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

Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

supremecourt.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 207 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#21

Post by ISL »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #12
ISL wrote: post #10

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.

It is the norm for the Court. It's just quite contrary to much of what we see in the news daily.

This ruling split the judges in an uncommon way, which was even more welcome.

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#22

Post by FearNotDaniel »

thanksforfish wrote: post #11
ISL wrote: post #10

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.

I suspect that idiom means just the opposite of what you think it means. By "thankfully" I infer that you are relieved that the vast majority of political activity, "below the surface" of what is seen on TV, is nowhere near as reprehensible. Whereas "tip of the iceberg" is generally used to imply that the visible problem is merely a fractional indication of the much greater and uglier problem that lies beneath, being of the same matter and type of that which has already been seen.

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#23

Post by ejstronge »

huffmsa wrote: post #15
pmiller2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Which is reasonable, but isn't this publication THE only codified publication of Georgia's laws?

How would your argument change in the event that this were the only such publication? How about if there were 1,000?

EDIT: I now realize that George effectively only published an annotated version of its laws, which can only be purchased (it seems) from LexisNexis. While a free version is available, this version appears to be prepared by LexisNexis (all of this is my understanding from ref 1)

1. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/12/justices-debate-...

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#24

Post by alistairSH »

huffmsa wrote: post #15
pmiller2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Which is reasonable, but isn't this publication THE only codified publication of Georgia's laws?

Correct.

Also, IANAL, but my understanding is the annotations are de facto required reading for practitioners of law. They give all the background and history of the law, without which, you would be at a severe disadvantage in the courtroom.

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#25

Post by LiquidSky »

huffmsa wrote: post #14
matheusmoreira wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean this is not the norm? The cases I've read seemed quite reasonable. They happened in the 90s and early 2000s though.

There are definitely more than a few partisan court cases, but most of them are very very logical. Even when it's a partisan, ideological split.

Ha. The trick is that what's "logical" and what's "partisan" depend entirely on who is speaking, like how cries of "judicial activism" only ever arise when it's a ruling against a conservative position. If it's a ruling FOR the conservative position, it's obviously logical and sound, and possibly correcting previous evil irrational liberal decisions.

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#26

Post by CobrastanJorji »

amerine wrote: post #5

It’s a welcome decision, but a very obvious one. Why did Georgia need to get told that we, the people, own the laws?

The dissenting judges would tell you that the laws are not copyright, the annotations are, which, although important to understanding the law, are not the law.

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#27

Post by tyre »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #12
ISL wrote: post #10

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.

I read a few case opinions per year. There are ones that are partisan but on the whole are incredibly well thought through, argued, and written.

There are some disasters, but even then you get beautiful rebuttals (e.g. Kagan's dissent in Rucho v. Common Cause)

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#28

Post by ulkesh »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #12
ISL wrote: post #10

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.

It may be the norm, but they also get some completely wrong: Citizens United, for example.

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#29

Post by simcop2387 »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #26
amerine wrote: post #5

It’s a welcome decision, but a very obvious one. Why did Georgia need to get told that we, the people, own the laws?

The dissenting judges would tell you that the laws are not copyright, the annotations are, which, although important to understanding the law, are not the law.

But while they aren't the law, they hold the power of law as the annotations are used by judges to decide cases.

Re: Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

#30

Post by huffmsa »

LiquidSky wrote: post #25
huffmsa wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are definitely more than a few partisan court cases, but most of them are very very logical. Even when it's a partisan, ideological split.

Ha. The trick is that what's "logical" and what's "partisan" depend entirely on who is speaking, like how cries of "judicial activism" only ever arise when it's a ruling against a conservative position. If it's a ruling FOR the conservative position, it's obviously logical and sound, and possibly correcting previous evil irrational liberal decisions.

No, I rarely read an opinion from the high court that I can't at least understand the logic and reasoning behind, regardless of if I agree with the conclusion
Post reply on HN