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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[harlows_monkeys]

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

Works of Federal government.

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

[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

[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

[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

[sgarringer]

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

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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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?

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....

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

[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

[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 ?

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.

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?

[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:Screw this.

[Psyborgue]

Mirror should be completed here in an hour or so.

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: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: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

"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: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

[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: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: 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.

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.

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.