In my mind, Counsel's interest is in controlling the number of versions of the statutory compilations, and the information added to the legislative acts. What happens if the lawyers, judges, state agencies, law students, or anyone with a need to keep up with the law no longer have one identifiable standard? Would all the publishers be on the same page, or would differences in published information become problematic?

There is more information in Counsel's compilation than just what the legislature enacted. For instance, statutes that become operative later than the compilation have the language before and after the operative date. Would another publisher remember to add it right after the new statute, or would they sell you a pocket part after the new statute is operative?

Reading the wrong version of the law could have dire consequences for someone. Without some control over the compilation, going about your business could be tricky.

I use the Oregon Legislature's online collection of statutes daily. I cut and paste all the time. I've never had a call from the Senate wing. [The 2007 statutes were available online before the print versions were out, by the way.] I need to depend on the currency of the information on the website, and I don't want to double-check whether what I'm looking at is the right compilation. Counsel doesn't seem to be restricting the public's access to the laws. It is controlling the way its published, however, and I think given the implications it has every right to do so.

I would sincerely hope that "rogue archivists" would choose their causes more carefully.

[I'm not a Counsel employee, but I do work for the state.]