Comments on: Publishing the Laws is Against the Law

By: jpe

jpe — Sat, 10 May 2008 00:11:43 +0000

Findlaw links to statutes on the state sites, and those are hit or miss. Some states have well designed statutes that are easy to navigate, and others are like pulling teeth.

Online state codes should be uniformly user friendly. They're not.

By: PD Shaw

PD Shaw — Fri, 09 May 2008 19:35:43 +0000

I notice the State of Oregon's website says: "Although efforts have been made to match the database text to the official legal text they represent, substantive errors or differences may remain. It is the user’s responsibility to verify the legal accuracy of all legal text."

Maybe this is what David Post means by the lack of authoritataive law on the net.

By: PD Shaw

PD Shaw — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:55:01 +0000

It's not "the law" over which a copyright is being claimed, its the annotations, notes, indexes, tables, explanations. The letter says that licensing these elements is what pays for their production. Questions: How much does licensing these elements cost and how much benefit do they have for the public at large?

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:45:13 +0000

How can state laws _not_ be public domain?

Even if they're not, floyd points out that they were paid for by Oregon tax payers, wouldn't that at least make them "works for hire"?

By: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:04:17 +0000

Orygun is noted for its liberal politics. That is what happens when a nearby state is Californicated.

By: floyd

floyd — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:54:55 +0000

There's a certain irony at work here. If the people paid to produce the copyrighted material they should have free access to it!
This reminds me of some of the signs posted around Illinois...
"public property, no trespassing" [lol]

By: Beldar

Beldar — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:52:52 +0000

Traditionally, as with the printing of other law books, the franchise for printing state statutes (and their associated annotations and updates) has been a lucrative one. My very strong hunch is that someone's protecting an entrenched financial interest in the status quo, specifically ante internet.