One Simple Copyright Reform Idea: Government Edicts Should Never Be Subject To Copyright
from the should-be-a-no-brainer dept
With copyright reform back on the table, there are bound to be more and more discussions and various ideas suggested. But here's one that we hope is a no brainer for everyone. Carl Malamud, who has worked on making more public information available to the public than anyone else (and, yes, it's crazy that he needs to do this), has famously highlighted many cases of governments locking up key information that the public ought to have, including official copies of laws, judicial rulings and the standards that are referenced by various laws. So he has now proposed -- with the support of a bunch of big thinkers in this arena -- a simple proposal for one specific type of copyright reform: The Edicts of Government Amendment. The idea is simple:To promote access to justice, equal protection, innovation in the legal marketplace, and to codify long-standing public policy, the Copyright Act of the United States, 17 U.S.C., should be amended as follows:Such a basic concept, I'm wondering if there's anyone who will present a counter argument for why this shouldn't be done today.“Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments.”This language comes directly from Section 206.01, Compendium of Office Practices II, U.S. Copyright Office (1984). It reflects clear and established Supreme Court precedent on the matter in cases such as Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834) and Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888). The law belongs to the people, who should be free to read, know, and speak the laws by which they choose to govern themselves.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: carl malamud, copyright reform, government edicts
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Crazy to think that someone has to make a law for this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crazy to think that someone has to make a law for this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure. We talked about one scenario a few months ago: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130223/02505322081/sheet-metal-air-conditioning-contractors-use-b ogus-copyright-takedown-to-block-publication-federally-mandated-standards.shtml
If someone has a copyrighted work and an administrative agency adopts it as a standard by reference, that doesn't thrust the work into the public domain.
My post in that thread: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130223/02505322081/sheet-metal-air-conditioning-contractors-use-b ogus-copyright-takedown-to-block-publication-federally-mandated-standards.shtml#c920
Now you go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At the same time, there's no reason the government couldn't purchase the copyright of privately held works and make it public domain as a way of setting standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But I think in general it means a proclamation of law. I'd say that administrative law is a governmental edict. Besides, Malamud is the same person that was the subject of that article. By the way, I checked on PACER and he won that case against the Sheet Metal folks--they never responded to the lawsuit so they defaulted just last week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The administrative agency should NEVER do this - because it is clearly an act of favouritism.
So, by preventing such corruption this new law would have an extra benefit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are YOU for this, Mike? Cause, this sounds like a HOPE:
Or are you after fifteen years nailed down on these two points?
1) Copyright system is broken.
2) Government Edicts Should Never Be Subject To Copyright.
It's both serious and sarcastic question. The reason (to justify my snark to any newbies) is your prior pusillanimity here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130121/14473121743/global-hackathons-prepared-to-carry-for ward-work-aaron-swartz.shtml#c377
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are YOU for this, Mike? Cause, this sounds like a HOPE:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One Simple Copyright Reform Idea: Government ELITISTS Should ALWAYS Be Subject To Copyright.
There fixed your grammar mistake.
If elitists are subject to copyright they can not reproduce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pfffft!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if it means there will be a possibility of someone, somewhere perhaps losing out on payments of some sort, how big a list do you want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHITEHOUSE.GOV PETITION LAUNCHED
Link is here: http://wh.gov/lInfx
-- Kevin J. Rice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]