> Is it equally obvious that lawmakers have the right to cite a copyrighted work and deprive it of copyrighted status?
In the case of federal lawmakers, yes, insofar as copyright is a federally granted statutory privilege that federal lawmakers can (under the US Constitution—international obligations are a side issue) limit however they choose.
For state lawmakers, probably not, because they can't limit federal copyright protection, so this would be a taking requiring just compensation under the 5th Amendment. But I have no problem with requiring state lawmakers who choose to incorporate a copyright-protected work into law to secure, at a minimum, the necessary permission for public unmodified copies, whether by voluntary exchange or eminent domain.
In the case of technical standards, having yours make law is obviously vastly more useful and profitable for all involved than charging a cover fee. Participation in these committees is hardly an effort for a better world, it is a very effective way for an incumbent to cement their market position and create barriers to competition for smaller companies.
If they are ever cited in law, there's champagne for all the butts in seats that guided the committees work in producing a thousands pages plus hot air anti-trust balloon.
There's a concerning undertone here of these noble companies coming together to prevent our houses from burning down with their valuable standards work. In reality, you get Grenfell.
I'm not arguing that it should be deprived of copyright protection. Just that it should be accessible. That access could be provided by means other than removing copyright status, e.g. through fair use exceptions, or by having the government buy copies for every public library, or for every household.
But even if the only way to fix this were to extinguished copyright for the referenced works, this doesn't add a huge burden on lawmakers. They created copyright, after all, and the same powers they used to create it can be used to weaken it.
Why not just make the law available upon request at the office in charge of enforcement? People that need to know about the law can visit the agency responsible or, they can pay a fee and order a personal copy. Buying it for every library or household seems ridiculous since it’s pretty clear that the vast majority of people wouldn’t even use it.
This misses the obvious benefits of making it searchable. Even if the owner of the standard provides a search function, there's no guarantee that it will be as useful or effective as e.g. Google search.
A violation of a law which, to be followed, requires knowledge of a secret, paywalled technical document, should be unprosecutable.
It is a violation of a person's 4th Amendment right to due process to prosecute them under secret laws.
If a law wants to reference a technical document, it should reproduce the text to be referenced in full, in the publicly available text of the law, and there should be rules governing this process.
