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

Linje 27:

The decision means that you can update a database once every 15th year and the entire database will still have database protection under the Copyright Act. That includes the Norwegian governments own websites (Stortinget.no, Regjeringen.no etc.) containing public information and all other websites.

The Supreme Court did not consider the consequences deleting Supreme Court decisions will have for individuals, democracy, the rule of law and society. They neighter considered whether Lovdata is a public sector body, the fact that Lovdata was the exclusive recipient of Supreme Court decisions until 2008 (monopoly) or whether the [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009 EU Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive] is properly incorporated into Norwegian laws. Nor did Rettspraksis.no's arguments for being exempted from legal costs got an assessment, cf. the [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section20-2 Dispute Act (2005) Section 20-2 (3)].

The Supreme Court did not consider the consequences deleting Supreme Court decisions will have for individuals, democracy, the rule of law and society, cf. the [https://lovdata.no/lov/1999-05-21-30/emke/a10 European Convention on Human Rights Article 10 (2)], freedom of information. They neighter considered whether Lovdata is a public sector body, the fact that Lovdata was the exclusive recipient of Supreme Court decisions until 2008 (monopoly) or whether the [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009 EU Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive] is properly incorporated into Norwegian laws. Nor did Rettspraksis.no's arguments for being exempted from legal costs got an assessment, cf. the [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section20-2 Dispute Act (2005) Section 20-2 (3)].

Read more about the Rettspraksis-case here:

@@ Linje 27: / Linje 27: @@
 The decision means that you can update a database once every 15th year and the entire database will still have database protection under the Copyright Act. That includes the Norwegian governments own websites (Stortinget.no, Regjeringen.no etc.) containing public information and all other websites.
-The Supreme Court did not consider the consequences deleting Supreme Court decisions will have for individuals, democracy, the rule of law and society. They neighter considered whether Lovdata is a public sector body, the fact that Lovdata was the exclusive recipient of Supreme Court decisions until 2008 (monopoly) or whether the [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009 EU Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive] is properly incorporated into Norwegian laws. Nor did Rettspraksis.no's arguments for being exempted from legal costs got an assessment, cf. the [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section20-2 Dispute Act (2005) Section 20-2 (3)].
+The Supreme Court did not consider the consequences deleting Supreme Court decisions will have for individuals, democracy, the rule of law and society, cf. the [https://lovdata.no/lov/1999-05-21-30/emke/a10 European Convention on Human Rights Article 10 (2)], freedom of information. They neighter considered whether Lovdata is a public sector body, the fact that Lovdata was the exclusive recipient of Supreme Court decisions until 2008 (monopoly) or whether the [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009 EU Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive] is properly incorporated into Norwegian laws. Nor did Rettspraksis.no's arguments for being exempted from legal costs got an assessment, cf. the [https://lovdata.no/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-90/§section20-2 Dispute Act (2005) Section 20-2 (3)].
 Read more about the Rettspraksis-case here: