Governments and their laws being copyrighted.

[netwrkranger]

Source: http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article...ment_at_a_time

He's giving you access, one document at a time.

California's building codes, plumbing standards and criminal laws can be found online.

But if you want to download and save those laws to your computer, forget it.

The state claims copyright to those laws. It dictates how you can access and distribute them -- and therefore how much you'll have to pay for print or digital copies.

It forbids people from storing or distributing its laws without consent.

That doesn't sit well with Carl Malamud, a Sebastopol resident with an impressive track record of pushing for digital access to public information. He wants California -- and every other federal, state and local agency -- to drop their copyright claims on law, contending it will pave the way for innovators to create new ways of searching and presenting laws.

"When it comes to the law, the courts have always said there can be no copyright because people are obligated to know what it says," Malamud said. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse in court."

Malamud is spoiling for a major legal fight.

He has begun publishing copies of federal, state and county codes online -- in direct violation of claimed copyright.

On Labor Day, he posted the entire 38-volume California Code of Regulations, which includes all of the state's regulations from health care and insurance to motor vehicles and investment.

To purchase a digital copy of the California code costs $1,556, or $2,315 for a printed version. The state generates about $880,000 annually by selling its laws, according to the California Office of Administrative Law.

Malamud isn't just targeting California. He posted safety and building codes for nearly all 50 states, and some counties and cities such as Sonoma County and Los Angeles.

This is not uncharted territory for Malamud. In 1994, he pushed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to post corporate filings online, opening the door for companies such as Google and Yahoo to create elaborate financial Web sites. In June, Malamud helped convince the state of Oregon to stop claiming copyright over its laws.

Now Malamud wants to do the same for California -- and everywhere else. And he's willing to go to court to make his point. He thinks the court system will rule in his favor, establishing a precedent that all government agencies must follow.

"If that happens, it opens the doors to innovation," Malamud said.

To get the California Code online, he digitally scanned a stack of documents that weighed 150 pounds. Now anyone can download the 33,000 pages, and print whatever they want from his Web site, public.resource.org.

Traditionally, governments provided publishing companies such as LexisNexis copies of laws to print and bind for people. It was practically the only way to get the laws distributed to people. LexisNexis claims to have the "world's largest collection of public records."

But the Internet has changed how people can share information. Increasingly, government agencies -- including Sonoma County -- contract with LexisNexis and other publishers to post their laws online.

"Most of the county staff now just look up the codes on the Internet," said Jennifer Barrett, Sonoma County's deputy planning director. "You can quickly search for keywords or a section. It's quite easy to find what you are looking for."

But LexisNexis does not format the online laws for easy printing or downloading, Malamud said. And that hampers how people can access the laws.

LexisNexis is the exclusive distributor of Sonoma County statutes, selling print versions for $220. It offers free access to the county's codes on the Internet, but its Web site is relatively archaic and doesn't include the features common in newer sites.

If the county provided those laws in a free, standardized digital format, others could design Web sites with more modern search and presentation features, Malamud said. Social Web sites could pop up where, for instance, plumbers could provide useful annotations to building codes -- perhaps blending Wikipedia with Facebook for a more useful law site.

LexisNexis declined to comment for this story. Its primary competitor, Thomson West, which publishes California laws under a contract with the state, does not claim copyright over government statutes, a spokesman said.

California asserts copyright protections for its laws, contending it ensures the public gets accurate, timely information while generating revenue for the state.

"We exercise our copyright to benefit the people of California," said Linda Brown, deputy director of the Office of Administrative Law, which manages the state's laws. "We are obtaining compensation for the people of California."

Malamud must get permission from the state to post codes online, Brown said. She was not familiar with Malamud's actions, and could not comment on what steps would be taken to protect the state's copyright.

Malamud might be seriously outgunned in regards to the financial and legal resources of the governments he is facing. But Malamud has a track record of defeating much larger foes, said Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society.

"I think his work is extraordinarily important," Lessig said.

While there is a lot of commercial interest in stopping Malamud, his strategy of showing how easy it is for governments to post laws themselves makes a strong argument to the public, Lessig said.

Malamud thinks it will take him another three years to establish that no one can assert copyright over any U.S. law.

Like in his previous battles, he's not going it alone. His nonprofit has received about $2 million so far, with money coming from Internet pioneers such as the foundation of Pierre Omidyar, who founded eBay. Malamud expects it will take several million more to finish his campaign.

He also has some heavy-hitting legal academics on his side.

Professor Pamela Samuelson, co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, has also questioned the legality of copyrighting standards and laws.

"If it's the law, the public should have access to it," she said.

Samuelson points out that the idea of copyright was established to provide people incentive to create. People are given exclusive legal rights to their paintings, writings and other works because by selling those rights they can attempt to make a living.

There is no similar need for financial incentives to establish standards such as building codes, Samuelson said. For the most part, volunteers spend long hours drafting proposed standards for things like plumbing and building. Governments often take those standards and adopt them into law.

Once the standards become law, she doesn't think people can claim copyright protections. But like Malamud, she sees the courts making the final ruling.

"I don't think it's an airtight case for either side. But I think the law favors that if something is a law, it's in the public domain," she said.

Could this be the reason for the requirement of a license to "practice law"?


Regards,
netwrkranger

[palani]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Could this be the reason for the requirement of a license to "practice law"?r

Barratry is a crime unless one is licensed to do so.

Originally Posted by Bouvier

BARRATRY, crimes. In old law French barat, baraterie, signifying robbery, deceit, fraud. In modern usage it may be defined as the habitual moving, exciting, and maintaining suits and quarrels, either at law or otherwise. 1 Inst. 368; 1 Hawk. 243.

2. A man cannot be indicted as a common barrator in respect of any number of false and groundless actions brought in his own right, nor for a single act in right of another; for that would not make him a common barrator.

3. Barratry, in this sense, is different from maintenance (q. v.) and champerty. (q. v.)

4. An attorney cannot be indicted for this crime, merely for maintaining another in a groundless action.

Note the similarity between barratry and barrister?

[Livefire]

Kinda flies in the face of what the attorneys on this forum have said, namely that only the commentaries and footnotes provided by Lexis are copyrighted!

[netwrkranger]

Hey, they are attorners....

A little twist here and a little twist there....

Trust us! We always tell the truth!!

Profit!!

[Lawdog]

You're rather conveniently overlooking the comments of the law professor in the article. She says, and I agree, that the law itself (as opposed to annotations or other editorial comments) is in the public domain. I've certainly never seen a court rule otherwise.

Statutes come from legislatures. Caselaw comes from appellate courts. Regulations come from executive branch agencies. All of these are parts of the government, whose operations are taxpayer funded. It is ludicrous to claim a copyright on the text of the law itself. I hope California gets their ass handed to them in court.

And no, copyright has nothing to do with the need for a license to practice law. You need a license to practice law because the state supreme courts and state legislatures say you need one.

[netwrkranger]

What exactly does the term 'public domain' designate?

If California currently copyrights their law, how many other States copyright their laws?

If the STATE OF CALIFORNIA copyrights their law, is it the private intellectual property of that corporation??

If the courts and legislature of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA dictate a license is needed to "practice law", the "practice of law" is inherently illegal?

"We are obtaining compensation for the people of California."

I wonder how many checks are cut in obtaining compensation for "the people of California"?

Cool post, palani. I will do some more digging on that vein =D.

License to "practice law" is looking more like a joint venture franchise bestowed by the corporation (STATE) and the association (BAR).

- netwrkranger

[netwrkranger]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry

Barratry is the name of two legal concepts, one in criminal and civil law, and one in admiralty law.

Criminal and civil law

Barratry, in criminal and civil law, is the act or practice of bringing repeated legal actions solely to harass. Usually, the actions brought lack merit. This action has been declared a crime in some jurisdictions. For example, in the U.S. states of California, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, barratry is a misdemeanor, [1] while in Texas, it is a felony.[2] In England and Wales the offence was abolished in 1967.

Barratry also refers to the act of soliciting legal business from potential clients based on a particular event not just solely to harass. For example, an attorney who stops at the scene of a car accident or follows an ambulance to an emergency room in hopes of finding and soliciting business from an injured and aggrieved person might be accused of barratry. The lawyer who practices this sort of barratry is called, pejoratively, an Ambulance chaser.

Admiralty law

In admiralty law, barratry is an act of gross misconduct committed by a master or crew of a vessel which damages the vessel or its cargo. These activities may include desertion, illegal scuttling, theft of the ship or cargo, and/or committing any actions which may not be in the shipowner's best interests by the master or crew.

Other

Barratry, when used elsewhere, may refer to the buying and selling of positions (which are expected to bring greater income in time) within civil authority. This venality is the secular counterpart of simony, which is the buying and selling of positions (notably benefices) within the church.

In his Inferno, Canto XXI, Dante places barrators in the Eighth Circle, fifth pit of Hell.

In The Flight of the Eisenstein it is explained that the ship, the Eisenstein, is committing barratry, and not mutiny, by fleeing.

[Shoonra]

I wonder if Malamud is exaggerating just a tad.

As far as I know, the statutory law of California is not copyrighted. Both West and Lexis (previously Bancroft-Whitney) have competing annotated editions of the California Codes. The text of the law itself is not copyrighted, but the editors' blandishments, the readers' helps such as the casenotes and cross-references, are copyrighted. I have not found a case where the State of California tried to enforce a copyright over its statutes.

I had heard that, in various states, some of the regulatory codes (such as electrical, building, plumbing) were copyrighted .... but only because these had not been worked up by the state govt but had been originally published as copyrighted models worked up by industry organizations and then simply adopted by the state govts. And the copyright did not repose with the state govts but with the industry organizations that had worked up the models.

One thing I know for sure, the US Code is not copyrighted.

[Livefire]

I would make the assumption then, that any use of those codes, regulations, etc, would have to constitute fair use under current copyright law. I could also see legislatures utilizing predrafted or model statutes in certain technical areas.

[mrg]

Eighth Circle, fifth pit of Hell