Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

In the case of standards incorporated into building codes, it would be verified by a county building inspector. But in most cases, I'd imagine verification only happens if there is a dispute about compliance.

I'd agree with your last point but only if reworded slightly: "the law should only rely on standards that are freely published." To me, this is where public.resource.org is barking up the wrong tree. The obligation to ensure free access to the law rests squarely with the government. It's not ASTM's duty to allow free access to standards that the government incorporated into a standard. If the government wants to use copyrighted work, it should enter into appropriate arrangements with the standards organizations that produce it.

View on HN

For building codes, the fee paid to the planning department could cover the license fee for the standards.

Yes I agree with your rewording, I would just add that it doesn’t seem difficult to find a solution that satisfies both parties. Of course inertia is the real barrier. The current fee structure was designed when printing books was expensive, and that’s why it seems so obtuse in retrospect.

Federal law determines copyright, not the constitution.

> The obligation to ensure free access to the law rests squarely with the government.

Equal protection clauses and First Amendment control here. Otherwise there is secret law.

In a degenerate example, "the crime of murder and a proper defense shall be determined by standard 451 from the Bradbury Institute." The Bradbury Institute will be happy to sell a copy of that standard for $100 million.

Copyright is created in the constitution. Once granted, it is a constitutionally protected property right. Equal protection and first amendment “control” but so does copyright. All must be given effect.

To use a different example: the government makes a law establishing yor back yard as a polling place for federal elections. Surely, you agree that peoples’ right to vote cannot to be vindicated if they can’t freely access polling locations. But that doesn’t mean that you are obligated to let everyone onto your property! The law is the problem, and the government is at fault for failing to ensure that polling locations are publicly accessible.

The particular constitution clause only permits congress to grant copyright exclusivity if (and to the limits) it wishes to; it doesn't require the congress to grant this exclusive right in any particular scope or even at all - it's up to the congress to decide.

Except this case addresses standards which are already copyrighted. (The laws incorporated pre-existing standards). Congress can decide the scope of the grant, just as it could decide the terms on which to grant someone 40 acres in the west. But once granted, it is a property right. Congress can’t just retroactively take it away.

> Surely, you agree that peoples’ right to vote cannot to be vindicated if they can’t freely access polling locations.

There is no right to vote. So the rest of your case does not apply.

Furthermore, I don't agree at all with your analogy. I feel that it is fundamental requirement to have complete access to the law. So any examples, that result in arguing to the contrary I disagree with up to and including the "taking of property".

> But that doesn’t mean that you are obligated to let everyone onto your property!

This is also not true. The legal concept of "Easement by Necessity" ( https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/easement-by-n... ) applies so once again your example is incorrect.

Copyright is not created by the Constitution. The ability to create and enforce copyright is created by the Constitution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com