Public.Resource.Org Sued (Again) For Publication Of A Document Incorporated Into Federal Regulations [Update]

from the maybe-sue-the-government-instead? dept

Thu, May 29th 2014 3:29am — Tim Cushing

Carl Malamud's project -- the freeing of laws, codes and regulations via Public Resource -- has seen him and his site sued multiple times for copyright infringement. This includes ~~lawsuits brought~~ legal threats by state governments who somehow believe state laws can't be distributed without their permission.

Other entities, like air conditioning contractors and sheet metal manufacturers, have also gone to court to defend their "right" to keep rules and regulations that impact millions of Americans safely locked up behind high-priced paywalls. Malamud's response has been to point out that a) state laws shouldn't be locked up, even the annotated versions stocked by LexisNexis, and b) federally mandated standards that apply to contractors shouldn't be either, even if those creating the documents are commercial enterprises. In the latter case, federal mandates make these documents of public interest, seeing as they apply to millions of Americans, even if somewhat more indirectly.

Now, Malamud is being sued by the three organizations (~~two of which are~~ all nonprofits) behind the "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing." Here's what these standards are designed to do, according to the filing.

The Standards are designed to apply to professional test developers, sponsors, publishers, and users by providing criteria for the evaluation of tests, testing practices, and the effects of test use. The Standards have been used to develop testing guidelines for such activities as college admissions, personnel selection, test translations, test user qualifications, and computer-based testing.

In running down the facts of the case, the plaintiffs point to the lengthy process of maintaining and improving these standards, as well as income it generates at $40-50 a copy. (The lawsuit claims $35-40 for a price range, but the American Psychological Association's [one of the plaintiffs] own site sells it for $49.95.) These assertions are both likely true, but it doesn't change one of the most integral, underlying facts.

The Standards were not created in response to an expressed governmental or regulatory need, nor were they prepared in response to any legislative action or judicial decision. However, the Standards have been cited in judicial decisions related to the proper use and evidence for assessment, as well as by state and federal legislators.

This is the plaintiffs arguing that, unlike many other documents posted at Public Resource, this one isn't related to, and hasn't been adopted by the US government or any smaller state entity. The wording here seems to limit the plaintiffs' "exposure" to citations only. The plaintiffs do admit that government bodies have incorporated (although this word isn't used specifically) the standards, but surround it with verbiage that makes it sound as involuntary as possible.This is an attempt to head off Malamud's normal defense of his actions -- that government regulations, ones that potentially affect millions of people, shouldn't be withheld from the public.

Similar sentences are interspersed throughout the filing in the hopes of further separating the plaintiffs from previous entities that have sued Malamud.

There is no mechanism to enforce compliance with the Standards on the part of the test developer or test user…

None of the Plaintiff organizations has solicited any government agency to incorporate the Standards into the Code of Federal Regulations or other rules of Federal or State agencies…

While these parties may not have pushed for federal adoption and may not have implemented mandatory adoption themselves, the fact remains that the "Standards" have been incorporated into federal regulations.

§ 668.148 Additional criteria for the approval of certain tests.

(a) In addition to satisfying the criteria in § 668.146, to be approved by the Secretary, a test must meet the following criteria, if applicable:

(1) In the case of a test developed for a non-native speaker of English who is enrolled in a program that is taught in his or her native language, the test must be

[...]

(iv) Developed in accordance with guidelines provided in the 1999 edition of the “Testing Individuals of Diverse Linguistic Backgrounds” section of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing prepared by a joint committee of the American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education incorporated by reference in this section. Incorporation by reference of this document has been approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register pursuant to the Director's authority under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

[...]

(2) In the case of a test that is modified for use for individuals with disabilities, the test publisher or State must—

(i) Follow guidelines provided in the “Testing Individuals with Disabilities” section of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing; and

[...]

(3) In the case of a computer-based test, the test publisher or State, as applicable, must—

(i) Provide documentation to the Secretary that the test complies with the basic principles of test construction and standards of reliability and validity as promulgated in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing…

So, the Standards are very much a part of federal law. And yet the plaintiffs argue that because it had no active part in the government's decision to incorporate their standards, it should still be able to paywall documents that are used by the US government to determine the suitability of tests.

Locking up something that is part of federal regulations doesn't make sense, even if the regulations wording helpfully includes a (very indirect) link to AERA's cash register. That these organizations didn't approach the government and lobby for inclusion of the standards hardly matters. The standards have been adopted by the Department of Education, which makes them of public interest, rather than solely the property of the rights holders.

The lawsuit also makes this puzzling claim.

In front of the unauthorized copy of the 1999 Standards that Defendant published to its https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/001/aera.standards.1999.pdf website, Defendant placed a cover sheet or “Certificate,” falsely implying that the publication of Plaintiffs’ Standards to Defendants’ website was somehow authorized or sanctioned by U.S. law.

The added cover sheet simply points to the law governing public records and public records requests, while somewhat dramatically stating that the document below has been "incorporated by reference" into federal law, therefore making it "legally binding." The problem with this claim is that the above federal regulation points to the same part of the US Code that Public Resource's "cover sheet" does.

Incorporation by reference of this document has been approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register pursuant to the Director's authority under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

The public records law states that the government must make available any outside document that it incorporates into federal standards. The US holds up its end of the bargain (but not even barely) with this:

The incorporated document is on file at the Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, room 113E2, 830 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20002, phone (202) 377-4026, and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)... The document also may be obtained from the American Educational Research Association at: http://www.aera.net…

Once again, the public is left out in the cold. If you don't happen to live in the DC area or don't have the $36-50 AERA is asking, then the document incorporated into federal law may as well not exist. But it does, and Public Resource is making it available. (So is the Internet Archive.)

Through no fault of their own (at least according to the filing), the plaintiffs have had their standards placed into the public domain by the US government in what has to be one of the most oblique instances of asset forfeiture. But that doesn't change the fact that the incorporation of the standards put them under the jurisdiction of public records laws, something they'll likely find themselves arguing against once Malamud responds.

Gov Uscourts Dcd 166323 1 0 (PDF)Gov Uscourts Dcd 166323 1 0 (Text)

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, incorporated into federal regulations, public laws, regulations, standards
Companies: american psychological association, public.resource.org

22 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 29 May 2014 @ 4:30am

I would be more inclined to agree with them on the issue of maintenance of the Standards being a cost intensive process if they weren't charging absurd rates for access. I find it outraging to charge more than a few dozen pennies for any document. It's the old MAFIAA mentality of profiting on a single copy instead of distributing it on the wild. I'm fairly sure people would gladly pay, say, 20, 30 cents knowing it goes towards keeping the thing updated and well maintained. But 50 bucks? Really?

Still, if it is law then it should be public and readily available. If you can't use lack of knowledge of the law as an excuse then everything pertaining to any law or Govt decree should be readily accessible to anybody, including those that have zero money on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2014 @ 4:39am

"None of the Plaintiff organizations has [publicly] solicited any government agency to incorporate the Standards into the Code of Federal Regulations or other rules of Federal or State agencies�"

There, fixed that for you. With all the back door deals that go around we don't know whether or not they have privately solicited any government agencies and are just telling a lie. Maybe not but we can't tell for sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Damian, 29 May 2014 @ 5:00am

Article
Very good article. Thanks for this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2014 @ 5:34am

What is the point of having standards if they are locked away from view? This is applicable to many standards, not just the ones being sued over this time.

Almost everyone has heard the saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse", but how many of those same people are aware of the many laws and standards intensionally kept hidden from the general public such that the public is indeed ignorant.

Charging a toll for information access is stupid, but we apparently live in a world populated with stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2014 @ 5:45am
  
  Re:
  Simple, you do not deserve a standard of living or of any other kind unless you can pay for it.
  
  This is what USA has become. We have seen other nations enslave their people with fairly decent success, we will follow suit at long as we keep playing R v D pong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2014 @ 5:55am
  
  Re:
  'standards' should be open and freely available. For them to be 'standard' and paywalled kinda contradicts the whole point of having standards, so that everyone (not just those that can afford access) can use them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gabriel (profile), 29 May 2014 @ 5:47am

Trying to look at this from the standpoint of a hypothetical sincere plaintiff, though, if we're going to support any sort of copyright at all it doesn't seem fair that my rights to my own privately-produced work can be terminated without my consent due to unilateral action by the government. If incorporation by reference does indeed place my document into the public domain, then I would argue that any such reference is a "taking" and that I have a claim against the government for compensation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2014 @ 6:43am
  
  Re:
  If your "document" is used in whole or part as the basis of a law or laws, why should you be given a toll every time that law is used, enforced or referred to?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2014 @ 8:08am
  
  Re:
  Wait, you mean the rights that the goverment gave you, it can take away? Wow, what a thought.
  
  Go ahead, sue the government,
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 29 May 2014 @ 8:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    The government does not give me, or anybody, any rights. The government does provide a legal mechanism to allow your rights to be enforced, but that's a different thing. If you can do something solely because the government says you can, it's not a right, it's a privilege.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2014 @ 9:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Exactly. Rights exist outside of government. A right is what you can do if there is no government. Contrary to what the government tells you driving is a right and not a privilege. but I don't mind the government regulating such rights for public safety.
      
      A privilege is something the government gives you. A privilege requires the existence of a government to have. Intellectual property is a privilege since government is needed for enforcement.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Sunhawk (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 4:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's generally the theory behind "natural rights", yes
      
      Copyright, to circle back to (roughly) the topic, is not such a right; it's not a measure to protect some individual right but a measure to improve the future state of culture and the arts by offering an incentive to create.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Wanderer (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 5:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And under the distinguishing standard John Fenderson stated, it would then be classed not as a right (just as you said) but as a privilege.
        
        I can see room to quibble about what term should be applied to it ("privilege" vs. something else), but you do seem to be agreeing that "right" is one term which should not be applied.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pragmatic, 1 Jun 2014 @ 1:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Monopoly privilege." - Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2014 @ 8:38am
  
  Re:
  The constitution doesn't say that government must grant these privileges. It says that government may grant these privileges (that is if it wishes to) but only to promote the progress ...
  
  IP law should not be about defending your 'rights' it should be about promoting the progress.
  
  Furthermore government can use eminent domain.
  
  I think the bigger issue is why is the government using privately controlled text as a basis of law? This is something the government should have never done and could be remedied in one of two ways
  
  A: The works are forced into the public domain. The government could compensate the privilege holder with a fair market value for the works (a fair market value and not whatever the heck the privilege owner asks for). A fair market value would take into consideration the value of the works had the government not adopted them as legal standards (the company would probably be unable to charge nearly as much with the same volume of sales if the government hadn't adopted them as legal standards).
  
  B: The courts could invalidate these legal standards and require that the government redraft new legal standards that are publicly available for free.
  
  In either case the course of action that the government must take is that it must not adopt privately held text as legal standards from now on (ie: take one of the previous actions to clean up the mess it made but ensure that it doesn't make that mess anymore). If the government sees some privately controlled text that it thinks would make for good legal standards what the government could do (from now on) is either
  
  A: Draft new standards that are publicly and freely available.
  
  B: Negotiate with the IP holder ahead of time a way those text could be publicly and freely released as a legal standard (ie: negotiate a fair compensation the government could give the IP holder).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim, 29 May 2014 @ 6:00am

Douglas Adams understands this issue
" ...You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you?
I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.'
But the plans were on display...' on display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.'
`That's the display department.'
`With a torch.'
`Ah, well the lights had probably gone.'
`So had the stairs.'
`But look you found the notice didn't you?'
`Yes,' said Arthur, `yes I did.
It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory
with a sign on the door saying
"Beware of The Leopard".'
-- Douglas Adams.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2014 @ 6:31am

School Accreditations
The same is true with school accreditations.

I called the state government education office and asked for a copy of the private school standards, after getting nowhere with the accred. agency, and the gov. official said he didn't know what the standards were, yet they were incorporated into the code or administrative code.

The same with preschools, which are licensed under public welfare. I can't find standards for NECPA online.

Also, I can't find the Red Cross First Aid and CPR book online. This is definitely incorporated into various regulations.

- - - - -

https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+22.1-19

Code of VA

� 22.1-19. Accreditation of elementary, middle, and high schools; nursery schools; recognition of certain organizations; child day center regulation.

http://www.vcpe.org/

The Virginia Board of Education has authorized the Virginia Council for Private Education to accredit private nursery, preschool, elementary, and secondary schools. (�22.1-19) State recognized accreditation comes through accreditation granted by any of the VCPE Approved State Recognized Accrediting Members.

http://www.vcpe.org/pages.asp?pageid=109451

These are the member associations listed:

AdvancED/Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (AdvancED/SACS)

American Montessori Society (AMS)

Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI)

Association of Christian Teachers and Schools (ACTS)

Association of Classical & Christian Schools (ACCS)

International Christian Accrediting Association (ICAA)

North American Christian School Accrediting Agency (NACSAA)

Seventh Day Adventist Schools of the Potomac Conference (SDASPC)

Southeastern District, Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (SED-LCMS)

Southern Association of Independent Schools (SAIS)

Virginia Association of Independent Schools (VAIS)

Virginia Association of Independent Specialized Education Facilities (VAISEF)

Virginia Catholic Education Association (VCEA)

Virginia Independent Schools Association (VISA)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cc young, 29 May 2014 @ 6:40am

Public use of standards
They wish to both to control standards used by the public and to charge the public (when they can get away with it) when the standards are used.

If they were to prohibit use of the standards in the public arena, then no one would have an issue in their profiting from the use. What they've done is create a monopoly through the law, and using the monopoly to coerce payment from users of the standards the monopoly maintains.

IMHO classic troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
madasahatter (profile), 29 May 2014 @ 7:59am

Inclusion in Regulations
Many third party standards are include by reference in OSHA regulations. Also, the complete Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is available online and can be downloaded. The downloads are normally done by "chapter" since most people are only interested the regulations from a couple of agencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
127.0.0.1 (profile), 29 May 2014 @ 3:58pm

Remind me again: Who tests the testers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lars626, 29 May 2014 @ 9:21pm

The wrong complaint
If keeping their 'standard' document restricted was so important why didn't they protest when the law referencing it was being debated? It must not have been important then, so why is it now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Snape (profile), 30 May 2014 @ 1:31pm

Freely available?
I sent an email to the California Building Standards Committee asking them if they would sue me if I published and sold the California Building Standards that are incorporated into title 24 (along with Titles 1 to 28).

I've yet to receive a response.

I then sent an email asking where I could see the text online. Within hours I received links to the standards organizations online to either see a password protected version in pdf form, view the code section by section (making it extremely difficult to get a complete text of it at once) or buy a hard copy for hundreds of dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]