As a UK citizen I have a somewhat confused understanding of this; who makes the laws of Georgia? If the "Annotated" code is de facto de juris then it would appear that the state of Georgia (deliberate lower case) has given the law making ability to LexisNexis which would seem somewhat problematical.
Howsoever should the state retain control then LN is merely a transcriber of statements made in court, in which case there would seem to be no copyright as no creative statement has been made - and indeed were it to have been then the firm would be abrogating the right of the state to make laws.
So if there is a criminal art ( sorry creative art) then it should have no legal standing - and if there is not then there is no justification to the claim of copyright.
Which leads me at least back, if not any one else to the question of who authori(z)ses or vets these documents - to sort of make a kind of legal point:
Perhaps a question that has yet to be addressed is that in which the autonomous vehicle takes an active role in preventing an accident that it is predicting will happen - the car travelling at high speed that will collide with the school bus [does the software recognise school busses or merely collisions?] and so drives itself to intercept the incoming vehicle, causing a collision but saving the bus.
How does one evaluate that?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by SimonN.
Audit / Vetting
If the "Annotated" code is de facto de juris then it would appear that the state of Georgia (deliberate lower case) has given the law making ability to LexisNexis which would seem somewhat problematical.
Howsoever should the state retain control then LN is merely a transcriber of statements made in court, in which case there would seem to be no copyright as no creative statement has been made - and indeed were it to have been then the firm would be abrogating the right of the state to make laws.
So if there is a criminal art ( sorry creative art) then it should have no legal standing - and if there is not then there is no justification to the claim of copyright.
Which leads me at least back, if not any one else to the question of who authori(z)ses or vets these documents - to sort of make a kind of legal point:
Quis Custodiet Ipso Custodes
Other Question
How does one evaluate that?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by SimonN.
Submit a story now.