|
|
Man Sued by STATE For Posting State Laws
By Ramyrez 2015-07-28 14:45:11
Seriously. Disney is some hardcore evil ***, man.
By fonewear 2015-07-28 14:48:07
I think they should make a realistic Disney movie.
Susie the home maker. She is 40 overweight her husband works construction. She spends most of her days doing laundry and watching day time TV.
By Jetackuu 2015-07-28 14:57:39
I read an
article about this earlier today. It is a bit more complicated than it initially sounds. It should be interesting to see how the court rules.
Quote: The annotations include things such as the names and a brief paragraph summary of relevant caselaw concerning the specific law being annotated. So, the first question is can this be covered by copyright? Most likely the answer is yes, if a limited kind of copyright. There is some creative choice in selecting what to cover and how to cover it, though significant parts of it are factual (names of cases and whatnot). As some pointed out, LexisNexis competitor WestLaw also offers its own annotated code of the state and sells it itself, and pretty much everyone is comfortable with the copyright there.
So, what's different here? Well, for one, part of the deal with LexisNexis is that after writing the work, the company transfers the copyright to the state itself. Some have pointed to the fact that under federal copyright law the federal government cannot get copyright on works of its own creation, but that does not really apply here in two separate ways. First, there's some dispute over whether or not those same rules apply to state governments as well -- with many arguing that without it being explicit, states can copyright their own creative works. The second issue, though, is that even under federal copyright law, if a third party/contractor creates the work and then assigns the copyright to the government, then even the federal government can keep and use that copyright. And, that's clearly the situation here.
So, yes, it's reasonable to argue that the original annotations should and did receive copyright protection. And it's also reasonable to argue that the state technically still has control over that copyright upon assignment by LexisNexis. From there, however, the legal issues get a bit more cloudy. The state of Georgia still does call the resulting publication the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated." And at the very least, at that point, you have to wonder why any aspect of the "official" laws of Georgia should be covered by copyright. Indeed, as LexisNexis points out on its own site, this "copyright" covered version of the law is "essential" to understanding the law and includes "guidance from the Georgia Code Commission."
The Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) provides users with the official Georgia statutes, fully annotated and including guidance from the Georgia Code Commission. If you live or work in Georgia, the OCGA is the essential reference you need to guide you quickly and efficiently in understanding the Georgia statutory scheme
Furthermore, multiple parts of the Georgia government refer to the OCGA as the law of Georgia, rather than the unannotated version. Just as two quick examples, the Georgia Department of Community Affairs cites the OGCA to explain Georgia's construction codes, rather than the unannotated law. And the Department of Banking and Finance insists that:
Laws governing entities regulated by the Department are primarily found in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) Title 7.
In other words, basically everyone in the Georgia government is saying that if you want to know the laws of Georgia, the OCGA is the only way to do so. And that raises serious questions about whether or not it should be allowed to lock up such text under copyright. The big question is if the OCGA is an "edict of government," as the US Copyright Office has declared such to be not copyrightable "for reasons of public policy."
Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments.
Given how the state of Georiga touts the OCGA as being "essential" and various government agencies directly cite it as where to find out about the laws that may apply to you, it seems reasonable to argue that the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated" is an "edict of government" and thus "not copyrightable for reasons of public policy."
Yeah, I mean personally I find that regardless of who added the content that it should be public domain.
Then again I disagree with the notion brought up that the Government (Federal, State, local) should be able to hold copyright.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2015-07-28 14:58:15
I think they should make a realistic Disney movie.
Susie the home maker. She is 40 overweight her husband works construction. She spends most of her days doing laundry and watching day time TV. Slutting around the neighborhood and bitching because her husband doesn't love her. ftfy sir.
By Bloodrose 2015-07-28 15:11:36
You forgot the part where her head is only red because of the cheesy streak marks left by eating one too many bags of Cheetos knock-offs, and the sweat stains running down her thighs every time she makes an effort to get off the couch in her mobile home on cinder blocks.
Server: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2020
By Siren.Lordgrim 2015-07-28 16:06:20
I read an
article about this earlier today. It is a bit more complicated than it initially sounds. It should be interesting to see how the court rules.
Quote: The annotations include things such as the names and a brief paragraph summary of relevant caselaw concerning the specific law being annotated. So, the first question is can this be covered by copyright? Most likely the answer is yes, if a limited kind of copyright. There is some creative choice in selecting what to cover and how to cover it, though significant parts of it are factual (names of cases and whatnot). As some pointed out, LexisNexis competitor WestLaw also offers its own annotated code of the state and sells it itself, and pretty much everyone is comfortable with the copyright there.
So, what's different here? Well, for one, part of the deal with LexisNexis is that after writing the work, the company transfers the copyright to the state itself. Some have pointed to the fact that under federal copyright law the federal government cannot get copyright on works of its own creation, but that does not really apply here in two separate ways. First, there's some dispute over whether or not those same rules apply to state governments as well -- with many arguing that without it being explicit, states can copyright their own creative works. The second issue, though, is that even under federal copyright law, if a third party/contractor creates the work and then assigns the copyright to the government, then even the federal government can keep and use that copyright. And, that's clearly the situation here.
So, yes, it's reasonable to argue that the original annotations should and did receive copyright protection. And it's also reasonable to argue that the state technically still has control over that copyright upon assignment by LexisNexis. From there, however, the legal issues get a bit more cloudy. The state of Georgia still does call the resulting publication the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated." And at the very least, at that point, you have to wonder why any aspect of the "official" laws of Georgia should be covered by copyright. Indeed, as LexisNexis points out on its own site, this "copyright" covered version of the law is "essential" to understanding the law and includes "guidance from the Georgia Code Commission."
The Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) provides users with the official Georgia statutes, fully annotated and including guidance from the Georgia Code Commission. If you live or work in Georgia, the OCGA is the essential reference you need to guide you quickly and efficiently in understanding the Georgia statutory scheme
Furthermore, multiple parts of the Georgia government refer to the OCGA as the law of Georgia, rather than the unannotated version. Just as two quick examples, the Georgia Department of Community Affairs cites the OGCA to explain Georgia's construction codes, rather than the unannotated law. And the Department of Banking and Finance insists that:
Laws governing entities regulated by the Department are primarily found in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) Title 7.
In other words, basically everyone in the Georgia government is saying that if you want to know the laws of Georgia, the OCGA is the only way to do so. And that raises serious questions about whether or not it should be allowed to lock up such text under copyright. The big question is if the OCGA is an "edict of government," as the US Copyright Office has declared such to be not copyrightable "for reasons of public policy."
Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments.
Given how the state of Georiga touts the OCGA as being "essential" and various government agencies directly cite it as where to find out about the laws that may apply to you, it seems reasonable to argue that the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated" is an "edict of government" and thus "not copyrightable for reasons of public policy."
Yeah, I mean personally I find that regardless of who added the content that it should be public domain.
Then again I disagree with the notion brought up that the Government (Federal, State, local) should be able to hold copyright.
American Legislative Exchange Council
the corporations who use this to make laws in the united states by having our bought and paid for false representatives sign premade legislation from this council think otherwise they don't want the public to know anything.
this is insanity and should be a wake up call. Laws are created and paid for by the citizens of a nation or a state where they come from henceforth they are enforced on a populace and belong to the populace until repealed.
A state who may very well be bought out by corporate interest would think that laws could be copyrighted you can tell this is what a corporation would do.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-07-28 18:24:16
I read an
article about this earlier today. It is a bit more complicated than it initially sounds. It should be interesting to see how the court rules.
Quote: The annotations include things such as the names and a brief paragraph summary of relevant caselaw concerning the specific law being annotated. So, the first question is can this be covered by copyright? Most likely the answer is yes, if a limited kind of copyright. There is some creative choice in selecting what to cover and how to cover it, though significant parts of it are factual (names of cases and whatnot). As some pointed out, LexisNexis competitor WestLaw also offers its own annotated code of the state and sells it itself, and pretty much everyone is comfortable with the copyright there.
So, what's different here? Well, for one, part of the deal with LexisNexis is that after writing the work, the company transfers the copyright to the state itself. Some have pointed to the fact that under federal copyright law the federal government cannot get copyright on works of its own creation, but that does not really apply here in two separate ways. First, there's some dispute over whether or not those same rules apply to state governments as well -- with many arguing that without it being explicit, states can copyright their own creative works. The second issue, though, is that even under federal copyright law, if a third party/contractor creates the work and then assigns the copyright to the government, then even the federal government can keep and use that copyright. And, that's clearly the situation here.
So, yes, it's reasonable to argue that the original annotations should and did receive copyright protection. And it's also reasonable to argue that the state technically still has control over that copyright upon assignment by LexisNexis. From there, however, the legal issues get a bit more cloudy. The state of Georgia still does call the resulting publication the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated." And at the very least, at that point, you have to wonder why any aspect of the "official" laws of Georgia should be covered by copyright. Indeed, as LexisNexis points out on its own site, this "copyright" covered version of the law is "essential" to understanding the law and includes "guidance from the Georgia Code Commission."
The Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) provides users with the official Georgia statutes, fully annotated and including guidance from the Georgia Code Commission. If you live or work in Georgia, the OCGA is the essential reference you need to guide you quickly and efficiently in understanding the Georgia statutory scheme
Furthermore, multiple parts of the Georgia government refer to the OCGA as the law of Georgia, rather than the unannotated version. Just as two quick examples, the Georgia Department of Community Affairs cites the OGCA to explain Georgia's construction codes, rather than the unannotated law. And the Department of Banking and Finance insists that:
Laws governing entities regulated by the Department are primarily found in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) Title 7.
In other words, basically everyone in the Georgia government is saying that if you want to know the laws of Georgia, the OCGA is the only way to do so. And that raises serious questions about whether or not it should be allowed to lock up such text under copyright. The big question is if the OCGA is an "edict of government," as the US Copyright Office has declared such to be not copyrightable "for reasons of public policy."
Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments.
Given how the state of Georiga touts the OCGA as being "essential" and various government agencies directly cite it as where to find out about the laws that may apply to you, it seems reasonable to argue that the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated" is an "edict of government" and thus "not copyrightable for reasons of public policy." Except that it wasn't the State of Georgia who wrote the annotated version of the code. Your article even stated that.
It's still theft, plain and simple. Now, if the state had a free copy of the annotated version to be distributed, then there wouldn't be a case, except for distributing public property without the express permission of the state, which is also part of the lawsuit. I highly doubt that the state distributes free copies of the annotated version of the code though.
The state has a very solid case against the guy, as he did this with a history of purposefully and maliciously stealing state property over his lifetime. That alone would convict him (on the criminal charge)....
 Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2015-07-28 23:23:05
I read an
article about this earlier today. It is a bit more complicated than it initially sounds. It should be interesting to see how the court rules.
Quote: The annotations include things such as the names and a brief paragraph summary of relevant caselaw concerning the specific law being annotated. So, the first question is can this be covered by copyright? Most likely the answer is yes, if a limited kind of copyright. There is some creative choice in selecting what to cover and how to cover it, though significant parts of it are factual (names of cases and whatnot). As some pointed out, LexisNexis competitor WestLaw also offers its own annotated code of the state and sells it itself, and pretty much everyone is comfortable with the copyright there.
So, what's different here? Well, for one, part of the deal with LexisNexis is that after writing the work, the company transfers the copyright to the state itself. Some have pointed to the fact that under federal copyright law the federal government cannot get copyright on works of its own creation, but that does not really apply here in two separate ways. First, there's some dispute over whether or not those same rules apply to state governments as well -- with many arguing that without it being explicit, states can copyright their own creative works. The second issue, though, is that even under federal copyright law, if a third party/contractor creates the work and then assigns the copyright to the government, then even the federal government can keep and use that copyright. And, that's clearly the situation here.
So, yes, it's reasonable to argue that the original annotations should and did receive copyright protection. And it's also reasonable to argue that the state technically still has control over that copyright upon assignment by LexisNexis. From there, however, the legal issues get a bit more cloudy. The state of Georgia still does call the resulting publication the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated." And at the very least, at that point, you have to wonder why any aspect of the "official" laws of Georgia should be covered by copyright. Indeed, as LexisNexis points out on its own site, this "copyright" covered version of the law is "essential" to understanding the law and includes "guidance from the Georgia Code Commission."
The Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) provides users with the official Georgia statutes, fully annotated and including guidance from the Georgia Code Commission. If you live or work in Georgia, the OCGA is the essential reference you need to guide you quickly and efficiently in understanding the Georgia statutory scheme
Furthermore, multiple parts of the Georgia government refer to the OCGA as the law of Georgia, rather than the unannotated version. Just as two quick examples, the Georgia Department of Community Affairs cites the OGCA to explain Georgia's construction codes, rather than the unannotated law. And the Department of Banking and Finance insists that:
Laws governing entities regulated by the Department are primarily found in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) Title 7.
In other words, basically everyone in the Georgia government is saying that if you want to know the laws of Georgia, the OCGA is the only way to do so. And that raises serious questions about whether or not it should be allowed to lock up such text under copyright. The big question is if the OCGA is an "edict of government," as the US Copyright Office has declared such to be not copyrightable "for reasons of public policy."
Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments.
Given how the state of Georiga touts the OCGA as being "essential" and various government agencies directly cite it as where to find out about the laws that may apply to you, it seems reasonable to argue that the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated" is an "edict of government" and thus "not copyrightable for reasons of public policy." Except that it wasn't the State of Georgia who wrote the annotated version of the code. Your article even stated that.
It's still theft, plain and simple. Now, if the state had a free copy of the annotated version to be distributed, then there wouldn't be a case, except for distributing public property without the express permission of the state, which is also part of the lawsuit. I highly doubt that the state distributes free copies of the annotated version of the code though.
The state has a very solid case against the guy, as he did this with a history of purposefully and maliciously stealing state property over his lifetime. That alone would convict him (on the criminal charge).... The copyright is owned by the state of georgia.
1) The federal government cannot hold copyright, for the states that is unclear.
2) you cannot copyright something that is essential for the understanding of law. As the state of GA refers to the "Official" annotated version of the law instead of the law itself you can argue this trying to copyright public policy
There are limits to IP law especially when it is dealing with governments and public goods.
Like I said this is a bit more complicated than a simple copyright case.
Server: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2020
By Siren.Lordgrim 2015-07-29 05:55:32
This could be a way to say to a rogue government " hey you copyrighted all laws there yours don't worry I won't steal them as a Matter of fact I won't even follow them since you know there yours. Now get ready for 1776 you sons of *** we want our country back ".
By Jetackuu 2015-07-29 07:11:21
Dude, stop spouting crazy crap, it's ruining what is actually an interesting article. One that has nothing to do with theft/stealing or your consistently posted weird paranoia of a real life 1984.
 Bismarck.Snprphnx
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2689
By Bismarck.Snprphnx 2015-07-29 07:23:18
This lawsuit isn't so much about the laws being published, but the additional content. It's similar to a video game manufacturer making a freemium game, with the basic stuff available for free, but to get all the extra stuff, you have to purchase it.
Well, this guy is releasing all the extra stuff for free, and is now being sued because he did so.
By Ramyrez 2015-07-29 07:31:37
Bismarck.Snprphnx said: »Well, this guy is releasing all the extra stuff for free, and isn't authorized to do so and is now being sued because he did so.
Bolded addition is sort of important. I got where you were going with that, but it could easily have been construed that the guy was the one who created that extra content.
If he had done so, it would be a much less flagrant violation on his part.
By Jetackuu 2015-07-29 07:31:48
Bismarck.Snprphnx said: »This lawsuit isn't so much about the laws being published, but the additional content. It's similar to a video game manufacturer making a freemium game, with the basic stuff available for free, but to get all the extra stuff, you have to purchase it.
Well, this guy is releasing all the extra stuff for free, and is now being sued because he did so. Not really.
Necro Bump Detected!
[31 days between previous and next post]
 Asura.Saevel
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9701
By Asura.Saevel 2015-08-30 02:57:35
Oh I had forgotten about this one.
Quote: However, there's no certainty that Malamud will succeed this time around. He's undoubtedly publishing unauthorized scans -- his only chance might be to convince the court that Georgia is abusing copyright when it puts some of its public record behind a paywall.
This is the stickler.
Except that it wasn't the State of Georgia who wrote the annotated version of the code. Your article even stated that.
It's still theft, plain and simple. Now, if the state had a free copy of the annotated version to be distributed, then there wouldn't be a case, except for distributing public property without the express permission of the state, which is also part of the lawsuit. I highly doubt that the state distributes free copies of the annotated version of the code though.
The state has a very solid case against the guy, as he did this with a history of purposefully and maliciously stealing state property over his lifetime. That alone would convict him (on the criminal charge)....
The state paid a company money to write the annotations, this money came from tax dollars. The annotated version is actually state property and public record. The state makes those records available only after paying $378 USD. It's not private property, it's actually public property.
If this was about him posting material from a private company then it would be no issue, but since the material is part of public record it gets very strange.
The government has the ability to restrict certain public material from public access if it's deemed necessary either for national security or public safety. This seems to be neither so their only argument is going to be that of a private company, that they didn't give him permission to release the material. Of course since it's a state government it gets interesting in interpretation. Some interesting and far reaching precedents are going to be set over this.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-08-30 16:09:33
The state paid a company money to write the annotations, this money came from tax dollars. The annotated version is actually state property and public record. The state makes those records available only after paying $378 USD. It's not private property, it's actually public property. You are confused at the concept of private property.
Here is an article that explains the government's role on private property when it is a "non-owner" of said property. The same concept applies when the government is the sole owner of said property, it's not "public property" meaning that anyone and everyone can use it regardless, but it is "private property" meaning that the owners have explicit rights to said property, which in this case is the state of Georgia.
These aren't the original codification of the state laws (which is public property). These are the annotated codification of the state laws (which is private property). Copyright laws explicitly forbids the federal government from owning a copyright, but not any one state or local government from the same.
The government has the ability to restrict certain public material from public access if it's deemed necessary either for national security or public safety. This seems to be neither so their only argument is going to be that of a private company, that they didn't give him permission to release the material. Of course since it's a state government it gets interesting in interpretation. Some interesting and far reaching precedents are going to be set over this. Another thing you have to consider is that it isn't a Georgia company who released said information, but a California company that did (see lawsuit link on first page that I posted). If a Georgia company released such information, then there would be a better case against the state on this case, as it was their own citizens releasing their own laws.
The suit is still in deliberation (as far as I know) so there is no updates on who's right and who's wrong.
Asura.Saevel
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9701
By Asura.Saevel 2015-08-30 18:25:52
Quote: The same concept applies when the government is the sole owner of said property, it's not "public property" meaning that anyone and everyone can use it regardless, but it is "private property" meaning that the owners have explicit rights to said property, which in this case is the state of Georgia.
Like I said this is going to make case law because anything and everything owned by government is public property. A government can not "own" something like a private person. It gets into a weird grey area though because what you have is a state government attempting to "own" something and restrict it's access, but the purchase was with tax dollars and therefor paid for by the public. In order to restrict government property you need a very good reason, usually centered around national security or interests of public safety.
Furthermore, the particular item in discussion is used by the government to make decisions. That puts a whole new spin because now not only is it public property but it's also being used in the conduct of official business. Again a government can't restrict access to it without meeting the national security / public safety requirements.
Case In Point, Hillary's private email server and that whole fiasco. The server itself can certainly be private but because she was conducting official business on it, the data becomes public data. All information used in the conduct of official business is no longer considered private and becomes part of the public record.
So if the Georgia government is using those annotated versions to conduct official business and paid for them with tax dollars, then they become part of the public record and subject to open review and disclosure. Georgia can't restrict access to them like they are by requiring a fee for their disclosure.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-08-30 19:11:33
A government can not "own" something like a private person. It gets into a weird grey area though because what you have is a state government attempting to "own" something and restrict it's access, but the purchase was with tax dollars and therefor paid for by the public. In order to restrict government property you need a very good reason, usually centered around national security or interests of public safety.
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect in your thinking. The government can own private property, meaning property that is specific ownership (as in land, investments, buildings, and proprietary property, in this case), it is considered private property, as in it is for the sole use of the single owner, which in this case is the government (state of Georgia in this case).
This concept is very basic in legal and accounting. The state of Georgia has investments that are not public property (such as stock, bonds, and other financial instruments) that anyone cannot take away from them. They have ownership in land, buildings, and other tangible property that is restricted from public use, and does not fall under the two categories you are placing on them as "acceptable" private ownership (a storage building for governmental inventory is neither restrictive for public security nor public safety, but it is still restrictive to the public regardless).
It goes to show that the state also has some sort of copyright responsibility. For example, the state flag of Georgia. That is a permanent copyrighted property of the state of Georgia. So is the seal of the state of Georgia. So is the program that official state documents are stored and recalled by for the state of Georgia.
What this case is mostly (actually, fully) about is if altered, alternative codification of the state law is considered copyright eligible or not.
A perfect example of state ownership can be found in the state's CAFR (example of Texas's CAFR, page 42, shows ownership of private property by the state of Texas....)
Corporations Own and Write The Laws
YouTube Video Placeholder
Quote: David Knight breaks down a new story coming out of Georgia where a man is being sued by the state for posting state laws on his website. 
Quote: You might think that legislation should be freely accessible as a matter of course, but the state of Georgia begs to differ. It's suing Public.Resource.Org owner Carl Malamud for allegedly violating copyright by publishing the annotated versions of Georgia's laws (that is, the ones that truly reflect the legislative process) online. While it's fine to publish the basic, note-free laws, the state argues that you should pay Lexis Nexis up to $378 to read the context-laden versions. The state claims that it would have to dip into tax dollars if it wanted to make this information free, and citizens would supposedly be deprived of "valuable analysis and guidance" if it wasn't published at all.
Malamud isn't likely to back down. He has long argued that the US discourages copyright on laws, since you have the right to know what your legislature is doing. He also fended off earlier pressure from Oregon to remove documents from his site. However, there's no certainty that Malamud will succeed this time around. He's undoubtedly publishing unauthorized scans -- his only chance might be to convince the court that Georgia is abusing copyright when it puts some of its public record behind a paywall.
|
|
