HR-2019-1725-A-English: Forskjell mellom sideversjoner

Linje 15:

|The case concerned a second-tier appeal against an interim measure prohibiting, among other things, the publication of Supreme Court rulings extracted from Lovdata’s databases.

The background was that a group of citizens startet a campaign towards Norwegian authorities by publishing over 40,0000 Supreme Court decisions on Rettspraksis.no. This was to mark that it is a democratic problem when the State puts Norway's legal sources behind a paywall, grant Lovdata a monopoly and let them have exclusive rights. (Lovdata is a "private" foundation established and ~~funded~~ by the State)

The background was that a group of citizens startet a campaign towards Norwegian authorities by publishing over 40,0000 Supreme Court decisions on Rettspraksis.no. This was to mark that it is a democratic problem when the State puts Norway's legal sources behind a paywall, grant Lovdata a monopoly and let them have exclusive rights. (Lovdata is a "private" foundation established, funded and controlled by the State)

The Lovdata Foundation waived most of the original claim in the second round in County Court. Lovdata accepted that their original allegation of hacking was incorrect. Following this, it was agreed that Rettspraksis.no could freely use the contents of the Lovdata 2002 compact disc (1836-2002), which fell outside the database rights protected under the Copyright Act, and that decisions taken from the courts' own website (2008-2018) fell outside Lovdata's domain. To sharpen the case for the Supreme Court, Rettspraksis.no chose not to appeal the question of short summaries being intellectual property, which has nevertheless been a derived question in the case. What remained was a dispute over Supreme Court decisions from the years 2003-2007 and question about legal costs.

@@ Linje 15: / Linje 15: @@
 |The case concerned a second-tier appeal against an interim measure prohibiting, among other things, the publication of Supreme Court rulings extracted from Lovdata’s databases.
-The background was that a group of citizens startet a campaign towards Norwegian authorities by publishing over 40,0000 Supreme Court decisions on Rettspraksis.no. This was to mark that it is a democratic problem when the State puts Norway's legal sources behind a paywall, grant Lovdata a monopoly and let them have exclusive rights. (Lovdata is a "private" foundation established and funded by the State)
+The background was that a group of citizens startet a campaign towards Norwegian authorities by publishing over 40,0000 Supreme Court decisions on Rettspraksis.no. This was to mark that it is a democratic problem when the State puts Norway's legal sources behind a paywall, grant Lovdata a monopoly and let them have exclusive rights. (Lovdata is a "private" foundation established, funded and controlled by the State)
 The Lovdata Foundation waived most of the original claim in the second round in County Court. Lovdata accepted that their original allegation of hacking was incorrect. Following this, it was agreed that Rettspraksis.no could freely use the contents of the Lovdata 2002 compact disc (1836-2002), which fell outside the database rights protected under the Copyright Act, and that decisions taken from the courts' own website (2008-2018) fell outside Lovdata's domain. To sharpen the case for the Supreme Court, Rettspraksis.no chose not to appeal the question of short summaries being intellectual property, which has nevertheless been a derived question in the case. What remained was a dispute over Supreme Court decisions from the years 2003-2007 and question about legal costs.