Can a defense attorney in Georgia argue their client couldn't obey the law because they couldn't afford to know the law?
It's available for free.
If you publish Georgia's state laws, you'll get sued for copyright and lose
21–30 of 88 posts
Re: If you publish Georgia's state laws, you'll get sued for copyright and lose
#22It appears it is not about publishing the "law" but publishing the annotations written about the law that was the issue.
Re: If you publish Georgia's state laws, you'll get sued for copyright and lose
#23Here's the full, freely available state of Georgia code: http://www.legis.ga.gov/en-US/default.aspx . It seems like some folks may not like that a private company does the hosting or that they have exclusive rights to its reproduction. You could consider some reasons this might be the case that are reasonable, like the cost of maintaining it is actually cheaper by having a company who has the appropriate resources an…
I think it is completely reasonable to take the position that the law should be freely accessible to all, and also the process of providing it should not be in the hands of a private entity, or if it must be, that said entity cannot do things like be the exclusive provider, or charge egregiously for things like copies in a reasonable medium (e. g. paper or CD).
It's not a "team" thing, and I reject wholly the implication that anyone opposed to this is just trying to score political points for their "team." Perhaps people twisting the narrative to "they won't let anyone read the laws!" are indeed politically motivated, but that's not what you or I are discussing here -- and even so, you need to assume good faith if you want a discussion.
While it is reasonable for LexisNexis to be the official provider, it is not reasonable for them to abuse this privilege by charging silly amounts for certain kinds of access, and it is not reasonable for the state to sue to prevent others from distributing copies of what should by all rights be public domain and fully accessible material. Those problems are what's at issue here, not whether or not the state can hire a DB administrator.
Re: If you publish Georgia's state laws, you'll get sued for copyright and lose
#24How does case law work in the US? Must these annotations be used in interpreting the law, or is it merely an indication of how the law has been interpreted previously? To me, this is the crucial point. If the judge is forced to use the annotations in interpreting the law, then it seems clear that it is part of the law. If it is not, then I can completely understand how it is covered by copyright.
I suppose the other question is if they intend (or are able) to appeal. It sounds like something that could potentially make it up to the supreme court if it is not already clear.
Re: If you publish Georgia's state laws, you'll get sued for copyright and lose
#25Here's the full, freely available state of Georgia code: http://www.legis.ga.gov/en-US/default.aspx . It seems like some folks may not like that a private company does the hosting or that they have exclusive rights to its reproduction. You could consider some reasons this might be the case that are reasonable, like the cost of maintaining it is actually cheaper by having a company who has the appropriate resources an…
I think it is completely reasonable to take the position that the law should be freely accessible to all, and also the process of providing it should not be in the hands of a private entity, or if it must be, that said entity cannot do things like be the exclusive provider, or charge egregiously for things like copies in a reasonable medium (e. g. paper or CD). It's not a "team" thing, and I reject wholly the implica…
But it is freely available, I included the link.
Re: If you publish Georgia's state laws, you'll get sued for copyright and lose
#26Here's the full, freely available state of Georgia code: http://www.legis.ga.gov/en-US/default.aspx . It seems like some folks may not like that a private company does the hosting or that they have exclusive rights to its reproduction. You could consider some reasons this might be the case that are reasonable, like the cost of maintaining it is actually cheaper by having a company who has the appropriate resources an…
The "annotated" version is the official law of Georgia. The freely available code you link to is missing the annotations, despite those being officially adopted as law as well.
Without the annotations, you do not have the full law.
Re: If you publish Georgia's state laws, you'll get sued for copyright and lose
#27Re: If you publish Georgia's state laws, you'll get sued for copyright and lose
#28It appears it is not about publishing the "law" but publishing the annotations written about the law that was the issue.
But complicated by the fact that those annotations are considered official parts of the law. If it were standard legal commentary, there'd be no issue. But the state has made those part of the law and (effectively) barred viewing them without paying a steep (for the average person) price. So the only free portion to view is a subset of the current legal code.
Re: If you publish Georgia's state laws, you'll get sued for copyright and lose
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it is completely reasonable to take the position that the law should be freely accessible to all, and also the process of providing it should not be in the hands of a private entity, or if it must be, that said entity cannot do things like be the exclusive provider, or charge egregiously for things like copies in a reasonable medium (e. g. paper or CD). It's not a "team" thing, and I reject wholly the implica…
But it is freely available, I included the link.
Free as in "anyone can go to the URL," not free as in "free speech," and it makes a difference here. When I say free, I mean that the law is not a Disney movie. The state's interest is in enforcing it, not preventing people from copying it.
Re: If you publish Georgia's state laws, you'll get sued for copyright and lose
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't say the country was "founded" on such things. Yes, they were interwoven into the fabric of the country at the time; but the country was also created in a way that opened the door to remove those things. As for your last sentence; that's the inevitable outcome of almost all civilizations which is why revolutions happen at a somewhat steady rate.
It was literally founded on those things, in the sense that the original inhabitants were about 50% indentured and they built the damned place. Saying that the US wasn't founded on these realities is like saying the AU wasn't founded as a prison colony.
As someone who is part Cherokee (on the Dawes' Rolls), what do you mean by 'original inhabitants'?