Oregon: You Have To Pay Us To Explain The Laws To You
from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept
While all federal documents in the US are under the public domain, state governments don't always follow that rule, and the state of Oregon has a history of trying to lock up its documents. Last year, there was some attention generated when some people uploaded copies of certain Oregon laws. Yes, it seems positively ridiculous that the state might claim copyright over the laws people are expected to follow. The state claimed that it was just complaining about the fact that the laws were scanned from its own book, with its own notes and page numbers -- and that it wouldn't complain if people had just copied the law. But that's a weak excuse, and the state backed down later.However, Oregon is back in the news on a similar issue, as Slashdot points us to the news that a professor is challenging the state's attorney general to sue him after he scanned and posted a state-produced guide to using public-records laws. You would think, again, that the state would want such a document spread as widely as possible, as it would better help Oregonians understand the law. But the state claims it needs to sell the book for $25 to cover production costs. That doesn't seem like much of an excuse. The fact that the state needs to produce a guide to understand its own laws seems troubling enough. Then locking them down with a copyright claim just makes it that much worse.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pretty soon the state will start passing arbitrary laws (ie: don't cross the street between 9:14 and 11:16 AM on Tuesdays but any other time is fine) and fining their citizens in order to encourage them to buy expensive books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
REALLY
SO WHAT, someone COPIED it and made it Available..so THEY DONT NEED to pay $25 to Publish another copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
REALLY
Then GIVE me a copy OF' the law..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: REALLY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: REALLY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pretty soon it will be against the law to know the law but it will also be against the law to break the law. So either way you're in trouble. If you obey the law you get in trouble for knowing the law since that's against the law, but if you break the law you also get in trouble for breaking the law. So either way everyone is a criminal.
Unless the cop can go to your room and see that you have an unpirated state legal book in your room and these books get updated every year and they cost $250. and you can't borrow it from your friend or resell them either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PrometheeFeu
Seriously though, this is a good point. If you do not know the law or how it is applicable, how can you follow it? Not being aware of a law is not accepted an excuse in court. Citizens pay taxes. There they have covered royalty. This is completely bogus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there's no copyright in documents produced by govt. employees in the course of their duties
see http://tiny.cc/8CL3S
What drives me crazy is reputedly intelligent law professors like Eugene Volokh posting on this point without giving any real thought to it, much less doing any research, and suggesting that there might be room to argue that state documents other than court decisions MIGHT be entitled to copyright protection.
(http://www.volokh.com/posts/1253220102.shtml) the worst kind of law professor (as opposed to lawyer) behavior -- stretching impractical thoughts and irrelevant distinctions into something they tout as potentially having legal significance.
If I start spouting opinions without any persuasive reasoning or authority, please let me know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: there's no copyright in documents produced by govt. employees in the course of their duties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who owns them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who owns them?
Stuff like this is an explanation for Michael Jackson whacking his nose off while wearing one white glove while plotting to molest another little boy. It's a sicko paradise!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the state will not write the laws so its citizens can understand them
Screw 'em.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monopoly on Violence
Two hundred years from now people will look back with amused scorn upon "government" as an archaic and vile institution just as plantation slavery is viewed today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
predictable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: predictable
where did they say this? Just curious, I would like to read up on it a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
confusing but enforceable
Not really. That's the nature of laws written in human language, rather than some type of pure math. People run afoul of the law because they didn't "understand" a particular law all the time. Have you ever browsed your state's code of statutes? Understand it much? Not me. Not even highly paid law teams of major corporations always "understand" the law before they do things. Think Microsoft *tried* to get itself slapped with antitrust violations? More often than not, they interpret the language a different way than a prosecutor, and then the court or the jury agrees when brought to trial. It's all a matter of opinion anyway - these aren't the laws of $deity.
If you don't understand a law, in a lot of situations there's no way to know whether what you're doing is "against" it or not. You can pay a lawyer, and he'll gladly take your money, but all they can offer is their opinion, with a "if I'm wrong, it's not my fault, just my repuations". The judge/jury might not agree, and then you're fucked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know your definition of "federal documents", but Congress asserts copyright on the Congressional Record, and the US Government Printing Office asserts copyright on all sorts of public documents.
Not only that, the Fed often incorporates private documents into law. For example, much automotive safety law simply references copyrighted (and expensive) publications of the Society of Automotive Engineers, and you have to purchase those documents to make sense of the publicly-available part. I believe this is common through many industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]