site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   2621 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for September 15, 2023

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A US appeals court has ruled that, if a copyrighted standards document (ASTM, ASHRAE, NFPA, APA, etc.) is incorporated by reference into a law, then it is legal to post a DRM-free copy of that document online.

This is hilarious, I can't wait to tell my boss

Just make sure you can cite the specific law that incorporates the specific standard by reference.

Also, you need to delete from your uploaded copy any trademarked logos (not names, just logos) of the organization that issued the standard. Use of the logos is not covered by fair use.

What are the implications of this ruling? I use the NFPA every day.

Presumably, you will be able to download NFPA standards that are part of the law for free from somewhere (such as Public.Resource.Org), rather than having to pay for a paper copy or a DRM-laden electronic subscription. But this ruling does not cover standards that are not part of the law. So you'll have to check the law to see whether or not the particular standards that you use are incorporated by reference.

Interesting.

The NFPA used to publish a PDF version of the NEC that you could purchase. They stopped publishing it after the 2017 code because people were sharing it and distributing it without permission. So now, if you want to access an electronic version, you have to pay to access it on the NFPA website. It’s not nearly as user friendly as the 2017 PDF version but I understand why they made that decision. They were losing hundreds of thousands of dollars via pirating/unauthorized sharing.

With that said, it would be awesome to get another PDF version of the 2023 NEC. Interested to see how this lawsuit changes things.

They were losing hundreds of thousands of dollars via pirating/unauthorized sharing.

It appears that no such evidence was offered in this particular lawsuit.

Fourteen years have elapsed since Defendant first began posting Plaintiffs’ standards. And four years have elapsed since Plaintiffs’ expert opined that Defendant’s activities “would” threaten the market for Plaintiffs’ products. Now, aided by the passage of time, the court is less deferential to conclusory opinions that market harm “is real” but “difficult to measure”. One can reasonably expect that if over the last four years market harm was occurring, or was likely to occur, Plaintiffs could provide economic data and analysis showing that to be the case. For example, Plaintiffs could have offered a side-by-side comparison of sales figures for standards that have and have not been reposted on Defendant’s site to demonstrate the market impact of Defendant’s postings. They could have provided testimony from former customers who stopped purchasing Plaintiffs’ standards because they are available for download on Defendant’s website. The fact that they do not provide any quantifiable evidence, and instead rely on conclusory assertions and speculation long after Defendant first began posting the standards, is telling.

 

Ultimately, the court finds that “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could not return a verdict for” Plaintiffs that Defendant’s actions have caused, or likely will cause, market harm with regards to the specific standards at issue. Accordingly, this factor supports Defendant’s fair use defense for each of the 217 standards at issue.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats