Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T16:16:53.301Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Permanent Digital Legal Information: Disappearing URLs and Preservation of Digital Objects Cited in Court Decisions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2019

Sasha Skenderija
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The recent transformation of legal information has led to more drastic consequences in law than in some other fields. As electronic resources become more prevalent and available, courts begin citing to them. The emerging digital-born information and the new network models of communication such as Law Blogs and Wikipedia have already acquired a certain status, being cited by court decisions. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court recently cited a videotape in its decision of Scott v. Harris (2007), saying “it speaks for itself,” and included it in the opinion as an attachment.

Unfortunately, like many other government entities, the courts have not taken precautions to make sure that the materials they cite remain stable and available to the public for long term access. This is so, even though “no one is supposed to ignore the law.” What happens when the materials one relies on disappear?

This paper examines the serious implications that could arise from this situation. It will also examine the challenges, new roles and possible course of action for law libraries and librarians in ensuring the availability of digital objects in the legal field far in the future.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Legal Information , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , Winter 2009 , pp. 316 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by the International Association of Law Libraries. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 1 Cases Citing Legal Blogs - Updated List at: http://31epiphany.typepad.com/31_epiphany/2006/08/cases_citing_le.html. Last visited on March 11, 2010.Google Scholar

2 Cohen, Noam (January 29, 2007, Section C). “Courts Turn to Wikipedia, but Selectively,” New York Times. 3. Online at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html. Last visited on March 11, 2010.Google Scholar

3 U.S. -127 S. Ct. 1769. 1775, n. 5 (2007).Google Scholar

4 For the full report, see, http://www.aallnet.org/aallwash/authen_rprt/AuthenFinalReport.pdf (last visited on March 11, 2010).Google Scholar

5 Berring, Robert C.(Spring 2007). “Losing the Law.” Green Bag. Vol. 10, 2D. 279. Online at: http://www.greenbag.org/contents/toc.php#Spring2007. Last visited on March 11, 2010.Google Scholar

6 Carlson, Kathy(September-October 2007). “Digital Attachments Are Here…or Are They?” LawLibravians in the New Millennium. Vol. 10, No. 4.Google Scholar

7 Government Relations Committee and Washington Affairs Office, American Association of Law Libraries (June 2003). State-by-State Report on Permanent Public Access to Electronic Government Information. 11, http://www.aallnet.org/aallwash/PPAreport.html. Last visited March 11, 2010.Google Scholar

8 Pub. L. No. 107–347, 116 Stat. 2899Google Scholar

9 http://www.jstor.org.Google Scholar

10 http://www.portico.org.Google Scholar

11 http://www.lockss.org.Google Scholar

12 http://www.law.cornell.edu/.Google Scholar