At least in the US, every court i'm aware of to confront the issue has decided that if they incorporate a standard by reference into a law, you must be allowed to access it for free, or it cannot be enforced against you. Some even go further, and state it is no longer copyrightable. See, e.g., VEECK v. SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE CONGRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC (293 F.3d 791) "Our short answer is that as law, the model codes enter the public domain and are not subject to the copyright holder's exclusive prerogatives. As model codes, however, the organization's works retain their protected status." If you have contrary authority, i'd love to see it (veeck has, last i looked, 283+ citations). Even those commentators who criticize the Veeck decision all agree that the public must be given access to the code, for free. The only portion they disagree on is whether incorporation causes the copy to enter the public domain or not (IE whether it's still copyrightable).

flexie 13y ago
You are quoting an American ruling. This is a European case.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Please cite any european decision to the contrary to support your decision ... Germany's official copyright law (which i only have english translations of, so apologies) says: "(3) The copyright on private collections of standards is not affected by section 1 and 2 if they are referred to in laws, regulations, decrees or official announcements without reproduction of their wording. In this case, the originator is obliged to grant each and every publisher the right to copy and distribute on reasonable terms. If a third party is the holder of the exclusive right to copy and distribute, that party is obliged to grant the license of use in accordance with sentence 2." I doubt 103 euros per copy is going to be found to be reasonable terms ... (And if it was not by reference, it would be covered by the sentence one that i didn't copy, which would just make it plain old not copyrightable) But enough of this, you made an assertion (and not even about german law, mind you, but about 'the law'), it's your job to support it.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    You seem to be correct, for others reading along here is a reference to the law you quoted - starts at the bottom of page 5: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/regulations.gov.docket.02/0900006481024f7f.pdf https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/regulations.gov.docket.0... However, while that appears to be the law in Germany, that doesn't mean it ought to be the law in Germany (or anywhere else). Sounds like iRights.Law is looking to get that changed.
  - flexie 13y ago
    I made an assertion and now it's my "job to support it"?! How is that for an assertion. Stating that everybody is not entitled to get a free copy of copyrighted material is hardly an assertion in the first place and I think you maybe have a very strong sense of entitlement if you think you should tell me what my job is ;-) I am not a German lawyer but a Danish one. The Danish copyright law doesn't have such provision but in Denmark charging manufacturers 100 euro for a standard would not upset any judge. 100 Euro is the price of a meal at an average restaurant, 20 minutes of lawyer time or a text book on insolvency law (if you can't pay for it). Things are cheaper in Germany so maybe 100 Euro is too much. I don't know. Lawmakers often prefer that technical standards are made by private and semi private bodies because politicians and government clerks have absolutely no clue about technicalities. manufacturers prefer it for the same reason. Even if these technical bodies sell 1,000 "baby pacifier standards" all over Germany, and I doubt they sell that many, the proceeds barely cover the direct cost of creating the standards, including hiring lawyers, engineers and other experts, negotiating with different interest groups, printing etc. If the alternative would be to let the taxpayers bear the full price I think it's fine to have manufacturers pay a few hundred euros yearly to get the standards they need. In most of Europe compliance with product safety regulations is not ensured through the courts by lawyers hired by those who have suffered damage. Yes, these cases exist but in much smaller numbers than in the US. The real enforcement of the rules is carried out by public agencies that control that the rules are followed, issue fines and bans, close factories etc. So there are very few readers of most of these standards. As for court cases, I don't know of any on this subject.
    - crististm 13y ago

rsingel 13y ago

What kind of citizen thinks that required legal standards can be private property and uses the word "entitled" to refer to public standards? The answer: a corporatist with no sense of the notion of public goods. This generation scares the shit out of me.

flexie 13y ago
There's nothing new in this. Publishing of laws and court rulings has been a mostly private industry for a couple of hundred years - also in the US. In fact, with Internet now is the only time ever that you are able to find most laws and a large number of important court rulings for free. If you are scared of generations you should be more scared of the older ones. Now, laws and court rulings were not copyrighted, but what good did that do before the digital age made it free to copy them. In 1790, 1890 or even 1990 you had little chance of knowing the law if you didn't buy magazines or books with laws and court rulings.