11–20 of 207 posts
Reading the opinions, it is a breath of fresh air to see one of the branches of government relying upon fact and logical argument when discussing the issues. This is how America is supposed to work.
Reading the opinions, it is a breath of fresh air to see one of the branches of government relying upon fact and logical argument when discussing the issues. This is how America is supposed to work.
this is a huge win - although it's interesting that Ginsburg and some other "liberal" judges seem to side with Georgia in saying that the state should be able to put the law of the land behind a pay wall.
That dissent refers to "non-binding annotations" which are more like the opinions of the law-makers, hence not part of their duties because they are not law.
> Beyond doubt, state laws are not copyrightable. Nor are other materials created by state legislators in the course of performing their lawmaking responsibilities, e.g., legislative committee reports, floor statements, unenacted bills. (Ante, at 8–9). Not all that legislators do, however, is ineligible for copyright protection; the government edicts doctrine shields only “works that are (1) created by judges and legislators (2) in the course of their judicial and legislative duties.” (Ante, at 9) (emphasis added). The core question this case presents, as I see it: Are the annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) done in a legislative capacity? The answer, I am persuaded, should be no.
Reading the opinions, it is a breath of fresh air to see one of the branches of government relying upon fact and logical argument when discussing the issues. This is how America is supposed to work.
You mean this is not the norm? The cases I've read seemed quite reasonable. They happened in the 90s and early 2000s though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That dissent refers to "non-binding annotations" which are more like the opinions of the law-makers, hence not part of their duties because they are not law.
Indeed, here is the very first paragraph of the dissenting opinion by Ginsburg (joined by Breyer), beginning at p. 39 of the linked submission: > Beyond doubt, state laws are not copyrightable. Nor are other materials created by state legislators in the course of performing their lawmaking responsibilities, e.g. , legislative committee reports, floor statements, unenacted bills. ( Ante , at 8–9). Not all that legisla…
Reading the opinions, it is a breath of fresh air to see one of the branches of government relying upon fact and logical argument when discussing the issues. This is how America is supposed to work.
The partisan politics you see on TV is thankfully just the tip of the iceberg.
In my experience with the US Federal Gov't (through my wife and family) applying the boring law is the norm, and what's not normal is when political actors inject themselves or create a narrative about an issue to suit their purpose. US Federal Employees are deeply apolitical as a workplace culture.
We see a lot of the latter, but there's only so much bandwidth for it. Most work is boring and getting done in a professional manner
It’s a welcome decision, but a very obvious one. Why did Georgia need to get told that we, the people, own the laws?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1150/114285/201...
It’s a welcome decision, but a very obvious one. Why did Georgia need to get told that we, the people, own the laws?
What this case is about was some kind of annotated version of the statutes that included case notes and precedents and such. Georgia tried to claim that was subject to copyright. The Justices disagreed, claiming that the annotations were primarily created by legislators in the course of doing legislative work, and thus also could not be copyrighted.
> First, the author of the annotations qualifies as a legislator.
Whoa! There is a massive amount of such code, and the folks writing it are usually thought of as private lawyers, rather than public legislators. That's a big deal, since the legislative process cannot be unconditionally private, but has to be balanced to keep the public informed.