[Foundation-l] NYT: Who owns the law? (Noam Cohen)

[John Vandenberg]

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:42 AM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/9/30 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com>:
>> geni wrote:
>>> 2008/9/30 John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Absurd.  Most recently written copyright laws are very clear that laws
>>>> and judicial opinions are in the public domain.  add Israel and
>>>> Azerbaijan to the growing list appearing in this thread.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Okey. As I've said I'm more familiar with British based law than
>>> French based (is Azerbaijan Russian based?). The problem is that
>>> British does not have PD laws and has never done so which means that
>>> anyone with an English law based legal system who hasn't updated the
>>> relevant sections will not have PD laws. Rather a lot of countries
>>> have English law based legal systems.
>>>
>>>
>> Not okay. This is just absurd. It is ludicrous to assume that every
>> country which is based on English law, will have jumped over the cliff
>> after it, and balked from safeguarding itself from copyright silliness.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
> Given that a highly industrialised state like Israel only managed to
> update it's legal system last year and it appears that Australia
> hasn't updated the relevant part I wouldn't say that is a safe bet.
> Can anyone find an exception in Canadian law? Appears at first glance
> to fall under sec 12 (crown copyright). Actually section 12 may have
> additional issues.

Australia updated its copyright laws long ago, but decided to keep
crown protection of acts of the government.  We have Wikipedia
articles on these topics ...

--
John