RSS
Twitter
California: We Charge People To Read Our Laws For The Benefit Of Californians
from the sign-of-the-times dept
Back in April, we wrote about how the state of Oregon was threatening Carl Malamud, an activist who has been working hard for years to get public content more widely available to people online, for daring to publish Oregon's laws online. The state claimed copyright, not over the laws, but over the presentation of the laws, which Malamud had scanned. After the public outcry over this, Oregon backed down, and Malamud has continued his efforts. A bunch of folks have been submitting this Santa Rosa Press Democrat story all about Malamud's efforts, with a specific focus on California -- which similarly claims copyright on the presentation of its laws and standards.
California's defense of trying to limit such a display of the laws seems pretty ridiculous:
"We exercise our copyright to benefit the people of California," said Linda Brown, deputy director of the Office of Administrative Law, which manages the state's laws. "We are obtaining compensation for the people of California."In other words, we hide the laws you have to obey from you in order to get more money into the state's coffers. That hardly seems like a reasonable rationale for the efforts. 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." Besides, as we all should know, the purpose of copyright isn't to "obtain compensation for the people of California" but to encourage the creation of new works. Is copyrighting the presentation of laws helping to create new... laws? That doesn't seem right.
In the meantime, Malamud is just going to keep posting the laws and making them easier than ever for people to actually know what laws they're probably breaking all the time. It sounds as though he's hoping someone will actually take him to court over this, as he's confident that a court would rule in his favor, finally setting an important precedent. Here's hoping that's true. Unfortunately, we've seen too many bad legal rulings on similar issues to feel that comfortable with simply letting a court set the precedent.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Might as well throw in religion, icon, device, etc!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Public Workproduct for Profit
What "ain't right" about it? That's how free markets work.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Judas H Priest, Mike, don't give 'em ideas!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
California laws--Public Information
Wait a minute...are the laws just public information?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
good read
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Copyrights...
This story makes one wonder the question:
Does anyone hold the copyright on Speed Limit signs?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
From the Government of Ontario:
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Hey who exactly is the Queen of Ontario?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Overlooking a critical distinction
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment