Re: Copyright of laws (was: Copyright over the Internet)

On Wed, 16 Nov 1994, Terry Carroll wrote:
>
> However, it is up to each nation to determine if such works are
> copyrighted, even if they originate in another nation. In the U.S., for
> example, the view is that no law is copyrighted, whether it's a lowly
> municipal regulation, or a statute of another nation.

This strikes me as odd. Are you sure about this?

I can agree that it's OK for the US Govt to decide that it won't assert copyright of its own laws, and I even wish other Govt's would follow their lead. However, if what you say is true, then the US Govt is saying to other Nations, we'll protect all authors from your country, but we won't protect the copyright of the Govt of your country. Where does the Whitehouse (or Congress, I should say) get off saying to another Nation, "we'll decide which of your copyrights we protect" ? Where is the basis in Berne for this?

> Thus, it isn't too far-fetched that someone in the U.S. may have a server
> of other nations' laws. Now, using that server from within a nation that
> _does_ permit copyright of laws may well be an infringement, but that's a
> different question.

BTW, if this is true, perhaps someone in the US will put a few Statutes up for the rest of us? In fact, there is a limited "reprographic reproduction" right which allows "a person" to copy statutes, judgments, etc "for a particular purpose" provided any charge made for so doing does not exceed the cost of making and supplying that copy (section 182A).

I doubt whether the term "reprographic reproduction" (which I understand to be a glorified version of "photocopy") would include an electronic copy of digital text. Does anyone have views on this?

    | Jamie Wodetzki, Copyright Research Officer   \ / Australian Council of Libraries and Information Services A C L I S PO Box E202 Queen Victoria Terrace Canberra ACT 2600   / \ Tel +61 6 262 1273 Fax +61 6 273 4493    / \ Email j.wodetzki[_at_]nla.gov.au Received on Thu Nov 17 1994 - 05:01:28 GMT