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

101–110 of 186 posts

Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

#101

Post by Asooka »

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.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

#102

Post by wpietri »

bilbo0s wrote: post #15

Why 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…

I think there are two complimentary things going on.

In a "we the people" mindset, it's obviously dumb that citizens shoulnd't have full access to the law and anything needed to understand it.

But if you're a dispositional authoritarian, then you like having power and serving those with more power. Rule of law runs counter to that, so dispositional authoritarians won't like making it easy for citizens to challenge or restrict their use of power.

The other thing is that there are two approaches to commerce. One is where people relish a free-market competition. A lot of restaurant owners are like this: they are generally happy that other restaurants exist, and see other restaurant owners both as competitors and colleagues. But there's also what I think of as the crony capitalist mindset, where monopolies and exclusive sweetheart deals are the desired outcome. At least some, and perhaps a lot of government contracting is like this. Authoritarians give contracts to crony capitalists; crony capitalists give money and support to authoritarians.

In that latter model, citizens are a resource to farm, not the ones who run the government. So of course anybody upsetting that cozy authoritarian approach would be seen as a terrorist.

Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

#103

Post by jtuente »

JdeBP wrote: post #76

Actually, xe wasn't. The legal brief from the plaintiff, hyperlinked from the NYT article, dated 2015, actually says: > Defendant’s founder and president, Carl Malamud, has indicated that this type of strategy has been a successful form of “terrorism” that he has employed in the past to force government entities to publish documents on Malamud’s terms. See Exhibit 2. * https://law.resource.org/pub/us/code/ga/pro_v_ge…

In case 'xe', 'xyr', etc. confuse anyone else, they're genderless pronouns.

Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

#104

Post by salawat »

brobdingnagians wrote: post #68
Fnoord wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Rule of law is important. And if you want to get rid of old laws, you should just get rid of them by vote. If the vast majority of old laws are functioning well, then you can keep them functioning, if there are a few ridiculous ones then you can go through normal channels of government. England had a case in the 1800s where everyone forgot that trial by battle still existed from the middle ages. Someone invoked it an…

The problem with that is that that basically ensures most blue laws stay on the books by way of legislative DoS. As every repeal bill takes up the same legislative slot as adding a new law.

An approach with sunset dates ensure the most important laws are at the forefront of national discourse, and ensures that lawmaking doesn't degenerate to "keep trying til you pass it, then smooth sailing because no one ever actively looks at these things anyway."

Legislated law is not something to be treated lightly; especially at the Federal level in the United States, where the protection of liberty is a first class objective of the government's existence in the first place.

Vote to uphold, I assert, is a clearer demonstrator of the Will of the People rather than vote to repeal. Vote to Repeal allows refuge in obscurity for keeping laws in force that most would not even wish to have in effect just by virtue of the majority of people being ignorant of them.

Also, it cuts down on the tendency of law scholasticism to create a privileged class through the exploitation of loopholes, and archaic blue laws.

If a law is truly worth having, let it be tested in the fires of reaffirmation. That which is without question, should pass with minimal controversy. That which is in woeful need of update or reformulation, will be brought to the forefront of the national consciousness and reshaped to better serve the interests of the Public. That which is no longer the Will of the People may be safely set aside to fade into the gentle repose of history, and the Public shall enjoy a restored liberty for it's having done so.

My two cents.

Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

#105

Post by gumby »

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. That way, the politicians are forced to reevaulate them.

What happens is you have mass renewal laws, which end up being de facto non-expiring laws with a veneer of expiration.

My argument sounds like “can’t work 100% so do nothing” but laws that are given sunset clauses because of their controvesiality (e.g. USA Patriot Act) are routinely renewed as their very existence seems to justify their continued existence, while the sunset clause had been added to mollify objectors.

Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

#106

Post by teddyh »

macspoofing wrote: post #57
baybal2 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> I'd think you'd be breaking the TOS by mass downloading all papers.

Still not a breach of copyright, and not even a crime, I believe.

> Certainly, putting them on the internet after the fact isn't legal.

But he didn’t do that. He may very well have planned to do that, but he never did, and this was never a factor in the case against him, IIRC.

Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

#107

Post by gumby »

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…

> The Republic of Georgia claims that the legal code establishing the rights and obligations of its citizens...should not be freely available to its citizens

The federal government of the United States claims this as well, for example see Gilmore v. Gonzales.

You are subject to classified laws and regulation to which you do not have access.

Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

#108

Post by baybal2 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #82
baybal2 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a lot of law, at the federal and state levels, And that law is of very abstract, and ephemeral kind — the very criteria of fault in how USA approaches official crimes. And as I stated above, most of that law is state level patchwork and case law rather than federal level statutory rules.

> that law is of very abstract, and ephemeral kind — the very criteria of fault in how USA approaches official crimes No, it's highly specific, drawing from cases going back to the founding of the Republic. > most of that law is state level patchwork and case law rather than federal level statutory rules Statute isn't stronger than case law. They're both law in a common-law system [1]. (Insider trading, for example,…

> No, it's highly specific, drawing from cases going back to the founding of the Republic.

No, it isn't.

Even if you do not consider the moderately modern exercise of official crimes laws, the few that were used are few. As what I know of their historicity, most of early work on that lines were about official crimes being an offshoot of treason/sabotage/sedition/subversion and such.

And if you start discussing their moderately modern exercise, then, well, as I stated above, the court record of abuse of office cases is of charges not reaching the court to begin with or being dropped.

> Statute isn't stronger than case law.

Statute is a clear writing in text saying "things A, B, and C are a crime." When it comes to that, case law is weaker because it is much more open to interpretation with it being a collection of opinions, interpretations, philosophising, from time to time bordering on "legal theology."

It is much weaker against official crimes in reality, when DAs can wiggle their way out of need to fill charges using numerous excuses provided by law's openness to interpretation

P.S. That Louisiana law that you pulled, well, is a Louisiana law, not federal.

Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

#109

Post by naasking »

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.

Or to eliminate prosecutorial discretion.

Re: Sued for copyright infringement for putting legal materials online

#110

Post by magashna »

stupidcar wrote: post #49
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…

The text of the laws themselves are open-source. It's the annotations that are the issue and this is, at least, an area where there is a reasonable ambiguity. Hopefully one that will be resolved in favour of greatest openness, but the state's position is at least not totally unreasonable. What is unreasonable, and why this is getting attention on HN is because Malamud's actions in publish the annotations has been des…

Aren't these annotations paid for with taxes? If so, it belongs to the people
Post reply on HN