Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by gdhbcc » Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 11:01 PM UTC

henryfjordan wrote: post #67

supernova87a wrote: post #47

Aside from the particulars of this case, I feel that the whole subject of copyright is generally anti-competitive and rent-seeking, as codified in the laws and time limits being inflated grossly to suit copyright holders in the current era. In my opinion, the argument that copyright extension incentivizes authors/creators doesn't hold much water. I generally observe that there are plenty of people willing to create a…

IP laws are anti-competitive and rent-seeking, that's exactly the point. I agree that the amount of time copyrights are good for is ridiculous, but I still think it's better than not having them. Imagine if J.K.Rowling wrote the first 3 Harry Potter books but didn't see a dime because the second they got popular everyone with a printing press started selling them royalty-free. Would she have finished the series? I go…

You're assuming that copyright is the only way to make money out of writing, which is simply untrue.

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

#72

Post by gowld » Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 11:01 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #53

supernova87a wrote: post #47

Aside from the particulars of this case, I feel that the whole subject of copyright is generally anti-competitive and rent-seeking, as codified in the laws and time limits being inflated grossly to suit copyright holders in the current era. In my opinion, the argument that copyright extension incentivizes authors/creators doesn't hold much water. I generally observe that there are plenty of people willing to create a…

How is copyright anti-competitive? If you come up with an original work independently, why do competitor principles require ever letting someone else copy that work? We aren’t talking about limited resources here.

One example is derivative works.

Fanfiction runs into legal trouble with copyrights.

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

#73

Post by gowld » Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 11:04 PM UTC

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #66

huffmsa wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you follow the procedure outlined in article 5 to amend the Constitution.

That is much easier said than done. It’s 2020 and we still don’t have a gender equality amendment even though the majority of states want one. ...let alone amendments for healthcare as a right, abortion rights, and proportional representation.

Are gender equality laws prohibited by the Constitution? Title IX shows no.

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

#74

Post by throwaway17_17 » Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 11:04 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #24

huffmsa wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can’t quite agree that the annotations are ‘required reading’ for competent representation of a litigant. Some state’s official printings of statute are pretty bare (Louisiana in particular), but Georgia’s official documents are quite thorough. The area of law, the type of arguments, etc are all facets of what types of references make good arguments. I’m not aging the annotations aren’t a good reference, but that some commenters seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on them, instead of other sources.

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

#75

Post by jellicle » Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 11:08 PM UTC

henryfjordan wrote: post #67

supernova87a wrote: post #47

Aside from the particulars of this case, I feel that the whole subject of copyright is generally anti-competitive and rent-seeking, as codified in the laws and time limits being inflated grossly to suit copyright holders in the current era. In my opinion, the argument that copyright extension incentivizes authors/creators doesn't hold much water. I generally observe that there are plenty of people willing to create a…

IP laws are anti-competitive and rent-seeking, that's exactly the point. I agree that the amount of time copyrights are good for is ridiculous, but I still think it's better than not having them. Imagine if J.K.Rowling wrote the first 3 Harry Potter books but didn't see a dime because the second they got popular everyone with a printing press started selling them royalty-free. Would she have finished the series? I go…

In the absence of copyright, one supposes that authors would get large up-front fees for publishing, and that the fee for book 4, book 5 and so on for JK Rowling would have been quite large, so I suppose she would have done just fine. Think "Kickstarter, but for authors".

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

#76

Post by CWuestefeld » Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 11:08 PM UTC

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.

cries of "judicial activism" only ever arise when it's a ruling against a conservative position

I saw a counterexample just this morning. An editorial was arguing that the Court's "interference" in the Michigan election threatens democracy, and the only solution is to pack the court.

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

#77

Post by SeanLuke » Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 11:09 PM UTC

gdhbcc wrote: post #71

henryfjordan wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IP laws are anti-competitive and rent-seeking, that's exactly the point. I agree that the amount of time copyrights are good for is ridiculous, but I still think it's better than not having them. Imagine if J.K.Rowling wrote the first 3 Harry Potter books but didn't see a dime because the second they got popular everyone with a printing press started selling them royalty-free. Would she have finished the series? I go…

You're assuming that copyright is the only way to make money out of writing, which is simply untrue.

Okay. So using the J.K. Rowling example: provide a plausible way that she could make money off of her writing, and particularly her first risky book, in the absence of copyright.

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

#78

Post by jumelles » Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 11:09 PM UTC

greggyb wrote: post #45

huffmsa wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Per the decision, the un-annotated code is made freely available.[0] The issue at hand is the annotations. The majority opinion is that the key point is authorship. Officials whose work has the force of law (aka judges and legislators) cannot be authors for purposes of copyright of any work produced in their official capacity as a lawmaker. Their argument is that the annotations are published by the legislative body…

Any worries about over-expansion of the public domain on legislature-produced works seem very strange to me. Why does anything that lawmakers produce deserve to be copyrighted? They are elected public servants.

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

#79

Post by SeanLuke » Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 11:12 PM UTC

jellicle wrote: post #75

henryfjordan wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IP laws are anti-competitive and rent-seeking, that's exactly the point. I agree that the amount of time copyrights are good for is ridiculous, but I still think it's better than not having them. Imagine if J.K.Rowling wrote the first 3 Harry Potter books but didn't see a dime because the second they got popular everyone with a printing press started selling them royalty-free. Would she have finished the series? I go…

In the absence of copyright, one supposes that authors would get large up-front fees for publishing, and that the fee for book 4, book 5 and so on for JK Rowling would have been quite large, so I suppose she would have done just fine. Think "Kickstarter, but for authors".

What would the fee mechanism be for her very first book? Who would pay it? Remember, this book was so risky that she was rejected by quite a number of publishers.

Copyright is also the tool of open source code licensing. How exactly would a viral license operate when, lacking copyright, the authors have nothing to license?

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

#80

Post by stx » Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 11:12 PM UTC

henryfjordan wrote: post #67

supernova87a wrote: post #47

Aside from the particulars of this case, I feel that the whole subject of copyright is generally anti-competitive and rent-seeking, as codified in the laws and time limits being inflated grossly to suit copyright holders in the current era. In my opinion, the argument that copyright extension incentivizes authors/creators doesn't hold much water. I generally observe that there are plenty of people willing to create a…

IP laws are anti-competitive and rent-seeking, that's exactly the point. I agree that the amount of time copyrights are good for is ridiculous, but I still think it's better than not having them. Imagine if J.K.Rowling wrote the first 3 Harry Potter books but didn't see a dime because the second they got popular everyone with a printing press started selling them royalty-free. Would she have finished the series? I go…

The first Harry Potter book was released in 1997 and the first movie was 2001. So to satisfy that the author be compensated would not require 70 years after her death.

I think most of us agree that copyright has value but its become excessive.