The plaintiff is listed as "Georgia code revision commission", and it's surprisingly hard to find out who that actually consists of - googling it just finds more reports of this case. I note that Georgia is currently an "R" state.
Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
11–20 of 186 posts
Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
#12I do not understand this story. How can law be "under copyright"?
Frequently the letter of the law itself is publicly available, but there are also significant annotations and explanations that form the real body of the law/code as used by the courts, law enforcement, etc. It is these annotations that are copyrighted by the large legal companies contracted to write, compile and publish them. For that reason it is a common occurrence that the version of the law citizens are held to…
> the large legal companies contracted to write
Are private companies actually writing annotations that affect judges decisions? That sounds like they are effectively writing the law.
Or, if they're just compiling judges' writings, how do they have copyright on those?
Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
#13I do not understand this story. How can law be "under copyright"?
It's a terrible article. My understanding is that the state has an agreement with Lexis/Nexis to have the laws annotated. In exchange Lexis/Nexis can publish and sell the annotations. Presumably, in order for this relationship to continue, the state must defend its copyright to the annotations which Lexis/Nexis has produced.
So although using 'terrorism' is clearly ridiculous, the rest of it is not so clear cut.
Also note that the laws with the annotations are available in public libraries. So freemium.
Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
#14The Republic of Georgia claims that the legal code establishing the rights and obligations of its citizens (including annotations commissioned and approved by the state) should not be freely available to its citizens or anyone else, because it is copyrighted by the state.
According to the article, 20 other states around the world are making similar copyright claims.
The written laws of a state (along with annotations commissioned by the state) are, in effect, the source code for running the state.
Citizens must behave as specified by this code. Otherwise they are fined, incarcerated, or worse.
Shouldn't the code that controls people's lives be free, open-source?
Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
#15Why would there be any issue at all with putting the law online?
Serious question.
What do, say, reporters in Georgia do when they write a story about court proceedings or what-have-you? Is the state code just never referenced? Or explained? Or even just written out so that people can see what happened and how it worked?
Is the general public simply not allowed to know what laws they live under? Or is it that only people authorized by the government are allowed to tell people what the law says? (Which, to me, sounds even more problematic.)
Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
#16Note: Georgia's lawyers called it a "strategy of terrorism". Carl Malamud is not being charged with terrorism. This is a copyright case as it pertains to official state law. Claiming "terrorism" is a significant detriment to the story.
They're not accusing him of literal terrorism, no, but it's a legitimate angle to the story to point out that the state of Georgia is using way over the top language to oppose Malamud's attempts to help the people of Georgia.
Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
#17This is what they accused Aaron Swartz of too.
"Misdemeanor Terrorism" was one of the charges I believe.
The lawyer that said that this is 'terrorism' should be disbarred. This is borderline slander.
Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
#18I do not understand this story. How can law be "under copyright"?
Frequently the letter of the law itself is publicly available, but there are also significant annotations and explanations that form the real body of the law/code as used by the courts, law enforcement, etc. It is these annotations that are copyrighted by the large legal companies contracted to write, compile and publish them. For that reason it is a common occurrence that the version of the law citizens are held to…
> Frequently the letter of the law itself is publicly available, but there are also significant annotations and explanations that form the real body of the law/code as used by the courts, law enforcement, etc
So its the interpretation that is used. Then shouldn't the interpretation be open to public? What kind of justice system is this?
Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
#19I do not understand this story. How can law be "under copyright"?
It technically isn't. The annotations in question are expert's analyses of the law, approved by the state.
The defendant was told he could publish the actual law, and his own analysis. However it gets really murky when “Georgia’s courts have cited to the annotations as authoritative sources on statutory meaning and legislative intent.”
I can see the argument against this being freely publishable. If I wrote a textbook which explains some badly written and archaic laws really well, and lawyers and judges started to look to it as the de facto law, should that void my copyright? On the other hand, the public should have free access to the interpretation of the law as enforced.
Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
#20Why would there be any issue at all with putting the law online? Serious question. What do, say, reporters in Georgia do when they write a story about court proceedings or what-have-you? Is the state code just never referenced? Or explained? Or even just written out so that people can see what happened and how it worked? Is the general public simply not allowed to know what laws they live under? Or is it that only pe…
This is addressed in the article.