Bill to make California Code of Regulations have a creative commons license(leginfo.ca.gov)
leginfo.ca.gov
Bill to make California Code of Regulations have a creative commons license
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0251-0300/ab_292_bill_20130211_introduced.htm
6 comments
Why should the California Code of Regulations be copyright and licensed with a creative commons license rather than just being public domain? Federal government works cannot be copyright. State and local can; requiring a creative commons license (open access creative commons attribution license) presumably would ensure the broadest possible distribution.
California law and regulation incorporate by reference[1] standards and regulations devised and drafted by groups outside of government like the International Code Council[2] and National Fire Protection Association[3]. This isn't bad per se since these groups know better than most legislators about the specific domain being treated (experts on structural fires writing fire codes, e.g.)
These referenced regulations are protected by Copyrights owned not by the legislator or government, but by the original private authors. As a consequence, having access to these Copyrighted, commercialized, non-free documents becomes a requirement for anyone wishing to know what the law is.
[1]: http://tr.ansfer.me/1cim
[2]: http://www.iccsafe.org/
[3]: http://www.nfpa.org/
These referenced regulations are protected by Copyrights owned not by the legislator or government, but by the original private authors. As a consequence, having access to these Copyrighted, commercialized, non-free documents becomes a requirement for anyone wishing to know what the law is.
[1]: http://tr.ansfer.me/1cim
[2]: http://www.iccsafe.org/
[3]: http://www.nfpa.org/
It might make sense for the state to negotiate a license for widespread free distribution before agreeing to incorporate a document by reference.
While I support the end result of this petition, and think it's better than the status quo, it is a little weird to think that something I wrote could automatically become public domain if the state incorporates it by reference into a law. What if I didn't want them to? It'd be a lot cleaner if the state acquired the rights to the document before writing it into a law.
Alternately, we could have truly public bodies, rather than quasi-public-sphere but actually private organizations, coming up with these model regulations.
While I support the end result of this petition, and think it's better than the status quo, it is a little weird to think that something I wrote could automatically become public domain if the state incorporates it by reference into a law. What if I didn't want them to? It'd be a lot cleaner if the state acquired the rights to the document before writing it into a law.
Alternately, we could have truly public bodies, rather than quasi-public-sphere but actually private organizations, coming up with these model regulations.
[deleted]
Laws shouldn't have copyrights, they are facts.
[deleted]
As much as I'd like to agree, facts don't require interpretation.
Yes they do. I'm a scientist; I spend all my time trying to interpret facts.
I agree with the previous poster--the text of the statute or regulation itself should not have copyright protection, regardless of whether more interpretation is needed to understand its implications.
I agree with the previous poster--the text of the statute or regulation itself should not have copyright protection, regardless of whether more interpretation is needed to understand its implications.
Not so fast. Whether state and local laws can be copyrighted is not a settled legal question, and precedent in the 5th circuit (which California is admittedly not in) says that it cannot. No copyright is broader access than a creative copyright license, so I'd prefer that default.
See http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm for more on what the 5th circuit said.
An example of something that the creative commons attribution license would prevent is the incorporation of the license text into GPLed software.
See http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm for more on what the 5th circuit said.
An example of something that the creative commons attribution license would prevent is the incorporation of the license text into GPLed software.
Yeah, the thing is, its not a settled legal question. The bill specifying license terms is obviously moot if copyright protection does not apply, but as long as copyright protection does apply, or as long as there is a legal question that it might apply, having the most open licensing terms reduces the risk that use might land you in a copyright trap.
The last word on it (as far as I can tell) is that Veeck is right and there is no copyright on "the law", even measly building codes. I have no idea if I've read it wrong, or if the court has changed its mind in the mean time.
>Conclusion
>[51] For the reasons discussed above, we REVERSE the district court's judgment against Peter Veeck, and REMAND with instructions to dismiss SBCCI's claims.
>Conclusion
>[51] For the reasons discussed above, we REVERSE the district court's judgment against Peter Veeck, and REMAND with instructions to dismiss SBCCI's claims.
I would say "the latest word" and not "the last word".
That precedent is only binding on the fifth circuit. California courts are free to decide differently. If the issue is deemed important enough, eventually it is likely to wind up in front of the Supreme Court.
See http://boingboing.net/2012/03/19/liberating-americas-secret.... for an interesting case that might force this to get tested.
That precedent is only binding on the fifth circuit. California courts are free to decide differently. If the issue is deemed important enough, eventually it is likely to wind up in front of the Supreme Court.
See http://boingboing.net/2012/03/19/liberating-americas-secret.... for an interesting case that might force this to get tested.
Under US Federal law, anything that can be subject to copyright is subject to copyright at the moment it is set in fixed form. It is not an option.
So, insofar as the CCR is copyrightable subject matter under federal law, it automatically is subject to copyright, and the only real question is licensing terms (public domain dedications, have something of a hazy legal effect, which makes them a less viable option for a legal requirement.)
So, insofar as the CCR is copyrightable subject matter under federal law, it automatically is subject to copyright, and the only real question is licensing terms (public domain dedications, have something of a hazy legal effect, which makes them a less viable option for a legal requirement.)
Legal documents should not be protected by copyright. Its such an absurd idea that everyone until recently assumed they were in the public domain.
There is going to be a big battle with International Code Council (ICC), National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), ANSI, I could go on and on. They all have a vested interest on keeping their standards locked down.
See SBCCI vs Veeck. Here, first link I could find: http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/Veek_vs_Southern_Bldg_Code.ht...
>Today the majority concludes that the presumed benefits generated through the creation of "model codes" require that it strike the balance in favor of permitting the model code creator to continue to enforce its copyright, even after such a code has been adopted into law. In my view, once a "model code" is adopted into law by the government, a private entity, such as SBCCI, may no longer obstruct publication and transmission of the law by an uncompensated transferor. Adoption of the model code as law serves to place the law in the public domain and it should, therefore, be readily available for access by all citizens. The access should not be limited to a non-public commercial establishment. Similarly, upon enactment, the law transforms into an "idea" that is no longer distinguishable from its expression, causing SBCCI's codes to lose their copyright protection. It is my belief that reversal of the district court judgment is appropriate. I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority.
edit: later noticed btilly's link to SBCCI vs Veeck http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5214449 at http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm
>Today the majority concludes that the presumed benefits generated through the creation of "model codes" require that it strike the balance in favor of permitting the model code creator to continue to enforce its copyright, even after such a code has been adopted into law. In my view, once a "model code" is adopted into law by the government, a private entity, such as SBCCI, may no longer obstruct publication and transmission of the law by an uncompensated transferor. Adoption of the model code as law serves to place the law in the public domain and it should, therefore, be readily available for access by all citizens. The access should not be limited to a non-public commercial establishment. Similarly, upon enactment, the law transforms into an "idea" that is no longer distinguishable from its expression, causing SBCCI's codes to lose their copyright protection. It is my belief that reversal of the district court judgment is appropriate. I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority.
edit: later noticed btilly's link to SBCCI vs Veeck http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5214449 at http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm
I think thats why they may try and fight it. I don't know of any other state that the entire code published
See also:
https://public.resource.org/
https://law.resource.org/
By state. https://bulk.resource.org/codes.gov/
https://public.resource.org/
https://law.resource.org/
By state. https://bulk.resource.org/codes.gov/
the difference is a state publishing model codes is different than a non profit publishing copyrighted material
I think it's more of the state saying it's ok compared to a non profit.
I think it's more of the state saying it's ok compared to a non profit.
Do they get paid when something they write gets incorporated into the law?
this is how it works.
A town, city, or state chooses a model codes to adopt there are a few. To simplify lets say they only adopt the International Building Code (IBC). This model code references many different standards, like NFPA. NFPA standards then reference standards themselves like ANSI. They make their money from publishing the books, reference material, training, support. So no they don't get money when it's directly adopted into law but when development work needs to be done the architects, engineers, contractors, all need to be able to reference the adopted code because most municipalities do not publish the entire code just stating what they adopt and change.
Does that help?
A town, city, or state chooses a model codes to adopt there are a few. To simplify lets say they only adopt the International Building Code (IBC). This model code references many different standards, like NFPA. NFPA standards then reference standards themselves like ANSI. They make their money from publishing the books, reference material, training, support. So no they don't get money when it's directly adopted into law but when development work needs to be done the architects, engineers, contractors, all need to be able to reference the adopted code because most municipalities do not publish the entire code just stating what they adopt and change.
Does that help?
An organization called resource.org, discussed on HN [1] [2] has been purchasing and publishing standards and other documents that are parts of laws.
I haven't heard of them being sued yet, although they're prepared for it; that may change soon [4] [5].
The actual releases are available at [3].
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5025381
[2] http://boingboing.net/2012/03/19/liberating-americas-secret....
[3] https://law.resource.org/pub/12tables.html
[4] https://law.resource.org/pub/table12.html
[5] PDF link https://law.resource.org/images/rfcs/smaccna.20130205.from.p...
I haven't heard of them being sued yet, although they're prepared for it; that may change soon [4] [5].
The actual releases are available at [3].
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5025381
[2] http://boingboing.net/2012/03/19/liberating-americas-secret....
[3] https://law.resource.org/pub/12tables.html
[4] https://law.resource.org/pub/table12.html
[5] PDF link https://law.resource.org/images/rfcs/smaccna.20130205.from.p...
I am glad Malamud finally published the CCR.[1] I tried to get him to do it years ago, but instead he accused me of trying to give him legal advice... I am glad he reconsidered his position! GOOD JOB MALAMUD!
1. The OAL/WestLaw online CCR is a damn-near-worthless piece of crap. Want to grab a soda in between reading regulations? Nope. Your javascript-required session just timed out and none of your links work anymore. Go back to square one.
2. The OAL Director(s) that allowed it to happen should not have quit. They should not have been fired. They should have been impeached and banned from public office for life. Yes, it is their fault, and yes, it is that bad. (Almost as bad as the lawsuit to get the California LC law database!)
3. I think this is a good move. It removes the question mark over distribution of what is THE LAW (tm).
4. It should be a CC PD license silly Assemblyman! Tricks are for kids!
5. See my efforts to convert the current $2,000 CCR files to RDF.[2]
Yes, the code is crap. Yes, it only outputs XML ATM and not RDF. But let me tell you, getting and scraping $2,000 CD-ROM from undocumented RTF using their proprietary Windows program (which you have to find separately somehow) and py3k into a standardized vocabulary/ontology is a bitch. I have also been doing California law, federal law, and federal regulations, and a common cat-like tool for grep-ing all of the above. (With RDF it will be easier to use SPARQL to search the law.)
6. FUCK YOU OAL. You should have done this in the first place. This was YOUR job! How many MILLIONS would you have demanded to do what I did for free?[3] This isn't a fucking monkey in space, its THE LAW(tm). Pull your head out of your corporate sponsor's ass and do your fucking job. No excuses.
[1] https://law.resource.org/pub/us/ccr/
[2] http://gaia.ecs.csus.edu/~bransone/opengovernment/scrape-ccr...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Court_Case_Manageme...
1. The OAL/WestLaw online CCR is a damn-near-worthless piece of crap. Want to grab a soda in between reading regulations? Nope. Your javascript-required session just timed out and none of your links work anymore. Go back to square one.
2. The OAL Director(s) that allowed it to happen should not have quit. They should not have been fired. They should have been impeached and banned from public office for life. Yes, it is their fault, and yes, it is that bad. (Almost as bad as the lawsuit to get the California LC law database!)
3. I think this is a good move. It removes the question mark over distribution of what is THE LAW (tm).
4. It should be a CC PD license silly Assemblyman! Tricks are for kids!
5. See my efforts to convert the current $2,000 CCR files to RDF.[2]
Yes, the code is crap. Yes, it only outputs XML ATM and not RDF. But let me tell you, getting and scraping $2,000 CD-ROM from undocumented RTF using their proprietary Windows program (which you have to find separately somehow) and py3k into a standardized vocabulary/ontology is a bitch. I have also been doing California law, federal law, and federal regulations, and a common cat-like tool for grep-ing all of the above. (With RDF it will be easier to use SPARQL to search the law.)
6. FUCK YOU OAL. You should have done this in the first place. This was YOUR job! How many MILLIONS would you have demanded to do what I did for free?[3] This isn't a fucking monkey in space, its THE LAW(tm). Pull your head out of your corporate sponsor's ass and do your fucking job. No excuses.
[1] https://law.resource.org/pub/us/ccr/
[2] http://gaia.ecs.csus.edu/~bransone/opengovernment/scrape-ccr...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Court_Case_Manageme...
And just a follow-up. Malamud sees our conversation differently.
1. He does not like my characterization of our conversation. (It is hard to tell how much he doesn't like it, but I get the feeling he thinks it is extremely offensive.) But that is how I felt the conversation went. I try and convince him to put up text or even RTF versions, and I get back a response about legal analysis and legal representation. And that's how our conversation ended. This last conversation ended only slightly worse.
2. It appears he doesn't like my choice of language, or my form. Understandable, but all the words I have chosen are in the dictionary, and they are not in the dictionary because the Queen of England wanted them to be. They have function and purpose, and I believe their usage is valid to show extreme displeasure (towards a government institution and its directors) on an extremely important issue. This is how I feel, and I want others that feel the same way to know they are not alone. Hacker News can censor me, but I will not censor myself.
3. I'm not "grandstanding". I really don't care about recognition for my work. I doubt saying "fuck you" in a post is going to earn me much praise or impress anyone positively. My code sure won't. What I want is for anyone to be able to run (Geo)SPARQL queries against the law--damn the consequences. I would actually prefer to assign my copyright on my code to someone that can really put it to use. But I just don't see that happening anytime soon. (They were on the web for years under a CC0 license--no one cared.) I guess I could get a .org and make a snazy looking website and post it here and have no one care, but I would rather just put up a SPARQL endpoint and have no one care, or have someone else do it--like the government.
4. He published the CCR in 2008. But I must point out the same thing I have been trying to point out to him for years, and the subject of my post: HTML (or even RTF) is not the same thing as PDF scans. There is no Python library for that. I cannot derive RDF from them. I cannot search them in any robust way. For example, they will not show up in Google results. I think all these other issues are detracting from this: people should be able to grok the law. Easily. We can call China from anywhere in the world on the cheap, we can do all sorts of crazy things, but not grok the law.
That deserves a little vulgar language.
1. He does not like my characterization of our conversation. (It is hard to tell how much he doesn't like it, but I get the feeling he thinks it is extremely offensive.) But that is how I felt the conversation went. I try and convince him to put up text or even RTF versions, and I get back a response about legal analysis and legal representation. And that's how our conversation ended. This last conversation ended only slightly worse.
2. It appears he doesn't like my choice of language, or my form. Understandable, but all the words I have chosen are in the dictionary, and they are not in the dictionary because the Queen of England wanted them to be. They have function and purpose, and I believe their usage is valid to show extreme displeasure (towards a government institution and its directors) on an extremely important issue. This is how I feel, and I want others that feel the same way to know they are not alone. Hacker News can censor me, but I will not censor myself.
3. I'm not "grandstanding". I really don't care about recognition for my work. I doubt saying "fuck you" in a post is going to earn me much praise or impress anyone positively. My code sure won't. What I want is for anyone to be able to run (Geo)SPARQL queries against the law--damn the consequences. I would actually prefer to assign my copyright on my code to someone that can really put it to use. But I just don't see that happening anytime soon. (They were on the web for years under a CC0 license--no one cared.) I guess I could get a .org and make a snazy looking website and post it here and have no one care, but I would rather just put up a SPARQL endpoint and have no one care, or have someone else do it--like the government.
4. He published the CCR in 2008. But I must point out the same thing I have been trying to point out to him for years, and the subject of my post: HTML (or even RTF) is not the same thing as PDF scans. There is no Python library for that. I cannot derive RDF from them. I cannot search them in any robust way. For example, they will not show up in Google results. I think all these other issues are detracting from this: people should be able to grok the law. Easily. We can call China from anywhere in the world on the cheap, we can do all sorts of crazy things, but not grok the law.
That deserves a little vulgar language.
It just says, in all-lowercase, "an open access creative commons attribution license". Does that mean they have to pick one of those licenses later? Why not specify Attribution 3.0 United States?
Yes, it means that the actual entity doing the releasing has to pick one. The reason not to specify the particular license in statute is so that the particular license (within the parameters set in the legislation) selected can be changed in the future without requiring new legislation.