State Of Georgia Sues Carl Malamud For Copyright Infringement For Publishing The State's Own Laws
from the that-seems...-unwise dept
Update: We've written a new post about this case, which notes an important error we made in the analysis below. We claimed that the annotations were relied upon by the courts, which turns out not to be true. We apologize for the error, and we should have done more research initially. It is true, however, that multiple parts of the Georgia government do point to the annotated code as "the law" of the state and reference parts of that same annotated code. In our updated post, we do a more thorough analysis of the legal arguments -- yet we still regret and apologize for the initial error in this post.Two years ago, we wrote about the state of Georgia ridiculously threatening to sue Carl Malamud and his site Public.Resource.org for copyright infringement... for publishing an official annotated copy of the state's laws. This followed on a similar threat from the state of Oregon, which wisely backed down. Malamud has spent the last few years of his life doing wonderful and important work trying to make sure that the laws that we live by are actually available to the public. The specific issue here is that while the basic Georgia legal code is available to the public, the state charges a lot of money for the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated." The distinction here is fairly important -- but it's worth noting that
It took two years, but the state has now done the absolutely ridiculous thing of suing Malamud. It is about as ridiculous as you would expect again focusing on the highly questionable claim that the Official Code of Georgia Annotated is covered by federal copyright law -- and that not only was Malamud (*gasp*) distributing it, but also... creating derivative works! Oh no! And, he's such an evil person that he was encouraging others to do so as well!
This action for injunctive relief arises from Defendant’s systematic, widespread and unauthorized copying and distribution of the copyrighted annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (“O.C.G.A.”) through the distribution of thumb drives containing copies of the O.C.G.A. and the posting of the O.C.G.A. on various websites. Defendant has facilitated, enabled, encouraged and induced others to view, download, print, copy, and distribute the O.C.G.A copyrighted annotations without limitation, authorization, or appropriate compensation. On information and belief, Defendant has also created unauthorized derivative works containing the O.C.G.A. annotations by re-keying the O.C.G.A. in order to make it possible for members of the public to copy and manipulate the O.C.G.A., thereby also encouraging the creation of further unauthorized derivative works.Believe it or not, the State of Georgia is actually claiming that it needs the copyright protections here to incentivize it to create these annotated copies of the law. Apparently, without copyright, Georgia's law would remain sadly unannotated.
Each of these annotations is an original and creative work of authorship that is protected by copyrights owned by the State of Georgia. Without providing the publisher with the ability to recoup its costs for the development of these copyrighted annotations, the State of Georgia will be required to either stop publishing the annotations altogether or pay for development of the annotations using state tax dollars. Unless Defendant’s infringing activities are enjoined, Plaintiff and citizens of the State of Georgia, will face losing valuable analysis and guidance regarding their state laws.This is ridiculous. In what world does making the law require copyright protection?
The State is particularly upset that Malamud ran some crowdfunding and donation campaigns seeking to raise money to keep his operations running, saying that he raised this money "to assist the Defendant in infringing the State of Georgia's copyrights." The State also complains that he uploaded the code to the Internet Archive under a CC 0 public domain dedication, saying (incorrectly) that this implies that he claimed that he was the owner of the annotations. That's not true at all. He's claiming that everyone owns them, because they're the law.
Later, the lawsuit makes Malamud out to be some sort of horrible person on a "crusade" to make the laws free, and to "control the accessibility of U.S. government documents."
On information and belief, Carl Malamud has engaged in an 18 yearlong crusade to control the accessibility of U.S. government documents by becoming the United States’ Public Printer – an individual nominated by the U.S. President and who is in control of the U.S. Government Printing Office. Carl Malamud has not been so nominated.It takes a special kind of ridiculousness to argue that someone seeking to make the laws of the land more accessible to the public is somehow looking to "control the accessibility" of those laws. But, welcome to the State of Georgia, apparently home to just that kind of special ridiculousness.
The complaint further submits as an exhibit this Columbia Journalism Review article about Malamud from 2009 in order to support Georgia's ridiculous claim that Malamud sees what he's doing as a form of "terrorism." The lawsuit says the following:
Carl Malamud, has indicated that this type of strategy has been a successful form of “terrorism” that he has employed in the past to force government entities to publish documents on Malamud’s termsOf course, all that's likely to really do is further educate the court about what Malamud is really looking to do: make the laws of the land more publicly accessible.
Either way, this seems like a ridiculous move for Georgia. Going after Carl Malamud for copyright infringement for helping to make the public more aware of the law in the state of Georgia just seems ridiculous. And for all of the state's repeated claims in the lawsuit that it's doing this to protect taxpayers, one has to ask why it's spending taxpayer revenue on filing such a ridiculous lawsuit?
Back when the state of Georgia first threatened Malamud two years ago, he responded as such:
It is a long-held tenet of American law that there is no copyright in the law. This is because the law belongs to the people and in our system of democracy we have the right to read, know, and speak the laws by which we choose to govern ourselves. Requiring a license before allowing citizens to read or speak the law would be a violation of deeply-held principles in our system that the laws apply equally to all.This still applies, and it seems that the State of Georgia might want to re-evaluate its choice of targets here.
This principle was strongly set out by the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall when they stated “the Court is unanimously of opinion that no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this Court, and that the judges thereof cannot confer on any reporter any such right.” Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834). The Supreme Court specifically extended that principle to state law, such as the Ofcial Code of Georgia Annotated, in Banks v. Manchester (128 U.S. 244, 1888) , where it stated that “the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration of unwritten law, or an interpretation of a constitution or a statute.”
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: annotations, carl malamud, copyright, georgia, laws, regulations
Companies: lexisnexis, public.resource.org
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Based on the general mood towards government, the threat that they won't create new laws if this keeps up will probably send approval ratings through the roof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Standing is an issue
Also, not sure how they hold the copyright to this, and while I haven't pulled the full filing, have they shown that the alleged copyrighted works were registered prior to filing?
This case is a crock. This law firm and their lawyers should be ashamed. Unfortunately, I run into too many shameless lawyers in my litigation work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Standing is an issue
I've always thought of the annotations as a third party's interpretation and explanation of the law. No one cites to the annotations. You cite to the cases that the annotations describe.
I hope Malamud wins, because it will be a nice development if the annotations are in the public domain. But the distinction between law and editorial material may be a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Standing is an issue
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2014/title-28/chapter-9/section-28-9-3/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance is a pre-requisite for being in government in GA
However, ignorance of the law, and reason, and logic, are pre-requisites for being members of the General Assembly and for most state-wide and local-government offices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ignorance is a pre-requisite for being in government in GA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is a pre-requisite for being in government in GA
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/ignorance-of-the-law-is-no-excuse-but-it-is- reality
It looks at crimes that are malum in se versus those that are malum prohibitum. Good quick read as far as these things go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is a pre-requisite for being in government in GA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ignorance is a pre-requisite for being in government in GA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is a pre-requisite for being in government in GA
*Puts on tinfoil hat*
Back in 2012, the SCOTUS decided in a 5-4 vote in NFIB vs. Sebelius (Affordable Care Act), that confirmed that our government has the power to compel individual citizens to purchase federal (state) mandated policies through the use of Federal (state) tax powers. Ergo, you cannot plead ignorance due to state licensing because you will be compelled to purchase said law(s) that you broke or be "taxed" in order to compensate the state for your lack of understanding and for having to provide you with a public defender. Further more, you will have to purchase each new law(s) in a piece by piece fashion, on a limited 90 day license to ensure that only lawful parties can use them. In short, the only way to plead ignorance to the law will to be by becoming a tax evader.
How else can they afford to make new laws?
*takes off tinfoil hat*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What Georgia is violating, among other things, is the entire idea of limited time copyright as the authorizinge statute 28-9-3 gives the commission the right to limit publication or not without time limit, something that hasn't been true in common law countries since the 1710 Queen Anne statute that eliminated permanent IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is great!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is great!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is great!
(it can't be a DMCA takedown of the pledge, that would be public, so it must be something more secret.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is great! (pledge of allegiance)
Yes, but the reason is not very compelling. It was written by Francis Bellamy back in the late 1800s. Its original publication and promotion were intended to sell flags into classrooms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only federal works cannot be copyrighted
There is case law supporting an extension to state works on various grounds, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. That only officially applies to the federal government, rather than state governments -- though there are reasonable arguments that it *should* also apply to state and local governments.
2. It also does not apply to works created by outside contractors and then assigned to the government. And here, that's what Georgia is claiming. The works were created by LexisNexis and then assigned to the state of Georgia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
pretty much describes the annotations, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So the State of Georgia should lose its case, right? I realise that lying in a civil suit won't carry such a hefty penalty as lying during a public prosecution, but the above is so clearly a lie that even the most confused judge in the world should see right through it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
the courts will regularly rely on the annotations in the official code
I think this is the crazier part of the whole thing. The Georgia courts are basing rulings on LexisNexis interpretations of Georgia law - not on their own interpretations.
If the laws are ambiguous without the annotations, perhaps it is time to FIX THE LAWS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But that's not how it works. I'm a Georgia lawyer, and no one ever cites the annotations. You cite to the caselaw, which the annotations describe.
All the annotations do is make it easier to find relevant caselaw. The annotations are not themselves the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, *that's* not derivative at all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Well, *that's* not derivative at all...
It's derivative of the Code and the caselaw. But the State doesn't claim that those are covered by copyright.
Any person can create annotations to a state code and copyright those annotations. If you get on Google Scholar and do a search for a code section, you'll get back a list of cases that interpret the code section. For each case on the list, there will be a short blurb of text taken from the case. Congratulations, you've just created your own annotations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, it states in its article I, section I, paragraph V: "Freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed. No law shall be passed to curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. Every person may speak, write, and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that liberty."
Copyright is a restriction of Free Speech, an exception to it. The power to instate such an exception is only granted to the federal level. Georgia has no such provision in its constitution, therefore it doesn't have the power to instate its own version of the exception. Only the provisions of the Copyright Act can apply in Georgia to restrict freedom of speech on that basis. They only have that ground, and the Copyright Clause, as a basis to sue Carl Malamund.
It will be fun, me says you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY, Georgia. YW. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Access?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Access?
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.gand.218354/gov.uscourts.gand.218354.1.0.pdf
This is the "suing Malamud" link above.
You can then save the PDF somewhere else, or print it. Just FYI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Access?
1. I linked directly to the filing itself in the story above. It's here:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.gand.218354/gov.uscourts.gand.218354.1.0.pdf
That was the original link where it says "suing Malamud."
2. Document Cloud does make it available for printing and download, contrary to your claims. The UI could be better, but in the lower lefthand corner there's a square with arrows pointing to the corners. If you click that it opens up a "full screen view" with a variety of options, including downloading the original PDF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Access?
No kidding! I would never have discovered this if you hadn't explained it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Access?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Access?
There is documentation for the Document Cloud UI, but the UI is so bad that getting to that documentation is impossible without already having it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Making the Law Public will Aid Terrorists
The enemy would use knowledge of the law in order to avoid doing the very things that we would prosecute our enemies for doing. (example: if you knew that jaywalking was illegal, then you would find some other way to accomplish your evil plan of crossing the street without technically violating the jaywalking law.) This makes us all less safe from those who would work around our laws in order to accomplish their goals. (crossing the street)
We must protect ourselves from enemies who use knowledge of the law to avoid prosecution. (eg, jaywalkers using the crosswalk to avoid prosecution being an example of an enemy terrorist.)
In addition to secret laws, we need:
* Secret interpretations of laws
* Secret courts
* Secret court orders
* Secret arrests (in the middle of the night)
* Secret evidence (that the defense cannot access)
* Secret trials
* Secret convictions
* Secret incarceration
* Widespread police brutality, sometimes outright torture, condoned, maybe even encouraged by some departments, but defended by all officers
* Militarization of police
* Government torture programs
This list is not all inclusive. If you have questions about what should be on the list, simply look at what we were fighting in the previous century.
Think of the terrorists!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Making the Law Public will Aid Terrorists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Making the Law Public will Aid Terrorists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Making the Law Public will Aid Terrorists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Making the Law Public will Aid Terrorists
This guy has no respect for democratic institution. I hope he doesn't manage to come back to power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Although Section 105 of the Copyright Act places the works of federal government employees (so, federal statutes, federal judicial opinions, and the like) in the public domain, Section 105 doesn’t apply to state laws. Does that mean state laws are copyrightable? Although the statute is silent, the courts have always said: no, they aren’t. In Nash v. Lathrop, 6 N.E. 559, 560 (Mass. 1886), the court rested this conclusion on the unfairness of limiting public’s access to the rules that governed its conduct:
Every citizen is presumed to know the law thus declared, and it needs no argument to show that justice requires that all should have free access to the opinions, and that it is against sound public policy to prevent this, or to suppress and keep from the earliest knowledge of the public the statutes, or the decisions and opinions of the justices. … It can hardly be contended that it would be within the constitutional power of the legislature to enact that the statutes and opinions should not be made known to the public. It is its duty to provide for promulgating them; while it has the power to pass reasonable and wholesome laws regulating the mode of promulgating them, so as to give accuracy and authority to them.
Source: https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/04/16/can-states-copyright-their-statutes/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh look...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
State Of Georgia Sues Carl Malamud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Annotations
As an example, a section of the Georgia code makes it illegal to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In the annotated version, that section will be followed by notes from cases discussing things like how it applies to driving in a parking lot, challenges to the use of the breathalyzer, admissibility of field sobriety tests, etc. These notes will each be a couple of sentences at most, and are (at least usually) prepared by privately-employed editors.
Annotations are not the law. They are not part of the law. They are, in short, brief summaries of how the law has been applied or interpreted by courts, agencies, law reviews, and other sources. In my years of practice, I've never seen a court cite an annotation as authority for any proposition, and there's no reason that a court would--after all, each annotation cites its authority.
In the olden days (i.e., before the days of electronic legal research databases), preparing annotations was extremely labor-intensive, and the labor in question was generally provided by attorneys and librarians. Not only was there the actual preparation of the notes, but the extensive cross-referencing was all done by hand. Now the cross-referencing is mostly automated, but you still have attorneys reading the cases and writing the notes.
If GA were suing over Malamud putting the code online, the case would be well into frivolous territory. But they aren't--they're suing over the annotations, which are a commercial product, and aren't the law. They may or may not win, but contrary to the headline, this isn't about Malamud putting the law online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Annotations
No, these are created by publicly employed editors, who are employed by the state of Georgia to create an official Georgia annotated code. Until the state of Georgia becomes a commercial entity, there is no commercial product involved here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Annotations
It's unclear how significant this distinction is at the state level. At the federal level, the original works of government employees, prepared in the scope of their duties, are not copyrightable, period. However, works prepared under contract for the federal government can be copyrighted, and the government can own those copyrights. Thus, at the federal level, this distinction would be critical.
At the state level, though, the rules aren't quite as clear. There isn't a bright-line rule that works created by state government employees aren't copyrightable, as there is at the federal level. So even if you were right that the editors were state employees, that would not mean that the annotations couldn't be copyrighted.
There may be (though I doubt it) a state which hires editors, as state employees, to annotate its codes, but Georgia is not that state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Annotations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Annotations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Annotations
But even if you were right that there's no difference, since this is a state government and not the federal government, that still wouldn't render the annotations public domain works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Annotations
Which would be the only thing giving Georgia standing. At the same time, it stops the annotations from being private property. They are a legal text paid prepared on behalf and paid for by the tax payers.
I don't see how Georgia can argue that the tax payers are not to have access to them. The only way this should have a chance of prevailing is if the copyright had remained with LexisNexis, and it would have been LexisNexis who had sued.
But if Georgia is of the opinion that the annotations are required to a degree for understanding the law that they have expended tax payers' money to acquire the copyright on them, they will have a hard time convincing courts that they should be allowed to paywall them and have citizens pay again before accessing them.
If sanity prevails. This is the U.S. we are talking about, so that is not a given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Annotations
It might be thin but it's plausible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Annotations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Annotations
This is clearly stated in the post, so not sure why you're calling it out in the comments as if we did not.
As an example, a section of the Georgia code makes it illegal to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In the annotated version, that section will be followed by notes from cases discussing things like how it applies to driving in a parking lot, challenges to the use of the breathalyzer, admissibility of field sobriety tests, etc. These notes will each be a couple of sentences at most, and are (at least usually) prepared by privately-employed editors.
Yes, and if you want people to understand the law, then it's rather important to include that kind of information.
Annotations are not the law. They are not part of the law.
Many people disagree with you. Considering that these are the official annotations, released by the state itself as part of its official code of Georgia, then, yes, they are a part of the law.
If you go to the State Government of Georgia's website and try to find the law, what does it point you to? That's right... the ANNOTATED copy of the law.
https://georgia.gov/popular-topic/learning-about-georgia-law
And they call it "the official code of Georgia."
In other words, yes, the state of Georgia calls its own annotated code the "official code of Georgia." So, yes, the annotated code is law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Annotations
Incorrect. Follow the link and look at the Code. It's not the annotated version, and they don't call it O.C.G.A.
WestLaw sells its own annotated version of the Code, which it creates independently of the state. No one would claim that WestLaw can't copyright their annotations.
The distinction here is that the State owns the copyright in these annotations. If the court rules that the State can't copyright the annotations, then the State will stop hiring LexisNexis to produce the annotations, and LexisNexis will produce and sell them independently, just as WestLaw does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Annotations
So, no, Georgia does not call the annotated code the "official code of Georgia." If you follow the link you posted, you get to the unannotated code.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Annotations
Because your headline incorrectly states that Malamud is being sued for publishing the law, when it's the annotations that are at issue. And because the post clearly, and incorrectly, stated (before you edited it) that annotations are used and cited as legal authority.
Many people disagree with you. Considering that these are the official annotations, released by the state itself as part of its official code of Georgia, then, yes, they are a part of the law.
Find me one attorney who says so. You already have at least two (myself and Martin Marshall) telling you that you're wrong. Annotations are a research tool, not legal authority.
Malamud's position seems to be similar to yours (though he does recognize that the annotations are not the law)--that since the state has adopted this particular annotated version of the code as the "official" version, other material that would ordinarily be copyrightable, isn't. This is a curious and novel interpretation of the law. I don't think he'll win on that theory, but I'd be interested to see how the case goes.
There are certainly arguments to be made in Malamud's favor, and good policy reasons supporting open access to the law for all. But it is simply incorrect to state, as you do in your headline, that he's being sued for publishing the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Annotations
Law students learn this on the first day of law school: The statutes are "law," the comments are not. The comments can be persuasive authority, but they can never be primary authority, i.e., "law."
See, for example:Fetter v. Wells Fargo Bank Texas, N.A., 110 S.W.3d 683, 687 (Tex. App. 2003).Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Estate of Cowles, 982 S.W.2d 224, 226 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998).
Primary authority, such as statutes, are "law" and are in the public domain. But secondary authority such as comments, annotations, treatises, model codes, law review articles, dictionaries, etc. are not "law" and are not public domain. The fact that courts rely on them as persuasive authority doesn't make them suddenly public domain.
If you go to the State Government of Georgia's website and try to find the law, what does it point you to? That's right... the ANNOTATED copy of the law. https://georgia.gov/popular-topic/learning-about-georgia-law
And they call it "the official code of Georgia." In other words, yes, the state of Georgia calls its own annotated code the "official code of Georgia." So, yes, the annotated code is law.
This is just embarrassing. The official version you linked to is NOT the annotated version. Can you really not tell the difference between them?
Look at Section 1-1-1 in the linked-to version:After that, there's no annotations.
But if you actually look at the annotated version, you'll see annotations including editor's notes, judicial decisions, cross references, and law reviews. This lawsuit is over those annotations--the ones you can't even identify correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Annotations
§ 4-12-5
(a) Every llama professional and every llama activity sponsor shall post and maintain signs ...
Or you can search for "llama" and find all code sections.
If LexisNexis did not contract to provide this service, then the State of Georgia might. They would have to provide the server, and pay for the bandwidth, and pay the cost of updating it. This year's college intern might do a wonderful job, but next year might not be so good. Or the lack of supervision will lead to deterioration. Georgia would tell you to come to Atlanta and dig through stacks of paper, or volumes and volumes.
Instead, Georgia contracts with LexisNexis to make the actual code available to you. In turn, it brings potential $$$customers$$$ to its annotated version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lONG AGO, NOT TO fAR AWAY..
The books were expensive..and only those in the Church could read and interpret them..
Until the advent of the printing press, and making TONS of copies. And the Church having a FIT about it..
1. didnt know a Public LAW was Private..
2. Didnt know a Public servant had any rights to Privacy.
3. without a signature on the annotations, how do you know Whom to pay and how much.. And how do you keep records of what was read and recorded...
I love the concept of EDITING the law..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Weird. I say that there should be no copyright for laws/regulations because that's what I believe.
I don't say it generally because I don't believe it generally, and it's downright weird that you keep insisting I must believe that even when this has been explained to you multiple times.
I have told you how I really feel: copyright is broken and is vastly over protective. It should be scaled back massively. To what level is something that deserves more study and *I DON'T KNOW* the exact right level so I don't take a definite position on what the *exact proper level* is.
I've told you this before and you insist I'm lying because my accurate and honest response to you doesn't match with the made up "Mike" that apparently haunts your dreams. You should maybe stop listening to the strawman Mike in your head and start joining us here in reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you're not for something, in every aspect and use of it, then you must be against it! Only the lying or cowardly utter such absurdities as 'I don't know' or 'We don't have enough evidence to say exactly/either way', as everyone knows the proper way to deal with the unknown or situations where the evidence isn't strong enough to make an informed decision is to pick one of the two sides and angrily defend it against anything and everything the other side says, while being utterly contemptuous and dismissive towards those weaklings whining about 'gathering evidence before making a decision'.
/poe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To Antidirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Antidirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What should we expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the law itself isn't public domain,
But this is only a small part of BAR bigotry.
California is the only state in the Union where the BAR exam is expected to be an objective standard. All others require students to attend schools saddled with expensive accreditation processes before they can even ATTEMPT the exam.
So for most of the country, practicing the law is largely a formalized social class system. Incidentally, the Federal government DOES recognize California's BAR, though almost every state will not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think Malamud is going about this right
As I said in a previous comment, you're wrong with your link. You said, "the state points directly to the annotated version as the official laws of the state." No it doesn't. It points to the unannotated code, on a LexisNexis server, which states "This website is maintained by LexisNexis®, the publisher of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, to provide free public access to the law." You just saw the words "publisher of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated," but that's the manner in which LexisNexis is identifying itself, not the content to which Georgia linked. The content of the site, "the official code of Georgia" is unannotated.
Law is public domain. Court decisions are public domain. But they are not copyleft. I can absolutely create and copyright derivative works about things in the public domain. Slogging through decisions for each law and compiling relevant quotes and analysis for easy digestion is absolutely copyrightable. As other comments have said, LexisNexis is commissioned by the state to produce an annotated code, which it then uses for its judges and attorneys, and sells to other lawyers, probably making it revenue neutral.
So, you can argue that states should not be allowed to hold copyrights on anything. Maybe that's the case. I don't know. If so, what will happen is Georgia will stop commissioning LexisNexis to make annotations according to standards that we hope are in the best interests of Georgia citizens. LexisNexis will produce the annotations itself and sell copies to government and private attorneys and keep more of the profits itself.
Malamud thinks access to annotated laws is vital for a free society. I agree! So fine, his organization should dedicate itself to slogging through court decisions and annotating laws, and it should publish them. Create a "Wikipedia for laws" where anybody can annotate their state's laws. Do to LexisNexis and Westlaw what Wikipedia did to Britannica.
When Linus and RMS thought software should be free, they didn't go hack Microsoft and commercial Unix vendors and publish their software for free. They went and wrote and published their own damn free software.
Malamud, go write your own damn free annotations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't think Malamud is going about this right
I don't think so. Not because it's a derivative work on a public domain one, but because it fails something else:
originality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't think Malamud is going about this right
There's still a long road for us to travel. Building a free and annotatable version of Westlaw and LexisNexis is hard work. But we are definitely working on it. And if you want to help contribute, sign up and start annotating!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright of Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Update and apology
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150726/23080731763/even-if-state-georgia-can-copyright-lega l-annotations-should-it.shtml
In it, we also apologize for a key error in this post (and we've noted a correction to the post above as well) in claiming that the courts rely on the annotations. That is not true, and we take full responsibility for not accurately reporting this initially.
The new analysis at the link above, however, does explain why the lawsuit is still highly questionable. Multiple parts of the Georgia government still do point to the annotated law as "the law" and the Copyright Office has made it clear that official edicts of state governments are not subject to copyright. And everyone agrees that the annotated code is the "official" annotated code of the government. There is much more at the link above, but we still apologize for the initial error in this post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
proper usage of CC-Zero
I think, as much as anyone else, that the actions of the State of Georgia suing Malamud are very reprehensible. However, they do have a valid argument about CC-Zero being an inappropriate license for the body of annotated law.
CC-Zero is an instrument for someone who owns the copyright on a work to release it into the public domain. If you have reason to believe in good faith that a work is already on the public domain and you just want to label it as so (i.e. you do not own a copyright on it, neither does anyone else), you should use the Public Domain Mark.
See the Creative Commons Zero FAQ at https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#What_is_the_difference_between_CC0_and_the_Public_Doma in_Mark_.28.22PDM.22.29.3F
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the laws belong to the people...in eorgia...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secret laws....hmmmh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]