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

131–140 of 207 posts

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

#131

Post by danielisaac »

segfaultbuserr wrote: post #111
ineedasername wrote: post #91

Laws, and their official (albeit non-binding) interpretations should not be under copyright. This has struck me as an absurd assertion from the very beginning: We're supposed to live in a nation of laws: how could that ever be the case if the laws themselves are kept from the people?

Another related issue is the copyright of technical standards incorporated into law. A selection of technical standards, especially in the domain of civil engineering, the standards on fire, electrical safety, energy efficiency, and test design standards, are effectively laws. The implementation of standards is explicitly required by the laws and there's no alternative. Yet, these standards are often sold for-profit…

I'm pretty eager to see where the ASTM case lands. I'm rooting for Public.Resource.Org, but given that the DC Circuit remanded on fair use (rather than copyrightability), the court will probably consider "amount and substantiality" of the work reproduced relative to the original.

Public.Resource.Org photocopied and distributed the complete standards, cover to cover, including ASTM's illustrations, logos, etc. But what aspect of the manuals are the actual law? The technical measurements? From what I understand, the Georgia annotations became law by reference in their entirety. I don't think it's obvious here and I worry the court will rule against them :/

Regardless, I love Public.Resource.Org's work and wish them the best.

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

#132

Post by patmorgan23 »

baybal2 wrote: post #87
btown wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading and listening to https://www.oyez.org/ - a fantastic resource for Supreme Court transcripts - it's clear that regardless of their backgrounds and circumstances of their appointment, each justice is incredibly intelligent and engaged. The problem is that when it comes to the really sticky, complex issues that affect huge swaths of human rights, it's very possible for justices, in your words, to "rely upon fact…

FYI: a lot of US supreme court opinions are not even written by justices, but by their law clerks and assistants. Similarly, judges deputise their legal research to them at rate that would be rather unsettling for most of us outside of US. Anything like that would not be something expected from country's best laywers. A judge given a quarter million USD salary must be the best of the best in performance, and not to d…

The justice still gets to decide what language and arguments make it into the final opinion. The clerks are their to take some of the load off their shoulders. The supreme court produces a lot of writing every year for nine people and they cam be very hairy technical issues, of course they have a staff to assist them in research and drafting.

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

#133

Post by azernik »

zozbot234 wrote: post #90
ineedasername wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why would the fee be quite large? Who would pay such a large fee when immediately after they publish the book, rival publishers who paid nothing could print their own versions. Even if it was a kickstarter model with decentralized payments from individuals, a large number of people would simply wait until the kickstarter was over and the book published to get it for free. Imagin that was the case with kickstarter…

The entire point of the Kickstarter model is to solve collective action problems of that kind. It's in the individual's interest to contribute, because otherwise the project might not reach its funding threshold, or might have trouble reaching the 'stretch' goal that some care about. This ensures that the 'funding' issue is solved, at least.

Who would be contributing to this Kickstarter? People who already know her, and know that her books are good? That's not where the real money is, or the measurement of market value of an author's labor; the money is in the flow of cash from consumers.

More generally, non-excludable goods do not work well within a free market system. If you want them produced, you either set up a state mechanism for funding them (which many countries do for e.g. film, by creating national film funds), or you somehow make them excludable (e.g. through copyright). The other options aren't really effective.

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

#134

Post by hyperpallium »

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…

Copyright is abused, yes. People want to write anyway, yes. But you need time and resources and space to write, review, edit.

Some novelists spent years collecting rejection slips (e.g. Stephen King; Larry Niven did it full time with a trust fund), which is probably irrational. But with no pot of gold at the end, only the properly delusional or wealthy could justify that investment.

OTOH copyright enforcement isn't that effective, so publishers meaninglessly vary textbook editions yearly, with expiring access to essential online content.

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

#135

Post by colejohnson66 »

WalterBright wrote: post #105
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.

Hosting workshops, personal appearances, giving lectures, being paid to write more material.

But who would host the workshops for her? Who would pay her to write more? She was rejected multiple times from multiple publishers.

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

#136

Post by zzo38computer »

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…

I agree with you. I don't like copyright either. I think it should be abolished, but would also accept to greatly reduce the duration and scope of copyright. That is why I write stuff to be public domain instead.

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

#137

Post by AnthonyMouse »

javajosh wrote: post #122
dredmorbius wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 can imagine what would happen if copyright didn't exist and then breaking the DRM allowed for-profit businesses to legally distribute any of the content they extracted.

Copyright without DRM >>> DRM without copyright.

Though it should definitely be one or the other and not both. If copyright exists then DRM is not only useless, its existence is pure harm because all it adds to copyright is restricting things the copyright doesn't give the copyright holder a right to restrict, like free speech and fair use.

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

#138

Post by zozbot234 »

azernik wrote: post #133
zozbot234 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire point of the Kickstarter model is to solve collective action problems of that kind. It's in the individual's interest to contribute, because otherwise the project might not reach its funding threshold, or might have trouble reaching the 'stretch' goal that some care about. This ensures that the 'funding' issue is solved, at least.

Who would be contributing to this Kickstarter? People who already know her, and know that her books are good? That's not where the real money is, or the measurement of market value of an author's labor; the money is in the flow of cash from consumers. More generally, non-excludable goods do not work well within a free market system. If you want them produced, you either set up a state mechanism for funding them (whic…

You're pointing to an information problem that has little to do with non-excludability. A prospective funder faces the exact same issue anyway! And crowdfunding has been used to fund many sorts of good/service provision where non-rivalry is an issue. It does appear to work quite a bit better than other market-based options.

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

#139

Post by zzo38computer »

SeanLuke wrote: post #79
jellicle wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

While true, and I am willing to work with (and contribute to) software licensed by GPL and other free software licenses, my own programs are all under the public domain, because I am against copyright. I believe in reducing rather than increasing legislation, in general, so that would mean is better to abolish copyright. Even so, if copyright is abolished and then someone does copy it and won't release the source code, someone can legally reverse engineer it anyways, give them a bad reputation, or whatever else it may be. Furthermore, abolishing copyright would not mean abolishing trademarks, so you can still refuse to grant permission to use your trademark. (I also think that in addition to abolishing copyright, patents should also be abolished. Trademarks should not be abolished, but perhaps its scope should be reduced.)

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

#140

Post by azernik »

WalterBright wrote: post #109
scoopertrooper wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to retain a professional creative class then you must implement a system that allows them to benefit from the works they produce. To rely on people producing things producing things without economic incentive is essentially the argument for anarchosocialism. It might work to some small degree for passion projects, but what the overall volume of creative production would collapse as creatives would have to…

As usual, we can look at history for answers. In the 19th century in Germany, Germany had no copyright or patent laws. There was an explosion of creativity and technological progress, and Germany became the European leader economically and technologically.

The lack of patent laws was very clearly a positive for Germany; the argument for those is IMO much weaker than for copyright. Especially for developing, backward economies (early-19th-century US, late-19th-century Germany, and contemporary China), ignoring foreign patents is very useful for speeding up technology transfer from more advanced economies; within 19th-century US there's some limited evidence for patents being useful as a way of paying local, small producers to publish their innovations widely, but the domestic Chinese quasi-open-source "shanzhai" electronic ecosystem produces quite a lot of its own innovation while completely disregarding patent rules.

But the evidence for lack of copyright being useful in that period is very weak: https://www.wired.com/2010/08/copyright-germany-britain/

Most of the great German authors of the period had to hold other jobs to support themselves, which made completing works slow and halting. Goethe supported himself as a courtier/bureaucrat/officer of the Duchy of Saxe-Weimar until his mid-40s, Hegel was a teacher and academic administrator, Kleist barely made a living off of of publishing a magazine and stints in Prussian government service, etc.

Post reply on HN