Item — HN Reader

IANAL, but I think in the Public.Resource.Org / EFF case, they were claiming you could restate the law:

""" Judge Tatel: you have to stay in the hospital for the three days. Can they not use three days?

Mr. Verrilli: No, I think they could describe the fact that the standard says three days. But again ...

Judge Tatel: More than two and less than four? Is that what they'd have to say? """

(p. 24 of DC Circuit oral argument, https://www.dropbox.com/s/bb0by3nm3dfql3v/gov.uscourts.cadc....)

But to answer more directly, we host the law. If we change the precise wording of the law, then that's unacceptable. If you being tried, you can't say "well, I followed this alternative law and if you read that, you'll see it can be interpreted differently". No, the exact text of the law is the law, nothing else.

But the law says standards of X. If the law prevents people from understanding X, then I would think one could argue that the law itself doesn't go into enough detail.

If X isn't bound as part of the law, and it can't be re-stated while keeping the intent in tact, then imho it should be effectively invalid. Just my own opinion, not something the court system would uphold necessarily.

I do find this appalling in practice. I would have less issue so long as the copyright holders for any legal specifications were limited to non-profit organizations with open accounting provisions.