> let's say that a law specifies that vehicles used by some governmental department must be maintained according to the specifications in their respective owners' manuals. Could that be argued to be a type of "incorporation by reference" of the specifications, thus voiding the copyright of the owners' manuals?
No great loss if it does. I don't imagine car manufacturers regard manuals as a profit center.
> what if a private company tried to impose absurd restrictions on accessing copyrighted material that has been incorporated by reference, such that even the governmental agencies charged with enforcing the law were unable to access it? Could that be a way of subverting the law?
The courts tends to be pretty good at dealing with people who try to mess with them through this kind of technicality.
> Or what if a lawmaker has it out for a particular publisher or writer, and purposefully quotes their copyrighted texts (beyond what would typically be considered fair use) in legislation as a way of damaging their copyright?
> And if it is the case that nonprofit groups that devise standards for public safety and device interoperability are deprived of their copyrights because those standards are incorporated into legislation, I would imagine it would disincentivize the work they do, perhaps leading to less well thought out public safety and device interoperability standards.
Hmm. Perhaps lawmakers should have to license materials they want to incorporate, or seize them with compensation via an eminent domain-like process.
No great loss if it does. I don't imagine car manufacturers regard manuals as a profit center.
> what if a private company tried to impose absurd restrictions on accessing copyrighted material that has been incorporated by reference, such that even the governmental agencies charged with enforcing the law were unable to access it? Could that be a way of subverting the law?
The courts tends to be pretty good at dealing with people who try to mess with them through this kind of technicality.
> Or what if a lawmaker has it out for a particular publisher or writer, and purposefully quotes their copyrighted texts (beyond what would typically be considered fair use) in legislation as a way of damaging their copyright? > And if it is the case that nonprofit groups that devise standards for public safety and device interoperability are deprived of their copyrights because those standards are incorporated into legislation, I would imagine it would disincentivize the work they do, perhaps leading to less well thought out public safety and device interoperability standards.
Hmm. Perhaps lawmakers should have to license materials they want to incorporate, or seize them with compensation via an eminent domain-like process.