Live data from Hacker News

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

supremecourt.gov

161–170 of 207 posts

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

#161
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Andy Weir example. "The Martian" was originally a blog series, and actually his 3rd book.

He created an ebook version of The Martian, freely downloadable at the time. People did give him donations though. He only added it to Kindle for $0.99, because Amazon wouldn't let him distribute it for free. It look off from there.

When people would rather give the author $0.99 to make it easy to access on Kindle, than download it for free, and it becomes a bestseller, then that is a plausible way for an author to make money.

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

#162
post #40
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Citizens United was obviously correct. (While it’s not dispositive, look up which side the ACLU supported in that case.)

The enormous amount of money now in politics clearly shows just how wrong it was. The ACLU isn’t always right, either.

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

#163
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Whether you agree with or disagree with the Citizens United outcome, describing the majority opinion as a straightforward "completely wrong" (when, for example, the ACLU supported the verdict) indicates that you have not, in fact, read any of the opinions or dissents, or done research about the specific case that was being litigated.

I’ve read plenty on the subject. I don’t have to articulate bullet points about it just to suit your needs. It has obviously been to the detriment of honest political discourse and is completely wrong. Thanks, though.

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

#164
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?

As a lawyer, I can chime in here. Annotated statutes are special. They have cross references to the cases which cite to the statutes. So if you're doing research on a statute, the annotated version will have the letter of the law word for word, then at the bottom it will have a little topical index (with topics based on a part of the statute) under each topic will be the cases citation which addressed that topic and…

As somebody who definitely is not reading law, another facet of this is that while the Federal Government is prohibited from holding copyrights, same prohibition isn't fully incorporated to the States and certainly not to the rest of the local authorities. Wikipedia's overview [0] is nice.

The principle is obvious, and so while I can understand the dissenters' line of reasoning somewhat, it's absolutely flabbergasting to read some of their bullshit. Here's Thomas:

> Lastly, the annotations do not impede fair notice of the laws. As just stated, the annotations do not carry the binding force of of law. They simply summarize independent sources of legal information and consolidate them in one place. ... The majority resists this conclusion, suggesting that without access to the annotations, readers of Georgia law will be unable to fully understand the true meaning of Georgia's statutory provisions, such as provisions that have been undermined or nullified by court decisions. That is simply incorrect. As the majority tacitly concedes, a person seeking information about changes in Georgia statutory law can find that information by consulting the original source for the change in the law's status -- the court decisions themselves.

How magnanimous! It's appalling that this is the opinion of one of our top jurists: Want to practice law in Georgia? Better go find it, and hope you find all of it. But wait, there's more!

> The majority's rule will leave in the lurch the many researchers who relied on the previously bright-line rule. Perhaps, to the detriment of all, many States will stop producing annotated codes altogether. Were that to occur, the majority's fear of an "economy-class" version of the law will truly become a reality. ... For example, Georgia asserts that Lexis sold the OCGA for $404 in 2016, while West Publishing's competing annotated code sold for $2,570. Should state annotated codes disappear, those without the means to pay the competitor's significantly higher price tag will have a valuable research tool taken away from them.

Cry me a river! Listen to this shit: He thinks that the law will get more expensive if we don't let Lexis keep taking a cut. No, the law ought to be free, and the state ought to bend over backwards (or forwards) to ensure that the law is published so widely and legibly that there truly is no excuse for not being able to access it. The twenty-five states across the USA that currently publish annotated codes are in for a bit of a rude awakening, as they will be asked to stop dicking their citizens.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_t...

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

#165
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IMO 30 years or the death of the author, whichever occurs sooner, is long enough for the author to benefit from their work. There really isn't any difference in terms of incentive for the author between 30 years and the current life of the author + 70 years (or whatever the current term is).

I don't want to penalize the families of authors who die suddenly and award a windfall to corporations. 30 years is just fine, no need to discuss the author's death at all.

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

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your own post is "intellectual property." Can you be a bit more specific?

Sure. Most of the world does not live in western countries (As a simplification think Europe, Australia, US, Canada etc). In general, most of the world's valuable intellectual property has originated from Western countries. What intellectual property law does is provide a monopoly on selling/producing something to a company or individual. The thing that is interesting about intellectual property is that it is not tan…

World with IP: Expensive Range Rovers.

World without IP: No Range Rovers.

Your imagined world of cheap range rovers if we suspended IP only works once but destroys all future incentive to create.

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

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Andy Weir example. "The Martian" was originally a blog series, and actually his 3rd book. He created an ebook version of The Martian, freely downloadable at the time. People did give him donations though. He only added it to Kindle for $0.99, because Amazon wouldn't let him distribute it for free. It look off from there. When people would rather give the author $0.99 to make it easy to access on Kindle, than down…

How much did Fox pay to license the copyright?

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

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make two arguments here, one about degree and the other about kind. As for kind, as others have pointed out, the intent of IP law is to create artificial scarcity . The marginal cost of information is 0, so you have to put turnstiles somewhere. Society has kind of blundered and stumbled into the mishmash of enforcement measures we have today, but the intent is to reward content creators. If you accept this is a g…

The problems with the DRM route are ... well known. See the EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/drm ) and FSF ( https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/drm.html ) especially. Among other matters: - Your devices are no longer fully under your control, and don't answer to you. - Even where DRM isn't itself directly. malware (Sony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... ), it inevitably creates backdoors for…

Screenshot worked just fine here, I don't know what might have been causing your problem (Android Chrome)

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

#169

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…

Most authors don't see a dime though!

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

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make two arguments here, one about degree and the other about kind. As for kind, as others have pointed out, the intent of IP law is to create artificial scarcity . The marginal cost of information is 0, so you have to put turnstiles somewhere. Society has kind of blundered and stumbled into the mishmash of enforcement measures we have today, but the intent is to reward content creators. If you accept this is a g…

The problems with the DRM route are ... well known. See the EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/drm ) and FSF ( https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/drm.html ) especially. Among other matters: - Your devices are no longer fully under your control, and don't answer to you. - Even where DRM isn't itself directly. malware (Sony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... ), it inevitably creates backdoors for…

> - The legal proscriptions on analysing and assessing ADRM mechanisms create both minefields for researchers and multiply the existing security threat risk.

Well I assume if we repeal all copyright then the laws against breaking DRM will be repealed too.

Post reply on HN