Democracy in the Dark?

scubacuda writes "Melissa Bar has written an insightful article on how Westlaw and Lexis Nexis restrict public access to case law databases. She writes, '[T]he courts and the court's words belong to us. In more ways than one, the American people have already paid for the case law produced by our courts. Commercial vendors must not be allowed to highjack our law or dictate who may have access to it. By refusing to allow public libraries to purchase electronic subscriptions that can serve their patrons, Westlaw and LexisNexis are closing the door on information.' Individually purchasing the documents over credit card is incredibly expensive, making it virtually inaccessible to most library patrons."

Comments

Re:BUY, = 1 License

[tigris]

"Why would I as a consumer ever pay for their service if the library had it, therefor they just lost my money, and all the other people that would go to the library use the service and not have ot pay for it."

For the same reason that I buy the vast majority of books from Borders - convenience and time. I don't have time to schlep down to the library to pick up the latest book, even assuming there isn't a long waiting list for it. I buy a resource that is also provided free because my time is worth more to me. Perhaps I also want my own copy as well.

"And since this is a service that is of specific purpose, like reference materials, they could stand to lose a lot of money."

Ah, my heart weeps for Lexis and Westlaw. They could also stand to make some money. Public libraries should be treated like any other potential Westlaw or Lexis client - if they can pay (and there is no indication that they can't) - they should be allowed to buy access to the legal databases - even if it's only one user at a time. The author of the article is saying that Lexis and Westlaw won't even sell access to the public libraries.

Re:Sooo...

[DDX_2002]

I appear against self represented litigants all the time, and it's a nightmare. They *never* fully understand all the rules that apply to what they're trying to do, so the whole thing bogs down. Inevitably they've left something out of the paperwork and someone is surprised by something or something the judge needs to make a decision wasn't filed or etc etc etc. Trust me, unless you have very litigant friendly small claims court rules, you need a lawyer.

Have you ever *read* the procedural rules for your state? The superior court rules for my province run for 652 pages. There are at least five separate rules, each with between ten and 30 sub clauses, that govern how to file and serve a writ to begin an action. The two rules that govern how to schedule and appear on a simple procedural motion run for 13 pages.

These rules weren't put in for fun - they're there because in each case there has been some disagreement in the past about what had to be done when, or how, or who was entitled to what, so they spelled it out in a rule. You need extremely detailed rules in litigation because by definition the parties don't really like or trust one another.

Ever read Lon Fuller? Lawmakers are trying to walk a very fine line between overtechnical impenetrable detail and ambiguous generalities, with lawyers there to help people when they the lawmakers stray too far to one side or the other. If a law is too detailed, no one who is not trained in the area really understands it. If it isn't detailed enough, you need lawyers to explain how the courts have interpreted the ambiguity.