[smhenderson]

I agree with the decision and in principle absolutely agree with what you are saying about our laws.

But you're oversimplifying the case here. They weren't complaining that the law was being published, they were complaining that their standards were published. The court agreed with PR that once those standards were incorporated into law, they were subject to fair use publication under the auspices of making available and explaining our laws to the public.

The courts agreed and here we are. But as another user wrote, this wasn't about copyrighting the law, it was about the inclusion of copyrighted material in the law and whether or not it fell under a different category with regards to fair use.

I'm sure I'm oversimplifying or missing something too, but I, who am generally opposed to how copyright is currently handled in the US, can see that there is more nuance to this case than your post admits to.

[horsawlarway]

So what you're saying is that we're A-OK as a society with the gatekeeping of critical safety information behind private paywalls and copyright.

Safety information that is gathered at the expense of the public: we suffer the consequences that inform the standards. My fellow citizens have paid for those lessons with fucking blood.

You are saying we are all better served if copyright (another "benefit for the public" according to the proponents, mind you) were to apply to that information as default.

We are collectively better if we forced to enrich a private organization to simply read and understand critical safety information.

That is what you are saying?

Because my clear and immediate response is: fucking bullshit.

[apendleton]

This tone doesn't feel especially productive. You asked:

> So what you're saying is that we're A-OK as a society with the gatekeeping of critical safety information behind private paywalls and copyright.

but the comment you're responding to explicitly said:

> I agree with the decision and in principle absolutely agree with what you are saying about our laws.

So like... they're obviously not saying what you're accusing them of saying. They're just explaining why this litigation occurred in the first place (and agreeing with the outcome, which seems to be the outcome you also want).

[singleshot_]

Maybe, but it’s the law. The feeling-based approach to what-is-right is spectacularly unproductive and also somewhat unpleasant to interact with.

[falcor84]

Isn't the "feeling-based approach to what-is-right" the whole intent of the jury system?

[singleshot_]

Given the fraction of cases that make it to a jury, one might conclude it’s not a big part of the law.

Delving a bit deeper into the law, the jury is not deciding the law; they are deciding what facts are true. They do this, quite often, based on feelings. But they do not (jury nullification aside) decide what the law should be.

If I say the red car ran the red light and you say the blue car ran the red light, the jury decides who ran the red light. The question of who is allowed to run the red light is not something the jury ever addresses. This question is only ever a “should” question in the ballot box or the legislature.