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

191–200 of 207 posts

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

#191

Post by greggman3 »

FlyMoreRockets wrote: post #101
SeanLuke wrote: post #77

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.

There are a number of cases where creators of popular works have been granted substantial sums to create subsequent works through crowdsourcing. Edit for examples. Cyan, creator of Myst and Riven, had two very successful Kickstarter to fund new works. First, they raised $1,321,306 to make Obduction, then $1,433,161 for Firmament. Elite: Dangerous raised £1,578,316 for a modern remake. Yes, it works for books, too: ht…

And how much did those titles actually cost to make? I seriously doubt either game shipped without at least 4x the kickstarter funds.

They were only able to make up the rest because they knew copyright meant they'd get paid more when they shipped via sales where as without copyright it would just be copied.

Here's an article on Elite:Dangerous saying the actual budget was 8m

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-09-11-elite-dangerou...

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

#192

Post by zozbot234 »

Thorrez wrote: post #171
FlyMoreRockets wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a number of cases where creators of popular works have been granted substantial sums to create subsequent works through crowdsourcing. Edit for examples. Cyan, creator of Myst and Riven, had two very successful Kickstarter to fund new works. First, they raised $1,321,306 to make Obduction, then $1,433,161 for Firmament. Elite: Dangerous raised £1,578,316 for a modern remake. Yes, it works for books, too: ht…

Crowdsourcing still relies on copyright usually, and does in the cases you mention. It's simply preording a game or a book. Without copyright there would be no need to preorder the game or book, you could simply wait until it is out and make a free copy of it. Both Obduction and Firmament are for sale. They aren't free games.

There are plenty of freely-available works that are crowdfunded though. It's true however that the costs of making a game like Obduction and Firmament dwarf even those crowdfunding revenues. The same applies to high-budget feature films. A 100% crowdfunding approach strongly selects for lower production costs, which also means improved efficiency and a larger variety of works overall.

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

#193

Post by jasonlotito »

dredmorbius wrote: post #172
pwg wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. But sadly it does, and while it does the options available are try something else or do without. In this case you can try Firefox for Android on your phone to see if it behaves better than Chrome.

The point really isn't to solve my personal inconvenience of a problem that should not exist. It's to point out the problem that shouldn't exist, its root cause, and only one very minor, mundane, and utterly ridiculous consequence. Of a problem that should not exist. At all. For any reason. But thank you regardless, your heart at least is in the right place.

So going back to who you were originally replying to that spawned this little thread and trying to tie this all together because I’m lost with what you are trying to say.

What is this problem that shouldn’t exist, this root cause? And in which scenario does it go away: with the status quo laws or with their removal? And why would the scenario remove that root cause problem?

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

#194

Post by kd5bjo »

q084yn39cptyth wrote: post #190
markdown wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

It's interesting to me when others come up with similar conclusions independently. There's studies of sales of works (books etc) and iirc, at least with books, the vast majority of sales are within the first several years, with income trailing after that. This has come up in discussions of zombie rights to works, where a publisher sits on something out of print without releasing new copies because the return isn't en…

My primary concern is all of the works that die because they're no longer commercially viable but are still locked away; I'm actually willing to make an exception for the rare blockbuster hits if it actually means everything else becomes available.

My thinking is author's life for unpublished works (to protect works-in-progress), 10 years after publication unconditionally, followed by a sequence of renewals that require some level of public availability to be granted.

Obviously, there's a lot of details to be worked out: What constitutes publication? How long is the initial unconditional period? How many renewals are allowed and how long is each? What are the actual requirements to get a renewal?

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

#195

Post by harryh »

rayiner wrote: post #127
harryh wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, you're back! Glad to see you didn't leave forever.

Thanks! (I didn’t quit really, just took a break from Internet forums for lent.) Hope you and your family are okay in NYC.

I actually moved to Chapel Hill, NC in 2017 though I was planning to move back to NYC in June of this year. That plan is now delayed though for the obvious reason.

Fam is doing about as well as one could expect with two working parents and a 4yo stuck in the house.

Hope you and yours are holding up as well.

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

#196

Post by icebraining »

ulkesh wrote: post #162
rayiner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The ACLU has the weird conviction that principles, not just results, matter.

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

#197

Post by alistairSH »

throwaway17_17 wrote: post #74
alistairSH wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Two related questions...

1. In a state like LA, where annotations aren't included, would a lawyer purchase an annotated version from a 3rd party? I assume the information contained in the annotations is expected to be known, regardless of how it is obtained.

2. If a state elects to publish annotations as part of the only published code, does that lend any extra weight to the annotations (effectively, by putting them in the same book, and making that book the only copy of the state code, the state has signaled "these notes are the way we intend you to read/interpret/practice the law").

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

#198

Post by zozbot234 »

greggman3 wrote: post #191
FlyMoreRockets wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a number of cases where creators of popular works have been granted substantial sums to create subsequent works through crowdsourcing. Edit for examples. Cyan, creator of Myst and Riven, had two very successful Kickstarter to fund new works. First, they raised $1,321,306 to make Obduction, then $1,433,161 for Firmament. Elite: Dangerous raised £1,578,316 for a modern remake. Yes, it works for books, too: ht…

And how much did those titles actually cost to make? I seriously doubt either game shipped without at least 4x the kickstarter funds. They were only able to make up the rest because they knew copyright meant they'd get paid more when they shipped via sales where as without copyright it would just be copied. Here's an article on Elite:Dangerous saying the actual budget was 8m https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-09…

> I seriously doubt either game shipped without at least 4x the kickstarter funds.

Yes, but AAA games and e.g. feature films are among the highest-cost works to make. They're very much an exception, not the rule.

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

#199

Post by javajosh »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #137
javajosh wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't aware I was making any kind of assertion, honestly. But I think a world in which proprietary content must be totally vertically integrated with a non-owned proprietary device is at least an honest way to enforce artificial scarcity. I think the "shape" of this system represents a kind of platonic ideal that combines artificial scarcity in a free market system that values property rights. I find the idea abho…

> But I think a world in which proprietary content must be totally vertically integrated with a non-owned proprietary device is at least an honest way to enforce artificial scarcity. In addition to all of the other objections, the biggest failure here is of the technical measures to actually prevent copying. Even when it's prohibited by law and the pirates are a bunch of hobbyists, DRM gets broken time and again. You…

I speculate that it's theoretically possible to build virtually unbreakable DRM into a physical device, especially if the device is designed to resist (or at least detect) disassembly. (Analog re-recording notwithstanding).

I like your point about DRM vs copyright. I guess I've always seen DRM as the "ounce of prevention" that replaces the "pound of cure" that copyright enforcement entails - although distribution platforms like YouTube increasingly reduce that pound to closer to an ounce (at the cost of more abuse). I think your point would be valid if enforcement of copyright was simpler and cheaper; perhaps you've read stories about photographers whose work has been used by large companies, without compensation, usually because the asset was included in projects done by 3rd party contractors. Its very expensive for an individual to enforce their rights. But yes, if the justice system itself were fixed to be fast, cheap, and fair, then I would agree that copyright alone would be the preferable solution.

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

#200

Post by ejstronge »

greggyb wrote: post #46
ejstronge wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.c…

The free version is the unannotated code and Lexis is required to make it available per the contract with the Georgia legislature.

I recognize this, but (at least, per the reference I linked) the free version isn't an official state of Georgia document. It seems the only official version of the state laws is the commercial version.
Post reply on HN