Souce: Katherine Mangu-Ward | September 3, 2008, 3:40pm

CA code In California, the law is copyrighted. Meaning copying and distribution are limited. Openness crusader Carl Malamud is displeased by this. So he's trying to get sued.

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

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

Listen to a pretty good, anecdote-packed Google talk by Malamud, who forced the SEC to put their corporate filings online in 1994, here.

Via Tim Kirk

To purchase a digital copy of the California code costs $1,556, or $2,315 for a printed version.

If ignorance of the law is no excuse, it's shouldn't cost 2 grand to find out what the hell it says.

"If ignorance of the law is no excuse, it's shouldn't cost 2 grand to find out what the hell it says."

No Shit hu? what a crock!

This is not an unusual practice. I deal with building codes all over North America, and I can't figure out why they are so hard to access. It is crucial information, and is not always available in a digital format, and it always must be purchased (and it's not cheap).
What I'm wondering is ... hasn't this already been paid for by the taxpayers?

What I'm wondering is ... hasn't this already been paid for by the taxpayers?

In all seriousness, I've looked through Arizonas laws both online and at the library. It's freaking huge. Charging $2000 for a current set would actually seem reasonable.

The taxpayers probably pay for the copies that are designated for public use and reference. But if you want your own personal copy, no, the taxpayers aren't paying.

But that's physical copies. There's no good reason for that with digital, since the copies cost nothing and the government's information is public domain.

"But that's physical copies. There's no good reason for that with digital, since the copies cost nothing and the government's information is public domain."

Really? If the State of California sues Carl Malamud, then they would seem to think otherwise. Why would government information be public domain? Does copyright law say so? Or is it case law?

I'm just asking for clarification, since somewhere along the line I missed the class on government and public domain.

§ 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.

-----

Revision Notes:

The effect of section 105 is intended to place all works of the United States Government, published or unpublished, in the public domain. This means that the individual Government official or employee who wrote the work could not secure copyright in it or restrain its dissemination by the Government or anyone else, but it also means that, as far as the copyright law is concerned, the Government could not restrain the employee or official from disseminating the work if he or she chooses to do so. The use of the term “work of the United States Government” does not mean that a work falling within the definition of that term is the property of the U.S. Government.

For a useful analysis of the widespread problem of claiming copyright on public domain works, see Jason Mazzone’s article, “Copyfraud,” published by New York University. It is available for (free) download here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787244