Furthermore, they claim that Justia is displaying their own copyright on each of the pages in question.

While I agree it is slightly silly, their argument is as sound as the copyright in my Complete Pelican Shakespeare – Shakespeare is public domain, and if I want a copyright free version, I can go to the First Folio, and edit one myself.

Also worth pointing out that they have no problem with Justia linking to their pages, just failing to give credit.

http://www.qplegaleze.ca/default.htm

“Why is there a cost for legislation?

British Columbia Queen’s Printer is a fully cost-recoverable operation and provides products/services on a user pay basis.”

llrx.com has a series of essays on the history of jurisline.com and its attempts to defeat Mead Data Central’s intellectual property rights. In the end the Jurisline case was decided on the basis of contract rights. Wikileaks is a better example: once the digitized data are online and free of access controls they cannot be recaptured. Likewise, The Memory Hole, Usenet news groups and all those other anarchic and chaotic repositories for data.

Buy ammo. Bide your time. Remember that these leaders responsible for this type of thing made their own bed. Civil war, and the killing those who enact policies like these is not universally wrong. Sometimes it is the only choice you are left with.

So the simple solution is to use a scanner and OCR software and change the typesetting?

The numbering? How can I say “You’re in violation of ORS 3.11.2a Paragraph305″ or whatever without using the numbering?

Oregon is often just silly.

If you had bothered to read the above comments carefully, you’d see that your comment merely replicated comments already made.

But by all means, feel free to call us all uninformed hysterics who don’t bother to do our homework.

Put down the editors of the blog while you’re at it, too.

With the coming of the Internet and the impossibility of restraining online publication in various jurisdictions (think of thepiratebay.org in Sweden; or a number of Web sites in unreocgnized states like the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus; or the farcical injunction issued against wikileaks.org when mirror sites around the world held the same data) either kind of restraint is impossible.

Oregon is blowing smoke. They haven’t the resourdes of the RIAA the Business Software
Alliance, and all thsoe other industry-sponsored litigators; how can they hope to be more successful? P2P and foreign IP’s and the dictum of Lord Mansfield’s Rule assure that they are doomed to fail. Ignominously.

Cases like these, IMO, are perfect examples of the consumerism parasite sucking on the civic body.

No, Oregon, you are not a corporation, and your citizens are not consumers of law statutes. And you do not have the right to make taxpayers fund legislation and then try to sell it back to them for a fee. And I know that’s what you’re shyster lawyers are pushing for – no offense to the honest lawyers out there.

What will Oregon do if the Supreme Court decides an issue based solely upon Federal law instead of State law grounds because LEGALLY the Supreme Court was unable to legally gain access to the laws of Oregon?

It’s a kind of Rhenquisty way to turn state sovereignty on its head.

:)

Saying that I slagged off all lawyers just shows you didn’t read my comment very carefully.

Anyway, lawyers are not just tools that do what their employers want. Their actions have an ethical dimension like everyone else’s.

Lawyers advise their employers. They can advise them to pursue their interests ethically, or they can advise the opposite. Hence “shyster” vs “honest.”

Or maybe you thought that every single underhanded, slimy abuse of copyright law was thought up by clients who then forced their groaning lawyers to comply?

http://drew3000.net/oregon-state-law/

http://reddit.com/info/6fz52/comments/c03qibr

“Does this mean that if another state implements the same laws as Oregon, they can sue the other state for copyright infringement?”

PS: typing in all caps does not make people think you have a good point. It just makes them think you’re throwing a temper tantrum.

Just because you have a legal right to do something that harms the public and benefits nobody — including yourself — does not mean that you should exercise that right. Of course, when the claim to a legal right is as weak as this one, it is even more senseless to try to enforce it simply to harm others.

Now all that said, isn’t there an interesting criminal defense available? Imagine that a person tried to look up the law, was unable to find it because of the combination of lack of handicapped accessibility on the official site and intentional restriction of the availability of handicapped accessible copies from third party sites. Now imagine that the person violates the law not intentionally, but because the State of Oregon used copyright to essentially prevent him from succeeding in his good faith efforts to look up the law, thereby frustrating his good faith efforts to comply with the law.

It is clear that you cannot prosecute somebody for violating a “secret” law that is passed in private, never published, and never made known to the public. There must be a continuum between an unenforceable secret law and a normal, published, and available law. At some point on that continuum, where a state takes affirmative steps to prevent citizens from learning what the law is, the state puts at risk its very ability to constitutionally enforce its laws.

The next logical step is to actually sell access to the law itself.

After all, the State of Oregon must turn a profit, (so the thinking goes), right? And in a capitalist society, you have to pay for everything, including a fair trial. Which is another way of saying that everything is for sale, including justice.

Per the continuum of secrecy: I don’t think totalitarian regimes have ever bothered to keep their laws secret. The laws were written by them for them, and in any case, were interpreted in any way they saw fit. See the Stalinist show trials. Or Bush’s interpretations of the Constitution and the Geneva Convention.

I’m just spitballin’ here.

We are so frelled … the frog is dead.

Or else they’ve just been doing it for so long that nobody cares.

Or else Oregon thinks it would be better if they didn’t tell one of the nation’s largest publisher of law books not to make any more for them unless they order them.

Copyrights and all intellectual property are a thing of the past. If we as a nation have no means to enforce laws beyond our borders such as online the framework of “the law” will be only apply to americans. Will we persist in playing by rules that the competition does not comply with.