Professor Posts "Illegal Copy" of Guide To Oregon Public Record Laws

An anonymous reader writes "Copyright law has previously been used by some states to try to prevent people from passing around copies of their own government's laws. But in a new level of meta-absurdity, the attorney general of Oregon is claiming copyright over a state-produced guide to using public-records laws. That isn't sitting well with one frequent user of the laws, who has posted a copy of the guide to his website and is daring the AG to respond. The AG, who previously pledged to improve responses to public-records requests, has not responded yet." The challenger here is University of Oregon Professor Bill Harbaugh.

Comments

Inherintly unconstitutional

[afidel]

How can the law which every citizen expected to comply with be allowed to exist under Copyright? How can keeping us from copying the law possibly be an advancement of the sciences and useful arts? Once it becomes law it is no longer a creative work and is now a fact, a fact which is by its very nature that which least deserves to be kept from the public.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Pinckney]

Note that Oregon isn't AFAIK claiming copyright over their laws. The text in question is not the laws, but rather a book to explain the law. However, they can be understood without it.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[ZekoMal]

This is part of the massive conspiracy to eventually make all citizens criminals by default. To alleviate the problem, all citizens will have to go to some form of re-education at a young age to receive a certificate that deems them non-criminals. Or something. Really, I think it's just a way for them to say we're all law-breakers, then not let us see what law it is. Our Kangaroo Courts will throw more people into jail faster if you remove the "why" part of "Guilty!".

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[NotBornYesterday]

The question here is not whether he can post the laws themselves; that has already been tried and failed. He is posting a copyrighted guide to the laws.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

and I thought all works of government were to be public domain (except classified info)

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Shagg]

I thought the government wasn't allowed to hold a copyright. Content that is created by the government (IE, with public funding) is automatically public domain. That's spelled out in copyright law, isn't it?

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[bennomatic]

I read that book. Something about a new testimony or something. What I learned is that we're all sinners.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[ZackSchil]

You just described the basis for nearly every major religion.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[samcan]

U.S. government works are automatically public domain. Shouldn't state government materials be the same way?

The latest absurdity to come out of my home state. (The first was yesterday.) And I thought Kroger was a good guy, for a Democrat.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

And if they are prevented from being copied and freely distributed, how can anybody be reasonably expected to comply with them? Surely the better the understanding of the laws, the less likely it is that they'll be broken.
Logically, it would be impossible to follow a law without knowledge of its existence. You might happen to do so by sheer happenstance, but given the somewhat convoluted workings of the majority of them, it's a long stretch. Should you even be prosecuted for failure to comply?
While it's true that very few people are aware of all of the laws (a gargantuan task, sadly), at the very least they need to be freely available so that it is at least possible to familiarise yourself with them.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[afidel]

This particular instance might not actually be the law but there are plenty of instances where standardized laws have been written by trade groups and then implemented by multiple states, if you look for a copy of the law it says see publication xyz which you can't find a copy of without spending $$$ for because it's under copyright. It's all the same mentality where the government thinks it's ok to keep things to themselves, it's absolutely not. If this was the work product of that agency then it was paid for by the citizens, if it was the work product of a firm hired by the agency it's the same deal, and if it's boilerplate from some 3rd party then if it's used under license by the government agency should make it completely open. A good example of such shenanigans is the national electric code, if you want to legally modify the wiring in your home in most jurisdictions then you need to follow it but it is only available for $82 from NFPA which is just wrong.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[NotBornYesterday]

I know, don't reply to yourself, but I screwed up. I meant to say that copyrighting the laws has been tried and failed.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

Conspiracy? Sure, that might be true if it weren't already the state of things. They don't need to conspire any longer, that reality has already come to exist.

There are literally so many laws now that even a swarm of lawyers, each with their own area of expertise, couldn't say that any given activity was legal with 100% confidence.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[commodore64_love]

Even if I bought your explanation, the book was produced by Oregon taxpayers so it the copyright holder is *them* not the AG who is just an employee of the taxpayer. QED the book should be freely-copyable by the people who paid the bill (Oregonians).

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

you're saying he failed to post the laws themselves?

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

"state-produced" guide to using public-records laws

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Bigjeff5]

He is posting a copyrighted guide to the laws.

Which was paid for by the taxpayers. Why is it copyrightable again?

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[ZekoMal]

At least that'll appease our right-wingers that want the US to be a Christian Nation...

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[mea37]

It's cold in Alaska.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Bigjeff5]

I know it is spelled out for the Fed, but I'm not sure it is so for the States. Each State is a semi-independant entity, and copyright law may have left that in the hands of each state. This attitude is common in the Constitution.

Any experts out there that can clarify?

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Shagg]

You're probably right. I think it'd Fed only.

IMO, it should apply to states as well though.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[sukotto]

There's precedent for this. Gilmore v. Ashcroft ( http://cryptome.org/freetotravel.htm ) shows that the government doesn't even have to let you read the law.
Copying is a subset of reading. So if they can stop you from reading the law, they can certainly stop you from copying the law.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[JesseL]

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get It straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it.

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Resrden, that's the garrie, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[erroneus]

This is so very true. In this case, it is merely the interpretation and application of the law that is "creative."

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[poetmatt]

Per the article considering their rationale for charging for it is that "only a truly elite group of people want, and to "cover costs of publishing", it's noted that PACER is supposed to be free as well, which is also law documentation.

So considering that the book charges for nothing, it's noted that it would be a legitimate government cost to ask the government to fund cost of any copies of the book requested and to provide it freely as they would any other book upon which is the basis of law.

Or they could I don't know, post it as a PDF or something and just move on. Whoops.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[DragonWriter]

U.S. government works are automatically public domain. Shouldn't state government materials be the same way?

Maybe they should be. You are free to lobby your state government to create a law dedicating every state-created work which would be subject to copyright to the public domain.

Personally, I think copyright protection can often be useful to states, though I'd like to see states recognize that, given the fact they aren't private entities competing for profit that benefit by imposing costs on other entities that are similarly situated, they would be well advised to generally adopt liberal licensing schemes for most works.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[interval1066]

What is that passage from? I want that book/letter/poem/bathroom scrawl.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[interval1066]

Got it. Atlas shrugged.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[greyline]

Define cold.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Hadlock]

Who wrote the guide (i.e. who paid for it to be written), and who owns the copyright?

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[icannotthinkofaname]

How can the law which every citizen expected to comply with be allowed to exist under Copyright? How can keeping us from copying the law possibly be an advancement of the sciences and useful arts? Once it becomes law it is no longer a creative work and is now a fact, a fact which is by its very nature that which least deserves to be kept from the public.

Simple answer: There are few, if any, good reasons why it can happen. For any law to be reasonably enforceable, it must be communicated to the citizens in a timely manner and in language that the average citizen can understand.

To prevent distribution of the text of a law by any means is to make that law ineffective. In short, they can't keep it from you if they mean to enforce it.

I don't care if the text of United States law or Oregon law reads differently; this is how it is from an ethical standpoint.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[serbanp]

So you think that a SMART and a Hummer should be taxed the same for the same odo reading?

The Per-Mile Road Toll system, if used without considering the car weight (which directly influences the road wear), is a stupid one. At least the gasoline tax implicitly takes this into account both the miles driven and the car weight.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Anomalyst]

Depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[compro01]

All works of the federal government are public domain, but whether the work of state governments are depends on the state's constitution.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

and I thought all works of government were to be public domain (except classified info)

Then tell your congressmen and state legislators. Decades ago Congress allowed contractors to hold copyright, and states have their own rules.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[NotBornYesterday]

IANAL, so I'm not saying it is or isn't copyrightable. The AG asserts that it is, and I don't have the legal chops to argue otherwise. I am noting that the GGP is incorrect that this is about copyrighting/posting the laws themselves.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

While the government thinks it can have it both ways, it surely can't. If we're not allowed to be ignorant of the laws (as its no excuse), then we are certainly allowed to read them. If I ever broke a law and was told that I can't read the law... Well let's just say I would personally cause mass rioting.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[duguk]

If we can't get hold of this books to check legality of laws, how do we know that copying this book is illegal?

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[harlows_monkeys]

and I thought all works of government were to be public domain (except classified info)

Works of Federal government.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Nimey]

...if you have a law degree. Have you read the dense legalese in many laws these days? Also bills are distributed as patches, so it's non-trivial to understand exactly what a given bill will do, when it says things like "strikes 'an octopus' in section A subparagraph 153".

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Joe U]

U.S. government works are automatically public domain. Shouldn't state government materials be the same way?

If the state takes money from the federal government to help produce this stuff, then yes, it should be.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[commodore64_love]

"Monica IS a great disco stick licker. Heh heh Heh. Oh yeah this is one fine day to be nude." - Bill Clinton - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1P-GR4uJZw

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

The latest absurdity to come out of my home state.

If you're an Oregonian and you think this is stupid, tell John Kroger.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Hatta]

The government can have it any way they want. They are after all the ones with the guns.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[commodore64_love]

>>>So you think that a SMART and a Hummer should be taxed the same for the same odo reading?

No. I think the per-mile toll rate, just like the rate on Toll Roads/State Turnpikes, should be tied to how many tires a vehicle has. The Smart has 3 right? Or maybe I'm thinking of the Sparrow. I don't remember. In any case a car owner would pay a heck of lot less than a 6-wheel, 8-wheel, or 10-wheel truck driver. (They are the ones who really tear up the road.) I think that's fair for an *initial* setup of the system and adjustments can be made later to make it fairer.

>>>considering the car weight

The Prius hybrid is one of the heaviest sedans on the road (thanks to the added weight of the battery, DC/DC converters, and three motors). It's almost 4000 pounds. You really want to punish Prius owners by taxing them more than a 25mpg teeny-tiny Miata gets? I don't. I think it fairer they both pay the *same* amount since the wear/tear for both is essentially nothing.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Sloppy]

To promote the progress of litigation and useful prosecution, we must secure (for limited times, oh say 90 years) to legislatures the exclusive right to their respective writings. If we don't do that, what incentive to enacting laws, will legislatures have?

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd wager quite a few $$$ that there are more guns in private ownership than owned by the Government, Army , Police, FBI etc.

What might be more correct, is that the Government has the BIGGER guns.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[jdcope]

In this case, yes. But they did try to claim they were copyrighted last year. And that's where this all started. http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/15/oregon-our-laws-are.html

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Tubal-Cain]

Approximately:

if $CURRENT_TEMP < ($AVG_HUMAN_TEMP - 10 Kelvin)
then $COLD = True

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[painandgreed]

And I thought Kroger was a good guy, for a Democrat.

There are no good guys in politics. They merely use those labels to cut down the number of people yelling at them by half.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[NotBornYesterday]

I'm tempted to reply something to the effect of "What incentive? To please their corporate overlords, of course".

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The problem with the line from Atlas Shrugged is that Ferris (like almost all of Rand's antagonists) is cartoon Evil. Evil that knows it's Evil. Evil that spends all day twirling its mustache and saying, "Look how Evil I am!" But that's not how real evil works.

Real evil thinks it's good. Real evil says, "We need this law to protect (whatever)" -- and believes it. In regards to this particular discussion, real evil believes that putting every single thing ever committed to disk, paper, parchment, or clay tablets under perpetual copyright is a positive good, and it regards anyone who disagrees with it as -- that's right -- evil.

Yes, of course the final effect of passing laws to "protect" everything imaginable is a nightmare of labyrinthine and often mutally contradictory laws, such that everyone is a criminal. But no one ever intends for it to work that way. And if you expect the people who create this situation (which ultimately would be We, the People) to have such transparent and cartoonish motivations, to be so obviously and blatantly Evil, then you will have no idea how to deal with real evil when it presents itself.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Clandestine_Blaze]

U.S. government works are automatically public domain. Shouldn't state government materials be the same way?

I agree - anything I produce while on the clock at work enters a murky domain where the people paying me can claim that they are the new owners. Any work done on taxpayer funds should belong to the public. At any rate, Oregon is not gaining anything by copyrighting their "Guide to Oregon Public Record Laws".

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[reboot246]

And nowadays the Federal government isn't even writing the laws. Special interests write the bills, and Congress votes yea or nay without reading the bills.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[digitalunity]

Code does not compute. The average internal temperature of a human is significantly warmer than the average temperature of a human's skin.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Tubal-Cain]

Personally, I think copyright protection can often be useful to states...

Care to provide an example of how?

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Lord of Hyphens]

A properly-written program should be able to parse the bill, make the appropriate changes, and the reassemble it. Doesn't help with translating the legalese, but at least you have a clue as to what's been patched.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[flyingfsck]

Fortunately, in most of the rest of the Western world, Roman Law applies and this type of nonsense would be moot.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[digitalunity]

The MPG tax should address two fundamental aspects:

• Direct green house gas emissions(meaning electric cars aren't taxed based on the green house gases released while producing the electricity to power it).
• Miles driven, on a sliding scale that gets steeper as GVW increases(*).

* This addresses the fact that high GVW vehicles certainly cause much more road damage than light passenger cars, and that much more so than motorcycles and other ultra-light vehicles. A million bicycles could roar down the freeway and cause effectively no wear and tear(excluding minuscule frictional wear of the road surface), while a single 18 wheeler can cause small but permanent levels of deformation to the road. Cars also can do this, but on a much smaller scale. Most roads aren't replaced because the surface is worn down from frictional losses, they are replaced because deformation caused by heavy rolling objects causes them to bow and crack.

Taxing miles driven at a rate determined by GVW is fair as it accurately taxes the driver based on the cost to the state in infrastructure costs. I realize this seems unfair to trucking companies, but companies need to start addressing the fact that buying things from very far away and trucking them across the country has a very real effect on the roads they use and the air we all breathe.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[oldsaint]

Perhaps now, in Oregon, ignorance of the law will be a valid defense, because the AG is determined to keep Oregonians in ignorance.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[ArsonSmith]

Unless the AG wrote this guide either prior to becoming AG or in his off time as a personal work, then what?

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Tubal-Cain]

No. I think the per-mile toll rate, just like the rate on Toll Roads/State Turnpikes, should be tied to how many tires a vehicle has. The Smart has 3 right? Or maybe I'm thinking of the Sparrow.

The Fourtwos have 4 wheels. By "Sparrow", I assume you mean this. Interesting, because only other (production) electric vehicle I had known about was the Xebra.

In any case a car owner would pay a heck of lot less than a 6-wheel, 8-wheel, or 10-wheel truck driver. (They are the ones who really tear up the road.) I think that's fair for an *initial* setup of the system and adjustments can be made later to make it fairer.

But that system makes no distinction between a Honda CRX, a Hummer, and a 4-wheeled backhoe. This would be taxed more than this (OK, so it won't go on roads very often, but it happens) if we don't make a distinction by tire size. More weight will generally correspond with more tires, but is it doesn't account for the fringe cases as simply and elegantly as just taxing by weight.

The Prius hybrid is one of the heaviest sedans on the road (thanks to the added weight of the battery, DC/DC converters, and three motors). It's almost 4000 pounds. You really want to punish Prius owners by taxing them more than a 25mpg teeny-tiny Miata gets?

Yes. Since neither causes much wear the higher tax on the Prius' extra weight could be negligible (the $-per-ton graph doesn't have to be linear).

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

Copying isn't a subset of reading. Reading is a necessary step of copying (at least, in this case). Because it's possible to block reading, it's possible to make the steps of copying impossible to complete.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Hatta]

Yeah, I thought about that. I traded strict accuracy for a chance to be a little more pithy. I think the point is valid in any case.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Moryath]

Yep.

That's how we got the Sonny Bono copyright extension act, how we got the "PATRIOT" Act, how we got several DRM acts and are looking at another one, and how we're likely to wind up with Obamacare.

It's not just that, though. Federal law is so crappily written and so laden with "based on a statute/commissioner to be named later" that it's impossible for anyone to figure out how many actual federal crimes there are these days, let alone state/local crimes as well. Most of the bills I refer to above (especially Obamacare, or at least the HR3200 version rather than the HR3400 Republican version) are the same way. We find out only long after the bill passes what it "really" said, when an unelected bureaucrat (FCC, EPA, "Health Choices Commissioner", FTC, or whatever the hell else pops up) decides what the "regulations" will be and gets to give them the force of law with no vote necessary.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[DragonWriter]

Even if I bought your explanation, the book was produced by Oregon taxpayers so it the copyright holder is *them* not the AG who is just an employee of the taxpayer. QED the book should be freely-copyable by the people who paid the bill (Oregonians).

That makes about as much sense as saying that if you own a share of Microsoft stock, Microsoft can't enforce its copyrights against you, since the employee (even if an executive) attempting to do so on behalf of the corporation is really just your employee.

There is nothing saying that the people of the State of Oregon, through the mechanism they have elected for self-government, couldn't adopt a policy that directs that all state citizens are automatically granted royalty-free licenses to all state-owned copyrights for all purposes so long as they remain citizens of the State. But, as far as I can tell, they have not chosen to do so.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[selven]

I think states' rights are more important than copyright. If they can be bypassed when they are against something you don't like, why should they exist at all?

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[stocke2]

of course WE will be the ones paying the price when the cost of goods increases to reflect the extra cost to the companies.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[sgarringer]

Eh, thanks for using the word "Obamacare" to remind me to skip your post.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

no you don't.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[AmigaMMC]

Because this country is going to hell thanks to lawyers, that's why

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[riverat1]

You don't think we should pay the full real cost of what we consume? Someone pays and sooner or later we'll all end up paying one way or another.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Darinbob]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Also, failure to purchase a copy of the law is no excuse.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[riverat1]

No, the document in question was produced by the Oregon Department of Justice and existed before the current AG took office last January. It's a manual on the Oregon open records and open meetings laws that provides a detailed guide on applying them. It's mostly bought by other state agencies and law firms.

That said, providing it on-line instead of on paper (the Oregonian article describes it as a "lengthy tome") would be the green way to go.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[stocke2]

i have no problem with it but the person i was replying to seems to think they will be "sticking it" to the big bad companies, when we are the one who will ultimately pay the price for it

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[chgros]

I thought the government wasn't allowed to hold a copyright.
Not quite right. It cannot create copyrighted works, but can have a copyright assigned to it, e.g. in case of a work for hire.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[riverat1]

To be fair we're not talking about the actual laws themselves but the Oregon DOJ's interpretation of how to apply them in a practical way.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[riverat1]

The document is question is not the law but the Oregon DOJ's interpretation of it for practical application by other state agencies. The actual laws are available somewhere in the links on this page.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Lurking Zealot]

And I thought Kroger was a good guy, for a Democrat.

There are no good guys in politics. They merely use those labels to cut down the number of people yelling at them by half.

Oh, of course.

And there are no fair-minded people on slashdot. They merely use absurdly broad generalizations instead of reason.

Modded insightful?

And no, I'm not new here.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Leebert]

How can the law which every citizen expected to comply with be allowed to exist under Copyright?

Happens all the time. Concrete example: the National Electric Code. Following it is usually mandated by law, but a copy costs a sizeable chunk of change.

I hear there's a copy on Bittorrent. I theoretically wouldn't have any moral problem whatsoever snagging a copy of it, in spite of copyright law.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[digitalunity]

Not really. The free market will sort out the inefficiency. If it turns out that trucking products across the US is still cheaper than producing it locally, then the market could bear the additional cost.

If producing it locally is cheaper, a company will start selling the locally produced product and eventually all other retailers in that category will follow suit.

Long story short, the market would sort it out, pretty quick too I think.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[winwar]

"Have you read the dense legalese in many laws these days? Also bills are distributed as patches, so it's non-trivial to understand exactly what a given bill will do,...."

Actually, that's the EASY part. After you figure out what the law is, then you have to figure out how it has actually been applied and finally how it has been adjudicated. The law and codes are easy to parse compared to finding some modification in a mass of court decisions that may or may not have the force of law....

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[belmolis]

Here in Canada we have Crown copyright at the federal level. The sole use is to prevent the wide circulation of reports that the current government finds embarrassing. That is not a legitimate use. The revenue generated by licensing is trivial. Why would state copyright in the US be any better?

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[KitsuneSoftware]

I was taught that some states do that, while others try to minimise their tax burden by charging for everything they possibly can. It's swings and roundabouts really, as the money has to come from somewhere.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[stiggle]

At least it should be free to those tax payers in Oregon. Anyone outside Oregon who want copies (law students, legal offices, etc) should pay a nominal fee.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[qc_dk]

I don't believe that Real Evil(tm) always believe what it does is all good. It might think that in the end the result will be for the best. But not that all it's actions are good. Why did the Nazi try to keep the death camps secret, why did they invite Red Cross observers to special camps where the conditions where much better? Of course it will always try to project the image of respectability and goodness.

I see Dr. Ferris as Ayn Rand's comment on the russian leadership at the time, which had basically given up the pretense of being good, of trying to create the workers paradise. If Dr. Ferris is cartoon evil then it was because Stalin was cartoon evil. If you said something disparaging about a member of the party's wife's dress off to the Gulag. Did your people have cultural ties to non-Soviet nations, then you were moved thousands of miles to lessen the risk of rebellion.

My problem with Atlas Shrugged is that I don't understand the gold fetish of her utopian society. Her utopia is only interested in the extrinsic value of the work people could do, but gold is basically worthless it has very few industrial uses. I might have understood if she had chosen steel. It is as if she wanted some indestructible, eternal, fixed value to assign to work. That's not possible there are no intrinsic, eternal values. My work as a computer programmer/scientist is valuable to modern society, but worthless if there was a famine and i was need to work the fields. But, I believe that is a point that Frank Herbert makes much better than i ever could.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but the Prius weighs 3,042 lbs per the Toyota website - which is fairly lightweight nowadays. The Miata is lighter - about 2,500 lbs - but it's always been intended to be a very small, lightweight car. The EPA says that the average car/truck sold nowadays weighs about 4,050 lbs. Also, Smart Cars have four wheels. It's not that hard to Google up something that basic when you're trying to base an argument on it. I do agree that the majority of wear comes from large trucks instead of small passenger cars though.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

If they did tax it by road weight, it should not be linear. Road wear goes up as a cube of per axle weight. There's virtually no wear on a road caused by even an H2 versus a semi truck with trailer.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[molog]

It's not even remotely the same. Microsoft is a for profit corporation. If you had enough shares you sure could prevent them from enforcing their copyright against you, but that is a different story. You might buy MS products but you do not have money automatically taken out of your pay check to go to Microsoft so that they may provide protection and basic services for you.

The State of Oregon is a state GOVERNMENT, not a corporation. It exists to serve the people of Oregon. If tax payer dollars payed for the creation of that text, it should not have a copyright assigned to it. If it was a private work by a state employee, then they should be able to sell it outside of the office but not through it.

No government, Federal, State, or Local should be able to hold copyright on a work.

Molog

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Khyber]

"how we're likely to wind up with Obamacare."

Ah, so there's yet ANOTHER person that likes being half a century behind the rest of the CIVILIZED WORLD in health care standards.

Let me put it in simple terms you can understand:

Most people don't make enough to be able to afford health care insurance on top of MANDATORY car insurance and other things.

I had half of my body destroyed by an uninsured drunk fuck. Had there been a universal health care system in place, I'd not be as poor as I am now and I wouldn't be hounded by debt collectors.

So let me jjust give you a hearty FUCK YOU ASSHOLE for being one of the people responsible for putting me in this situation. You and your ilk need to die the fuck off. You want to deny me good health care? Pray to your god that I don't find out where you live, because if I do, I will give you AND your children a taste of what I have to go through, and by the time I'm done with your sorry Republicunt ass, you'll be BEGGING for universal health care.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[commodore64_love]

>>>Direct green house gas emissions(meaning electric cars aren't taxed based on the green house gases released while producing the electricity to power it)

Uh... why shouldn't they be? If their usage creases excess greenhouse gases, then they should be taxed for that. Carbon taxes should be applied equally to all cars, without exceptions.

Also it may surprise you but according to greenercars.org, a natural gas Civic or a hybrid Insight, are cleaner than an EV1. This is due to the EV1 being predominantly coal-powered (yes even in California this is true), and also because the EV1 uses more kilowatt-hours per mile than a CNG Civic or hybrid Insight. The EV1 is rated as tie with the Prius in terms of overall well-to-wheel cleanliness.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[commodore64_love]

Yes that is one advantage of the markets - If you tax a corporation, the cost will trickle-down, but some of the cost will also be borne by the overpaid CEO and directors (they get smaller salaries). Plus people will look for alternatives, like eating food grown locally rather than in distant China, since the local food will be cheaper.

The drawback is if the tax is applied to a corporation that can move. The trucking industry is pretty much "stuck" here, but if you heavily tax someone like Microsoft then they will move to another country, which is a negative outcome.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[commodore64_love]

>>>But that system makes no distinction between a Honda CRX, a Hummer, and a 4-wheeled backhoe

(1) Backhoes don't pay road taxes. They use non-taxed offroad fuel. Ditto tractors, cornhuskers, et cetera.

(2) The current gas tax system does not make a distinction either - it's purely MPG-based which means a Miata pays a higher rate than a Prius, even though the Prius weighs almost twice as much and therefore damages the road more. And EV cars pay nothing, even though a RAV4 EV tears-up the road just as much as the gasoline version.

(3) So in other words arguments that a new per-mile toll is "unfair" don't hold any water with me. The current gas tax system is ALSO unfair (see point 2) but at least the per-mile toll can have secondary adjustments made for different cars. You can't do that with the current gas tax. I think the per-mile toll ("You drove 10,000 miles last year - please pay $200 to the state inspector") makes more logical sense than the current gas-based system which fails to tax EVs.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Tweenk]

you do not have money automatically taken out of your pay check to go to Microsoft

Given that a lot of governments are locked into Microsoft platforms, and it's hard to buy a computer without Windows, I'd disagree

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[commodore64_love]

P.S.

>>>Since neither causes much wear the higher tax on the Prius' extra weight could be negligible (the $-per-ton graph doesn't have to be linear).

Why is is that every time somebody proposes a good idea, somebody else has to come-along and ruin it with anal-retentiveness? You just admitted the difference between a Miata (~2000 pounds) and Prius (~4000 pounds) is negligible and the damage they cause essentially nothing compared to a 100,000 pound freight truck, so why worry about such trivialities???

- Just tax them equally as "cars".
- Tax SUVs/vans as "heavy cars".
- Tax campers, RVs, or freight based-upon how many wheels they have (6, 8,..., 18).

Simple. Easy. Non-complex. I don't know about you, but I've found life is much more enjoyable when you follow the KISS principle instead of nitpicking over shit.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[commodore64_love]

>>>That makes about as much sense as saying that if you own a share of Microsoft stock, Microsoft can't enforce its copyrights against you

You've forgotten founding principles. Microsoft was created by a man named Bill Gates for his own self and own profit. He choose to sell shares and share the profit, but not copyright. It's a private enterprise.

In contrast the Oregon Government was created by the People - we are not merely stockholders in the enterprise. We are the master of the government, and the government is our servant. In effect the People of Oregon are the collective "CEO" of the government, and the government is obligated to follow our wishes, including providing unrestrained access to its documents.

Or be dissolved and a new government put into its place.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[commodore64_love]

>>>U.S. government works are automatically public domain. Shouldn't state government materials be the same way? The latest absurdity to come out of my home state. (The first was yesterday [Congress Mulls Research Into a Vehicle Mileage Tax])
>>>

I like the Per-Mile Road Toll system, so long as it eliminates the current gasoline tax, and the money is earmarked for only road projects. I also believe it will be necessary as we transition to EVs or pluggable hybrids that don't burn any gasoline. They need to be assessed for their road usage somehow, and the per-mile toll system seems a logical solution. Perhaps at your annual car inspection you would say, "My odometer claims I drove 20,000 miles," and hand-over around $180 to the state inspector after he verifies the claim. That seems like a good approach to me.

Anyway back to topic -

Although all U.S. government works are automatically public domain, State Legislatures have no such law. Apparently Oregon is one of those that does not make laws or documents public domain.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[sqlrob]

And I think people's rights are more important than state's rights.

Free access to the laws and the state's views of those laws is paramount.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the Per-Mile Road Toll system, so long as it eliminates the current gasoline tax, and the money is earmarked for only road projects.

The US -- you're new here, right?

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[digitalunity]

Two reasons. The first is that you can't track individual electrons to determine whether the power you used came from a coal plant or a hydroelectric dam. The government couldn't even determine if the person didn't generate the electricity themselves using a waterwheel in their back yard.

The second reason is that some energy production processes scale up in efficiency based on size. It would be better for the environment for everyone to rely on the grid for electricity as a whole than each person individually operate a gasoline operated vehicle.

I don't doubt what you say about hybrid versus electric only "greenness" though. Hybrids have come a long way and I personally believe there is much work to be done in developing the technology. In California, a lot of their power actually comes from pacific northwest hydro dams. A lot also comes from coal too.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[digitalunity]

I doubt Microsoft will be going anywhere any time soon. Food is a particularly intriguing category of products for this discussion because a lot of products sold in national retailers are produced very far from where they are sold. For instance, a lot of vegetables are grown in large hydro farming operations and shipped across the nation. Another example is foods grown in Mexico which very often are trucked across the US, or bananas or other tropical fruits that are shipped by sea from South America and Central America.

Some of those can't be grown economically in the US, but the increased cost might make consumers rethink the value of cheap bananas and bell peppers.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[internic]

gold is basically worthless it has very few industrial uses

I don't think that's accurate. Because it is a good electrical conductor and highly resistant to corrosion, there are a number of good uses for gold in electronics and elsewhere. I imagine that the main reason it's not used a lot more is that its price is so high for non-utilitarian reasons. If people didn't use gold for money or jewelry I'm sure it would be a lot less valuable, but I imagine that it would still have significant value.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This is true, but every citizen has a right to demand if something is illegal or not, if nothing else, and to know about and talk about the laws.

I submit that, while the firm that writes the law may retain some kind of copyright with respect to, say, other governments adopting the laws, they certainly give up any and all rights to republish it per se.

I go even further -- Some years ago Microsoft wanted to know if this or that action would amount to a violation of anti-trust laws, and the government said, "Sorry. We'll wait and see what happens and decide then."

Sorry, no. Any free citizen should be able to ask the government if proposed action X is or is not illegal, end of story. And no, there is no justification for that that overrides preventing the government from getting into shenanigans.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[compro01]

This isn't about a law, it's about a guide to interpreting the law. Still, I agree with the sentiment, as interpreting the intent of the law is key to knowing if an action is legal or not.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Rockoon]

Ah, so there's yet ANOTHER person that likes being half a century behind the rest of the CIVILIZED WORLD in health care standards.

So countries that dont have state mandated health care funding are uncivilized?

I didn't realize that your health was my responsibility. Oh wait.. it isn't.. you just want it to be.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with the subject of your post, but for future reference, the term "the Fed" is generally understood to refer to the Federal Reserve.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[ultranova]

How can the law which every citizen expected to comply with be allowed to exist under Copyright?

You aren't expected to comply with laws. You are expected to be too afraid of having unknowingly broken one of them to dare do anything that would draw attention to you, such as speak out against your corporate or political overlords.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[treeves]

So the code does work it just gives wrong results: i.e. that 27C is COLD.
If he'd said that below 7C was cold, I could go along. Personally, I'm pretty comfortable sleeping at 10C.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Danse]

I didn't realize that your health was my responsibility. Oh wait.. it isn't.. you just want it to be.

No civilized person would refuse to help someone who is seriously sick or injured when they show up at a hospital. I suppose you think that's what we should do?

The fact is, we don't turn people in need away to die in the street. If they show up in the emergency room, we give them care and the taxpayers end up paying for it. The problem is that they'll be back in repeatedly until they die because we don't have a system that allows them to get affordable insurance so that they can get the basic preventative care that could prevent them from ever getting to the point of showing up in the emergency room.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Watson Ladd]

Well, that's not how it works. The FCC is told to regulate the spectrum for a variety of uses, and Congress tells it to decide how best to do that. The FCC can make rules that relate only to that purpose. This way we avoid needing acts of congress for each licensing change etc.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Rockoon]

No civilized person would refuse to help someone who is seriously sick or injured when they show up at a hospital.

In America, we don't refuse to treat seriously sick or injured people when they show up at a hospital.

So whats your point? Did you mistakenly think that we did refuse emergency services?

These two things are not the same. The fact is that the GP did get healthcare. His complaint is that he got wiped out financially in the process. Boo fucking hoo. If I don't pay for fire insurance and my building gets burned down, I get wiped out financially too. Do we need ObamaFireCare too? If I only have liability coverage insurance on my car, and someone steals it.. I again take a big financial hit. Do we need ObamaTheftProtection too?

Cry me a fucking river. You do not have a right to your health at my expense. When you have nothing left at all, then start looking for help. Until then, fuck off.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Danse]

So whats your point? Did you mistakenly think that we did refuse emergency services?

Apparently you can't read. Not surprising since you also apparently can't be bothered to even consider all the problems with the current system, or simply don't care because you currently have insurance, in which case I must offer a hearty fuck you to you. You're part of the problem.

What happens now when someone with a pre-existing condition gets laid off? They lose their insurance and go onto a temporary plan. But since no insurance company will cover them, they end up with no insurance. Then they end up repeatedly visiting the emergency room until they die. Assholes like you seem to feel that it's ok for people to receive emergency care and nothing more until they die, even though we end up paying for it anyway. At least you think like that until it happens to you.

I suspect it's likely a problem for productivity too since that person is not only no longer able to work, but is also probably a burden on their family and causing others to not be able to work as much. You may think that it's ok for an accident or illness to financially destroy someone, especially if they're poor and can't afford insurance, but a lot of people think that's a seriously fucked up way for a modern country to function and want to change things. I hope it gets done soon and people like you can just fuck off.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Khyber]

I paid my taxes and all I get is to be broke and nearly homeless because of your fucking ideals and refusal to allow my goddamned tax money to go into a system that I would happily support if it helped to support me and others that needed it in return.

You're just a fucking moron, a greedy heartless one at that. You're a disgrace to the vision our founding fathers had, and you're a traitor to the ideals that make this country. Go die somewhere, you unpatriotic shit.

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

Some mod points for you. Cheers :)

Re:Inherintly unconstitutional

[Rockoon]

I paid my taxes and all I get is to be broke and nearly homeless because of your fucking ideals and refusal to allow my goddamned tax money to go into a system that I would happily support if it helped to support me and others that needed it in return.

Translation: I want the taxes I paid to go directly back to me, me, and me.

You're just a fucking moron, a greedy heartless one at that.

I'm the greedy one when you are the one to make demands for my money? Fuck off. Take some fucking responsibility for your own life and your own actions. Don't call on me when you find out that you didn't have your ass covered.

You're a disgrace to the vision our founding fathers had

You mean the vision they had that did not allow the federal government to pull the shit you want them to pull? It wasn't until the 16th amendment that congress had anything resembling the power you think our founding fathers envisioned, and that wasnt even properly ratified.

You try to label me as unpatriotic because you're life is a fucking mess? Real fucking cool there, douche bag.

Remember

[captnbmoore]

He who controls the information controls the people. The only need to claim copyright on laws is to keep people from understanding the laws. If some of these laws were to get out it would probably piss off the people. Just like bupkis's new Health care reform law that fines people 3800 for not having health insurance.

Re:Remember

[Overzeetop]

Please learn the background on the health care debate before you make yourself sound silly again. None of the current proposals have the $3800 number, and the reason for the "fine" is a simple, statistical necessity for a working system. (For reference, the "fine" is typically the actuarial value of a benficiary; i.e. - the cost to insure a member of a nominally infinite pool without maintenance costs).

Re:Remember

[captnbmoore]

Yes your absolutely right. Now show me in the Constitution where the Gov can force me to have to pay for something that I don't want.

Re:Remember

[Alien Being]

Why shouldn't a person be allowed to self-insure? Mandatory health insurance is robbery on the part of government and the health insurance lobby.

Re:Remember

[Bigjeff5]

Try going without car insurance for a while, and see how well that works out for you.

Try not paying taxes for a while, and see how that works out for you.

Re:Remember

[captnbmoore]

Until you get pulled over or have a accident I guess it works out ok for lots of folks. I don't pay taxes. I'm 100% disabled via the fine gov-run heath plan called the VA.

Re:Remember

[DragonWriter]

The only need to claim copyright on laws is to keep people from understanding the laws.

I hate to interrupt your rant, but the issue here is not someone claiming copyright on the laws.

Re:Remember

[Bigjeff5]

Until you get pulled over or have a accident I guess it works out ok for lots of folks.

That's the point, it's fine until the government finds out you're driving without it. Then you often end up in jail with hefty fines. I actually hit a guy (very slick roads, company truck, company too cheap for studs) and he was hauled off in the back of a police car for driving uninsured.

With the gov't health care plan, it will be pretty easy for them to find out, and therefore fine, people without insurance. They don't need to wait until you get pulled over, they have everybody with a social security number and a job.

Re:Remember

[the_crowbar]

In my state (South Carolina, haven't we been in the news a lot lately) a legally licensed driver can pay a fee ($550/year) to drive as an uninsured motorist. Driving without insurance is not illegal here. Of course most people who drive without insurance have not paid the fee and are illegal.

http://www.scdmvonline.com/DMVNew/default.aspx?n=titleandreg#RegisteringasanUninsuredMotorist

Cheers,
the_crowbar

Re:Remember

[captnbmoore]

Still most people don't want their taxes going up even more to pay for the ones that don't want insurance.

Here is a quote on the new health bill.

"The plan would be paid for with $507 billion in cuts to government health programs and $349 billion in new taxes and fees, including a tax on high-end insurance plans and fees charged to insurance companies and medical device manufacturers."

Whom do you think will end up footing the bill. a small minority of people cause you damn well that the ins co will not pay the fees out of the kindness of their heart.

It's just one vicious cycle. soon you'll be working to pay just ins prem. and taxes. What's left won't be enough to feed much less house yourself.

As far as car ins. It is only mandated by certain states. Not all states have mandatory ins. I have car ins to cover any loses to the lien holder. and uninsured motorist. because there are people who drive without insurance. around here it's mainly Mexican's from Mexico.

Re:Remember

[geekoid]

Becasue uninsured people impact all of us. Billions and billions of dollars are paid by the insured to covered the uninsured right now.

You don't want robbery? support the public option.

Re:Remember

[commodore64_love]

>>>Try going without car insurance for a while, and see how well that works out for you.

First-off, that's at the STATE level and states generally have more power than the U.S. does. Second, you don't have to buy car insurance. If you keep your car on your own property (example: farm), you never need to buy any insurance for it. It is only when you enter the state-owned roads that you must buy insurance, and get a drivers license, and so on.

And finally, nowhere in the Constitution has the U.S. been granted the power "to fine the citizens" for failure to buy the product. Individual states like Massachusetts have that power, but the U.S. does not. The idea that Congress could fine people sets-up a dangerous precedent, where people are punished for Not buying a hybrid car, or not buying a tankless water heater, or whatever.

Re:Remember

[Red Flayer]

Why shouldn't a person be allowed to self-insure? Mandatory health insurance is robbery on the part of government and the health insurance lobby.

I'm all for allowing people to self-insure, provided that either:

1. They maintain liquid capital of $1 million dollars that can only be drawn against to cover medical expenses, or
2. They pay up-front, before service, for any and all medical treatment they receive, including, and especially, expensive emergency treatment.

Those are the only two conditions of "self-insurance" that would satisfy me. Otherwise we'll have all the "self-insured" getting treatment at no cost to them paid for by yours truly, the taxpayer.

Re:Remember

[pla]

Try going without car insurance for a while, and see how well that works out for you.

I haven't gotten into a reportable (more than $500 damage or injury) accident in 15 years. As a kid, I totalled my own (piece of crap) car twice, and an older car I hit for around $5k damage.

In my life, I have paid on the order of $17,000 in auto insurance (and have lived in fairly cheap states for it), which has in turn paid out less than half that amount.

Now, you will of course respond "but what if someone had gotten seriously injured?" - I hate to break it to you, but under most auto insurance policies, if you actually cause anything more complicated than a few scratches and a broken arm, the treatment will most likely exceed your liability cap anyway. I think I have something like $250k on my policy, which would barely cover a single moderately serious surgery and a few day's stay in an ICU. Push that out to injuries requiring a few rounds of surgery plus a month stay plus rehab plus the inevitable "pain and suffering" suit, and you may as well proactively declare bankruptcy, regardless of your auto insurance.

So yeah, I'd go without insurance in a heartbeat, but whaddya know, the government won't let me.

Mandatory health insurance, like mandatory auto insurance, amounts to nothing but one giant scam benefiting exactly one interest group - The insurance companies. Notice that their input into the current debate has had nothing against the "mandatory" part, so much as opposing the "public" option and the limits on "preexisting condition" clauses.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck leaving South Carolina uninsured.

Re:Remember

[sofar]

well, you're forgetting that it's perfectly legal to get sick and die inside your own property. And never have bought health insurance nor use health care.

Re:Remember

[the eric conspiracy]

Oh poppycock. The Federal Government can easily raise taxes $3800 (or whatever) and then issue a tax credit to those who purchase of health care.

It has exactly the same financial effect as a 'fine'.

This is exactly how the state of Massachusetts implements their health care coverage requirement.

The fact is that Federal tax code has been used to encourage people to buy certain things for ages.

I don't know where your ideas are coming from but they are clearly very very wacked.

Re:Remember

[aztracker1]

Easy.. if I am not driving a car or for that matter own one, I can go all I want without car insurance. There is a privilege associated with the requirement for car insurance which is actually state law (implemented in every state), not federal law. Requiring medical insurance (payment to a private entity) by every citizen of this country is in every way contrary to the law this nation is founded on. A fine for not having medical insurance is analogous to having a tax on breathing.

Re:Remember

[commodore64_love]

That's nice. Please cite to me which specific power the U.S. Constitution granted to Congress the power to FINE the citizens for failure to buy a product. That power exists at the state level (and even there it's debatable). The power to fine citizens does not exist at the national level.

Re:Remember

[aztracker1]

Or, we could keep it like it is now, where you can get emergency services, and the hospital cannot deny you... from there you get a bill.

Re:Remember

[commodore64_love]

The Liberty to choose for yourself (instead of having a monopoly) is more important than saving a few dollars. Also you exaggerate the cost. There are only 8 million citizens who do not have either private or government coverage. The other ~290 million are just fine.

Re:Remember

[Xtifr]

show me in the Constitution where the Gov can force me to have to pay for something that I don't want.

Um, how about section 8: "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

Of course, I realize that this goes against the received right-wing dogma that government's only legal powers are to bomb furriners, build a giant wall along the Mexican border, and to imprison "darkies" and non-christians and those who speak funny or have a University education, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Gov has a lot of leeway to act for the general benefit of its citizens. Reasonable people can (and do) disagree about how much leeway that single phrase provides, but only kooks and ignorant yokels (and paid mouthpieces of kooks) try to argue that the leeway doesn't exist. (Much like how only kooks and ignorant yokels on the other side try to argue that the second amendment isn't intended to provide the right to armed revolt).

Re:Remember

[commodore64_love]

>>>I'm all for allowing people to self-insure provided...

Fortunately I'm not a slave, and you are neither my master nor my king, so your opinion although welcome, will be ignored. I will follow my own path in life as a freeman (aka liberated person).

Re:Remember

[Noren]

Drive without car insurance? Not a problem! That's 100% legal.

Of course, you wouldn't be able to drive on public roads or public land... those do require it in most states. Just stay on private property with the permission of the owner(s) and you'll be fine. You won't even need to license the car!

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, I've been racking my brains but I give up. Which early Rush album are you quoting here?

Re:Remember

[DarKnyht]

Somehow I don't think that "general Welfare" quite means what it is being interpreted as these days. Think "general Welfare" more as make sure the United States exists as an entity that can protect the interests of the States in the Union.

Re:Remember

[riverat1]

Huh? I think the number is closer to 50 million people. The whole point of insurance is to spread the risk out so the relatively few who end up on the wrong end of the pool aren't drowned. The only way to make the current system work is to deny medical care to those who can't pay, a position I'm not will to take morally.

Of course lots of people in the US are denied medical care because of inability to pay, at least until their situation gets so dire they go to the emergency room where they have to help them. We all end up paying for that expensive care when spending 1/10th of that earlier might have resolved the situation.

Re:Remember

[Jedi Alec]

Yes your absolutely right. Now show me in the Constitution where the Gov can force me to have to pay for something that I don't want.

Until you get pulled over or have a accident I guess it works out ok for lots of folks. I don't pay taxes. I'm 100% disabled via the fine gov-run heath plan called the VA.

Just out of curiosity, where does it say in the constitution that the federal government has the right to force its citizens to pay for the lifelyhood and medical care of disabled veterans?

Re:Remember

[Rob the Bold]

Yes your absolutely right. Now show me in the Constitution where the Gov can force me to have to pay for something that I don't want.

His absolutely right what?

Anyway, good luck with the not paying for what you don't want stuff. Congress can levy taxes, many of which pay for things that individual taxpayers don't want or don't personally need. For instance, I don't need national defense. I'm in Iowa now. When Canada invades, that's Minnesota's problem, not mine. I'd just as soon save that money for my own anti-boom-car system, which is a considerably more important issue to me than keeping frostbacks from slipping across the border and poaching our beaver pelts, eh. But I'm just too lazy to fight that one.

Now that's where you come in. You're all fired up about this. So here's the plan. Tell the government you will no longer be paying for anything you don't want. Unfortunately, money is fungible, so to be sure, stop paying taxes altogether. They're gonna try to seize your assets and attach your income, so get rid of that stuff first: give away your stuff and quit your job, refuse to cash any checks for alimony, child support, lottery payouts, entitlement plans, everything. Now when they come for you, let them toss you in jail. Here's the best part: since you're in jail, you're costing them instead of paying them, making it harder to do this to the next guy. Try to get arrested somewhere the jails have internet access so you can keep us posted on your progress.

Re:Remember

[Rob the Bold]

The Liberty to choose for yourself (instead of having a monopoly) is more important than saving a few dollars. Also you exaggerate the cost. There are only 8 million citizens who do not have either private or government coverage. The other ~290 million are just fine.

Only for very small values of "just fine".

Re:Remember

[Rob the Bold]

>>>I'm all for allowing people to self-insure provided...

Fortunately I'm not a slave, and you are neither my master nor my king, so your opinion although welcome, will be ignored. I will follow my own path in life as a freeman (aka liberated person).

Wow. I bet you tied off your own umbilical cord. That's what a real freeman would do.

Re:Remember

[Red Flayer]

Or, we could keep it like it is now, where you can get emergency services, and the hospital cannot deny you... from there you get a bill.

And those that are insured, or the government (i.e., the general public), end up picking up the tab for those who cannot pay their bills.

This is not a good situation... it drives up the cost of insurance, which increased the number of the uninsured, which means fewer people can pay, which puts a higher burden on the insured... it's a nasty feedback cycle.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Mexican's from Mexico.

As opposed to Mexicans from where?

Re:Remember

[Xtifr]

I'm not a Constitutional scholar or historian, but that seems like a pretty bizarre interpretation of those particular words. General welfare sounds more like it describes the general welfare of the country, and not just its mere existence. If they meant merely the continued existence, I would have thought they would have said "continued existence", or words to that effect. Remember, the this-is-just-a-mutual-defense-pact-of-individual-States approach had already been tried with the Articles of Confederation, and the US Constitution was a reaction to the perceived failure of that approach, which, to me, casts a lot of doubt on some of the more extreme Libertarian modern interpretations of that document. The problem is that a lot of people seem to see what they want to see in the Constitution, and I'm afraid you and I may both be among that number. Bottom line, though: there's a big difference between yelling "the Constitution doesn't allow anything like X!" (as extremists on both the left and right are wont to do) and saying, "I think that X is stretching the interpretation of the Constitution beyond what was intended, but I can see how you might disagree," which is what a reasonable person might say.

Re:Remember

[DarKnyht]

It is a strange interpretation but if you look at the words of those that wrote the document, it seems fairly likely. The problem with the Articles of Confederation was that the Federal Government had responsibility to ensure the general welfare of the States but had no power to fund or even enforce those responsibilities.

The States, fearing an overpowering Federal government, listed the specific responsibilities of the Federal government. Then gave them just enough power to carry those responsibilities out (which they lacked before). In fact they went out of their way to put in writing anything not specified above belongs under the authority of the States.

I believe that the Government shouldn't be playing wet nurse to everyone. This doesn't achieve anything except create a population that is dependent on those in power and in truth have no freedom.

Is he profiting from the publication somehow?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood how state government purports to work, except on the taxation side. Do they only see dollar signs?

Why would they even CARE that he reposted their guide, unless he's selling it or using it to promote ad clicks, etc?

Is this legal guide somehow "sensitive information"? Are they trying to say the state's legal code is intellectual property?

Somehow I expected Oregon to be above this kind of horseshit.

Re:Is he profiting from the publication somehow?

[mikael]

If someone else republishes out of date legislation,or information packs, then that can be a problem. It's not going to be fun arranging finances only to find that the laws or requirements have changed or are no longer valid.

Re:Is he profiting from the publication somehow?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why they should have all laws available on the Espresso systems I saw earlier being used in Britain for publishing on demand, at bookstores. They should be updated daily with changes to the law.

Inherently crazy

[mollog]

First of all, I have an issue with the government copyrighting anything. If the government created it, it is public domain, right?

If there is some issue of value of a property, then the government needs to sell the property to a private party. But the concept of the government blocking access to legal documents such as text of laws, records and minutes of meetings, etc., blows my mind. That AG needs to be sued.

Re:Inherently crazy

[sdpuppy]

Exactly.

If I write software to solve a problem in my company, it belongs to my company, I can't go out and copyright it.

The only reason for a copyright would be to prevent someone else to take it and claim it as their own works, and to prevent anyone from preventing free distribution of this document.

So besides jumping up and down pointing a finger and crying plagiarism, what else is to prevent a scoundrel from doing this?

Re:Inherently crazy

[SydShamino]

If the state hires a third party to create something for them, and the third party does so, does that thing enter the public domain automatically?

If yes, what if the government hired a third party to create a piece of software, and the third party utilized FOSS code to complete the project. Would citizens of the state then have the right to claim the FOSS code was in the public domain and use it as they saw fit?

If no, what prevents the government from hiring third-party contractors to do almost everything, then keeping most all of it under copyright. Note that this is basically the situation now.

The law, which needs to be changed, needs to be sufficiently nuanced so that substantively original works created for the government enter the public domain, but that preexisting works used by the government can retain independent rights.

Even this needs to be limited, though, to avoid things like private documents becoming law. I would think that the legal code and anything it refers to should by definition be in the public domain, but other documents utilized by the government could be free or under copyright based on the originator.

Re:Inherently crazy

[SydShamino]

I would add that preventing third-party contractors from using any pre-existing work to complete state projects would be prohibitively expensive, so prohibiting the using of FOSS or anything else under copyright wouldn't be feasable for taxpayers.

Re:Inherently crazy

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If yes, what if the government hired a third party to create a piece of software, and the third party utilized FOSS code to complete the project. Would citizens of the state then have the right to claim the FOSS code was in the public domain and use it as they saw fit?

No, only the work of the contractor is public domain. The OSS portion is unaffected, although it can make use of modifications from the contractor with impunity.

Shoot him.

[commodore64_love]

Huh. That subject line just popped-up automatically in Firefox. That's kinda scary. ----- Anyway normally I'd say "fire the employee" but since there's no way for the citizens to fire Oregon's General Attorney, the only other option is to exercise the Founders' Constitutionally protected right to revolt. (amendment two)

As the founder of the Democractic Party observed: "When the people fear government, there is tyranny. When the government functionaries fear the people, then there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

Re:Shoot him.

[JoshuaZ]

Huh. That subject line just popped-up automatically in Firefox. That's kinda scary. ----- Anyway normally I'd say "fire the employee" but since there's no way for the citizens to fire Oregon's General Attorney, the only other option is to exercise the Founders' Constitutionally protected right to revolt. (amendment two)

The attorney general of Oregon is an elected position. So he can be voted out of office at the next election. Even if the position were not elected but appointed one could vote out of office the governor who appointed him. Also, the second amendment never gives you any Constitutionally protected right to revolt. It gives a right to keep arms.

Re:Shoot him.

[Bigjeff5]

Also, the second amendment never gives you any Constitutionally protected right to revolt. It gives a right to keep arms.

And when they put that in the Bill of Rights, the country had just fought a revolutionary war for their independance from England, with an army made up of regular joe citizens.

I'll tell you one thing they were NOT thinking about when they put that in, and that's hunting. Care to guess what their reasoning may have been for making that provision manditory for the ratification of the Constitution, so soon after overthrowing an oppressive government?

If you guess the ultimate right of the citizenry to overthrow their government, you guessed correctly.

That said, I think the GP is treating it a little (by a little, I mean extremely) lightly, revolution is a terrifying option that would result in mass bloodshed and a broken, weak country. It's not something you do over a state AG claiming bullshit copyright.

Re:Shoot him.

[soundguy]

...and if Lincoln could see the pack of ignorant, violent, reactionary animals that now infests and defiles his once-proud Republican party, he'd shoot HIMSELF in the head.

Re:Shoot him.

[commodore64_love]

Well it's standard legal procedure when reviewing laws to go back and discover the "original intent" of the men who authored the law. Let's see what the authors behind the Second Amendment said about it - "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823)

.

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed..... for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. " ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

During the Massachusetts ratifying convention William Symmes warned that the new government at some point "shall be too firmly fixed in the saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection."

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?" and "nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." - Patrick Henry

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" - future founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787

And last but certainly not least:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," from the Constitution itself -AND- "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" from the 1776 Declaration of Independence

Aside -

I'm sorry if these pro-liberty, pro-revolutionary viewpoints are inconvenient for your pro-big-government view. I don't mean offense. I mean to educate.

Re:Shoot him.

[Psyborgue]

Also, the second amendment never gives you any Constitutionally protected right to revolt. It gives a right to keep arms.

Not explicitly but it's implicit if you consider what else the founders wrote and the context in which the 2nd amendment was written. The purpose is for defense of the individual. That includes defense from an oppressive state.

Re:Shoot him.

[Psyborgue]

Context: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it," And in that point in time "abolish" meant war against the current government. Clearly the founding fathers gave us guns for more than just protection from fellow citizens.

Re:Shoot him.

[commodore64_love]

P.S.

Yes I agree voting Oregon's General Attorney* is probably the best course to follow. The problem is that people so rarely get voted-out, its essentially a powerless threat. "Please drop this nonsense or we'll vote you out of office mister!" See? It just doesn't work. He won't get voted out and neither will most of the other bums. It's an ineffectual threat.

*
* I'm English, not French. The adjective goes in *front* of the noun, not behind it.

Re:Shoot him.

[Psyborgue]

What I wouldn't give for a mod point.

Re:Shoot him.

[JoshuaZ]

The Constitution does not give any right to break the system. That there may be an overarching philosophical right to do so if certain problems arise is a different claim. The Founders thought that there were circumstances where revolt was the only reasonable course of action. They didn't give a Constitutional protection to revolt for fairly obvious reasons.

Re:Shoot him.

[Bigjeff5]

That's funny, because the term originated in England, not France. Y'all only have yourselves to blame for a brief, shamefull period of wanting to be just like the French.

We Americans generally put the adjective first also, but we frankly don't care all that much one way or another. Besides, the plural of Attorney General, Attorneys General, is just fun to say.

Re:Shoot him.

[Psyborgue]

They didn't give a Constitutional protection to revolt for fairly obvious reasons.

Among which is that it really doesn't need to be stated. What they did do is make sure it was possible.

Re:Shoot him.

[commodore64_love]

>>>The Constitution does not give any right to break the system

Yes it does. First let's look at what these men, who wrote the Constitution, signed in 1776: "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

And now the Constitution itself: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." One of those retained rights is the right to alter or abolish a government (i.e. revolt) as explained in the 1776 Declaration.

Re:Shoot him.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that's people did in Pennsylvania recently when law makers gave themselves a pay raise... Unfortunately the newbies aren't much better than the people they voted out.

Re:Shoot him.

[JoshuaZ]

Ok. Even if I gave that to you that wouldn't be the same as claiming the second amendment somehow preserved such a right. You are quoting from the 9th Amendment. It isn't clear to me that it even is implying what you want it to imply. In general, once a situation has gotten to the point where a revolution is necessary (which is not generally simply because some elected official is behaving like a bit of a jackass) then your Constitutional protections aren't going to matter much. The right to revolt doesn't matter as being a Constitutionally protected right. It wouldn't change at all if I there were an amendment passed disallowing it. The right to revolt is much deeper. Incidentally, the writers of the Dec of Independence are not all the same as the writers of the Constitution or the writers of the various aspects of the Bill of Rights. So claiming that there's an inherent right to revolt here from that combined textual reading is at best weak. It seems clear moreover that as a matter of precedent the right to revolt is not strongly Constitutionally protected (the most obvious precedents in this case being the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War). Courts today do not look kindly on people who try to get out of paying taxes by saying they don't recognize the sovereignty of the government.

Re:Shoot him.

[commodore64_love]

>>>the term originated in England, not France.

Nope. The term originated in France, and it was carried over to London during the 1066 invasion. The French administered the courts and legal system, which of course was in Norman-French. Some 500 years later when those French terms were translated to English, some of the backwards phrasing like "Attorney General" stuck.

I say we need to stop such nonsense, and follow proper English grammar. He's not a General in the army; he's an Attorney of law. It should be General Attorney. ----- I also think we need to stop saying such hackneyed phrases as "you guys" or "yall" or "youse" and revive the correct plural pronoun which is "ye".

Re:Shoot him.

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, the plural of Attorney General, Attorneys General, is just fun to say.

Second

Re:Shoot him.

[Bigjeff5]

...when those French terms were translated to English, some of the backwards phrasing like "Attorney General" stuck.

That's the part I was blaming youse guys for. ;)

Re:Shoot him.

[rohan972]

Yes I agree voting Oregon's General Attorney* is probably the best course to follow. The problem is that people so rarely get voted-out, its essentially a powerless threat. "Please drop this nonsense or we'll vote you out of office mister!" See? It just doesn't work. He won't get voted out and neither will most of the other bums. It's an ineffectual threat.

The problem being that if the population won't support your action at the ballot box they are unlikely to support your action with the ammo box. The appropriate box to use in that case is the soap box (which is exactly what you are doing anyway, since you posted a comment rather than firing your rifle).

I also think that many of the actions of my government justify their removal by any means possible. The reality is that removing them by lethal force requires widespread agreement among the population. Widespread agreement of the population would mean you could vote them out without violence. A significant difficulty is the attention span of most people. If we ever find a way of removing governments that can be completed in under 15 minutes, those guys are in trouble!

Re:Shoot him.

[Nethemas the Great]

...one could vote out of office the governor who appointed him.

You assume an educated, informed and engaged electorate. Shame on you...

Re:Shoot him.

[Anonymous Coward]

When the government functionaries fear the people for random drive-by shooting, you're in Iraq.

Would you prefer that?

I'm tired of all those wannabe revoluationaries who think shooting officials count as a revolution.

Re:Shoot him.

[DarKnyht]

Essentially it works like this, we have a Constitutional right to bear arms to revolt when the Government becomes oppressive while the Government has a mandated job to put down revolts and maintain law and order. If enough people feel the first needs to happen, then the government will not have the manpower to stop it.

Re:Shoot him.

[dogmatixpsych]

Jefferson did found the Democratic Party but his party is more similar to modern Republicans than modern Democrats, although neither is particularly close. The Democratic party was originally a state's rights party - a small central government with limited powers. The earliest "Republicans" were Federalists wanting a strong central government with more restrictions on states. Now the Democrats are the Federalists and the Republicans are, well, Federalists too but more likely to be in favor of the smaller federal government.

Re:Shoot him.

[riverat1]

We're not talking about actual laws here but just the Oregon DOJ's interpretation of how to apply them. The actual laws are available here (although with the disclaimer that in the case of discrepancies the printed version is the official version).

Re:Shoot him.

[bziman]

I'm a liberal because the First Amendment is dear to me. I vote Democrat for that reason. But the Second Amendment is equally important to me, and you are correct on every point.

Re:Shoot him.

[Anonymous Coward]

The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
-- Often attributed to Jefferson.

Whether said or wrote it anywhere is debatable, but it's plausible if not likely he said something similar-given evidence of other things he was known to have mused. Personally, I believe he would have made that sentence more graceful, which means it's not his, at least directly. Regardless, the essence of that passage does not belie the deeply held personal beliefs and convictions of most of the founders, including Jefferson.

They did not give constitutional protection for revolting, simply because they didn't need to; they instead gave us something much more valuable, constitutional protection of the requisite tools, and the Duty to make change when it's not otherwise possible to do civilly. Will men will heed the call of duty? Who can say.

Re:Shoot him.

[Reziac]

Shouldn't that be something like "Yonder lies the portion for which thou hast the blame" ?? ;)

Re:Shoot him.

[gzipped_tar]

Who are you to define what constitutes "proper English grammar"?

Well, I'm not pushing this question here trying to silence you. In fact I think it's highly likely that you know English much better than I do, for I'm not a native speaker while you are (I guess). It's directed at the general attempt of "revising" languages based on some narrow set of rules. I understand the importance of grammatical rules (would some one possibly please think of the natural-language-processing computer scientists!) but human languages have their own ways beyond "proper rules". Habit, tradition, convenience and consensus are all factors forming the path of a language's evolution.

Natural languages are, well, natural. Just deal with it.

So let me get this right;

[skine]

Instead of paying $25, which helps to recoup the costs of making a book that's almost exclusively used by law firms, or possibly directly challenging the validity of the copyright in court, he takes the passive-aggressive route and posts copyrighted material on the internet for free.

Whether he happens to be right or wrong, there's no way he's going to win.

Re:So let me get this right;

[NotBornYesterday]

passive-aggressive

Or you could call it civil disobedience. He is deliberately calling out the AG so he can hopefully win without the trouble, time, and expense of a court fight.

Re:So let me get this right;

[digitalunity]

Actually, yeah he stands a good chance of winning. The AG would have to be insane to put this in front of a judge, as he would likely be dismissed quickly.

Re:So let me get this right;

[iamhigh]

First, we are talking about a book produced by the state to help lawyers understand the enigmatic laws of the state. That is sad enough. Now I don't like passive-aggressive actions, but the only other options are to pay for something that should be unnecessary and public domain, or to try to follow the laws and get it changed through direct challenge of these laws that are apparently so difficult to understand, therefore requiring you to purchase this book anyways.

Re:So let me get this right;

[Uberbah]

Oh, we got it straight, alright: you're a tool.

Re:So let me get this right;

[worthawholebean]

He can't challenge the validity in court unless he is harmed by the law - he has to have standing to sue. If he gets sued now, he can bring up the issues.

Re:So let me get this right;

[ZOmegaZ]

That all depends on his personal victory conditions. Maybe for him, "win" is "get this information to the public regardless of personal cost". If that's the case, he's already won.

Re:So let me get this right;

[Alien Being]

He already won.

Re:So let me get this right;

[DragonWriter]

Instead of paying $25, which helps to recoup the costs of making a book that's almost exclusively used by law firms, or possibly directly challenging the validity of the copyright in court, he takes the passive-aggressive route and posts copyrighted material on the internet for free.

Usually, you don't have standing to challenge a claim of copyright in court unless (these are illustrative rather than exhaustive):
(1) You are the actual creator of the work, and the claim of copyright is itself therefore an actionable violation of your rights, or
(2) The purported copyright holder is suing you for violating the copyright, and you are interposing the invalidity of the copyright as a reason you shouldn't be held liable.

"Someone else made a bogus claim of a legal right" is not, generally, itself a cause of action on which you can prevail in court. If it were, the courts would be even more clogged than they are now.

What you call the "passive-aggressive" route -- violating a right that someone claims they have and challenging them to enforce it -- is a common way of challenging a legal claim, since it puts the person making the claim in the position of publicly backing down or filing a suit in which you can challenge the validity of the claim.

Re:So let me get this right;

[Psyborgue]

passive-aggressive

Or you could call it civil disobedience. He is deliberately calling out the AG so he can hopefully win without the trouble, time, and expense of a court fight.

Yup. I think people should join in. 10 people doing it is a lot stronger than one. I've already mirrored a copy. If you have web space, why not join in.

Re:So let me get this right;

[geekoid]

um, if he goes to court, he is in all likelihood going to win.
This is why the AG has said he's not going to pursue.

Re:So let me get this right;

[PhreakOfTime]

Oh, I think he will win. If by nothing else than by being left alone.

In my experience, people who try to 'bully' you with a threat of litigation, are usually talking out of their ass, and they know it. They also are operating under the assumption that since they are only saying it to you, that nobody else will hear what a raving jackass they are in their demands...

Exhibit A:

Caton Commercial tried to claim that the public records from the COURTHOUSE were libelous, and were going to sue for criminal damages.

Welcome to the internet, you corrupt old politician.

Re:So let me get this right;

[MobyDisk]

You can't challenge something in court without first having standing. Standing means that you actually have to be affected by something. That's why you can't sue AT&T over the warrantless wiretapping: You must first show that you have standing, which means that you must be one of the people who was wiretapped. I suspect that to challenge this copyright, he would need to violate it first.

he takes the passive-aggressive route

It isn't passive aggressive when you issue a challenge to try and sue him. Passive aggressive would be secretly and anonymously giving copies away to people who need them.

Re:So let me get this right;

[snspdaarf]

"And if 10, 10 people, marched into the Oregon AG's office, sang a bar of 'Alice's Restaurant' and walked out, well, they might think it was a movement."

Re:So let me get this right;

[Anonymous Coward]

add that to the list of things broken about this shitty country. unjust laws harm us all by the very fact we have to live under the threat of such laws.

Re:So let me get this right;

[Anonymous Coward]

Mirrors!
http://notatypewriter.com/random/ORDOJ_PR_Manual/
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jomanc/ORDOJ_PR_Manual/

Of course...

[Stenchwarrior]

..he doesn't want people to know how to use the laws. They wouldn't need to pay a lawyer if such information was made public, right?

Re:Of course...

[jonaskoelker]

..he doesn't want people to know how to use the laws. They wouldn't need to pay a lawyer if such information was made public, right?

Yes they would!

Consider something I guess you know about: programming. All the information you need to get started (and probably even good) is available to the public, much of it at no cost (even more if you get it from "pBay"). Yet very few people solve their programming problems themselves. They get experts to do it for them, because it's more efficient.

(if) The law is public knowledge, people will still want to hire experts, because it's more efficient.

(here's a paraphrased theorem from economics: the optimally allocation of work is reached by making everyone do what they're best at, relative to how good others are; make the guy who's better at law than everybody else a lawyer).

Specialization is good!

To Clarify:

[Monkeedude1212]

They are not trying to "Hide" this information from people, they are trying to get them to pay for it. The third page lists that additional copies may be purchased from the Publishers.

That being said, still pretty bad in my books. I mean the cost should only offset the price of production, and letting it loose on the internet shouldn't cost them money.

This is obviously a profitable document.

Re:To Clarify:

[afidel]

The Supreme Court ruled that poll taxes were illegal because it disenfranchised the poor, I see applying Copyright to laws or legal publications of the state to be the exact same thing.

Re:To Clarify:

[DragonWriter]

The Supreme Court ruled that poll taxes were illegal because it disenfranchised the poor, I see applying Copyright to laws or legal publications of the state to be the exact same thing.

Laws are already not subject to copyright. I don't think you can make a good argument that doing any of the things that are restricted by copyright with regard to other state works is a "fundamental right" the way voting is.

Re:To Clarify:

[afidel]

What do you call the inclusion of the NEC into basically every codified ordinance in the country? It's a Copyrighted work that is included by reference into laws nationwide. It's just an example I happen to be intimately familiar with as I did some home wiring work that the inspector said was not up to section such and such of the NEC 2006 edition. I asked him where I could look up such section and he told me I would have to buy a complete copy of the NEC at a cost of $82.50 as he was not allowed to copy it for me. I'm far from poor but even I balked at paying that kind of money to access a law which I was expected to follow. My choices were to either break the law by not passing inspection, pay someone with access to the text, or purchase the text myself. I see little distinction between that scenario and a poll tax.

Re:To Clarify:

[Anonymous Coward]

The latest NEC is available for viewing online (from the source). If you comply with the latest NEC, you will be compliant with more strict a standard than the older version adopted by your jurisdiction.

Oh, and if that's not good enough, we have these things called *libraries*.

Re:To Clarify:

[afidel]

It IS? Because I could swear that this says the PDF is $82.50 for non-members, the same price as the print edition. My public library didn't have ANY edition of the NEC available and there were no current editions in the entire 5 county area (ok I just re-checked the entire Cleveland Public Library system and there are now a few 2008 editions available but all are marked reference and so non-transferable between branches).

Re:To Clarify:

[Anonymous Coward]

q.v. the "References" and the "External Links" sections --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Electrical_Code

Re:To Clarify:

[DragonWriter]

What do you call the inclusion of the NEC into basically every codified ordinance in the country? It's a Copyrighted work that is included by reference into laws nationwide.

That's a slightly different issue from; I certainly think the inclusion-by-reference of not-available-gratis standards in law and regulation (which is rampant; the example I would usually point to in complaining about this is the ASC X12N Implementation Guides mandated under the HIPAA Transactions and Code Sets regulations, which used to be copyrighted-but-available-gratis due to a subsidy from the government to the publisher, but which haven't been for some time, with new versions which were never gratis are mandated for use from 2012; the complete mandated set of specifications costs something like $2,000, and itself references numerous external code sets which are required to build a correct implementation, and which themselves are in some cases not available gratis) is a real problem, and quite often the fact that the specifications are not available gratis runs counter to the notional purpose of the law or regulation.

What the Crap Oregon?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

First your state develops that absurd vehicle mileage tax system that was discussed yesterday and now your attorney general is trying to copyright a guide to your lawbooks? I thought we Californians were supposed to have the worst vehicle (overbearing emission standards) and copyright (Hollywood's home) laws on the books.

Stop making us look bad by making yourselves look worse. Give us back our position as Number 1 state in "Most Legislation Founded on Dumbfuckery!" Sheesh....

Re:What the Crap Oregon?

[rcamans]

hey beavis - heh heh heh - he said dumbfuckery - heh heh heh

Re:What the Crap Oregon?

[geekoid]

"First your state develops that absurd vehicle mileage tax system that was discussed yesterday"

Wrong. A guy from district 3 is looking at alternative to a gas tax to help recoup loss from improved gas mileage. NO one has develod, implemented or OK'd any such system.

"now your attorney general is trying to copyright a guide to your lawbooks? I"

The Attorney is covering up information from a case.

That's 2 people in Oregon,. so don't go on like the whole state is doing this.

CA emission laws are a good thing.

The only large problem with Ca. laws is the the union the prison gaurds have keep pushing for tought laws and sentences.

Please try to remember the government is the people. And it isn't one large group think hive.

Re:What the Crap Oregon?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess we'll have to stop with the wagon trains now.

Re:What the Crap Oregon?

[oldhack]

That's because they don't get enough rain.

Re:What the Crap Oregon?

[ImprovOmega]

It remains that he developed the system (where system can be defined as a set of rules and processes - not necessarily having a physical analogue). Plus, he gets bonus points for using the word "dumbfuckery" in a humorous and novel way. That makes his point more valid. I would also like to point out that CA emissions laws are stupid. Requiring ethanol additives (burns cleaner!) reduces the efficiency (burns more!) and the net offset is that you're polluting just as much and paying more for the damn fuel for a net gain of we just paid more to do nothing but make ourselves feel smuggishly better.

Re:What the Crap Oregon?

[drinkypoo]

CA emission laws are a good thing.

Some of them are, like the actual emissions restrictions. Some of them are not, like arbitrary equipment restrictions.

The only large problem with Ca. laws is the the union the prison gaurds have keep pushing for tought laws and sentences.

There's a pretty big conflict between CA and federal law right now... Pretty sure it's a problem. Of course, the problem isn't in CA law...

Re:What the Crap Oregon?

[flieghund]

"First your state develops that absurd vehicle mileage tax system that was discussed yesterday"

Wrong. A guy from district 3 is looking at alternative to a gas tax to help recoup loss from improved gas mileage. NO one has develod, implemented or OK'd any such system.

Bzzt. You may want to check the history on the proposal. In fact, such a system was already "developed, implemented and OK'd" in Portland. From http://www.dailyemerald.com/news/ore-rep-floats-mileage-fee-to-replace-gas-tax-1.236118:

"This type of pilot program has already been tested in Oregon, along with a few other states. In November 2007, 260 Portland residents volunteered to have a mileage-tracking device installed in their cars as a VMT [Vehicle Mileage Tax] program trial run."

As the linked article notes, there were tracking issues because it was limited to the state of Oregon and had limited funds; the point of the new proposal is to expand the trial program nationwide so that folks can be tracked (purely for accounting purposes, of course) across state borders. From time to time, it throws out something stupid, too.

That being said, you're right about it not being the entire state of Oregon that has gone mental. Most folks in my home state are good people, whether they're raving liberal city-dwellers or raving conservatives from everywhere else. Oregon has a long history of being very progressive, from beverage container recycling laws to "death with dignity" (assisted suicide).

Does not fly

[mollog]

Nope, not buying it. Especially if it pertains to public policy. Any legal description, guide, index, or other derivative document of law should, by its implied use, be public domain.

Re:Does not fly

[DragonWriter]

Nope, not buying it. Especially if it pertains to public policy. Any legal description, guide, index, or other derivative document of law should, by its implied use, be public domain.

You are welcome to lobby Congress to incorporate that radical provision into copyright law, but I don't think its going to fly. If you restrict it to those when "created by a public entity", you might have a tiny bit better luck, as without that your proposal would deny copyright to privately written legal texts, etc. (Anyhow, rather than exceptions to copyright to the work based on its "implied use", why wouldn't you just create an exception to the exclusive rights of copyright based on the actual use as, essentially, an extension to the existing Fair Use rule? That seems to me to be more sensible.)

But, at any rate, that's not the law as it stands, so even granting (for the sake of argument only) that your proposal ought to be the law, it isn't the law, and so isn't a convincing argument for why this work would be outside the scope of copyright under the law today.

Re:Does not fly

[geekoid]

It's the law for federal documents. None of them are copyrightable.
I would be surprised in this would actually hold up in court, or even go to court becasue what started this and the fact that the assistant is involved in a case the AG is trying to cover up. If they take this to court, not only are they likely to lose* but facts about the other case will come out.

*based on other city agency tnhat ahve to give out public information.
check out Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)6

http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html

Re:Does not fly

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to buy it. Works don't automatically pass into the public domain because they have to do with a law somewhere.

Re:Does not fly

[Anonymous Coward]

Speak for yourself. If I'm on a jury, that which ought to be *is*. Maybe I can't get a conviction based on it (and I'd claim I ought not to--as it's the duty of prosecutors to charge under appropriate laws)--but I can guarantee you a mistrial of juror #5 of 12 says "not guilty" regardless of what's argued.

And if you claim I should do otherwise, you're both a sophist and a coward. And that isn't an argument ad hominem--it's a simple statement of fact.

Re:Does not fly

[DragonWriter]

It's the law for federal documents. None of them are copyrightable.

But not because the logic you posited in GGP regarding "implied use" is incorporated law, but because federal government works themselves are expressly and specifically excluded from copyright.

Re:Does not fly

[assassinator42]

So you want public documents to be retroactively taken out of the public domain? Derivatives of public domain works are copyrightable. You get a bit of a paradox or at least a loophole if you require derivatives of non public domain works to become part of the public domain.

Re:Does not fly

[smoker2]

Well you are an asshat then. Did you forget that copyright applies to open source too ? The authors of a work hold the legal copyright. Or should we allow anybody to reproduce a legal document, edit it willy nilly, then pass it off as the original ? Christ, it's only $25. If you want it free, are you prepared for your taxes to go up ? Somebody has to pay for it. Even your own data when requested under freedom of information attracts a processing fee.

Re:Does not fly

[vegiVamp]

An extension to existing Fair Use rules ? Don't you know that Fair Use is Evil and must be abolished ? Have you learned nothing from the RIAA's valiant struggle against the evil pirates ?

starved beast?

[bzipitidoo]

The govt is acting like a starved beast when they resort to this sort of unofficial tax to get more money. I doubt the lawmakers ever had a debate over it. They may be happy to look the other way as long as it doesn't cause too much trouble. They're such cowards, always looking for ways to sneak in more revenue generation mechanisms and shift costs to make up for falling revenues from well known taxes, such as the gas tax which is NOT indexed to inflation and is regarded as suicidal to touch. Some leadership. It's why we have all these lousy toll road schemes.

Re:starved beast?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have learned that Government(s), in this case meaning the people involved, are convinced it is their Business, their turf; a business to gain and wield power, and for money. People and their needs and wishes, are truly of secondary consideration. I think this is about someone getting uppity and invading on *their* profitable business of running government, not taxes.

Three aspects to copyright

[gurps_npc]

1. Claiming authorship. Not being done here.

2. Claiming sale rights. Again, no sales are being done.

3. Claiming Control rights. In order to enforce this, the controlling party must first specify that they do not want that information released to the public. This has NOT been done and the DA does not have the authority to do this. Only the party that has created them has the authority to do that. The legislative body is the only party that has legal right to object, and only as a whole. I.E. If the state assembly passes a law, then only the state assembly can object to someone printing that law. The DA can NOT steal control over those laws without express command by the state assembly.

Re:Three aspects to copyright

[gurps_npc]

Whoops, I misunderstood the article. Please ignore my stupidity. I did not realize that the state was claiming copyright.

Re:Three aspects to copyright

[geekoid]

RTFA - There is sone trying to sel it ni the AGs office.

You don't have to sell something for it to be copywritten.

Free software is still copywritten.

Government corruption, again.

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. federal and state governments are sometimes extremely corrupt.

Banks and big corporations control the government, not the people. This government arrogance concerning the average citizen is common.

Re:Government corruption, again.

[poetmatt]

It's a natural reaction brought upon by years and years of, well, corruption guised as "governmental". On one hand allowing banks and big corps to control the government is their fault, but on the other, it is also the government's fault for allowing themselves to be controlled by the banks and big corporations. chicken vs egg argument to me?

Screw this.

[Psyborgue]

I'm mirroring it right now. Should be done in an hour or so (slow upload).

Re:Screw this.

[Psyborgue]

Mirror should be completed here in an hour or so.

Re:Screw this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have some more!

http://notatypewriter.com/random/ORDOJ_PR_Manual/
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jomanc/ORDOJ_PR_Manual/

The poster is a state employee?

[syntap]

I assume this professor is a state employee of Oregon as an employee of the University of Oregon... I wonder if he puts his job in danger by opposing his employer like that.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support what he is doing. My question is will the retaliation come in an unexpected direction, a firing based on behavior of a state employee or violation of oath to uphold state laws or something as opposed to any anticipated legal action over the posting itself?

Re:The poster is a state employee?

[profplump]

You can't get fired from the state. At best you can get put into a job with no responsibilities. But you'd have to burn down the building before they'd even consider firing you.

Re:The poster is a state employee?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tenure will give him some protection. But his university has a history of retaliating against whistleblowers. Considering that he has been using the public-records laws to ask hard questions about administrators, I'd say yeah, he's putting himself on the line to do this.

Re:The poster is a state employee?

[soundguy]

I assume this professor is a state employee of Oregon as an employee of the University of Oregon... I wonder if he puts his job in danger by opposing his employer like that.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support what he is doing. My question is will the retaliation come in an unexpected direction, a firing based on behavior of a state employee or violation of oath to uphold state laws or something as opposed to any anticipated legal action over the posting itself?

I wonder if his ass is powdered and diapered by federal whistle-blower laws? Might be a stretch.

Re:The poster is a state employee?

[geekoid]

False.

I have worked with people the were fired.

It's harder to fire someone becasue you need a process, like any civilized organization should have.

Your not going to get fired for speaking your mind and having a different opinion. Something the Private sector could learn from.

Re:The poster is a state employee?

[John Hasler]

> I assume this professor is a state employee of Oregon as an employee of the
> University of Oregon... I wonder if he puts his job in danger by opposing his
> employer like that.

Google "tenure" and "academic freedom". If they were to try to fire him over this they'd get both a lawsuit and a strike and lose both.

Re:The poster is a state employee?

[Anonymous Coward]

The AG is the least of his worries. Harbaugh uses the public records laws
to post embarrassing information about the university administration, including
contract details and retirement packages. While the administration would love
to fire him, there isn't much they can do.

Re:The poster is a state employee?

[L4t3r4lu5]

All the more reason to watch the outcome closely.

finally the spot light is off of SC

[raymansean]

No really this stuff would not even fly in SC.

A short Oregon History of the law...

[QuantumRiff]

Even more Ironic: Many of these came about due to complaints from the media, caused by one School district.

A few years ago, the publicly elected board of a very small rural school district in southern Oregon decided to investigate some reports of fraud, embezzlement, unfair contract favoritism, and lots of other nasty allegations about some employees at the school. Not the teachers, but, if I remember right, the food service, facilities, etc. So the board hired someone they liked to investigate. (He happened to also be the school board's lawyer). So he did his investigation, and when they did the presentation to the board, they kicked everyone out of the room, chatted for a few minutes, and let everyone back in.. then the board said "there was nothing in the report that showed any truth the rumors". So people asked to see the damn report. And the board claimed it was Attorney client privilege under state of Oregon law, which is not available under the open records laws.

Basically, the Gist of why every newspaper and TV channel (and a bunch of citizens) were filing objections, was the district was arguing that even if they pay a lawyer to do anything for the district (even write a book report) that could be considered client-attorney privilege, if the board decides.

Well, that and the people were pissed that the Small school district, that had huge money problems, had a roof collapse in a school they couldn't afford to fix, etc.. spent huge amounts of money, appealing rulings too keep secret a report paid for with tax payer dollars, about how tax payer dollars were potentially being abused. (I don't miss living in the small towns)
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A126655.htm

Re:A short Oregon History of the law...

[commodore64_love]

I would have stolen the report. If my taxpayer dollars are paying for it, I'm going to look at it. (And make copies.)

Re:A short Oregon History of the law...

[belmolis]

We've got a similar situation here (Prince George, British Columbia). As is common in Northern Canada, we have no local police force. Instead, the city contracts for police services with the RCMP. A while back, there were allegations of problems due to the romantic relationship between the head of the RCMP detachment and a senior city employee whose duties included working with the RCMP. City Council commissioned an investigation and reviewed the resulting report in a closed session. Shortly thereafter, the report was leaked to the press. A few weeks ago one of our city councilors, Brian Skakun, was charged criminally with leaking the report. In American terms, the offense is a misdemeanor, but nonetheless it is unheard of for criminal charges to brought for this, and there is a great deal of support for him, including a defense fund.

Government copyright & license

[mwvdlee]

Government documents (from any government) may be copyrighted, but they must come with a standard license allowing it's citizens to use the documents however they want.

Re:Government copyright & license

[DragonWriter]

Government documents (from any government) may be copyrighted, but they must come with a standard license allowing it's citizens to use the documents however they want.

"must"? Based on...what, exactly? Or when you say "they must", do you just mean "I would prefer that they"?

Didn't the Supreme Court already outlaw this?

[Virtucon]

I thought the Supreme Court had ruled that laws could not be copyrighted? I realize that in some municipalities purchase law boilerplates and adopt them for general practices. There was a case in Texas that I recall
the Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal to copyright laws.

Re:Didn't the Supreme Court already outlaw this?

[DragonWriter]

I thought the Supreme Court had ruled that laws could not be copyrighted?

Maybe, but this isn't about a law being copyrighted, its about a book about the law (not the law itself) produced by an executive branch agency of a State being copyrighted.

Re:Didn't the Supreme Court already outlaw this?

[Virtucon]

Thanks for that clarification however I'd still argue that works of the state belong to the people and aren't subject to copyright restrictions. But then again I only play a lawyer on TV.

Re:Didn't the Supreme Court already outlaw this?

[John Hasler]

> I'd still argue that works of the state belong to the people and aren't
> subject to copyright restrictions.

That's a moral argument, not a legal one. In the USA works of the Federal goverment are not protected by copyright but the state governments can enforce copyright on their works under some circumstances if their own laws permit it. There is some case law that indicates that actual legislation may not be protected by copyright but this is a book about the law, not the law itself.

Re:Didn't the Supreme Court already outlaw this?

[DragonWriter]

Thanks for that clarification however I'd still argue that works of the state belong to the people and aren't subject to copyright restrictions.

Works of a state government belong to the people of the state collectively. The people of the state are represented by the state government, who is the legal owner of the copyright.

If they weren't subject to copyright, works of the state government would be owned by the world at large, not the people of the state.

(That being said, it is less often the case that there is a a state is acting in its constituents real interests by exercising copyrights in a particularly restrictive way than would be the case for a private business entity doing the same thing.)

Re:what

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh?

Win on the law or win in the public arena?

[davidwr]

If this goes to federal court, the AG will win, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory.

By taking it to court, the AG will lose the battle for public opinion and possibly in Congress when Congress carves out an exception to prevent this kind of idiocy.

Personally, I think the AG should come out and say "of course I am claiming copyright on behalf of the people of Oregon, how else am I going to protect it from being mis-used? Oh, and by the way, I'm licensing it under [insert popular free license here]."

Title 17 Chap 1 Section 5

[doas777]

per http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html:
 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works
Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.

that says it all. Govt work is free as in beer.

Re:Title 17 Chap 1 Section 5

[John Hasler]

> that says it all.

Only about works of the the Federal government. It does not apply to the states.

Ownership Chain

[pgn674]

Maybe it can be argued that the state of Oregon owns the copyright to the book, and the citizens of Oregon own Oregon, therefor the citizens of Oregon own the copyright to the book? That argument would be valid, but maybe not sound.

Re:Ownership Chain

[value_added]

and the citizens of Oregon own Oregon

Spoken like a Proud American!

No doubt you believe that buying a house/land and receiving a deed is a grant of sovereignty over your homestead?

You might want to brush up on your history, and enroll in a Law 101 type of course. Things aren't quite what they seem, and terms like "ownership" often have very different meanings than the vernacular.

Try even getting a copy of the laws

[Locke2005]

Oregon publishes a paper copy of all the Oregon statutes. All police officers, lawyers, and judges have it as a reference. I wanted one to keep in my car, so I could immediately look up any infractions they accused me of committing. Guess what? It is not available to the general public. I asked my lawyer, the DMV, and the Ombudsman in Salem; nobody could tell me where to obtain a printed copy of the oregon statutes! Fortunately, these ARE available online (and in law libraries), but I still think they should make it a little easier for citizens to get a copy of the statutes, since the legal system assumes we already know all of the statutes, and we can be deprived of our liberty and money at any time if we fail to abide by them!

Re:Try even getting a copy of the laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what? It is not available to the general public. I asked my lawyer, the DMV, and the Ombudsman in Salem; nobody could tell me where to obtain a printed copy of the oregon statutes!

Fire your lawyer, he's a moron. Goes without saying for DMV.

The Oregon Legislative Counsel (http://www.lc.state.or.us) sells the official 21 volume set of ORS for $390, or individual sections fro $55 each.

This took about five minutes to find using Google.

Isn't he a state employee?

[kenj0418]

Isn't the University of Oregon a part of the State of Oregon? - Isn't the professor a state employee? So Oregon is trying to sue itself for infringing on itself? (On top of the overall stupid-ness of this claim in the first place)

Public mean other people can copy, take...

[Neanderthal Ninny]

You can't copyright public material and legal documents, otherwise it wouldn't be public.
 

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

"What" indeed. Are you Sicilian?

[WED Fan]

The AG, who previously pledged to improve responses to public-records requests, has not responded yet.

The above from TFS reads like it was written by the guy that wrote:

Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

So, clearly, while the post is "off topic", it obviously can't be because the expression "what" is a clear explanation of the writers intent to express his utter incredulity upon reading the TFS.

Re:"What" indeed. Are you Sicilian?

[slinches]

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Re:"What" indeed. Are you Sicilian?

[matt_hs]

Wait til I get going!

Now, where was I?

Making laws unavailable

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

Law is the law and should be in the public domain, you cannot make laws and copyright them and deny people access. That is a violation of "Human Rights" and tilts the balance of power to Law Enforcement who can just do what they like to suit themselves and lock anyone up. It is no different than International Terrorism Laws, whereby you can get locked up without trial for not knowing the law. I can just see this discussion going on forever until it is overturned. Mind you, Oregon is a Police State as I understand which makes the story even more credible.

Times like these are the reason we have tenure.

[jeko]

Yeah, yeah, I know, tenure is supposed to ensure academic freedom, but actions like this are a useful by-product. In every group, you need at least a few people to play court jester, tweak some noses and tell the truth, before we all drink the kool-aid and drown in the BS.

I know we've gone off the deep end when a public servant is trying to extend copyright over a publicy-funded brochure and the Law.

Sekrit Code

[Anonymous Coward]

Dan Brown fans search the document for demonic clues...

Nice try.

[Radical Moderate]

I work for a public Oregon university, and I know plenty of people who have been fired. Now if he has tenure it gets tricky, but that's a small minority of state employees.

This has been happening for some time...

[david in brasil]

I'm too lazy to look up citations, but this has been going on with fire codes and other engineering codes for a while. The National Fire Protection Association writes the National Electrical Code pertaining to electrical installations in buildings. The NEC is protected under copyright. States then adopt it wholesale as local fire codes. The copyright stays intact, as I recall, resulting in a state regulation that's covered by copyright. I remember reading that mechanical engineering codes drawn up by ASME were treated the same.

Make a FOIA request for the manual itself

[mysidia]

And re-post the transcript of the document received from the FOIA request, as journalists often do....

Work for hire?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is this law copyright to?

To the state, which we are all members of, thus we all have permission to view it?

Shouldn't any law a government worker makes be considered the property of the taxpayers, a work for hire?

Re: Obama Care

[danknight]

I don't care if you're left or right health care 'reform' was one of Obama's main election platforms so I think ObamaCare is a fitting term.

The tide is turning on this one.

[systemeng]

In the 4th circuit, this has been overturned. See Veeck vs. the Southern Building Code Congress. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Veeck_v._Southern_Building_Code_Congress_Int'l,_Inc.

Re: Obama Care

[the_mushroom_king]

Nah, it's just Right Wing WARRRGGARRRBBBBLLL. But, thanks for playing! Please accept this Glenn Beck coffee mug as a consolation prize. *Que Wheel of Fortune music*

Make a torrent

[sburjak]

Someone should make a torrent and see what happens..

Re: Obama Care

[Mithyx]

I don't care if you're left or right health care 'reform' was one of Obama's main election platforms so I think ObamaCare is a fitting term.

True, but it still marks GP as a right-winger who wants to give it a bad name. Saying "ObamaCare" makes it sound like it's his pet project. It doesn't sound as positive as health care reform or something along those lines.

The Whole Friggin Article is a Troll!

[Anonymous Coward]

Meta-absurdity? Really?

Quite the self-indulgent posting, IMHO. (As is mine, I realize that...)

PS - This comment is copyrighted. All uses restricted.

who pays for it?

[saiha]

Ok so its copyright, that's fine. But how could that possibly restrict access to the constituent? Unless this is classified data it seems like it would be illegal to prevent taxpayers from viewing _any_ government document as long as they make a proper request.

So we must press on...

[Nephrite]

...and demand that the principle "ignorance of law is not an excuse for breaking it" must be abolished.

So that's why you have a two-party system!

[jonaskoelker]

There are no good guys in politics. They merely use those labels [Democrat, Republican] to cut down the number of people yelling at them by half.

Now I clearly see the benefit of a two-party system. If you had, say, six parties, the politicians would have five sixths of the electorate yelling at them instead of only one half.

Re:So that's why you have a two-party system!

[dkleinsc]

On the flip side, thanks to plurality voting in the US you'd also have candidates winning with the support of less than 20% of the electorate (which means less than about 10% of the total population). I don't think that's exactly an improvement.

Re:So that's why you have a two-party system!

[Danse]

On the flip side, thanks to plurality voting in the US you'd also have candidates winning with the support of less than 20% of the electorate (which means less than about 10% of the total population). I don't think that's exactly an improvement.

I think it would be. We'd get a lot more choices that way and combined with some sort of ranked voting system, could represent the wishes of the people better than the retarded system we have now where the least-liked candidate often wins whenever a third candidate enters the race.

Re:So that's why you have a two-party system!

[painandgreed]

Well, we do have more than two parties. There are no shortage of political parties in the US and I don't think I've ever voted for a presidential election where I didn't have at least four people to choose from. I think it has more to deal with the "winner take all" type system we have. In such a system, the parties will adopt other party platforms until you have two parties which have adopted opposite stances on the main issues. In a Parlimentary system or one where positions being voted upon are divided up between parties by percentage of votes, you usually seem to have a wider number of parties who can pander to special issues because they can still get in with a lower percentage of votes.

A benefit and problem with the "two party system" is that when one wins, it tends to have a majority and a "mandate". Good because the ruling party was put in by a majority who feel that the current government is the one they wanted. Bad because they tend to try and take their mandate and run by using their 51% and an excuse to steamroll the other 49%.

Re:So that's why you have a two-party system!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what multipartism means - bipartism is when 2 parties have a monopoly, legal or not, on the political system (80-90% ish)

Re: Obama Care

[nog_lorp]

As of yesterday, we hit 4,344 US military deaths in Iraq since 2003.

In 2004, there were 83,000 preventable deaths in hospitals due to negligence or malpractice within the United States.

Get your fucking priorities in order.

Re: Obama Care

[Rob the Bold]

I don't care if you're left or right health care 'reform' was one of Obama's main election platforms so I think ObamaCare is a fitting term.

I see what you're saying, but since in practice only right-wingers use term, it is a useful shibboleth to tell who's who.

Cartoon evil is real

[GameboyRMH]

Not defending Ayn Rand here (haven't read the books, and the reviews and bits that I have read aren't encouraging me to), but cartoon evil is real, and common. It can be found in bad neighborhoods and seedy used car dealerships. People who know they are harming others but do it for personal gain. The only difference between IRL cartoon evil and Snidely Whiplash is that the former is in it for the money and the latter just wants to ruin Dudley Do-Right's day.

Re: Blame outsourcing?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in Oregon, the government laws/rules that I looked at were outsourced to private printing companies. I suspect they then claim copyright to guarantee they at least get paid for set up and some profit.

I don't know why everything isn't just put online, with an option to request a printed version from some printer. Or just ask Kinko's or someone to print one up for you. Probably the political good 'ole boy network in practice.

Re: Obama Care

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many of the civilian deaths on the other side were preventable by executing a reasonable foreign policy?

Oh wait, I'm sure that doesn't matter to a self-centered, jingiost American flag-waving moron like you.

Re: Obama Care

[Epi-man]

As of yesterday, we hit 4,344 US military deaths in Iraq since 2003.

In 2004, there were 83,000 preventable deaths in hospitals due to negligence or malpractice within the United States.

And could you please enlighten me as to how Washington DC is going to suddenly prevent 100% of these "preventable" deaths? If a doctor is going to practice "malpractice" medicine, where in the legislation are the statements that are magically going to make them stop?

Re: Obama Care

[Epi-man]

I don't care if you're left or right health care 'reform' was one of Obama's main election platforms so I think ObamaCare is a fitting term.

I see what you're saying, but since in practice only right-wingers use term, it is a useful shibboleth to tell who's who.

Hold the gosh darn phone! So if you are not in favor of having the government run health care, you now have to also be a bible thumping, gun toting wacko as well? I didn't sign up for that, so I guess I have to now like having the government run health care based on its wonderful track record? Get your polarized glasses off and realize that just because you don't like one (gigantic, gargantuan) thing Obama is up to, doesn't put you in the same camp with all the proper "right wing" wackos out there.

Re: Obama Care

[Xaositecte]

Historically, politicians are pretty shitty deciders of military policy. Let the Generals have a great deal more free reign, and we're likely to see better results.

Unless you're talking about how he hasn't followed up at all on all those promises to get us out of Iraq he made during the Campaign. That's a pretty legitimate complaint.

Re: Obama Care

[Xaositecte]

Some people are "not in favor if having the government run health care"
Some people "Use the word obamacare"

The groups overlap somewhat, but they're not equivalent. You fail at logic.

Re: Obama Care

[Rob the Bold]

I see what you're saying, but since in practice only right-wingers use term, it is a useful shibboleth to tell who's who.

Hold the gosh darn phone! So if you are not in favor of having the government run health care, you now have to also be a bible thumping, gun toting wacko as well?

Well, to be fair (to me, that is), I only suggested that those who say "ObamaCare" are right-wingers. They might be right-wing only on national health policy, or only on government social programs, or perhaps right-wing in a broader sense. You brought up the other stuff. [sarcasm]I certainly never called anyone a raving, toothless, illiterate, inbred, snake-handling cracker![/sarcasm]

You inferred the wacko part. I am glad to see that you are sensitive about this, though. Not because I've got anything against you. Actually, I appreciate your response. Because there are a lot of loudmouth wacko crackers out there that seem to be venting a great deal of rage which is -- in their words -- "not just about healthcare". People who the talking heads -- especially on one network -- refer to as "regular, hard working, real Americans".

No, I'm happy to read your protest against being lumped together with the "Obama must be stopped at all costs" crowd. I wish more Americans would come out as saying they aren't out just to oppose any change to the status quo, but who would be willing to offer constructive options and ideas for fixing a longstanding national problem.

Re: Obama Care

[Danse]

Historically, politicians are pretty shitty deciders of military policy. Let the Generals have a great deal more free reign, and we're likely to see better results.

Unless you're talking about how he hasn't followed up at all on all those promises to get us out of Iraq he made during the Campaign. That's a pretty legitimate complaint.

They set up an exit strategy, informed largely by the commanders in Iraq. What more do people want? We should just drop everything and leave the country to devolve into an even bigger mess we'll have to deal with later? Seems like we're doing the only thing we can responsibly do to get out in a reasonable amount of time.

Re: Obama Care

[Xaositecte]

Even under Bush, pulling out of Iraq has been scheduled for "about a year from now" for the past couple years.

I spent a few years in the military watching the lack of progress first-hand, and hearing about promised pull-outs. I'm out now, and the G.I. bill is pretty sweet, but I'm still a little bitter on the whole issue is all.

Re: Obama Care

[Danse]

I don't care if you're left or right health care 'reform' was one of Obama's main election platforms so I think ObamaCare is a fitting term.

I see what you're saying, but since in practice only right-wingers use term, it is a useful shibboleth to tell who's who.

Hold the gosh darn phone! So if you are not in favor of having the government run health care, you now have to also be a bible thumping, gun toting wacko as well? I didn't sign up for that, so I guess I have to now like having the government run health care based on its wonderful track record? Get your polarized glasses off and realize that just because you don't like one (gigantic, gargantuan) thing Obama is up to, doesn't put you in the same camp with all the proper "right wing" wackos out there.

First of all, there's not likely to be anything "government-run" about the final bill. The public plan is a way to ensure that an option is open to everyone, but probably won't end up in the final bill. Something needs to be done to make sure that the insurance companies have to compete and can't just cherry-pick the healthiest people. Health care is one area where non-profit really appeals to me. I'm not sure the service offered by insurance companies is really worth anywhere near what it costs. If that money went directly to the health care professionals with a minimal amount of bureaucratic overhead that these companies create, it would probably serve us better. We're going to end up paying for care for everyone anyway, might as well strip out as much unnecessary stuff as possible.

I don't understand most of the complaints against the proposed changes that Obama wants. You've got your Joe Wilsons that are scared to death that a Mexican is going to get a free immunization or something, completely missing the point that these people end up in emergency rooms and we pay even more for them anyway. Immunize them all and give them preventative care. It's cheaper for me that way.

Then there's the issue of seniors and others who wouldn't give up their government-run Medicare and Medicaid for anything, and nobody in Congress is going to even suggest that they should.

Oh, and let's not forget the arguments from the right about the horror stories of socialized medicine in Canada and Europe. Somehow they manage to completely forget that we have more than our share of horror stories of people getting denied coverage or dropped completely when they get sick based on some bit of info that the insurance company conveniently didn't notice when the person was still healthy and paying them every month. People losing coverage when they get laid off. People who can't afford any insurance or can't get insurance because they have an existing condition. These people just end up in the emergency rooms repeatedly until they die. Guess who pays through the nose so that they can live and die in such a horrible way?

Then there's the argument that they don't want anyone telling them who their provider should be. Aside from the fact that nothing proposed would do that, how many people out there actually get a choice now anyway? Only those with a ton of money, that's who. The rest of us get to go with whoever our company made a deal with, or try to find something cheap enough on our own (good luck with that), or go without and rely on the taxpayers to pick up the tab when we end up in the hospital.

There's not a lot of good answers out there, but the one thing that we definitely can't accept is a situation like we have now where the private companies are rewarded for denying as much care as possible, and where you can't even know for sure what you'll be covered for outside of routine procedures because even lawyers often can't figure out what a policy would cover. We pay more than anyone else, but we don't have better outcomes in general than those that pay a lot less. Seems like there's a lot of inefficiency and probably fraud in the system. The difference between the wholesale prices that insurance companies pay and what I would have to pay on my own is absolutely insane too.

ok.. that got long... sorry bout that...

Re: Obama Care

[Abcd1234]

So if you are not in favor of having the government run health care

Umm... I'm not sure what you're talking about, here, given that no one has actually proposed a system by which the government would run health care.

People who conflate Obama's plan with full-on socialized medicine? Yes, those people are, in fact, "bible thumping, gun toting wackos", or some variation thereof.

Re: Obama Care

[Rob the Bold]

Me fail logic?

!possible

God, I hate the term "fail" as it's used by the teeny set -- now tits or get off my lawn!

Re: Obama Care

[nog_lorp]

Are you kidding me? If they prevent 4% of those, they saved more lives then preventing September 11th.

Again:

Get your fucking priorities in order.

Re: Obama Care

[nog_lorp]

You best be trollin'. Jingoist? I'm saying we should spend the trillions upon trillions we dump into killing foreign civilians into saving our own.

Oh, and iraqbodycount puts the number of civilian deaths since March 2003 at between 93k and 102k. So still not significant compared to things like infections from unclean hospitals, or deaths from septicemia.