Re:This is really old news . . . (Score 1)

My formatting got lost in this post. Here is my response, again, but omitting the items to which I was responding. 1. The only case the parties could find dealing with building codes came out of the Second Circuit and reached the opposite result (held that they were probably in the public domain, but remanded the case to the district court to give the code writer the an opportunity to develop a record in a full trial of the issue before a final decision was made. Building Officials & Code Adm. v. Code Technology, Inc., 628 F.2d 730 (1stCir. 1980). BOCA settled after that ruling, apparently to avoid a final ruling of the court. 2. FWIW, I question the signifcance of characterizing the codes as "technical." All law is "technical." These also happen to be "criminal" and can result in demolition of non-conforming structures. We are not just talking about contractors, but anyone interested in construction. Nor, are we simply talking about these particular laws. There is a major trend toward private authorship of laws, all of which are argueably covered by the decision. 3. The court gave no bases for distrinction. Furthermore, "difficulty" is in the eyes of the beholder. The Fifth Circuit panel majority didn't think the $300 cost for the set of 5 codes made access difficult in Anna and Savoy, Texas, (whose codes are the subject of the suit) which don't have libraries, and Pete couldn't get a copy of the codes at city hall when he went there to look at them. AFFIDAVIT OF PETER VEECK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 4. Making copyright a fact issue in each case means that the person wouldn't know if he was violating the alleged copyright without going through a federal lawsuit to determine the issue. In other words, this is an empty promise. Eric Weisberg Attorney for Peter Veeck