Slashdot Mirror


Publish Georgia's State Laws, You'll Get Sued For Copyright and Lose (arstechnica.com)

Presto Vivace writes: If you want to read the official laws of the state of Georgia, it will cost you more than $1,000. Open-records activist Carl Malamud bought a hard copy, and it cost him $1,207.02 after shipping and taxes. A copy on CD was $1,259.41. The "good" news for Georgia residents is that they'll only have to pay $385.94 to buy a printed set from LexisNexis. Malamud thinks reading the law shouldn't cost anything. So a few years back, he scanned a copy of the state of Georgia's official laws, known as the Official Georgia Code Annotated, or OCGA. Malamud made USB drives with two copies on them, one scanned copy and another encoded in XML format. On May 30, 2013, Malamud sent the USB drives to the Georgia speaker of the House, David Ralson, and the state's legislative counsel, as well as other prominent Georgia lawyers and policymakers. Now, the case has concluded with U.S. District Judge Richard Story having published an opinion (PDF) that sides with the state of Georgia. The judge disagreed with Malamud's argument that the OCGA can't be copyrighted and also said Malamud's copying of the laws is not fair use. "The Copyright Act itself specifically lists 'annotations' in the works entitled to copyright protection," writes Story. "Defendant admits that annotations in an unofficial code would be copyrightable."

Slashdot reader Presto Vivace adds: "It could have been worse, at least he was not criminally charged liked Aaron Schwartz."

131 of 209 comments (clear)

  1. quick, post it here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    also Aaron Schwartz is a criminal.

    1. Re:quick, post it here by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

      Sounds like inbreeding and tertiary syphilis are still problems in the Georgja legislature and courts. Even spread to the federal courts around there.

    2. Re:quick, post it here by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      What can you expect from a state settled by criminals? It's hard to find now in the history books, but Georgia was a penal colony early on.

    3. Re:quick, post it here by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      What can you expect from a state settled by criminals? It's hard to find now in the history books, but Georgia was a penal colony early on.

      Uhmm pretty much all the original colonies were settled by criminals. Georgia's particular crime was debtors

      http://www.ushistory.org/us/5d...

      So how much revolving debt are you carrying ?

    4. Re:quick, post it here by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      What kind of secrecy is this becoming?? You should be encouraged to know the law!! Every where you turn this garbage prevails. Closed door meetings. Secret meetings and voting in the middle of the night.. Disgusting..

    5. Re:quick, post it here by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      It was originally supposed to take debtors as colonists and a few hundred were settled in Georgia. Most of the colonists however were tradesmen with skills. It seems the first Governor, General Oglethorpe, had ideas about how to establish a colony and he didn't really want a lot of losers with no skill set. He sold it as a buffer colony against Spaniards in Florida and the idea was to remove a lot of debtors from prisons in England and transplant them there. Oglethorpe was a cagey customer and basically performed a bait and switch on the King. If you look at Savannah, which he built, you'll see how it's all laid out, a planned city with parks and all. Really nice. The rest of the state has roads laid out by oxen and towns and cities that popped up willey nilly.

    6. Re: quick, post it here by Time_Ngler · · Score: 2

      It costs money to do anything legally. Even defending yourself I'm court requires time taken off of work and at least bus fair get to the court. A fee to the private companies to read the law is just on top of what one normally does to respect the judicial system.

      Besides which, think of the added benefit to the economy and additional tax revenue on this exchange which is used to help support public services from fire and police to public libraries, infrastructure and child protection services. Won't anyone think of the children?

      -- Your Congressional Representative and Public Servant

  2. Huh? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    Slashdot reader Presto Vivace adds: "It could have been worse, at least he was not criminally charged liked Aaron Schwartz."

    Aaron Schwartz is a sad case, but what does that have to do with copyrighting public law?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Huh? by LetterRip · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Aaron Schwartz is a sad case, but what does that have to do with copyrighting public law?

      He was publishing public records of cases, which is a similar nonsensical offense to publishing the law.

    2. Re:Huh? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Aaron Schwartz is a sad case, but what does that have to do with copyrighting public law?

      TFA isn't about copyrighting public law either. It is about copyrighting ANNOTATIONS AND COMMENTARY. Fake news.

    3. Re:Huh? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      So basically if you want to prevent anyone from being able to view a public document, all you have to do is doodle a penis in the margin?

    4. Re:Huh? by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      This case is not even vaguely similar to the Swartz one. The comparison is spurious. Vivace either isn't a very careful thinker and writer (note he couldn't even get Swartz's name right, something that would have taken all of five seconds to look up), or is being deliberately provocative.

      The prosecution of Swartz was outrageously heavy-handed and excessive, though the portion of blame for his death that can be assigned to Heymann, Ortiz et al. is endlessly debatable.

      The present case is deplorable, but for the state of Georgia's asinine, money-grubbing attitude toward their legislative IP. This was a straightforward civil suit over copyright. The defendant obtained his original copies legally. Yes, he didn't face criminal charges; neither was he assassinated in a drone strike, or extraordinarily renditioned, or shipped blankets infected with smallpox, or made to suffer a voodoo curse, or any of a thousand other things.

    5. Re:Huh? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      TFA isn't about copyrighting public law either. It is about copyrighting ANNOTATIONS AND COMMENTARY. Fake news.

      As has been pointed out many times, as far as the state of Georgia is concerned, the annotations and commentary *are* the law. When the Georgia legislature writes a Bill, they start it off with "an Act to amend the Official Code of Georgia Annotated" which is not just the statutory law as written; they are referring to the annotations and commentary also. Prosecutors and judges work with the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated" and there is no defense for not knowing it.

  3. Ignorance of the law is no excuse by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But do I have to obey laws that I cannot see?

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse by Thelasko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the state of Georgia, it's a criminal offense to be poor. Don't believe me? Look it up... Don't have $1200? Off to jail with you!

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    2. Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I dunno, let's che.... oh...

    3. Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's also a crime in LA, MI, OH, GA, WA, and possibly others.

    4. Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse by Alan+R+Light · · Score: 1

      Seeing as it is a fundamental principle of law that the law must be public and knowable, I would say that you have no obligation to obey Georgia's laws, nor any laws that are so unclear that no one can be confident in what they say.

      Unfortunately, I am not the one enforcing the laws - so I would advise you not to take the above advice. Just remember that everything makes more sense when you think of the government as organized crime.

    5. Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse by myrdos2 · · Score: 1

      I googled it and all that turned up was your post... You're the sixth from the top: "criminal offense not to have $1200 in georgia"

    6. Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse by aliquis · · Score: 1

      It's a trick.
      The idea is that to look it up you'd either have to spend the $1200 or .. break copyright.
      So the poor person trying to find out ..

    7. Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      Google "Georgia OCGA" and the first link that comes up is "LexisNexis(r) Custom Solution: Georgia Code Research Tool". Click it and a "Code of Georgia - Free Public Access" page comes up. Click "I Agree" and you get complete access to the Georgia Code for free. The opinion mentions that Lexis/Nexis is obligated to maintain this free site.

      One might argue about the annotations being missing but the opinion shows precedent for those being copyrightable, even for laws.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    8. Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it sounds like the "annotations" are fundamental to the law itself and provided by the same legislative organs that made it in the first place.

      in other words, if the judge could do his job without the annotations, okay.

      it still begs the question why the fuck the annotations are necessary and if they are necessary why they aren't free.

      also why the annotations have been marked such a high value for.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse by clovis · · Score: 2

      In the state of Georgia, it's a criminal offense to be poor. Don't believe me? Look it up... Don't have $1200? Off to jail with you!

      That's not true. Being poor is not a criminal offense in Georgia.
      Here's the official Georgia law, all of it:
      http://www.lexisnexis.com/hott...

    10. Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      it sounds like the "annotations" are fundamental to the law itself and provided by the same legislative organs that made it in the first place.

      Annotations are basically collections of court cases, trials, history, and lawyers opinions.
      They are not necessary, but they do make arguing a case easier if you have them

      There are legal publishing services that make annotations for just about every court system there is. These annotations have been available since forever to lawyers for huge sums. Having these annotations make a lawyers job much easier because now someone else has done your research for you.
      However, annotations do not carry the force of law because the previous court cases often conflict with each other and may be decided differently in the future, and annotations will often not have the most recent decisions.

      Georgia hired a third party to create and maintain the annotations for Georgia law and add it to the official code as a favor to the people and screw the lawyers.
      But it cost boatloads of money to compile and maintain the annotations. How to pay for it? Give the LexisNexis sole publishing rights.
      Ga law mandated that the publisher maintain a free web site for the general public. I use it to check on stuff, and it works fine for me.

    11. Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Gotta love religion. Starving kids? No problem. Dick in another man's ass? GET THE FUCK OUT OF IT.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    12. Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      That's not true. Being poor is not a criminal offense in Georgia. Here's the official Georgia law, all of it: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hott...

      Whoosh!

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    13. Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse by myrdos2 · · Score: 1

      Gotcha.

    14. Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Technically, a judge should be able to do their job without annotations. It's just much more efficient and congruent to be able to see what others in similar situations have done.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  4. Stay out of Georgia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's the night that the lights went out in Georgia
    That's the night that they hung an innocent man
    Well Don't trust your soul to no back woods Southern lawyer
    Cause the judge in the town's got bloodstains on his hands

  5. Re: BULL FUCKING SHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Your tax dollars at work. Par for the course when it comes to government.

  6. Wait... bad summary? by Mark19960 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't the issue over the ANNOTATIONS and not the laws?
    What am I missing?

    1. Re:Wait... bad summary? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Isn't the issue over the ANNOTATIONS and not the laws?
      What am I missing?

      Maybe the state made it impossible to get a copy of the laws without the annotations?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:Wait... bad summary? by Daemonik · · Score: 2

      The annotations are notes by the writers of the law about what the law actually means and judicial decisions about the law. Without them the written law is barely useful.

      Like, in the US you have the right to free speech.. except it mostly only counts when dealing with the government, and doesn't protect you at all in some situations, etc.

    3. Re:Wait... bad summary? by dlleigh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Copyrighting annotations is fine as long as they are truly commentary and have no legal force.

      If they do have any legal force, then that's a whole different story.

    4. Re:Wait... bad summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Isn't the issue over the ANNOTATIONS and not the laws?
      What am I missing?

      Maybe the state made it impossible to get a copy of the laws without the annotations?

      The official Georgia Code is the copyrighted code with the annotations. Anything without the annotations is unofficial.

    5. Re:Wait... bad summary? by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 2

      Often times building, safety and various engineering codes are incorporated into various laws.

      The codes or guidelines are typically published by various private and professional groups at exorbitant prices. Then they are incorporated into the laws by reference.

    6. Re:Wait... bad summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      In GA, the 'law' is technically the annotations. Because as anyone who has studied law for at least one semester knows... what is written in law doesn't matter. What matters is how the law is interpreted and enforced based on: common law, precedent/case law, other court rulings/supreme court rulings.

      A couple states still have interracial sex/marriage as illegal on the books, but (I hope this is 'obviously') they are not enforceable because of SCOTUS rulings

    7. Re:Wait... bad summary? by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Waiting for these asshats to say, "The paper is blank, and all the text is just annotations."

    8. Re:Wait... bad summary? by PPH · · Score: 1

      But all of the things that make up annotations are matters of public record. The annotations are not the product of creative work, only the compilation of existing public information. And they should not be subject to copyright protection.

      The same logic was applied by the US Supreme Court to deny copyright protection of phone books.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re:Wait... bad summary? by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Informative

      The official Georgia Code is the copyrighted code with the annotations. Anything without the annotations is unofficial.

      They publish an official code with annotations, but the official statutory law with official numbering is available for free online (here). And the annotations (by law) do not carry the force of law (as that *would* make them uncopyrightable, as the linked decision points out). In short: the summary is not only clickbait, it's actually wrong. GA law is 100% completely free and available to all with no copyright restrictions.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    10. Re:Wait... bad summary? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Does anyone who has studied law know about LexisNexis? Is that the go-to place to download laws? If it is, it seems that should be the very first thing taught in any law class.

      Step 1 - Get a LexisNexis account. You're going to need it.

      So, are there any law students here? Is this true?

    11. Re:Wait... bad summary? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Maybe the state made it impossible to get a copy of the laws without the annotations?

      No, they didn't.

      The Agreement requires that Lexis/Nexis provide Georgia's statutes in an un-annotated form on a website that the public can access for free using the Internet. The free public website contains only the statutory text and numbering of the O.C.G.A.

      What doesn't have the force of law is copyrightable:

      However, the Copyright Compendium makes clear that the Office may register annotations that summarize or comment upon legal materials unless the annotations have the force of law. Only those government documents having the force of law are uncopyrightable.

      The annotations etc. are not law, strike one:

      The statutory portion of such codification shall be merged with annotations, captions, catchlines, history lines, editorial notes, crossreferences, indices, title and chapter analyses, and other materials pursuant to the contract and shall be published by authority of the state pursuant to such contract and when so published shall be known and may be cited as the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated."

      Strike two:

      Unless otherwise provided in this Code, the descriptive headings or catchlines immediately preceding or within the text of the individual Code sections of this Code, except the Code section numbers included in the headings or catchlines immediately preceding the text of the Code sections, and title and chapter analyses do not constitute part of the law and shall in no manner limit or expand the construction of any Code section. All historical citations, title and chapter analyses, and notes set out in this Code are given for the purpose of convenient reference and do not constitute part of the law.

      Strike three:

      Annotations; editorial notes; Code Revision Commission notes; research references; notes on law review articles; opinions of the Attorney General of Georgia; indexes; analyses; title, chapter, article, part, and subpart captions or headings, except as otherwise provided in the Code; catchlines of the Code sections or portions thereof, except as otherwise provided in the Code; and rules and regulations of state agencies, departments, boards, commissions, or other entities which are contained in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated are not enacted as statutes by the provisions of this Act.

      Yes, it's a bit odd to have official commentary but they are not building codes incorporated by reference or anything like that. They're just there to help interpret the lawmaker's intention, should there be an ambiguity in the actual law. I think we do it pretty much the same way here.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:Wait... bad summary? by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 2

      Copyrighting annotations is fine as long as they are truly commentary and have no legal force. If they do have any legal force, then that's a whole different story.

      They don't have legal force -- they just tell you how to interpret the law as written. That's COMPLETELY different. </sarcasm>

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    13. Re:Wait... bad summary? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      The annotations are not the product of creative work, only the compilation of existing public information.

      The former does not necessarily follow from the latter. Compiling public information can still be a creative work if, for example, decisions must be made about what information to include in the compilation and what information to exclude.

      The same logic was applied by the US Supreme Court to deny copyright protection of phone books.

      The denial of copyright protection only applies to the content of the phone book, insofar as there are no creative decisions involved in listing all names, addresses, and phone numbers in alphabetical order.

    14. Re:Wait... bad summary? by PPH · · Score: 1

      decisions must be made about what information to include in the compilation and what information to exclude.

      But who is making these decisions? And, since it is the annotated state code that is the official law, are they empowered under the state constitution to make laws?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    15. Re:Wait... bad summary? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      But who is making these decisions?

      If it's truly just annotations, I would assume that it's the author and/or publisher.

      And, since it is the annotated state code that is the official law

      That seems to be the open question in this conversation, and I don't personally know the answer. I was only commenting on the statements of yours that I quoted. If these "annotations" are part of the legally binding text, then I absolutely agree that they are part of the law and thus should not be eligible for copyright. If they really are just annotations (e.g. excerpts from court decisions, commentary, etc.), then the book is a copyrightable work.

    16. Re:Wait... bad summary? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Informative

      And the annotations (by law) do not carry the force of law (as that *would* make them uncopyrightable, as the linked decision points out). In short: the summary is not only clickbait, it's actually wrong. GA law is 100% completely free and available to all with no copyright restrictions.

      In Georgia specifically, the situation is complicated and different from other states. (Even Wikipedia has a summary.)

      Basically, in most states (and for federal law), the "annotations" are compiled references to relevant court cases, other laws, parts of the legislative record related to the law, etc. In almost all cases these are compiled by private businesses and copyrighted, sold to attorneys as a helpful tool. They have no official standing.

      Georgia is different. The state of Georgia publishes an official set of annotations for its laws which apparently are maintained by the state (not a private business, as with most other annotated codes). Because of this official publication by the state government, Georgia case law frequently makes reference to the OFFICIAL annotations directly (since they are basically codified directly by the state), whereas in other states and for the federal government, you wouldn't reference the annotations directly (since they aren't official) -- you'd use the annotations to find references that you'd reference instead.

      Georgia is a special case here, and it could legitimately be argued that keeping the official codified annotations private is basically keeping a STATE CODIFIED DOCUMENT from the public, which is obviously helpful for people who want to research the law, represent themselves in court, etc. In other states, the annotations are clearly owned by private businesses who compile them. In Georgia, they are an essential part of the official codified law as distributed directly from the state government.

      So all those posts claiming this is "fake news" aren't quite right. It's true that you can get the text of Georgia statutes for free. But the state of Georgia here is also providing an official text that accompanies the code, but only for a fee. One could argue that, as an official state resource, it should be made accessible to the public too, like I always hear numerous Slashdot commenters bitching endlessly about how any scientific research with even a tiny percentage of government funding should have its results published freely and accessible for free.

      Where are all those Slashdot commenters here yelling about access to government-sponsored documents here?? Instead, we just seem to have a number of modded up comments claiming TFA is "fake news." Sure, there's an argument that the state should be able to copyright its publications, so it's not clear that they should necessarily make it available for free. But the situation in Georgia with the state law is different from most states, making TFA's description *not* a clear-cut case (for or against).

    17. Re:Wait... bad summary? by drhamad · · Score: 1

      That's... entirely untrue. The Official Georgia Code is the law of the land. Annotations are just that - annotations. It's available here, for free: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hott...

      --
      -Daniel
    18. Re:Wait... bad summary? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      They don't have legal force -- they just tell you how to interpret the law as written.

      Not exactly. It's mostly summary of other court decisions that referenced the law in question. Decisions about a law are not the law itself, and a paragraph description of a decision is the product of the lawyer/legal aide who wrote the description, not the court, so they're copyrightable.

      Where we have a problem is lazy judges. When writing their decisions, if they decide to look up other cases via the annotations they should follow the annotation to the actual decision, read it themselves to make sure they agree with the summary and the applicability of that precedent to the case in front of them, and cite that decision. Instead some lazy judges just cite the annotation. It's like writing an essay and citing Wikipedia, instead of following the citation on Wikipedia to Wikipedia's source and citing that.

      As for the copyrightability of the annotations, Romeo and Juliet is public domain. Encyclopedia Britannica's article about Romeo and Juliet is copyright by Encyclopedia Britannica. If you demand Britannica be free because it's referencing something public domain, you're not going to get Britannica for free, you're going to get no Britannica at any price.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    19. Re:Wait... bad summary? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      And, since it is the annotated state code that is the official law

      No, the annotations are just summaries of other decisions. This is definitely a creative work. Yes, Romeo & Juliet is public domain, but if you write an essay summarizing Romeo & Juliet and its themes, that's your creative work.

      I saw this story a year or so back, and if I recall the issue of the "official" copy of the law with annotations was Georgia's way of cutting out the middle man. In most states, various companies like Lexis-Nexis take the state laws and compile their guides to them, providing commentary, summaries, links to decisions, etc. This is obviously expensive and time consuming work. They then sell these to the lawyers in the state. This includes the DAs and the judges, who are obviously busy people. If you're making a decision about a certain law, it's very useful to have someone else already compiled a list of references to other cases that were decided about that law.

      The state of Georgia said "this is stupid...let's just commission Lexis-Nexis to write the annotations ourselves, all our officials get the stuff for free now and we recoup the costs selling the annotations to the private attorneys just like before." This seems like a very good idea, and nobody in Georgia seems to have a problem with it. The guy in TFA got buttblasted though and tried to make it out like it's some kind of evil usurpation of your rights thing, and has thankfully been sued and lost.

      If he got his way, you wouldn't be getting the annotations for free for the public. You would go right back to the old system where the annotations are written by private companies and then taxpayer money is spent on them as reference for judges and state attorneys.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    20. Re:Wait... bad summary? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing: If annotated copies of the law are the official copy, annotations are a creative work and Lexis-Nexis has been commissioned to produce them, then who elected Lexis-Nexis to this lawmaking position? If the answer is that the legislature or courts delegated their constitutional duties to Lexis-Nexis, then their work product is a part of the public records. If Lexis-Nexis incurred a cost in performing their legislative duties, then they should have sought reimbursement from the state.

      I can see two problems here: The cost of making public records available being passed through a for-profit entity. And the an unelected entity making material changes to the states laws outside of the process put forth in their constitution.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    21. Re:Wait... bad summary? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      lawmaking position?

      And the an unelected entity making material changes to the states laws

      No, they're not. They're not making any laws. The annotations are not laws. The annotations are links to cases decided about the laws and summaries of them. It's just a reference guide, and does not in any way change the law. Kind of like how Oracle might publish the official documentation for the Java language, but anybody can write "Java for Dummies" and sell it. Even if you're trying to say it's changing the interpretation of the law, no, the judges who decided previous court cases set the interpretation and all the annotators are doing is pointing to those decisions.

      Writing about how a judge wrote about the law is not even close to "lawmaking."

      Here's the thing: If annotated copies of the law are the official copy

      No, they publish the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, they are not the authors of the official code. The authors of the official code is the legislature of the great state of Georgia. LexisNexis compiles the official version of the annotations.

      At the end of the day, here are your options:

      Option 1) Like (almost?) every other state, private companies like LexisNexis or Thomson West hire lawyers and legal aides to review state laws and make lists and summaries of cases that referenced each law. They they compete to sell these annotated law compilations to attorneys, and since they're useful reference, the state winds up buying them for judges and state attorneys too. Choose this option and the state of Georgia buys expensive annotations from LexisNexis. If you (as a private attorney or private citizen) want a copy of the annotations, you pay LexisNexis thousands of dollars.

      Option 2) The status quo, in which the state of Georgia commissions an "official annotated version" and sells that to the private attorneys, recouping the cost of the commission. If you want an annotated copy and you're not an official of the state of Georgia, you're still paying LexisNexis thousands of dollars.

      Option 3) The state of Georgia commissions an "official annotated version" and gives that away for free to everyone. Everyone can now read the annotations for free, but this costs the taxpayers a lot of money since the private attorneys who used to pay for the state's copies in Option 2 are now getting it for free as well.

      So which option do you want? 1) is a moderate expense to the taxpayers, 2) costs the taxpayers nothing, and 3) costs taxpayers a lot (but they get free unlimited access to the annotations).

      If it were up to me, given that extremely few people ever read the laws under which they live, and extremely extremely few people are even aware of the difference between a regular copy and annotated copy of said laws, option 3) doesn't provide that great a value. I would do Option 2, but I would make sure to provide copies of the annotated laws to public libraries and prison libraries. Now they're available for free if citizens really want to see them, but the cost of the legal research for the annotations falls on private attorneys and not the taxpayers, who probably don't care enough to pay for any of this.

      What option would you choose?

      Oh, and if you're some kind of activist who thinks this is all awful in some way or another, I guess an Option 4) could be make your own damn annotated copy of the laws and give it away for free. Start up a "lawkipedia" where you and volunteers annotate state codes and publish it on the internet for anyone interested.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  7. Once again I'd like to remind America by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you have a ruling class, you just don't like to acknowledge them. You'll never get rid of them ( wealth and privilege gains you entry and you're not getting rid of that any time soon) but there's a lot more you could do to reign them in if you'd stop pretending they don't exist.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Once again I'd like to remind America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I once again submit my petition for a +1 Depressing mod.

    2. Re:Once again I'd like to remind America by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ..and I'd like to remind you (and them!) that we (U.S. citizens, that is) have guns, and you'll never get rid of them, either, so I'd recommend to them (shitty rich people who think they're better than everyone else and therefore should 'rule' us) that they tread lightly, lest something unfortunate has to occur. Not even a threat, just a simple statement of fact.

    3. Re:Once again I'd like to remind America by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      One word: Guillotine.

    4. Re:Once again I'd like to remind America by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      In case you have noticed lately, the vast majority of the strong proponents of gun ownership are quite happy with rule by the rich, as long as they think the rich will protect them from the blacks, Muslims, and gays. I wouldn't count on them to side with the populace in your scenario.

    5. Re:Once again I'd like to remind America by dwillden · · Score: 1

      You are missing a few false stereotypes in your false claim.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    6. Re:Once again I'd like to remind America by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      In case you haven't noticed, the vast majority of gun owners are not rich people, and in fact hate rich people, so you're completely and totally wrong.

    7. Re: Once again I'd like to remind America by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      ..and yet again we have some idiotic AC who doesn't know how things work. If we reach the point where things are so bad that the U.S. military proper is attacking U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, then all bets are off, the U.S. won't really exist anymore, and likely the whole rest of the world will be going to hell in a handbasket with it, but until then it's illegal for U.S. military to operate in such a way on U.S. soil, any such order would be interpreted correctly as illegal, and would not be followed. In fact they'd side with the citizens against the government.

      Please post your silly troll posts elsewhere, like 4chan, where they belong. They're not credible in the least here.

  8. Yes, but... by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

    ...you can still view them online for free. Granted, it's through LexisNexis, but it's free and searchable, so what's the big deal?

    1. Re:Yes, but... by jaklode · · Score: 1

      That assumes that the public library has public computers, with internet access.

    2. Re:Yes, but... by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

      https://www.lexisnexis.com/hot... The GA code is free on LexisNexis

  9. OpenRecordsAct by sdinfoserv · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That would appear to be in violation of Georga's Open Records Act.
    http://legal.gatech.edu/sites/...

    1. Re:OpenRecordsAct by freeze128 · · Score: 2

      Wow. That's just too much for me to read. If only there were some annotations on it that would help me determine what it's trying to say...

  10. He was publishing private academic journals by Brannon · · Score: 1

    wasn't he? I don't see the connection.

    1. Re:He was publishing private academic journals by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      As far as I can remember he published publicly funded research. Whether or not the results were in a private academic journal is ... actually a good parallel to locking up laws behind paywalls.

      It's kind of like standards too. Many standards in the world are mandatory and you can get in trouble for not following them. Not knowing them is not a defence. They were adopted as a requirement by the government whom you pay with taxes, and yet they aren't available to you without an additional charge.

      It's all about legally enforced double dipping.

  11. Agreed, sounds like bullshit. by Brannon · · Score: 1

    Beowulf is in the public domain, I can make as many copies of it as I want and re-distribute that to anyone I want.

    But, if somebody publishes a copy of Beowulf marked up with annotations and explanations (and copyrights the derivative work), obviously I can't republish that. That's what we're talking about here, right?

    Laws are in the public domain, but they aren't GPLed.

    1. Re:Agreed, sounds like bullshit. by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Beowulf is in the public domain, I can make as many copies of it as I want and re-distribute that to anyone I want.

      I'm surprised Disney haven't claimed it (and been granted it by all the bodies that matter).

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  12. Confused by war4peace · · Score: 1

    I am sorry, but I really don't understand this.
    Laws should be free for anyone to read. They're public.

    With that being said, the attached cost might not be defined as "it'll cost you this much to read the set of laws" but as "it'll cost you this much tor read the laws in this particular format". Now the question becomes "are there free alternatives to this data set?"

    Analogy: I could take Dante's "Inferno" and publish it as an illustrated interactive electronic format book, with 3D animations and comments and bells and whistles and sell it for a thousand dollars a piece - not because the standard content costs a thing, but because I put X amount of work into it, and the work itself is copyrighted, e.g. the extra content.

    In this case, copying that product and distributing it for free is copyright infringement.

    I had written all the above without clicking on any TFS URLs, but now I did. And it looks like LexisNexis, the publisher, is a private corporation. So this is not a matter of data (aka the set of laws) not being available otherwise. It's a matter of that particular set of data (annotated laws) having been copied without the publisher's consent, which is copyright infringement.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    1. Re:Confused by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Correct. The /. article is nothing but clickbait. The Schwartz comment underscores that..

    2. Re:Confused by guardian-ct · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. Georgia state law says that, while the annotations are to be considered "commentary", they're still part of the Official Code of Georgia. So yes, these are annotations, but they appear to also be essential to determining what the Code means.

    3. Re:Confused by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Yes, but by "official code" they mean "the official set of annotations we commissioned instead of buying them from a 3rd party." The way it works in most states is multiple private companies hire their own lawyers and legal aides to annotate the state law. That is, to write brief commentary and summaries of other court cases that have been decided about that law. These are obviously very helpful reference materials for judges and state attorneys, too, so the state winds up buying annotated copies of their own laws from, say LexisNexis. The state of georgia got smart and said "this is stupid, we're spending all this taxpayer money on these annotations. Let's just commission LexisNexis directly to write the Official annotated version of GA state law, and our judges and officials will get it for free because we'll recoup the costs selling it to the private attorneys!" They even require LexisNexis to make the (unannotated) code available for free to the public.

      If you think that this is somehow immoral or evil, okay, the result will not be that the state of Georgia pays for the annotations and makes them available for free to everyone. Largely because no one actually cares about the annotations besides lawyers, so that would be a huge expense to the taxpayer with no real pay-off for them. The result will be GA going right back to the system everyone else uses of buying the annotated code from private 3rd parties, who still aren't going to compile all those summaries and give them away for free. Nothing is going to change because it seems to work out pretty well and saves money for the people and government of georgia, but raging nerds on the internet will continue to rage about the system, maaaaaan.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  13. Re:Public domain? by Daemonik · · Score: 1

    It's not the laws that are copyrighted. It's the annotations which you need to really understand what the laws mean and how they apply. That's what's been copyrighted.

  14. Most of states have copyrighted laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why are we picking on GA? I know my state has put people in prison for criminal infractions in the late 80s when I was in law school for giving students copies of pages from law books.

  15. Re:Public domain? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    i fail to see how that's better/more defensible?

  16. Is Georgia unique in copyrighting its legal code? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Does any other state do this, and if so what legal standing does GA have to copyright the laws it passes?

    Corollary question (and no, this is not a begged question): given that ignorance of the law is no excuse, is it constitutional to enforce laws that require a $1000 purchase to read?

  17. It does not cost $1000 to "read" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Available online, for free, in all its glory: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/gacode/Default.asp

    Law should not be subject to copyright, and this person should not be sued for simply making a copy of the law he's subject to. But to say one cannot read the law at all without paying $1000 is just plain incorrect.

  18. Re:This isn't surprising by postbigbang · · Score: 1

    So their casual users are shut out of the "game".

    It takes no money at all to put the prepared docs into PDF or similar open formats and distribute them. The IEEE also gets away with this madness as well.

    I DO acknowledge that it takes money to assemble and maintain docs, and that's what member and especially VENDOR members (who bought and paid for the standards to begin with) need to do if they want their standards to be openly acknowledged.

    This is a publisher's racket, just like academic and college books and papers. Someone needs to let the air out of the balloon.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  19. Re:This place sucks by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Distributed copies of any state code are obsolete the next day the legislature is in session. When you want to know if you can legally do X, there has to be an official site where the current code is available.

  20. Re:This isn't surprising by jaklode · · Score: 1

    Well, the standards often just have some tiny editorial changes from the last drafts, and the last drafts are available, so that works sort of OK.

  21. Stop spreading BS. by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Great, care to point out where those laws are available freely WITHOUT those annotations?

    They are simply being used as a vector to allow copyright to be exercised on public information.
    Its exactly like adding a copyright page to the front of a public document, and claiming that page is copyright, therefore the whole document is.

    The fact is that a public of 'public servants' dont want the general public to have free access to the laws that govern them, and are willling to
    spend the publics money to protect the public from knowing their own laws.

    Nice, isnt it.

    1. Re:Stop spreading BS. by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Informative

      Great, care to point out where those laws are available freely WITHOUT those annotations?

      Yes, on the public website of the company that published the annotated texts. Here, to be incredibly specific.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:Stop spreading BS. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      That link goes to a blank page.

      The link works fine for me, although it takes about 15 seconds to load. Georgia law is also available for free at the Library of Congress website.

      Anyway, TFA is total baloney, and their main point that Georgia is using copyright to restrict access to their laws is false. The summary and headline are even worse. Fake news and garbage journalism, designed to manufacture outrage and generate clicks, rather than inform.

    3. Re:Stop spreading BS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure. Easily found on the Internet without too much trouble:
      http://codes.findlaw.com/ga/

      The problems with laws is not that some states make it difficult to know all one should know, which is why hiring a good attorney is your first step, the problem is that there are so many laws, and most have some sort of penalty attached, that it is impossible to know all of them. They are innumerable. A illustrated guide to the law, drawn by a lawyer explains why:

      http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1031

      American has become over criminalized. Countless misdemeanors have been elevated to felonies, most with serious fines and jail time. It has been estimated that there are over 5,000 Federal statutory crimes and over 300,000 regulatory laws, and these estimates do not includes the laws and regulations by states and city governments. Today, truly, ignorance of the law is unavoidable. Everyone, at some point during each day, has committed a crime. The laws and regulations have made us all "law breakers".

    4. Re:Stop spreading BS. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      To add to your point, the law is so complex that the average person might commit three felonies a day, even though they did nothing wrong.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Stop spreading BS. by Capsaicin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The link works fine for me ...Georgia law is also available for free at the Library of Congress website [loc.gov].

      It links back to the same source. In any case the official version of legislation is, almost by definition, not "also available" elsewhere.

      Fake news and garbage journalism, designed to manufacture outrage and generate clicks, rather than inform.

      The claim being made is that the official version (i.e. the law) is the annotated version and that consequently you cannot freely access the actual legislation, such as it would be proper to rely on in court. Is that claim untrue?

      Additionally, were the claim true, there would also be the serious issue, raised by the promoted comment of ip_what to TFA, that this outsources to an un-elected and non-public body, and exclusive right to change the face of the official legislation of the state. Which would be rather worrying.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    6. Re:Stop spreading BS. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      the very definition of 'southern hospitality'. you have no right to know the laws we can use AGAINST you if you anger us.

      oblig: bless their hearts.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    7. Re:Stop spreading BS. by clovis · · Score: 1

      Free copies? The local public libraries in Ga that are on Ga's library network presently have 1005 copies, and the university libraries have many more.

      Here's the free website. It is mandated by Ga law that the free website be provided by the publishers of the annotated code. http://www.lexisnexis.com/hott...

      The statutory text itself is NOT copyrighted according to the Terms and Conditions.

      Also, there is supposed to be a copy available in every county courthouse, but I can't verify that.

    8. Re:Stop spreading BS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure. Easily found on the Internet without too much trouble:

      You given two sources. Which of those two (if either) is the authorized version of the legislation. If neither where do I go to access the authorized version?

      Neither is the authorized website.
      The State of Georgia's (.gov) website has numerous links to the freely accessible official code. here's one:
      http://law.georgia.gov/legal-r...
      The Official Code of Georgia Annotated link goes to the official code, hosted by lexisnexis
      http://www.lexisnexis.com/hott...

    9. Re:Stop spreading BS. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      An excellent resource, you would think they would promote, that digital reference suite a lot more. Perhaps they don't market because the Republicans would defund it if it proved too useful and a corporation could profit it by taking it over.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    10. Re:Stop spreading BS. by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Terms and Conditions: https://www.lexisnexis.com/ter...

      which include...

      "The Content on this Web Site is for your personal use only and not for commercial exploitation"

      "You may not use the Content to determine a consumer's eligibility for: (a) credit or insurance for personal, family, or household purposes; (b) employment; or (c) a government license or benefit. "

      "You may not copy, modify, reproduce, republish, distribute, display, or transmit for commercial, non-profit or public purposes all or any portion of this Web Site, except to the extent permitted above. "

      So you can't use this as a source for many cases where the average non-lawyer might want to look up a law, or even quote a law from this source.

    11. Re:Stop spreading BS. by dwillden · · Score: 1

      But why in this day and age does GA not have it available online, for free, hosted on the official state servers?
      Other states do. Like this http://www.le.state.ut.us/Documents/code_const.htm
      No need to go to another source, you get the law from the State. No copyrights, no limitations on use. And no having to figure out where else to look. LexisNexis, I thought that was a rather expensive pay site, I wouldn't have thought to look there. I would look at the state's .gov pages for such information.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    12. Re:Stop spreading BS. by v1 · · Score: 1

      thanks for the link, that's some excellent information and discussion

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    13. Re:Stop spreading BS. by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Ehh, that links to a page with Terms and Conditions, which states in many words that the contents of the page are covered by intellectual property rights. Where can you get the laws in full with no terms an conditions?

    14. Re:Stop spreading BS. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Did you read the book? That's kind of the point of the book.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:Stop spreading BS. by TrumpShaker · · Score: 1

      Click the button that says "I Agree" under the Terms and Conditions ???

    16. Re:Stop spreading BS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ehh, that links to a page with Terms and Conditions, which states in many words that the contents of the page are covered by intellectual property rights. Where can you get the laws in full with no terms an conditions?

      From the Terms and Conditions where it says "These Terms and Conditions do not apply to the Statutory Text and Numbering contained in the Content of the site. "

    17. Re:Stop spreading BS. by clovis · · Score: 1

      Go to the web site "http://Georgia.gov"
      type "laws" into the search box.
      first topic is "Learning about Georgia Law", and that has a link to the free on-line official code.
      How hard is that?

      Or, you can goto "law.georgia.gov" and click "Legal Resources" to get to the free site.

      LexisNexis is a contractor to the state of Georgia for this service, so it's not that some random company threw it up.
      The deal with the state is that LexisNexis does the work of creating the annotations for the state and then provides it online for free in return for being allowed to sell the printed copies. No one does that for free.

      The law itself is NOT copyrighted, but the annotations are. It's stated in the Term and Conditions.
      This is actually a sweet deal for the people of Georgia because we get access to the annotations for free. This is a boon for people who don't want to pay a lawyer to do research or go sit in the library to read the copy there.

      As for the link you gave, http://www.le.state.ut.us/Docu... it has an invalid certificate.
      If you change it to http://le.utah.gov/Documents/c... , it's OK.

      Utah's government web site, like almost every other state, does not provide annotations. You can buy an annotated copy of Utah law for $1800 from here:
      http://legalsolutions.thomsonr...

      In Georgia, we get ours online for free.

    18. Re:Stop spreading BS. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Nope. It's probably in the library, maybe I should look it up.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re:Stop spreading BS. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I just placed a hold on the book at my local library. It will take a bit of time for me to get around to it, but if you ask in a week or so I should have something more informative to say on the topic.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re:Stop spreading BS. by shentino · · Score: 1

      Actually...and very sensibly regretted, the constitution is not the highest law in the land.

      Unfortunately, it is preempted by the bastardized version of the oldest law in civilization.

      The one who has the gold makes the rules.

    21. Re:Stop spreading BS. by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      The claim is untrue. The full text of the legislative acts (statutory text) are freely available on the public website as is mandated by law, and they are not copyrighted ...

      I suspect the claim may be untrue, but you have not answered it. That Lexis makes a stripped down version available as it is required to do by law is not contested. To repeat: the claim being made is that the official version ... is the annotated version. So which is the authorised version, the annoted version, the stripped down version or neither?

      The annotations are not generated by a legislative act and are not the law.

      Obviously! Hence the concern expressed in the second leg of my comment. Anyone can annotate legislation and it would be wrong for one publisher to be granted a monopoly by making their particular annotated version of legislation the authorised version of legislation for that jurisdiction.

      Perhaps if you saw some annotations it would be more clear.

      Thanks, but IAAL who works in legal publishing, so I get what annotations are.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  22. Re:Public domain? by Daemonik · · Score: 1

    Well, it's complicated. Some of the annotations are things like trade secrets and such from contractors contributing to and being referenced by construction bills and are very much copyrightable.

    I suppose the state could setup a fund and provide copies of the annotated laws for free to citizens of the state and pay the copyright holders out of the fund. Depending on demand that might not be too workable.

  23. Re:Nancy Pelosi by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    Certainly lawmakers have ready and free access to the laws (because they MADE them). How do they get the laws for their own legal use? How do lawyers and judges get them? Do they each have a paid subscription to LexisNexis? The PUBLIC wants to know!

  24. You and your guns by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    will last all of 5 minutes against a modern military. And as long as that military is fed and taken care of they'll turn on the citizens who are starving in the streets instead of joining them. They always have in over 5000 years of recorded history.

    So yeah, sorry. It's a threat. And an empty one at that.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You and your guns by rossz · · Score: 2

      will last all of 5 minutes against a modern military.

      Vietnam and Afghanistan would like a word with you.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    2. Re:You and your guns by dwillden · · Score: 2

      The modern military that cannot operate within the US. The Modern Military that likely would stand with the public or at least would face a major split in forces as some do and others do not.

      Also Vietnam and Afghanistan would like to speak to you about armed citizens versus modern militaries. Oh and toss in that a large number of our citizens have extensive military training and are far more capable than the armed peasants of Vietnam and Afghanistan. In Vietnam the peasants tied up the US for over a decade, eventually forcing us to withdraw very demoralized. Afghanistan drove out the Russians, and then have kept us busy for well over a decade.

      And finally the grand total of our armed forces is 2.5 million. Add in roughly another million police officers. We have a population of 317+Million. It would not take a large percentage of citizens to totally overwhelm all our government forces.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    3. Re:You and your guns by chihowa · · Score: 1

      The modern military that cannot operate within the US.

      In addition to not legally operating in the US (which wouldn't actually apply in the case of insurrection, btw), the modern US military entirely depends on its long supply chain, which largely resides in the US (and is thus protected during foreign excursions). This supply chain is very vulnerable and is heavily intertwined with private industry. Defection of US troops aside, the modern military becomes much less impressive when it can't keep its soldiers fed, its vehicles fueled and repaired, its lights on, and can't even transport supplies between bases without being subject to ambush.

      The modern US military is awesome when operating outside of the US, but highly vulnerable inside the US. Your country's piddling military sure couldn't prop up the suppression of the US government in the case of a full-on rebellion.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    4. Re:You and your guns by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      A 'modern military' isn't a ROBOT that blindly follows orders. If the military is given orders that they interpret as unlawful then they'll do nothing. If the government becomes so thoroughly corrupt, they'll side with the people; you're completely and totally wrong.

    5. Re:You and your guns by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      A word? What for? In Vietnam and Afghanistan, the armed local forces couldn't overthrow the government or oust the elites. The most they could do was make the country ungovernable.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:You and your guns by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The modern military that cannot operate within the US

      There is no physical reason why not. It's currently illegal, but that's just statutory law and not Constitutional law, and can be changed real fast.

      The Modern Military that likely would stand with the public or at least would face a major split in forces as some do and others do not.

      Really? First, there won't be a unified "public" to rebel. There may be more or less resistance, but there's never going to be a supermajority deciding to revolt. People don't make those decisions in lockstep. The American Revolution did not have half the population determined to secede. Second, the military will face armed insurgents and will think of their opponents as armed insurgents and rebels, not patriotic Americans. Third, if the military decides to go one way or another, the presence of civilians with guns isn't really going to matter.

      Also Vietnam and Afghanistan would like to speak to you about armed citizens versus modern militaries.

      What they would like to say is that the armed citizens can't win. They can win small engagements on occasion, and they can make areas of a country ungovernable at times, but that's as far as it goes. We saw this in WWII in Yugoslavia: brave men with their rifles lose to poorly led, poorly trained, poorly equipped regulars. The gap between army and civilians has grown since then.

      We have a population of 317+Million. It would not take a large percentage of citizens to totally overwhelm all our government forces.

      The vast majority of those 317+ million are not gun-owning able-bodied people of military age, and most of those will find some reason not to fight the US Army. Assuming that millions of semi-competent combatants rise up, they'll be uncoordinated individuals without heavy weapons and command and control facilities.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  25. Doesn't work anymore by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and honestly didn't work the last time. The French revolution was a mess and an almost complete failure. Sure, lots of the ruling class died, but they were just replaced by a different and potentially worse ruling class. Things didn't get better for the peasantry until two world wars killed enough of them that they were in demand for labor. And our current ruling class is busy rolling back those gains in the guise of protecting us from terrorism...

    You're gonna have a ruling class. Always. Accept it and move on and start asking how you can mitigate the damage they do.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  26. They tried that nonsense up here in Alaska by aklinux · · Score: 1

    A local lawyer bucked the rules on it and posted all the state laws on their website for all to see. A couple of years of many of the other lawyers in the state trying to force them to shut down that part of their website and the state relented. Now the State of Alaska has them posted in a searchable database on the official state website.

  27. Yes, every lawyer uses Lexis Nexis by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Yeah, Lexis Nexis is a major "go to" source.

  28. No, the annotations are by Lexis Nexis by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Uhm, no. The annotations are by Lexis Nexis. The laws are written by legislative staffers, the Uniform Law Commission of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) and the American Law Institute, and other authors.

  29. And what have they actually accomplished? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    last I checked they killed one (unimportant) General who was being careless in Afghanistan. Nobody who mattered was killed in 'Nam. If you never get to touch the ruling class you're just blowing smoke. Go live in the mountains and every now and then come down and blow up a school bus. Congrats, you've just accomplished all you're going to with violence. But outside of those (middle class or poor) school kids you blew up (or maybe shot with guns) you've done squat. Well, not squat. Your actions will be used to cement the ruling classes power when they get "Tough on Terror".

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  30. Edict of government by nbritton · · Score: 1
  31. Length of copyright on laws ... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    Many of the laws were enacted over 95 years ago; 95 years used to be the length of copyright in the USA. So: what can stop anyone from publishing the old laws ? Part of this story centers on "annotations", these are: recent case law; legal opinion; ... that are needed to help understand the laws. Some annotations will be out of copyright, others will still be in copyright. In order to know what ''the law'' is in Georgia you need to be able to read recent laws and recent annotations. It would, however, to be interesting to publish the out of copyright stuff and see what the state says about that.

  32. Confusing by jandersen · · Score: 1

    If the facts of the case really match what I've just read, then there is something fundamentally wrong. The text of any law has been produced by public servants, and if we leave out any suspicion of corruption, they are paid for by the tax payers; already for that reason should the text of any law be in the public domain. On top of that, how can you claim to have a society under the rule of law, if that law isn't easily accessible to any member of society? Secret laws don't belong in any society - we can't follow the rules if we aren't allowed to know them. The text of all laws should be available to download on freely accessible web servers. I may remember wrong, but I think even China does that.

    1. Re:Confusing by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Yes, the text of the law is available for free. What's not available for free is the annotations to the law, which is commentary, summaries of cases decided about the law, etc. The logic of the guy in TFA is is "Romeo & Juliet is public domain, therefore the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Romeo & Juliet should be public domain."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:Confusing by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      If the commentary is also produced by public servants, then it should also be public domain.

    3. Re:Confusing by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      It is not produced by public servants, it is produced by LexisNexis.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  33. Does this mean they're for sale? by Coisiche · · Score: 1

    Well, when it comes to music copyright, the "owner" of songs has been known to be changed for money. So if the state says the laws are copyrighted does that mean that the copyright can be purchased?

    So, would buying them and then charging the sate for every use of them be a way to profit?

    1. Re:Does this mean they're for sale? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I can sell you the copyrights of the stuff I've written for National Novel Writing Month, although for personal reasons I'd charge much more than the novels are worth commercially. You can't force me to sell you the copyright for any price. The annotations (not the laws) are copyrighted, and you have every right to ask the copyright holder what buying the copyright would cost, but I really don't think you'll find the answer useful.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  34. Re:Is Georgia unique in copyrighting its legal cod by dwillden · · Score: 1

    Utah doesn't, it's code is available online from a utah.gov url. No need to go to a third party source. They are kept up to date with the changes made each year by the legislature. And no copyrights markings on the Utah Code Annotated http://www.le.state.ut.us/Documents/code_const.htm

    --
    I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  35. Does Carl Malamud need money for an appeal? by AdamnSelene · · Score: 1

    I see only a brief mention of the fact he is appealing in the Ars Technica article. But I'd like to know how I could send him a few bucks.

    District court decisions like this are often overturned when they reach the appeals level, with judges who aren't quite so mired in local interests. /P

  36. Re:Is Georgia unique in copyrighting its legal cod by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    Does any other state do this, and if so what legal standing does GA have to copyright the laws it passes?

    TFS and TFA are clickbait. The law is not copyrighted. It's available for free right here.

    The way it works in most states is multiple private companies hire their own lawyers and legal aides to annotate the state law. That is, to write brief commentary and summaries of other court cases that have been decided about that law. These are obviously very helpful reference materials for judges and state attorneys, too, so the state winds up buying annotated copies of their own laws from, say LexisNexis. The state of georgia got smart and said "this is stupid, we're spending all this taxpayer money on these annotations. Let's just commission LexisNexis directly to write the Official annotated version of GA state law, and our judges and officials will get it for free because we'll recoup the costs selling it to the private attorneys!"

    This seems to work out very well for both GA taxpayers and the government. If you think this is immoral or illegal or something, okay, fine, they can go do it like every other state in which the state is paying the private companies. The costs to taxpayers will rise, and the taxpayers will get exactly the same number of free copies of the annotated laws they get today, and get in every other state: zero.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  37. How can they justify the suit? by NoSalt · · Score: 1

    I would like for somebody to explain to me exactly how a publicly funded government entity can copyright, register, trademark, etc. anything that is paid for, like I said, with public money. If you live in Georgia, you paid for all of those laws being constructed with your hard-earned tax money, they are [partially] your property, and you are entitled to do with them what you will; barring, of course, changing them or claiming the work is your own. If I am a legal resident of Georgia then I should have every right to, say, print as many University of Georgia Bulldogs t-shirts I want to and sell them. How can they legally stop me?

  38. By the time things get bad enough by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    that you're reaching for your gun the military won't be on your side anymore. They'll be looking at how you live and afraid they're gonna be there. That's what's happened with every military in human history. Every now and then a Generalissimo will rile them into action, but again, all you'll be doing is changing masters. You'll still be a slave.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  39. Re:We did post by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Due to allergies*, I demand a certified leopard-free viewing area.

    *Well, not technically allergies, but leopards can cause me to have impaired health.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes