Last year, a US district court ruled that, if a copyrighted standard is "incorporated by reference" into a law, then posting DRM-free copies of that standard online is protected by fair use. An appeals panel unanimously affirmed the ruling last week, and it's unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn it.
The NFPA was one of the parties to the lawsuit. Since the National Electrical Code (NFPA 70) is incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations (pic related), it no longer is protected by copyright laws.
What standards are you looking forward to being able to download for free without breaking the law?
Press release: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/appeals-court-upholds-publicresourceorgs-right-post-public-laws-and-regulations
Court documents:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.161410/gov.uscourts.dcd.161410.239.0.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.161410/gov.uscourts.dcd.161410.239.1.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.38623/gov.uscourts.cadc.38623.1208551241.0.pdf
>Congress, being the lapdog of industry that it is, will pass a law amending the Copyright Act granting these stooges the ability to profit from it anyways.
None, because I'm not an American.
finally
https://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/NEC-HTML/HTML/NECinPublicDomain~20030916.htm
That seems to be a good overview, to get up to speed.
I just always thought this kind of stuff was online, fully digitized and you could look it up. Explains why when I google stuff, I get results from a variety of websites, but never hit the NFPA or other presiding body.
I bet libgen has a copy.
>israelites can't say I need to pay them $435 per code to look at the codes they tell me I have to know if I want to do my own work anymore
How was this ever legal?
>it is a man's duty to know the law, ignorance is not a defense
>want to know the law? $434.99 goy
> legal?
It was never legal.
Now if we can just get the ISO standards released, at least the ones they directly plagiarized from ANSI.
The judge isn't referring to legal code, and neither is that maxim.
Elaborate.
Your explanation notwithstanding, ... be patient if you ask, What is law? if legal code is called law by, idk uneducated people, or by spokespersons at uneducated people, it's to make something dreamt-up in a backroom, by man, seem more important than it is.*
Gravity is a law. No matter where one goes, it's the same for practical purposes. Yet, if there is someone trying to impress upon me that a German Statute is 'law' {they interchangeably use the word 'Rechts', the same as english custom uses 'law'}, and I am no longer within their jurisdiction, say, idk - if I step outside of german territory, or even if for that particular complaint, I question if the assumption I am a citizen is true;
gravity doesn't work that way. It doesn't give a shit where you are. And if someone dreams up a legal counter to it, that's their mental problem. They can have a fantasy that goes clear off in a direction, and if you agree with it, guess what? Consenting Parties. If you argue about it, why would you argue with the insane? What does that make you, say about you?
The first law is Love. Without it, you wouldn't be here. It's impossible to be ignorant of it, because you are alive. Greeks defined Love with 14 different terms; study them. One of them, has to he discipline. And if you lack it in yourself, you have now placed a burden upon the Public (at the stage of a Court trial), and you will/may be brutally cracked over the head, for failure of your own self-governance (based on Love). [* The masses lacking conscience of jurisprudence, need to be told what law is.]
Be Love at the expense of all else. Study what it is, the words, the definitions. That will make you immune from prosecution. Don't be an edgy shitlord that believes the GLR lines. They are mutually-exclusive energies. In either case, the Ego will try to tell you what I am saying is a lie.
And yes; the judge can bounce back and forth between jurisdictions: equity, common law, and legal code, as needed.
>>>/x/
Thanks, chatgpt
While you were angry at your parents, and letting me know via projection, I was talking to a senior Judge about this.
Absent elaboration, I will assume that you mean that the maxim was intended to address the common law. Fair enough but, in the modern era, I mostly hear police offices employing it as meaning the entirety of ratified statutes. For practical purposes, the maxim has been fully hijacked.
The State of Georgia went through this as annotations to laws were considered binding but the annotations were copyrighted by LexisNexis. If you wanted to know the entire law you were expected to abide by, you had to pay LexisNexis, with the state getting a kickback. This arrangement, through various publishers, had been in place since 1861 but the copyright was invalidated in 2020 by the Supreme Court.
>GA annotations
That's was peak judaism.
Can someone translate into layman's terms, I am illiterate when it comes to electricity
>private organizations develop safety standards under copyright and behind paywalls
>government is too lazy to make its own standards, so instead it says the private standards now count as law
>judge says it's unconstitutional to put the law behind a paywall*
>so now the private standards are not protected by copyright
*Technically, the judge specifically REFRAINED from saying that. Rather, she said that posting these standards online counts as "fair use". But it's essentially the same thing.
So what does this mean for the people who write the NEC? Are they going to stop updating it if they don't get remunerations for their time?
That was addressed by the ruling. 'Public Resource" has been publishing the codes for free in defiance of the NEC's takedown requests since 2013. The judge found that since the NEC has had no problem making money and staying afloat in those 10 years despite their standards book being "illegally distributed" the whole time then it's not relevant to consider their financial harm. And even if it did cause them financial harm it would be unconstitutional to paywall laws you as a citizen are required to obey. SCOTUS ruled on something similar just a few years ago with some homosexual state literally paywalling their own laws.
Maybe they will stop making laws.
I think probably there is enough, Everybody is probably subject so so many laws that it would be impossible to abide by them all, and they get added so quickly that not long after I started an effort to abide by them all, I’d have to do it again.
A lot of them are even contradictory… look at all the constitutional challenges to things like city bylaws.
>What standards are you looking forward to being able to download for free without breaking the law?
I would love to see CPT and HCPCS and ICD-10 in the public domain, but that's probably never going to happen...
Good. Hope other countries follow. You cant hold people to rules then have them pay to read.
Our electrical code works differently so wouldnt be affected but plenty of other laws regular people are expected to follow would
>You cant hold people to rules then have them pay to read.
In my area they charge you money for title searches on real estate. So you need to pay cash money just to find out which richgay owns all the nice land.
Use the “probe” method. Make an incursion and the owner, or an agent thereof, will probably want you off it. If not, also a win.
Does your area have a GIS site?
I mean shouldnt law and regulations obviously not be copyrighted, since everyone is supposed to know them and follow them (even if that isnt a realitic expectation, that is what the law says).
NMEA 0183
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=888