Pretty ridiculous. I mean I get that annotations add value but if they are required an annotated version should be available to all citizens. Malamud's fighting a good fight here, hats off.<p><i>cough, cough</i> I wonder if the free version of the law follows all accessibility regulations. <i>cough, cough</i>
It's technically fine as it is right now.<p>What needs to happen is some bold individual needs to intentionally lose a criminal case because they didn't have access to the annotated texts.<p>Then it becomes a due process issue and can probably get pushed to the US Supreme Court.
I do wonder what's cheaper - to allow the publisher to recoup costs in this way or for the state to pay for the service up front? It's troubling though, that such a concern would somehow be more important than ensuring all citizens have open and unfettered access to the law.<p>It's especially galling that local governments routinely incorporate copyrighted "model codes" into law. These model codes are created by unelected, unaccountable groups that have their own agendas. You also end up paying to get a copy of important things such as plumbing/electric codes.
If I need a apply for a license to read the law, can I also claim that I need to be licensed in order to be actually bound by the law?<p>Obviously I cannot, but the absurdity of the idea that I can be legally bound by something that is not freely available to me is striking.
I would have thought that this could be challenged under the 14th Amendment (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause</a>). "Due process" must surely include being able to find out what laws might apply to you, and a paywall would seem to breach that.