EFF fights lawsuit over publishing secret, expensive-to-see laws

From rogue archivist Carl Malamud (who recently liberated a massive trove of expensive standards and regulations that you were legally obliged to comply with, but couldn't see without paying out large sums of money):

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) asked a federal judge today to protect the free speech rights of an online archive of laws and legal standards after a wrongheaded copyright claim forced the removal of a document detailing important technical standards required by the federal government and several states.
EFF and co-counsel David Halperin represent Public.Resource.Org, Inc., a non-profit organization that improves the public's access to laws and codes that affect their lives. As part of its work, Public Resource acquires and makes available public safety documents such as fire safety codes, food safety standards, and other regulations that have been incorporated into U.S. and international laws. But last month, the association of Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors (SMACNA) claimed an online post of a federally-mandated 1985 standard on air-duct leakage violated their copyright, and demanded it be removed. The standards are a crucial element of U.S. federal energy conservation efforts and an integral part of model codes such as the International Energy Conservation Code. After a threat of legal action from SMACNA, Public Resource took down the document until a court could affirm its right to publish the information.
“The public has a right to meaningful access to the laws that govern their lives,” said Carl Malamud, the president and founder of Public Resource. “Technical standards like the ones in this document have the force of law, and people need to know them in order to comply with regulatory obligations, keep the public safe, and avoid costly penalties. The right of citizens to read and speak the law is fundamental to an informed citizenry in the United States and throughout the world. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, which means we have to be able to read the law.”
In a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief filed today, EFF and Public Resource asked the court to rule that the posting the standards does not infringe any copyright.
“Building codes and other technical specifications touch our lives every day, and Public Resource is helping to make it easier for us to access and understand how they affect us,” said EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry. “We're asking the judge today to let Public Resource continue its important work in increasing the public's access to the laws and regulations that govern us.”

More information from EFF on PRO v. SMACNA
More on public safety codes

Previously on Boing Boing:

March 20, 2012: Liberating America's secret, for-pay laws
May 15, 2012: Publishing America's for-pay, private Laws
August 30, 2012: Revealed at last: India's public safety code for tamarind pulp
December 30, 2012: Public Resource liberates global building codes, include the Eurocode -- free the law!

I write books. My latest is a YA science fiction novel called Homeland (it's the sequel to Little Brother). More books: Rapture of the Nerds (a novel, with Charlie Stross); With a Little Help (short stories); and The Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow (novella and nonfic). I speak all over the place and I tweet and tumble, too.

MORE: Copyfight • eff • law • transparency

More at Boing Boing

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

Hackers prepare for first "national holiday" in their honor

elix

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but what about poverty? (Wait, debtors prisons are basically coming back. Never mind.)
- Boundegar
  
  As I understand it, these “laws” are building codes and the like.
  
  It’s possible for a homeowner to violate the building code with a do-it-yourself repair, but no building inspector is ever going to know. Also, nobody ever went to prison for violating a building code.
  
  The people who have a need to know are architects and engineers – and to them, the cost is just a part of doing business.
  - mccrum
    
    The building inspector will know when the fire department determines that the wiring wasn’t to code causing the house to burn down and the insurance company will perk up their ears and decide that they don’t owe a dime because codes weren’t followed.
    
    It is a cost of doing business, but a cost that is just passed on to the consumer. Shouldn’t the consumer be able to have a look at what they purchased if they choose?
  - elix
    
    That’s quite true, and I did consider that. If it were otherwise (the traffic code by which you would be judged in random speed traps, for example), I would’ve really leaned in heavy on the fury, but this is more a pain in the ass that needs to change rather than a fascist-commie-pick-your-hated-generic-ism plot against unicorns.
  - mccrum
    
    People who went to prison/jail over building codes found after a single google search:
    
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/12/phonehenge-west-builder-jailed-criminal-case-against-him-ends.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/29/nyregion/landlord-goes-to-jail-for-violations-of-code.htmlhttp://www.therightscoop.com/absurd-minnesota-man-arrested-jailed-for-home-siding-code-violation/
  - lafave
    
    Some towns inspect homes prior to resale, so ymmv
    - oasisob1
      
      That’s the point I would make. You might have issues when you sell your home. Or perhaps you own an apartment building and you want to do repairs/modifications yourself? You’d have to get it right. Or you own any business and you want to remodel the building yourself.
    - Boundegar
      
      Yes but they don’t throw you in the hoosegow if you used the wrong ducts..
      - mccrum
        
        But they have (see above or do your own internet search). And they will again.
ldobe

It’s sickeningly outrageous that there’s ANY law that requires money to be viewed. That’s so anti-democratic as to be totally broken.

If the law can’t be freely accessed and read, then the government has absolutely no right using it in prosecution.
Pheck Phul

Right on! No one should be legally obligated to look at money.
- http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke
  
  Huh? I think you missed a few words there. Although I will admit that not looking at cash when I spend it makes it tug at my heartstrings that much less.
  - cellocgw
    
    Marc, you totally got Whooshed there. Must be that weak-weekend coffee.
http://public.resource.org/ Carl Malamud

If you want to follow this case, here’s the docket on the Internet Archive:

http://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.cand.263568/
http://disqus.com/Kimmoth/ Kimmo

Ignorance of the law is no excuse

Tell you what, I’d say that if you have to pay money to know the law, then it bloody well is.
L_Mariachi

Wouldn’t prosecuting someone for violating a copyrighted law or code lead to the text being read in the courtroom and thus entered into the public record?

Similarly, could a sympathetic Congressman enter the text into the Congressional Record, which is also public? (And you don’t even have to read it out loud on the floor, you can say “please enter this document into the Record.”)
- mccrum
  
  Codes change every two years or so and depending on when you started your project you might actually be using a code several years old. And then the electrical code isn’t the same book as the stair code, or the fire exit code, or the materials code. Multiply that times fifty states and it starts to add up rather quickly and more often than that Congressman is going to get reelected.
lafave

Ignorance of the law can be an excuse – if the law requires knowledge that the act is illegal.

A good-faith misunderstanding of the law or a good-faith belief that one is not violating the law negates willfulness, whether or not the claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable.

US v Cheek

See also, Lambert v. California
- euansmith
  
  Wow, that’s odd.
- oasisob1
  
  That only negates willfulness.
Lag bert

A large number of codes and standard are developed by nongovernmental organizations that use the purchase price of standards and members’ dues to pay for the development and maintenance of said standards.

The number of individuals and organization that use some of these standards are limited, so the cost of development and maintenance is spread over a small user base resulting in a high per standard price.

That said..

Personally I believe, if an NGO developed standard is adopted by a government and compliance with the standards is mandated by law, the government should be required to pay the necessary licensing fees to purchase and place the standard in the public domain.
- euansmith
  
  And that, sir, is why you are not allowed anywhere near the pork barrel.
  - Lag bert
    
    So you would prefer the government take someones work without compensation? Intellectual property is property and therefore subject to the laws of eminent domain. If you are suggesting standards developed by NGOs be made public domain without just compensation you are suggesting throwing out the 4th Amendment.
    - euansmith
      
      Nope, I was implying that you are apparently too principled to make it in to Government.
http://twitter.com/TheRedMonk01 Red Monk

Standards are just the way something “should be done” While Codes are Law.
- euansmith
  
  Except for the Pirate Code, which is more by way of being a guide line.
msbpodcast

Laws are how we choose to live together.

They are also how we can protect ourselves.Laws that are not accessible to all and not laws.They are arbitrary and capricious mechanisms of enforcement.

Laws that you can’t check, regardless of the reason, cost or secrecy, are instruments to subjugate you, blindfold you and screw you.

If you get something built you have to trust that you’re up to code but I trust no one because if my house burns down, I’m the one stuck with the consequences.
- mccrum
  
  Your last paragraph is exactly how it should be. If you want to trust your electrician for following the NEC, right now you have no other choice unless you spend more than you do on the electrician to look at the code.
http://www.ninzo.com/ Bob Dinitto

This is absurd on its face. How can US government standards be copyrighted? It’s a contradiction.
- mccrum
  
  Because, for example, the National Electric Code (NEC) isn’t itself a law. However, states and municipalities have made following the NEC a law.
  
  So the code isn’t a law, just following it is.
  - http://public.resource.org/ Carl Malamud
    
    Actually, the NEC is indeed a law in many jurisdictions. What government do is “incorporate by reference” a model code like the NEC so that the entire text of the document becomes part of the administrative code of a particular state or the Code of Federal Regulations. Search for “national electrical code” and “incorporated by reference” and you will see many examples.
James Penrose

If the materials were developed with private sector money and then incorporated into the law, the government should either exercise eminent domain and make the info public or recompense the trade association for the reasonable value of the info and make it public.

If public money was used to fund the development, we shouldn’t even be having this discussion.