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

151–160 of 207 posts

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

#151

Post by zozbot234 »

stan_rogers wrote: post #146
airstrike wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An author's children shouldn't get jack unless the author saved royalties for them. This is such an obvious notion and it's not discussed nearly as often as it should. It's not like my employer will be sending my last paycheck to my children 70 years after my death...

On the other hand, your employer does not have the opportunity to accumulate your work without paying you while you are alive, then apply that accumulated work for fun and profit after your death. The "life plus X" is a Chesterton's Fence - it was originally there for a reason. The length of X has since grown to be ridiculous, yes, but posthumous publishing of works for which the creator received nothing was a thing.

Copyright in unpublished works is an entirely different matter than in published ones. Unpublished works get much stronger protection, that can extend for as long as 120 years from creation in the U.S. So I don't think your scenario is very relevant.

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

#152

Post by WalterBright »

azernik wrote: post #140
WalterBright wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Most authors today have to hold other jobs to support themselves. In fact it's likely the vast majority. I know several successful authors. None of them make enough off of the books to live on.

But what they have done is leverage the status the books conferred into lucrative careers.

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

#153

Post by pwg »

dredmorbius wrote: post #143
pwg wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FWIW, my complete crap Chrome browser on my complete crap Samsung Android device refuses to allow me to screenshot this HN thread claiming it is a "DRM protected page". Just tested with Firefox on Android (Moto E4 phone). Firefox did not block taking a screenshot of this thread. Perhaps you may wish to test Firefox yourself to see if it better obey's you than Chrome does.

The problem simply should not exist.

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.

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

#154

Post by jeffdavis »

I haven't read the whole opinion yet, but it seems to be arguing that works produced in the course of a legislative function are not authored, and therefore not copyrightable. It doesn't seem to have much to do with the content relating to the law or not.

And if so, what is the larger significance?

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

#155

Post by WalterBright »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #135
WalterBright wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I write and give away free software. People have paid to come to my workshops. They've paid me to write more.

It's sort of like why would anyone pay to attend MIT, when you can watch videos of the lectures for free on youtube? Oddly enough, MIT is doing better than ever.

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

#156

Post by unishark »

SeanLuke wrote: post #117
Retric wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her first book was also written without her receiving any money to do so. As to revenue Patrons, Trademark, etc also work. Shakespeare for example had zero copyright protection and still wrote quite a bit. PS: If anything the massive sums she received from the HP series discouraged her to write more.

> Her first book was also written without her receiving any money to do so. But she owned the copyright to it, and could trade that copyright for a contract on the book. That is, she had a viable monetization mechanism if her work was good. So once again: absent this, provide a plausible way Rowling could have made money on her first book.

>So once again: absent this, provide a plausible way Rowling could have made money on her first book.

The way she made money was extremely implausible.

This is like arguing we need the NBA because it provides a job for LeBron James.

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

#157

Post by danharaj »

megaman821 wrote: post #148
zozbot234 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, the "rights" would not be those of a book publisher but those of a patron/sponsor . Being among the persons or corporate entities who e.g. J.K. Rowling officially acknowledges as the "sponsors" of her work would create a lot of clout, and with that a lot of very real value. Authors used to be funded like that before the current copyright-based system became predominant; it's not just a theoretical model…

If the model is so good, what is preventing her from doing it now? There is nothing in law saying you have to copyright your books, she could simply release it under creative commons. What even qualifies you to know what is best for authors and publishers? I love how so many people love volunteering other peoples work for free or propose they jump through hoop in some byzantine system to make money in a way that is a…

Copyright has the force of the state behind it obviously it's going to beat out any solution that doesn't.

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

#158

Post by sk5t »

foxbarrington wrote: post #110
baybal2 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 deputise his most important duties. $250k is what 4th year lawyers at big firms like Cravath make. Partners can make 10x or more, and a lot of the work of partners is done by associates. [0] If an associate has clerked for a supreme court…

$250k is indeed not big money in DC / NYC / Boston. Consider that such a single income, after taxes, would be just about adequate to quality for a mortgage on a well-appointed toolshed in Nantucket.

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

#159

Post by scoopertrooper »

azernik wrote: post #140
WalterBright wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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

There is no doubt that copycats would benefit enormously from an absence of patent protection, but innovators would doubtless invest less capital in innovation if they could protect it.

Germany, U.S., and Chinese copycats were about to free-ride on the license fees paid by English manufacturers to patent holders. If the English never established a patent law, then there would be nothing for them copy and the overall welfare of society would be reduced.

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

#160

Post by imapluralistyep »

ineedasername wrote: post #94
imapluralistyep wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Annotated statutes should only be special when created by others. A state's annotation carries significantly more weight: it bears an official status, and it should have been obvious that the state's official interpretation, though not completely binding, still constitutes critical information necessary for citizens to know and understand the laws they are expected to live by.

I agree. Unfortunately, it is really looked down on by judges when you cite to an annotated statute because the annotation it isn't generally considered law. Obviously, this case may change that in Georgia (maybe elsewhere). I'd certainly try to cite to annotated statutes if the US supreme court said the authors were legislators.
Post reply on HN