As Americans and per the US Courts; we, the people of the United States, have the freedom and right to publish the laws of our country, its states, counties and cities.

  Before a "code model" is made into a "law"; it is the property of its developers and covered by copyright protections - this is fair. But once a "code model" is incorporated directly or by reference into the laws of the land and we the people are held responsible to abide by such laws - then it is only right for the people governed and scrutinized by such laws to be able to copy, analyze, understand and become part of the processes that generate the laws in the first place.

  It is nice for private parties to make money by making codes models that become laws. But fair is fair - if you can use a law or code model against me than I need to be able to freely and easily access it - and - to be able to understand it.

  Understanding comes with sharing thoughts, experiences and reference materials with our peers. We cannot do this if we cannot freely exchange the texts of the laws between ourselves.

  The web is the world of information and understanding.  Hyperlinked texts and reference materials are the way the new generations are learning to understand our world - this information should not be held back from them nor be made inconvenient to obtain, discuss and share.

                                      Opinion & Belief of Robert J. May

=======================================================================

"This case involves a comprehensive code specifically created for enactment into law and designed broadly to regulate the primary conduct of private parties. The court of appeals’ holding that such a code may be copied by interested members of the public is correct, it is consistent with the views of the only other court of appeals to address the same issue, and it does not conflict with any decision of any other court of appeals. There is a broad range of differing governmental uses of a wide variety of different types of privately copyrighted materials."

"Violations of the codes are subject to criminal sanctions. R. 99; see, e.g., Standard Building Code § 110 (“Any person * * * who shall violate a provision of this code, or fail to comply therewith * * * shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”)."

"CONCLUSION"

"The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
Respectfully submitted."

THEODORE B. OLSON
Solicitor General - Counsel of Record
ROBERT D. MCCALLUM, JR.
Assistant Attorney General
PAUL D. CLEMENT
Deputy Solicitor General
JAMES A. FELDMAN
Assistant to the Solicitor General
ANTHONY J. STEINMEYER
MARK W. PENNAK
Attorneys
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202) 514-2217

May 2003

=======================================================================

Here is our rundown on the Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. June 7, 2002.

Paragraph 41:

"The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors but "[to] promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts." Article I, Sec. 8, clause 8 [U.S. Constitution]. To this end, copyright law assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. This principle, known as the idea/expression or fact/expression dichotomy, applies to all works of authorships. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 1289-90, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991). The statute excludes from copyright protection ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, or information in the public domain. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b); Feist Publications, 499 U.S. at 350, 111 S.Ct. at 1290 (citation omitted); Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 547-48, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 2223, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985). If an idea is susceptible to only one form of expression, the merger doctrine applies and § 102(b) excludes the expression from the Copyright Act. As the Supreme Court has explained it, this "idea/expression dichotomy strike[s] a definitional balance between the First Amendment and the Copyright Act by permitting free communication of facts while still protecting an author's expression." Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 556, 105 S.Ct. at 2228."

Source: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/293/293.F3d.791.99-40632.html

Cached Files: Case-No_99-40632_United-States-Court-of-Appeals-Fifth-Circuit_June-7-2002_293-F.3d-791-Citation

Please review "Reasons For Electrical Codes & Laws"

Access the Database(s) of Laws, aka "Codes"

*This page and web site is finished...
I just like the blinking light!

==================================

======================================

If you have any questions on electrical issues, you can contact us via
 telephone at (619) 757-7500 or via email to or regular mail below:

 Service@RobertsElectricService.com.

Roberts Electric Service, Inc.
302 Washington St #100
San Diego, CA 92103

Copyright ©2004-2012 Roberts Electric Service, Inc.