[Ken H]

Oregon: publishing our laws online is a copyright violation

(article from 04/16/2008)

The State of Oregon takes exception to Web sites that republish the state's Revised Statutes in full, claiming that the statutes contain copyrighted information in the republication causes the state to lose money it needs to continue putting out the official version of the statutes.

Oregon's Legislative Counsel, Dexter Johnson, has therefore requested that legal information site Justia remove the information or (preferably) take out a paid license from the state.

-snip-

[VictoryGal]

> Oregon: publishing our laws online is a copyright violation

What idiocy. If the government and its laws do not belong to the people, who do they belong to?

For the Oregon and Sheboygan cases, it is so obvious what is right that even the ultra lib ACLU would defend it.

[contemplator]

"The State of Oregon takes exception to Web sites that republish the state's Revised Statutes in full,..."

In the old days Lawyers used to subscribe to receive their law manuals in book form and they filled walls with libraries of books. More recently they subscribe to similar services which provide them the laws and updates in electronic format. Either way, it would appear that someone in the state was receiving some sort of payment for the right to sell these subscriptions. When private citizens post the laws on websites, they bypass the old system and the businesses that were charging for what should have been public domain now have competetion.

I have often wondered why it was so hard to find statutes and laws on-line. Now I think I see what the problem has been, no one gets paid that way. I had always figured that laws had to be public domain information since it is the responsibility of every citizen to know and understand the laws. As the old maxim goes 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. That's fine as long as the information is freely available.

It's about time this sort of case came to light. As another Freeper pointed out, taxpayers already have to pay for the laws to be developed and they are already paying for the State websites, data storage etc.., they shouldnt have to pay again for the privilege of reading what they have already paid for.

[monday]

“The State of Oregon takes exception to Web sites that republish the state’s Revised Statutes in full...”

Am I missing something? What does that have to do with this thread?

[Gondring]

By the Miranda decision, we can’t be expected to remember our rights at arrest, yet we are expected to know all these volume after volume of laws, regulations, guidance, etc. And not even available without a fee?!? Wow.

[Titan Magroyne]

Crazy. The actions of gov't employees in the incidents you posted about call for a come-to-Jesus-moment on behalf of the taxpayers whose monies finance civil duties. Which by the way, should not involve retaliatory strikes against citizens who demand an accounting of taxpayer-funded activities.