5 ms·

Thank you for the explanation. Let me offer a tl;dr: Standards bodies found a bureaucratic loophole allowing them to make their standards into de facto-law whi

Thank you for the explanation. Let me offer a tl;dr: Standards bodies found a bureaucratic loophole allowing them to make their standards into de facto-law while avoiding that those standards then become part of the public domain as they ought to be. Sounds like a classic case where the law has not caught up with morality.

roel_v 13y ago
No, you are wrong, the whole reason the GP is so long is because EU law is much more complicated than the average nerds' vision of what law should be like (i.e., a rule-based decision tree). It is no 'loop hole', it is a fundamental feature of EU law to not be a federal system where the Commission sets the law in a uniform way across the territory.
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  Your point about the complexity of EU law is irrelevant. If there is even one single EU country in which the law is implemented in such a way that the standard referenced by the EU document becomes de facto law, then that standard ought to enter the public domain at least within that country. The detour via the EU is irrelevant.
  - roel_v 13y ago
    Look, just read everything that was said above again until you understand it and then come back, there's no point in me repeating the same thing several times. You're literally talking nonsense - 'de facto law', 'public domain within that country', 'detour via the EU' - everything you say indicates you don't understand the points being made here. Not to be an asshole about it, but between you and me, there is only one person with a law degree.
    - nhaehnle 13y ago
      Not to be an asshole about it, but if you really have a law degree, then perhaps that explains your inability to see the moral dimension of what is going on here. Time to take off your lawyer hat and read again what I wrote. I have not written whether I believe the publication of those standards is legal under current (copyright) law or not. The point is that it ought to be legal because it is moral. It is moral because (at least for some of the standards, according to everything I have read about the topic) the de facto way of following a certain law is to follow the standard that was published. Whether there are other ways of following that law is made irrelevant by common practice (again, from a moral point of view, thought perhaps not according to current copyright law). If necessary, the (copyright) law should be changed so that the law follows morality.
rainmaking 13y ago
> Standards bodies found a bureaucratic loophole allowing them to make their standards into de facto-law while avoiding that those standards then become part of the public domain I encounter this kind of wiggling a lot in Germany. What surprises me most is how readily these kinds of explanations are accepted by people, no matter how absurdly complicated they are.
rainmaking 13y ago
>bureaucratic loophole allowing them to make their standards into de facto-law while avoiding that those standards then become part of the public domain I get this kind of doublespeak a lot in Germany. For example, if a police officer suspects you of drunk driving, you are not required by law to take a breath test. You are required to take a blood test back at the station. The breath test is considered voluntary. Then there is the public health system. Insurance companies are not really part of the government, so you can't vote them out of office. But somehow they are still have a mandate to issue legally binding orders of seizure if you happen to disagree with the math in their invoices. They also act as their own oversight department. You are mandated to do business with at least one of them. Also, traffic tickets are not fines. They are just a voluntary payment to convince the city not to issue you a real fine, which is about 10x higher. Of course, you can't contest it, because you agreed to it. Guess DIN is just another wagon in the gravy train...

roel_v 13y ago

No, you are wrong, the whole reason the GP is so long is because EU law is much more complicated than the average nerds' vision of what law should be like (i.e., a rule-based decision tree). It is no 'loop hole', it is a fundamental feature of EU law to not be a federal system where the Commission sets the law in a uniform way across the territory.

nhaehnle 13y ago
Your point about the complexity of EU law is irrelevant. If there is even one single EU country in which the law is implemented in such a way that the standard referenced by the EU document becomes de facto law, then that standard ought to enter the public domain at least within that country. The detour via the EU is irrelevant.
- roel_v 13y ago
  Look, just read everything that was said above again until you understand it and then come back, there's no point in me repeating the same thing several times. You're literally talking nonsense - 'de facto law', 'public domain within that country', 'detour via the EU' - everything you say indicates you don't understand the points being made here. Not to be an asshole about it, but between you and me, there is only one person with a law degree.
  - nhaehnle 13y ago
    Not to be an asshole about it, but if you really have a law degree, then perhaps that explains your inability to see the moral dimension of what is going on here. Time to take off your lawyer hat and read again what I wrote. I have not written whether I believe the publication of those standards is legal under current (copyright) law or not. The point is that it ought to be legal because it is moral. It is moral because (at least for some of the standards, according to everything I have read about the topic) the de facto way of following a certain law is to follow the standard that was published. Whether there are other ways of following that law is made irrelevant by common practice (again, from a moral point of view, thought perhaps not according to current copyright law). If necessary, the (copyright) law should be changed so that the law follows morality.

rainmaking 13y ago

> Standards bodies found a bureaucratic loophole allowing them to make their standards into de facto-law while avoiding that those standards then become part of the public domain I encounter this kind of wiggling a lot in Germany. What surprises me most is how readily these kinds of explanations are accepted by people, no matter how absurdly complicated they are.

rainmaking 13y ago

>bureaucratic loophole allowing them to make their standards into de facto-law while avoiding that those standards then become part of the public domain I get this kind of doublespeak a lot in Germany. For example, if a police officer suspects you of drunk driving, you are not required by law to take a breath test. You are required to take a blood test back at the station. The breath test is considered voluntary. Then there is the public health system. Insurance companies are not really part of the government, so you can't vote them out of office. But somehow they are still have a mandate to issue legally binding orders of seizure if you happen to disagree with the math in their invoices. They also act as their own oversight department. You are mandated to do business with at least one of them. Also, traffic tickets are not fines. They are just a voluntary payment to convince the city not to issue you a real fine, which is about 10x higher. Of course, you can't contest it, because you agreed to it. Guess DIN is just another wagon in the gravy train...