Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 186 posts

Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

#51

Post by SkyBelow »

unlimit wrote: post #18
samfriedman wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>What kind of justice system is this?

The best that money can buy.

I think it is time for people to stop having faith in the legal system. It is dangerous waters to tread, but our current system is filled with abuses that are only allowed to continue because people maintain faith.

Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

#52

Post by OscarCunningham »

Tor3 wrote: post #37
cs702 wrote: post #14

The 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…

One should think that this would enable anyone accused of a crime to argue "Your Honour, I could not know that my act was illegal as the law in question is unaccessible to me."

Ignorance of the law is, famously, not a legal defence.

Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

#53

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Fnoord wrote: post #27
Nasrudith wrote: post #2

Really 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…

> A solution to how ridiculous old laws are is automatically expire them

This sort of legal amnesia has major drawbacks. Hand politicians the opportunity to make crisis and they'll take advantage of it. Do we really want debt-limit style brinksmanship around murder statutes?

Moreover, cleanly sunsetting laws within our common law system is hard. Case law builds on statute. Regularly wiping away vast portions of case law will have unanticipated consequences.

Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

#54

Post by OnlyOneCannolo »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #26
Nasrudith wrote: post #2

Really 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....

The document you linked shows that the case is Government Entity vs Private Entity. Anything improper that the government's attorneys do would be an abuse of power.

Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

#55

Post by macspoofing »

leereeves wrote: post #12
samfriedman wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>That sounds like they are effectively writing the law.

That isn't unprecedented. When Congress passes a law, the executive branch has wide discretion on how to interpret the law into executive action.

Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

#57

Post by macspoofing »

baybal2 wrote: post #43
macspoofing wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. With Aaron Swartz there was no question of copyright infringement. He was infringing. With Carl Malamud and the state of Georgia there is ambiguity on the copyrightable status of certain kinds of legal materials (like descriptions and summaries of laws and legal decisions). This is what the courts for. Both sides have some basis for their position even though I side with Malamud on this point.

> Not quite. With Aaron Swartz there was no question of copyright infringement. He was infringing. He wasn't. He was 100% entitled to use his library access, and download every file he did download.

I'm not sure about that. I'd think you'd be breaking the TOS by mass downloading all papers. Certainly, putting them on the internet after the fact isn't legal.

I say all this, but I want to be clear that the punishment he received was far in excess to the underlying crime.

Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

#58

Post by JumpCrisscross »

OnlyOneCannolo wrote: post #54
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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....

The document you linked shows that the case is Government Entity vs Private Entity. Anything improper that the government's attorneys do would be an abuse of power.

> * Anything improper that the government's attorneys do would be an abuse of power*

If the government lawyers said "he is behaving like a terorrist" or "this is terrorism," I'd agree with you. But we don't know that. We just have government lawyers describing something, within unknown context, as a "strategy of terrorism" and a headline running that into an accusation.

Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

#59

Post by bilbo0s »

Fnoord wrote: post #27
Nasrudith wrote: post #2

Really 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…

>A solution to how ridiculous old laws are is automatically expire them...

There are a lot of good reasons that this is a really bad idea. But the fundamental reason is that there are always a few politicians everywhere who can't be trusted to act in good faith.

Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

#60

Post by OnlyOneCannolo »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #58
OnlyOneCannolo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The document you linked shows that the case is Government Entity vs Private Entity. Anything improper that the government's attorneys do would be an abuse of power.

> * Anything improper that the government's attorneys do would be an abuse of power* If the government lawyers said "he is behaving like a terorrist" or "this is terrorism," I'd agree with you. But we don't know that. We just have government lawyers describing something, within unknown context, as a "strategy of terrorism" and a headline running that into an accusation.

I'm challenging the use of the phrase "faux pas" to describe actions of government representatives that could harm private entities.

Whether and how it happened is irrelevant.

Post reply on HN