Pretty ridiculous. I mean I get that annotations add value but if they are required an annotated version should be available to all citizens. Malamud's fighting a good fight here, hats off.
cough, cough I wonder if the free version of the law follows all accessibility regulations. cough, cough
I don't think you would need an actual criminal case. "Chilling effects" (i.e. people can't find out the law, and hence might refrain from lawful behavior) would seem to be sufficient.
I do wonder what's cheaper - to allow the publisher to recoup costs in this way or for the state to pay for the service up front? It's troubling though, that such a concern would somehow be more important than ensuring all citizens have open and unfettered access to the law.
It's especially galling that local governments routinely incorporate copyrighted "model codes" into law. These model codes are created by unelected, unaccountable groups that have their own agendas. You also end up paying to get a copy of important things such as plumbing/electric codes.
It's the direct result of anti-government propaganda. If you starve the state of financial resources, they will, sooner rather than later, have to cut corners knowing that it will cost more in the long run, just to make the numbers work in the short term.
Sometimes those costs are incurred by future governments (lease-back deals), sometimes by the citizen (here). It's the collective version of living paycheck-to-paycheck.
I would have thought that this could be challenged under the 14th Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause). "Due process" must surely include being able to find out what laws might apply to you, and a paywall would seem to breach that.
I can't believe this is still coming up in this thread, but reading the other comments one learns that the laws are available to read you just can't publish them because a private company has that contract.
[+] [-] klez|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kriro|9 years ago|reply
cough, cough I wonder if the free version of the law follows all accessibility regulations. cough, cough
[+] [-] huffmsa|9 years ago|reply
What needs to happen is some bold individual needs to intentionally lose a criminal case because they didn't have access to the annotated texts.
Then it becomes a due process issue and can probably get pushed to the US Supreme Court.
[+] [-] paulajohnson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomohawk|9 years ago|reply
It's especially galling that local governments routinely incorporate copyrighted "model codes" into law. These model codes are created by unelected, unaccountable groups that have their own agendas. You also end up paying to get a copy of important things such as plumbing/electric codes.
[+] [-] matt4077|9 years ago|reply
Sometimes those costs are incurred by future governments (lease-back deals), sometimes by the citizen (here). It's the collective version of living paycheck-to-paycheck.
[+] [-] dovdovdov|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MertsA|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noahm|9 years ago|reply
Obviously I cannot, but the absurdity of the idea that I can be legally bound by something that is not freely available to me is striking.
[+] [-] paulajohnson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] narrowrail|9 years ago|reply
Here's the link, read away:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/gacode/Default.asp
Edit: Also, I didn't realize this was a dupe until I responded. This discussion already took place.
[+] [-] liareye|9 years ago|reply