Your country is broken
Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
21–30 of 186 posts
Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
#22I 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…
The state should have developed its own annotations or paid Lexis/Nexis to make the annotations public, not have them in this messy limbo state.
Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
#23Isn’t terrorism the use of physical violence to further political means? How does this meet the standard of terrorism? I feel like if this is part of the official record some pro bono lawyer will be looking for a decent payday.
I feel like there should be some personal penalty for those unborn government who willingly engage in acts that are not in the letter of the law and cost the taxpayer money.
Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
#24I 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…
I think the issue here is that the Georgia courts cite these annotations in their opinions, meaning that they effectively have the weight of law. If there is no de facto difference between an annotation and a law, why can one be copyrighted and hidden behind a paywall while the other cannot?
This is a separate from the (also unbelievable, to me) issue that a paid private corporation writes these annotations that are then referenced with the force of law by the courts.
Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
#25"If the state of Georgia is not content with its populace, the state should dissolve the populace and elect a new one."
Amazing how the same things can be applied to "different" political systems.
Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
#26Really the abuse of "terrrorism" so blatantly even by the standards of a government should qualify for some pretty damn harsh defamation law to the officials trying to hide behind the state. Those sorts of abuses of power are the kind of thing where we actually do need to be "tough on crime" for if we wish to be remotely free.
> the abuse of "terrrorism"...abuses of power
The federal court opinion [1], which rules in favor of Malamud's NGO, does not once mention "terrorism". The case is a copyright one. (And an important one at that.)
I'm guessing the quote was from the lawyers' remarks, not the actual charges. So serious faux pas more than abuse of power.
[1] http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201711589....
Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
#27Really the abuse of "terrrorism" so blatantly even by the standards of a government should qualify for some pretty damn harsh defamation law to the officials trying to hide behind the state. Those sorts of abuses of power are the kind of thing where we actually do need to be "tough on crime" for if we wish to be remotely free.
I'm not sure on which law this whole fad is based on. Is it an old law?
> [...] The last time the Supreme Court addressed the matter, in 1888, it ruled that “the whole work done by the judges constitutes the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all.”
A solution to how ridiculous old laws are is automatically expire them. That way, the politicians are forced to reevaulate them.
Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
#28Carl Malamud does very important work. You can fund Public.Resource.Org at https://public.resource.org/about/donate.html A recurring monthly donation is probably most valuable to them (see "Other Donation Options").
[Remove the two spaces before https, so the link becomes clicky.]
Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
#29I do not understand this story. How can law be "under copyright"?
Sometimes the law will refer to a third party set of codes.
For example, the law might say that it's illegal to operate a pressure vessel unless in satisfies all the requirements of ASME Section VIII Division 1 or 2. As you might guess, the ASME boiler and pressure vessel code is a copyrighted work owned by the ASME.
Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online
#30This 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.
......misdemeanor terrorism. How does that term even exist? Is that like flying a Cessna into the World Trade Center instead of a Boeing 757?
Agree with you there. Either it’s terrorism or it isn’t.