Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   Step 1: Take someone else's stuff. Step 2: Charge money for it. Step 3: Profit   (theregister.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, XML, standards body ISO, Standardization, International Organization for Standardization, latest version, open source projects, available free PDFs, Office Open XML  
•       •       •

1379 clicks; posted to Business » on 03 Aug 2021 at 11:50 AM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



8 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-08-03 9:50:32 AM  
It's not just ISO.  ASTM charges Americans for access to their own damn laws.
 
2021-08-03 12:05:24 PM  
Tow trucks?
 
2021-08-03 12:40:07 PM  
That's stupid. I was personally annoyed by this last week and my company hasn't agreed to pay yet so I'm still annoyed.
 
2021-08-03 1:12:28 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: It's not just ISO.  ASTM charges Americans for access to their own damn laws.


Didn't SCOTUS strike this shiat down
 
2021-08-03 1:14:14 PM  
It sounds like he gave it to them, as in, he obviously transferred the copyright to them, otherwise he could just distribute it himself.
 
2021-08-03 2:18:42 PM  
SCO-Linux disputes
Series of legal and public disputes between the software company SCO Group (SCO) and various Linux vendors and users
 
2021-08-03 3:10:12 PM  
Welcome to FARK?
 
2021-08-03 4:37:33 PM  

pueblonative: Marcus Aurelius: It's not just ISO.  ASTM charges Americans for access to their own damn laws.

Didn't SCOTUS strike this shiat down


You are probably thinking of some of these suits.

Recent Access to the Law Cases

This NCLA suit is a variation on several other cases challenging incorporation by reference or restricting copying and distribution of important legal guidance. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1498 (2020), a copyright infringement suit in which the state of Georgia sued an organization for the unauthorized distribution of its annotated state code. The annotations were drafted by a third-party publisher in collaboration with the Georgia state legal code committee under an arrangement which gave the publisher exclusive copyright to the annotated code.

The Supreme Court held in favor of the alleged infringer. The 5-4 majority opinion found the publisher's annotations were not copyrightable because they were considered authored by the state committee, an arm of the legislature. According to the "government edicts doctrine," copyright does not vest in works that are (1) created by judges and legislators (2) in the course of their judicial and legislative duties, regardless of whether the work is legally binding. For more about this decision, including the dissent, see our ML Insights coverage of the case here.

In 2018, the D.C. Court of Appeals decided a copyright infringement suit brought by ASTM and two other major standard-setting organizations against a defendant that copied and distributed hundreds of standards, some of which were incorporated by reference into statutes. See Am. Soc'y for Testing & Materials, et al. v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.,896 F.3d 437 (D.C. Cir. 2018). The court reversed the district court and essentially held for the defendant. It limited its opinion to the copyright issue of fair use, although the court acknowledged its "serious constitutional concern" with private ownership of a legal obligation. In a concurring opinion, Judge Katsas wrote that "access to the law cannot be conditioned on the consent of a private party, just as it cannot be conditioned on the ability to read fine print posted on high walls." See 896 F.3d at 458 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (Katsas, J., concurring).
 
Displayed 8 of 8 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.