4 ms·

You are quoting an American ruling. This is a European case.

by flexie 13y ago

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
    'I made an assertion and now it's my "job to support it"?! ' - Yep - that's how it goes.
    - darklajid 13y ago
      Actually no. Stating the fact that random rulings in the US don't apply to this case here is nothing that needs further support. Even if the general idea ('those documents should be free') would be supported in a German court that observation would still be true: Those court cases aren't relevant. Interesting maybe, related for people asking themselves how the US handles this. But they don't mean a thing for the case in the article. Nothing to "support" any further.
      - DannyBee 13y ago
        I think you are confused. The original assertion was (basically): "Just because you make something part of the law, doesn't make it free". Note it was not even an assertion made about german law, but the law in general. There was no support for this statement offered, just a bare assertion that this was true. I pointed out this was not true in the US, and probably not true in plenty of places. I specifically asked if there was any caselaw to support the assertion. The response, rather than to offer support for the bare assertion, was to point out i cited the US. Which was kind of besides the point. So I went to the trouble of looking up german copyright law, and posting what it says about it. At that point, I felt like I was essentially doing the work of the parent for them, and pointed out again that maybe they'd like to support their still bare assertion about the law. So yes, there was something to support, and at least as of this writing, it's still not supported.
  - vadiml 13y ago
    | 100 Euro is the price of a meal at an average restaurant Wow!!! Something is rotten in the kingdom of Danemark... The life seems to be very expensive. In France it'll be like 30 Euro (3 courses and wine)
    - 13y ago
- rmc 13y ago
  Not all countries have the nice US standard of it all being free. Frequently Irish law refers to maps that are heavily copyrighted by Irish semi-state bodies.
- sgift 13y ago
  > I doubt 103 euros per copy is going to be found to be reasonable terms ... §32 of the law seems to apply here for "reasonable terms", which states in (2): (2) (...) Any other remuneration shall be equitable if at the time the agreement is concluded it corresponds to what in business relations is customary and fair, given the nature and extent of the possibility of exploitation granted, in particular the duration and time of exploitation, and considering all circumstances. Which is quite unspecific, but I think (sorry, no case I can quote) that 103 will be seen as "ok". Notes: * IANAL Source: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urhg.html#p0157 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urh...

You are quoting an American ruling. This is a European case.

by flexie 13y ago

You are quoting an American ruling. This is a European case.

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
  'I made an assertion and now it's my "job to support it"?! ' - Yep - that's how it goes.
  - darklajid 13y ago
    Actually no. Stating the fact that random rulings in the US don't apply to this case here is nothing that needs further support. Even if the general idea ('those documents should be free') would be supported in a German court that observation would still be true: Those court cases aren't relevant. Interesting maybe, related for people asking themselves how the US handles this. But they don't mean a thing for the case in the article. Nothing to "support" any further.
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      I think you are confused. The original assertion was (basically): "Just because you make something part of the law, doesn't make it free". Note it was not even an assertion made about german law, but the law in general. There was no support for this statement offered, just a bare assertion that this was true. I pointed out this was not true in the US, and probably not true in plenty of places. I specifically asked if there was any caselaw to support the assertion. The response, rather than to offer support for the bare assertion, was to point out i cited the US. Which was kind of besides the point. So I went to the trouble of looking up german copyright law, and posting what it says about it. At that point, I felt like I was essentially doing the work of the parent for them, and pointed out again that maybe they'd like to support their still bare assertion about the law. So yes, there was something to support, and at least as of this writing, it's still not supported.
- vadiml 13y ago
  | 100 Euro is the price of a meal at an average restaurant Wow!!! Something is rotten in the kingdom of Danemark... The life seems to be very expensive. In France it'll be like 30 Euro (3 courses and wine)
  - 13y ago
rmc 13y ago
Not all countries have the nice US standard of it all being free. Frequently Irish law refers to maps that are heavily copyrighted by Irish semi-state bodies.
sgift 13y ago
> I doubt 103 euros per copy is going to be found to be reasonable terms ... §32 of the law seems to apply here for "reasonable terms", which states in (2): (2) (...) Any other remuneration shall be equitable if at the time the agreement is concluded it corresponds to what in business relations is customary and fair, given the nature and extent of the possibility of exploitation granted, in particular the duration and time of exploitation, and considering all circumstances. Which is quite unspecific, but I think (sorry, no case I can quote) that 103 will be seen as "ok". Notes: * IANAL Source: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urhg.html#p0157 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urh...