to it, the law is clearly in the public domain.[1] PRO’s concluding remarks underscore that any rule in the case at hand must respect the public’s need for full and unfettered access to the law.[2]
Bearing these concerns in mind, this Court must consider whether the I-Codes as Adopted are “the law.” In one sense, the answer to this question seems almost entirely obvious; the I-Codes as Adopted are literally state and local laws. But these laws incorporate significant amounts of material authored by a private entity rather than by government officials empowered to
- ↑ Indeed, the Government Edicts doctrine actually broadens the scope of the public domain beyond the law itself, encompassing even materials that do not have the force of law (such as legislative history and judicial concurrences or dissents).
- ↑ The following passage specifically emphasizes the point: “Georgia minimizes the [] annotations as non-binding and non-authoritative, but that description undersells their practical significance. Imagine a Georgia citizen interested in learning his legal rights and duties. If he reads the economy-class version of the Georgia Code available online, he will see laws requiring political candidates to pay hefty qualification fees (with no indigency exception), criminalizing broad categories of consensual sexual conduct, and exempting certain key evidence in criminal trials from standard evidentiary limitations -- with no hint that important aspects of those laws have been held unconstitutional by the Georgia Supreme Court. … Meanwhile, first-class readers with access to the annotations will be assured that these laws are, in crucial respects, unenforceable relics that the legislature has not bothered to narrow or repeal. … If everything short of statutes and opinions were copyrightable, then States would be free to offer a whole range of premium legal works for those who can afford the extra benefit. A State could monetize its entire suite of legislative history. With today’s digital tools, States might even launch a subscription or pay-per-law service. … And citizens, attorneys, nonprofits, and private research companies would have to cease all copying, distribution, and display of those works or risk severe and potentially criminal penalties. … The less bold among us would have to think twice before using official legal works that illuminate the law we are all presumed to know and understand.” PRO, 140 S.Ct. at 1512–13.
24
