Please don’t make me go back to high school

Maybe it was withdrawal from pain medication or just pure frustration, but taking down Mount Must Read™ required some clean up I’ve been putting off for too long.  Most aspects of legal reference leaves me totally confused.  Seeing what seemed to be the same law as U.S. Code, Public Law, Code of Federal Regulation, Bill, Section, Circular, Directive, Amendment or simply sited under a variety of entirely different names, convinced me that I wasn’t cut out to understand the law.  In fact, I can’t tell if my own government follows the law.  Maybe that is by design, but seems that I should.  And I don’t mind shucking a little blame.  Judging by printed and internet text, a lot of people are generally confused about the law.

Education Mandate:  Almost every U.S. State has legally mandated basic mastery of U.S. Government and the foundations of our legal system as a requirement for high school graduation and or examination equivalency.  (See, Citizenship Education Inclusion in Assessment and Accountability Systems, Copyright 2002 by the Education Commission of the States, ECS[54].)

Seems safe to say then, that any college graduate should be able to read a law and minimally appreciate its intent.  This would also suggest that by the time we are earning our audit credentials, it would not fall to our national standards organization to be accountable to this same requirement.  I only suggest that the scope of our most impacting laws tends to be straightforward.  My personal struggle is interpreting audit and business accountability within our own code of profession practice.  I would never attempt to embark on this alone.

Good News, they pay people in congress to think

Researching legal statutes, national standards and the organization of code is a cared for by our own government.  (See How Our Laws Are Made[55].)  Congress has allocated budget to assure timely reports on all upcoming and recent changes to our legal system.  Found at Internet: Think Tanks & Research Institutes[56], SIL DC - List of Think Tanks[57], and Earth's Common Sense Think Tank[58], three independent sources support the following conclusion; The United States still pays people to think.

Congressional Research Service Reports[59] are legal summaries that even people with limited exposure to the law will fully understand.  After drinking in a few days of legal process and glossary, I have to say, it isn’t as bad as you might think.  Eventually, even I could swallow raw statute without holding my nose.

The short title, or name of a law, provides common language for the purpose of discussion and amendment by our members of congress.  We avoid speaking with numbers, chapters, and sections by using “short titles” as a way to make laws and their amendments accessible.  The overall intent of Bill, is enacted in the final rule of an Act, and enforced as positive law through a process of codification, where its language rests in permanent legal code[60].  (Codification is defined in endnote.)

I admit the choice to cite an act as Public Law vs. its final area(s) in U.S. code is for me at least, a judgment call.  Laws, unlike us, are not created equal.  How we cite them may require historical context.  For example, dozens and even hundreds of amendments to any title or chapter of code can occur based in the final ruling of a single Act.  In reverse, multiple acts can affect on single area of code.  Whether we cite public law or code, we are talking about the exact same thing.  Law is law.  Regulation is regulation.  Federal regulation for a single law will spawn further directives and regulation for alignment among all major regulatory bodies.  Recognition plays a big factor in how we speak about legal ruling.  When reading the word “SOX” (Public Law 107-204) most of us sense the allusion to financial controls and regulatory penalty.  In ten years, reading “SOX” in text regarding ethics and financial control will likely be interpreted as a funny typographical error.  Where a law is more recognized than its eventual areas of code, such as the legislation resulting in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, using the short title makes more sense as a common frame of reference.  The Security Exchange Act of 1934, for example, extends concepts in Security Exchange Act of 1933, but has different scope and intent.  They are not the same law.  It’s easy to see why people become confused.  Where a collection of acts continue to affect a single area of code, it is practical to bundle discussion to a single substantial area of legal reference, as for example the Copyright Law of the United States of America[61], sometimes identified as just “Title 17” within U.S. Code.  As noted in the preface of this GPO[62] document,

The United States copyright law is contained in chapters 1 through 8 and 10 through 12 of title 17 of the United States Code.  The copyright Act of 1976, which provides the basic framework for the current copyright law, was enacted on October 19, 1976, as P. L. 94-553, 90 Stat.  2541.  Listed below in chronological order of their enactment are subsequent amendments to copyright law.  Chapters 9 and 13 of title 17 contain statutory design protection that is independent of copyright protection.  Chapter 9 of title 17 is the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984 (SCPA), as amended.  On November 8, 1984, the SCPA was enacted as title III of P. L. 98-620, 98 Stat.  3335, 3347.  Chapter 13 of title 17 is the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act (VHDPA).  It was enacted on October 28, 1998 as title V of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), P. L. 105-304, 112 Stat.  2860, 2905.  Subsequent amendments to the SCPA and the VHDPA are also included in the list below, in chronological order of their enactment.

Please don’t let a block of text unravel the entire argument.  Consider the block again.  Here’s what I see.

The United States copyright law is contained in chapters 1 through 8 and 10 through 12 of title 17 of the United States Code.  The copyright Act of 1976, which provides the basic framework for the current copyright law, was enacted on October 19, 1976, as =P. L. 94-553, 90 Stat.  2541.  Listed below in chronological order of their enactment are subsequent amendments to copyright law.  Chapters 9 and 13 of title 17 contain statutory design protection that is independent of copyright protection.  Chapter 9 of title 17 is the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984 (SCPA), as amended.  On November 8, 1984, the SCPA was enacted as title III of P. L. 98-620, 98 Stat.  3335, 3347.  Chapter 13 of title 17 is the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act (VHDPA).  It was enacted on October 28, 1998 as title V of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), P. L. 105-304, 112 Stat.  2860, 2905.  Subsequent amendments to the SCPA and the VHDPA are also included in the list below, in chronological order of their enactment.

I am an Information Systems Auditor.  This is my “take away” for “critical mass.”

Copyright Acts are Codified in Title 17 within = Chapter 1-8, 12-17 of Title 17 but not 9 and 13

Critical and current statute representing roll up of copyright laws: Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), P.L.  105-304, 112 Stat.  2860, 2905

Both items are immediately added to my source documents database, representing two, not six, items for “critical reading.”

(Note: Endnote includes directions for joining the Information Security Management group as sponsored by ISACA.  Here’s your chance to speak with the Eagles who influence the design of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act[63].)

Laws resurface based in the context of historical events.  In some cases, a new name will be used to identify the review of the Act.  An example is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986[64], also known as 18 U.S.C.  § 1030, (as it is amended) National Information Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996, and § 1030.  Fraud and related activity in connection with computers, as chapter heading as found in the Legal Information Institute’s sanctioned rendering by title of all U.S. Code.