Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   GeneralEmergency (profile), Sep 4th, 2008 @ 2:52pm

   
   

   I can't believe I'm going to say this.

   We need another Federal law.
   
   The following entities may not register, hold, acquire, assert, transfer or claim copyright on any materials:
   
   Any government entity at any level.
   
   Any 501(c) organization.
   
   
   There. Problem solved.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Wolfy, Sep 4th, 2008 @ 3:00pm

   
   

   Might as well throw in religion, icon, device, etc!

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Michael Vilain, Sep 4th, 2008 @ 3:28pm

   
   

   What about publically funded research?

   I find it hard to take that publicly funded research paid for out of my pocket is being copyrighted by the researchers (e.g. university professors and the University of California itself). I'd like to see that stop also.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   TexasTommy, Sep 4th, 2008 @ 3:51pm

   
   

   Public Workproduct for Profit

   Does it occur to anyone that although Malamud's efforts are altruistic, if the State takes a pass the next guy that comes along and takes Govt work product and sells it for profit is doing to scream waiver of copyright if the State objects. There is a ton of rules, guidelines, laws, agency process available to the public accessible on the internet, it would be no big deal to copy, manipulate and sell it as resource manuals and materials. That ain't right.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 4th, 2008 @ 3:54pm

   
   

   Re: What about publically funded research?

   Not only that, but many of the things your tax dollars paid to discover are being patented too.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   Jake, Sep 4th, 2008 @ 3:55pm

   
   

   Hell, based on that rationale, wouldn't it make sense not to post any speed limit signs? After all, all the speeding tickets from ignorant drivers would help "obtain compensation for the people of California."

   
   Judas H Priest, Mike, don't give 'em ideas!

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 4th, 2008 @ 4:01pm

   
   

   Re: Public Workproduct for Profit

   Does it occur to anyone that although Malamud's efforts are altruistic, if the State takes a pass the next guy that comes along and takes Govt work product and sells it for profit is doing to scream waiver of copyright if the State objects.

   So? If someone wants to try to sell something in the public domain what wrong with that? Now if they try to prevent others from selling it then that's a problem.
   

   There is a ton of rules, guidelines, laws, agency process available to the public accessible on the internet, it would be no big deal to copy, manipulate and sell it as resource manuals and materials. That ain't right.

   What "ain't right" about it? That's how free markets work.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Randy, Sep 4th, 2008 @ 4:04pm

   
   

   California laws--Public Information

   Wait a minute...are the laws just public information?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 4th, 2008 @ 4:18pm

   
   

   Re:

   Judas H Priest, Mike, don't give 'em ideas!

   Too late, at least here in Texas. There are some small cities/suburbs that pass local laws setting very low default speed limits (around 15-20 MPH) and only post limit signs for those areas where the limit is actually higher than the default. People passing through who are not aware of the local laws get most of the tickets (the local cops recognize all the locals on sight anyway). This is the origin of the phrase "small Texas speed-trap town".

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 4th, 2008 @ 4:22pm

    
    

    good read

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 4th, 2008 @ 4:26pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Public Workproduct for Profit

    Sir, I do believe Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart would be very displeased with your answer. Just because they're dead doesn't mean that they want businesses to sell their works all willy nilly-like and not pass on some of that delicious green dough.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 4th, 2008 @ 4:31pm

    
    

    Re: Re:

    They've been doing that in Iowa for years. Most of the local towns have a standard speed limit of 25mph and signs are rarely posted. Hell, I was pulled over one time for being unaware that there is a two block stretch in my home town that is 20mph and not 25, though the speed limit isn't posted anywhere. Were I not a young dweeb at the time, I would've certainly raised a ruckus over that incident.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    drawdE, Sep 4th, 2008 @ 4:38pm

    
    

    Copyrights...

    This story makes one wonder the question:
    
    Does anyone hold the copyright on Speed Limit signs?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    Scott P., Sep 4th, 2008 @ 4:53pm

    
    

    Re: What about publically funded research?

    How about building codes? Try to check California's building code online. CCR Title 24.
    
    It's not there because it's copyrighted material belonging to a private organization. You can buy a copy from major book stores or from the International Code Council or view a copy at libraries or certain state/city offices. If you want your own copy it can cost you as much as a couple of grand.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    

    Vincent Clement, Sep 4th, 2008 @ 6:41pm

    
    

    From the Government of Ontario:
    

    Policy on Copyright on Legal Materials
    
    Although the Queen's Printer for Ontario claims copyright in Ontario statutes, regulations and judicial decisions, the Queen's Printer permits any person to reproduce the text and images contained in the statutes, regulations and judicial decisions without seeking permission and without charge. The materials must be reproduced accurately and the reproduction must not be represented as an official version.
    
    The Queen's Printer also requires that Crown copyright in the legal materials continue to be acknowledged in the following form:
    
    © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 200__.*
    
    This is an unofficial version of Government of Ontario legal materials.

    
    Ontario has every current statute, regulation and law online. They even have repealed or spent laws online. You can also download a Word version.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 4th, 2008 @ 6:56pm

    
    

    And, in the City Hall basement, locked in a rusty cabinet is the old saying "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    

    jFive, Sep 4th, 2008 @ 11:57pm

    
    

    horse poop

    I thought govt was by the people, for the people. Why are our laws "hidden"? So we can't find loop holes easily.
    
    How the hell can the govt own a copyright, trademark, etc? Patents I understand through outlets such as DARPA. Last I checked, the govt wasn't supposed to make a profit. And what happened to public domain?
    
    Besides, you need a law degree to understand or interpret most legal statues. Have you read the Patriot Act? It gives me a headache.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2008 @ 4:39am

    
    

    I think . . . maybe . . .

    This may have more to do with selling publishing writes to "code books" to companies like "Michie Publishing". So while as usual its largely a scam where only a few people profit, there is some money for the people of California in selling the publishing writes to Michie. Then the people of Virginia are making some money (I think michie is in Charlottesville) selling those books back to the california legislature and other practicing lawyers. I dunno just a guess . . .

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2008 @ 4:41am

    
    

    Re:

    Hey who exactly is the Queen of Ontario?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20.  

    

    Jim, Sep 5th, 2008 @ 4:48am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Public Workproduct for Profit

    I'm so sorry to have to tell you... they are dead. Furthermore, you or anyone else can do just that. Make a compilation. Sell it. Willy nilly.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

21.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2008 @ 9:21am

    
    

    Federal law mandates that a copyright registration must be in hand before a lawsuit can be filed against an alleged infringer. At the same time the Register of Copyrights has made it abundantly clear that the Copyright Office refuses to register copyright claims for public documents such as judicial opinions, laws, etc. (See: The Compendium of Copyright Office Practices, Section 206.01)
    
    Hence, states and municipal governments will have one heck of a time trying to assert copyright claims against others. I can only begin to imagine the "fun" that would ensue should a state try to force the Copyright Office to issue a registration, something it would have to do via a lawsuit seeking what is known as a Writ of Mandamus.
    
    Even if a state was successful in securing such a writ, its troubles would be far from over. They would just be beginning. The vast majority of such laws pre-date the removal from copyright law of the requirement for a copyright notice for published works, and it would be incumbent on the state to parse the statutes to specifically point out what in fact they believe qualifies for copyright protection. I daresay this would be a monumental task that would far exceed in time spent any monies received from what some states are now trying to charge.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

22.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2008 @ 10:19am

    
    

    Re:

    Federal law mandates that a copyright registration must be in hand before a lawsuit can be filed against an alleged infringer.

    I don't believe that's true. Citation, please.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

23.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2008 @ 10:42am

    
    

    Re: Re:

    17 USC 411(a)
    
    Registration is jurisdictional. In other words, a federal district court has no power to entertain such a suit absent the presentation of a registration. There are two minor exceptions, but neither apply here.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

24.  

    

    Steve R. (profile), Sep 5th, 2008 @ 1:00pm

    
    

    Overlooking a critical distinction

    Laws cannot be copyrighted. This is another example of inappropriately tossing the term "copyright" into the fan to see what sticks.
    
    However, there is a twist to this issue: ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION.
    
    I believe that governments are obligated to provide free access to any public documents, especially laws.
    
    The ACCESS question, however, becomes important in the context where a museum holds works that are out of copyright. Museums (private and public) routinely charge you to view exhibits. In that context, I don't have a problem with paying for access.(A gray area, the museum says you can't photograph an out of copyright exhibit.)
    
    The concept of copyright has been so misconstrued now, to justify any arbitrary and capricious action, that it is now almost meaningless.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

25.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2008 @ 2:26pm

    
    

    Re: Overlooking a critical distinction

    "Laws cannot be copyrighted."
    
    Strangely, there has been some legal debate on this because federal copyright law only places prohibitions on federal "stuff" and is silent on state "stuff".
    
    It is not that the copyright law has been deliberately written to cause this disconnect, but likely that Congress has never thought that any state would be so stupid as to try and assert a copyright interest in its laws.
    
    Congress will eventually get around to telling states the answer is "no", but until then it is nice to know that the Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters, has answered the question at the federal agency level by telling states "no way".
    
    Since you can't sue without a registration, states are caught in a Catch-22 of their own making.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

26.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2008 @ 10:47pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re:

    17 USC 411(a)

    You know, it doesn't really do you much good to cite something that doesn't support your argument. What, you thought nobody would check? From 17 USC 411(a): "In any case, however, where the deposit, application, and fee required for registration have been delivered to the Copyright Office in proper form and registration has been refused, the applicant is entitled to institute an action for infringement if notice thereof, with a copy of the complaint, is served on the Register of Copyrights." So no, even if you can't get a registration all you have to do is send a copy of the complaint to the Copyright Office.
    
    In 1989, the U.S. enacted the Berne Convention Implementation Act, amending the 1976 Copyright Act to conform to most of the provisions of the Berne Convention and make copyright automatic even without registration.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

27.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2008 @ 10:58pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Overlooking a critical distinction

    Since you can't sue without a registration, states are caught in a Catch-22 of their own making.

    No, you can indeed do so. See 17 USC 411(a).

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

28.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2008 @ 9:09am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Overlooking a critical distinction

    I stand corrected for speaking in such general terms, as well as stating registration is a jurisdictional issue.
    
    Notwithstanding my serious gaffes, registration is still a requirement for a copyright claimant to prevail and secure a remedy, and the stated position of the Register of Copyrights makes it quite clear that a state would face an almost insurmountable task attempting to secure a registration.
    
    Thank you for reminding me I should re-read a statute before commenting from memory.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment