Re: US Postal Service

[Carl Malamud <xxxx@media.org>]

I asked Corynne if she has a few cycles to look at this for us.  If  
so, we can assemble some stuff for her ... show her the data we got  
and the data we propose to redistribute, let her look at the license  
agreement, etc...  If she won't do it, we'll figure out a plan b.   
But, before we unveil this, we need to convince somebody else that  
we're presenting just the facts and nothing but the facts.  it's a  
good reality check.  You and I are not the target demographic that  
needs to see this as a reasonable action.  :)

Yes, it would be an important precedent.

Carl

On Sep 16, 2008, at 2:19 PM, Aaron Swartz wrote:

> I think our best bet is to go the route of facts. The stocking stuffer
> is only about copyright, it doesn't assert any additional rights over
> the facts. And strengthening the facts line of defense will be good
> for other database-freeing projects. How should we go forward?
>
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Carl Malamud <xxxxxxx@media.org> wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Aaron Swartz wrote:
> >
> > > I'm happy to give you the extracted facts if you want to put them  
> > > up;
> > > I presume you'll want to check with your lawyers first.
> > >
> > > I don't have anyone at Berkman; your quote from me was kind of out  
> > > of
> > > context.
> >
> > sorry ... was trying to nail eff down on the core issue of copyright.
> >
> > > There's an infuriating law passed that allows NIST to copyright
> > > standards on behalf of the US government and some leg history
> > > suggesting this applies to USPS too.
> >
> > I agree!!  Really!  I wouldn't be spinning cycles on this otherwise!
> >
> > Look, let's not give up on this.  I agree that this is public data  
> > and that
> > it needs to be available.  The only issue is how.  We tried the  
> > easy way:
> > clearly a government a agency and clearly not in copyright.  That's  
> > the game
> > I can play on some of the legal archives.
> >
> > This one isn't as cut and dried.  There are a few angles of attack:
> >
> > 1. Your argument that they really are government and can't or  
> > shouldn't
> > copyright (either in general or for this specific data).
> >
> > 2. The fact that these are facts (and facts of a public nature)  
> > that can be
> > extracted.
> >
> > 3. The issue of the unreasonable license agreement and whether it  
> > applies.
> >
> > 4. The question of whether there are other paths to be able to  
> > create the
> > desired outcome (which would influence a judge).
> >
> > Either way, we probably want to get a lawyer working with us and  
> > helping us
> > scrub the issue so when we go public it is a solid, clear case and  
> > we have a
> > concise message about what exactly it was we did and why.
> >
> > Carl