On the recordJuly 22, 2024
I just note that when the standards setting organization sued Public.Resource.Org, the D.C. Circuit Court said this in ruling for freedom of the law: ``Once a standard is incorporated by reference into the law, it effectively becomes part of the law, and the public has a right to access it. The court noted that the public's need to access the law outweighs the financial interests of the SDOs.'' As to fair use, the court concluded that Pro's use of the standards constituted fair use. The decision considered the nature of the work, the purpose and character of the use (nonprofit educational purposes), and the effect on the market. It found that the public benefit of free and easy access to the law was substantial. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court told us: ``Officials who speak with the force of law cannot claim copyright in the works they create in the course of their official duties.'' They emphasized that the public must have free access to the law, as these works are in the public domain once they are incorporated into legal statutes. They reaffirmed the government edicts doctrine that held that annotations in Georgia's Official Code created by the State legislature could not be copyright protected. The rule of law needs to be enforced, but also the rule of law means that people need to have full access to the law to copy it, to debate it, to know it, to understand it, to transmit it. This pro code bill would violate those fundamental principles.…
