Man Posts Laws Online: State of Georgia Sues - Calls Man A Terrorist

originally posted by: Tranceopticalinclined

And I don't know about you, but I'd want our laws to be public domain for free forever.

Along with the annotations, since they are how judges interpret and administer laws; which is the key component in this case.

This is the part about terrorism:

The complaint further submits as an exhibit this Columbia Journalism Review article about Malamud from 2009 in order to support Georgia's ridiculous claim that Malamud sees what he's doing as a form of "terrorism." The lawsuit says the following:

Carl Malamud, has indicated that this type of strategy has been a successful form of “terrorism” that he has employed in the past to force government entities to publish documents on Malamud’s terms

I didn't read where Malamud referred to his strategy as "terrorism" but that he likened it to a "guerrilla/jiujitsu approach" in the Columbia Journalism Review

Either way, the 'terrorism' charge is taken completely out of context by the state of Georgia.

All Malamud is campaigning for is TRANSPARENCY. And for that, it's no surprise some level of government is going after him. Ridiculous as usual, but no surprise...as usual.

a reply to: Hefficide

From the lawsuit as linked above:

SO going to the man who is being sued, his website is going to tell the truth...you can't be serious.

The man says they are calling him a terrorist when they absolutely have not, so how can one believe what he says if he makes that outrageous claim that isn't true?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

What part of them referring to his activity as "terrorism" in a lawsuit are you having trouble accepting?

a reply to: six67seven

Either way, the 'terrorism' charge is taken completely out of context by the state of Georgia.

The state has never said anything about terrorism and this case even being related...that came from the man being sued not the state.

If you read the complaint it is about a third party complaint of copyright infringement that the state contracts out to, the state is only representing them because it has to do with their laws.

a reply to: Hefficide

What part of them referring to his activity as "terrorism" in a lawsuit are you having trouble accepting?

Show me where in the suit brought on by the state of GA that it says anything about terrorism, it doesn't.

What your doing is going by what this man who is being sued is saying not the actual suit itself, but again feel free to show from the original complaint that I linked to that the state of Ga is considering this as anything other than a copyright infringement.

I have read it and it doesn't.

This is about the state of GA. suing this man correct for copyright infringement?

Or is there another one that is exactly like this one where they call him a terrorist in their official complaint?

a reply to: Hefficide

What part of them referring to his activity as "terrorism" in a lawsuit are you having trouble accepting?

You do remember posting this right?

Carl Malamud, has indicated that this type of strategy has been a successful form of “terrorism” that he has employed in the past to force government entities to publish documents on Malamud’s terms

Which were his words not the the state of GA.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Hefficide

What part of them referring to his activity as "terrorism" in a lawsuit are you having trouble accepting?

Show me where in the suit brought on by the state of GA that it says anything about terrorism, it doesn't.

What your doing is going by what this man who is being sued is saying not the actual suit itself, but again feel free to show from the original complaint that I linked to that the state of Ga is considering this as anything other than a copyright infringement.

I have read it and it doesn't.

This is about the state of GA. suing this man correct for copyright infringement?

Or is there another one that is exactly like this one where they call him a terrorist in their official complaint?

Funny how people go out of their way to attack government. This is an obvious case if copy write infringement. This man is making money using other people's materials. And somehow it's the state just attacking him. What is this country coming to when we praise criminal behavior.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I also posted the quote from the lawsuit, filed by the State of Georgia that used the word "terrorism" to describe Mr Malmud's actions.

If you want to argue their intended meaning, I am happy to have that conversation but I would prefer if we did so without the inferences that I wrote this thread for attention. The thread title was based upon the title of the sourced article - and the lawsuit quote shows the reasoning for the claim. So let's keep the personal jabs out of things.

a reply to: dragonridr

Funny how you're using the term "criminal" when nobody has been charged with a crime. Care to lecture a bit more on law here?

Okay here this is what the action of the lawsuit states from the original complaint.

NATURE OF THIS ACTION
1. This action for injunctive relief arises from Defendant’s systematic,
widespread and unauthorized copying and distribution of the copyrighted annotations
in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (“O.C.G.A.”) through the distribution of
thumb drives containing copies of the O.C.G.A. and the posting of the O.C.G.A. on
various websites. Defendant has facilitated, enabled, encouraged and induced others
to view, download, print, copy, and distribute the O.C.G.A copyrighted annotations
without limitation, authorization, or appropriate compensation. On information and
belief, Defendant has also created unauthorized derivative works containing the
O.C.G.A. annotations by re-keying the O.C.G.A. in order to make it possible for
members of the public to copy and manipulate the O.C.G.A., thereby also encouraging
the creation of further unauthorized derivative works.

2. The copyrighted annotations include analysis and guidance that are added
to the O.C.G.A. by a third party publisher of the O.C.G.A. as a work for hire. These
annotations include synopses of cases that interpret the O.C.G.A., summaries of
Opinions of the Attorney General of Georgia, and summaries of research references
related to the O.C.G.A. Each of these annotations is an original and creative work of
authorship that is protected by copyrights owned by the State of Georgia. Without
Case 1:15-cv-02594-MHC Document 1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 2 of 19

-3-providing the publisher with the ability to recoup its costs for the development of
these copyrighted annotations, the State of Georgia will be required to either stop
publishing the annotations altogether or pay for development of the annotations using
state tax dollars. Unless Defendant’s infringing activities are enjoined, Plaintiff and
citizens of the State of Georgia, will face losing valuable analysis and guidance
regarding their state laws.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This is a civil action seeking injunctive relief for copyright infringement
under the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, specifically 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq.
4. This Court has jurisdiction in and over this copyright infringement action
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq., and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant has
infringed the State of Georgia’s copyright in Georgia by distributing infringing copies
of the O.C.G.A including copyrighted annotations to persons in Georgia, to Georgia
Speaker of the House David Ralston and Georgia Legislative Counsel Wayne R. Allen
at locations within the State of Georgia on or about May 30, 2013. On or about
September 24, 2013, Defendant further distributed infringing copies of the O.C.G.A.
Case 1:15-cv-02594-MHC Document 1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 3 of 19
-4-
including copyrighted annotations on thumb drives to at least eight (8) institutions in
and around the State of Georgia. Defendant further presented copies of the O.C.G.A.
including copyrighted annotations on at least one Internet website
(public.resource.org..., bulk.resource.org..., and/or law.resource.org...)
that attracts citizens from Georgia as viewers and actively encourages all such
individuals to copy, use, and disseminate to others in Georgia and elsewhere, and to
create derivative works of the O.C.G.A. Defendant still further solicited and
continues to solicit funds on one of its own websites (yeswescan.org...) and a
crowd funding website (www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-laws-of-georgia) to help
Defendant scan and post the O.C.G.A. including copyrighted annotations, which
websites attract and affect citizens from the State of Georgia. Defendant’s website at
yeswescan.org... indicates that $3,035 dollars were raised as of June 15, 2015 to
assist Defendant in infringing the State of Georgia’s copyrights in the O.C.G.A.
copyrighted annotations. Individual visitors are also encouraged to provide financial
donations on several of the Defendant’s websites via a PayPal account, and Defendant
offers for sale multiple products via the Internet, including phone cases, caps, stickers,
stamps, mugs, bags, and prints at www.zazzle.com...
Case 1:15-cv-02594-MHC Document 1 Filed 07/21/15 P

ia801504.us.archive.org...

Please someone show me where this has anything to with terrorism or where he was called one by the state of Ga. anywhere in their complaint...which is what this thread is about correct?

a reply to: Hefficide

I also posted the quote from the lawsuit, filed by the State of Georgia that used the word "terrorism" to describe Mr Malmud's actions.

No it doesn't, but again you have seen the official complaint from the state that I linked and nowhere does it consider him a terrorist...now if you can show where in the official complaint that was said or even alluded to then you might have something, but it doesn't anywhere in the official complaint that was brought against him.

Just as you showed in a previous post it was his words that said it was considered terrorism not the states.

Also states don't sue terrorists in civil court...that alone should have been an indication this wasn't about terrorism.

a reply to: Hefficide

I am happy to have that conversation but I would prefer if we did so without the inferences that I wrote this thread for attention.

That may have been a bit wrong on my part and I do apologize...but you being a mod know as well as I do sensational titles for threads get the most attention.

The thread title was based upon the title of the sourced article - and the lawsuit quote shows the reasoning for the claim. So let's keep the personal jabs out of things.

I really wasn't trying to make it a personal jab, and as you can look through my posting history that I try and refrain from making my replies personal, and again I do apologize for it coming out that way.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

On page 12 of the complaint:

-12- 20. Consistent with its strategy of terro rism, Defendant freely admits to the copying and distribution of massive numbers of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Annotations on at least its https:// yeswescan.org website. See Exhibit 3.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: dragonridr

Funny how you're using the term "criminal" when nobody has been charged with a crime. Care to lecture a bit more on law here?

It is a crime just go rent a movie that's that notice that they have at the beginning from the FBI.

m.fbi.gov...://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/white_collar/ipr/ipr" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">http:// m.fbi.gov...://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/white_collar/ipr/ipr

So your glorifying a thief bottom line. And its really sad that your prejudices you chose to ignore that fact.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Hefficide

What part of them referring to his activity as "terrorism" in a lawsuit are you having trouble accepting?

Show me where in the suit brought on by the state of GA that it says anything about terrorism, it doesn't.

What your doing is going by what this man who is being sued is saying not the actual suit itself, but again feel free to show from the original complaint that I linked to that the state of Ga is considering this as anything other than a copyright infringement.

I have read it and it doesn't.

This is about the state of GA. suing this man correct for copyright infringement?

Or is there another one that is exactly like this one where they call him a terrorist in their official complaint?

Funny how people go out of their way to attack government. This is an obvious case if copy write infringement. This man is making money using other people's materials. And somehow it's the state just attacking him. What is this country coming to when we praise criminal behavior.

I would appreciate if you could show me where and how Mr. Malmud is making money from disseminating information that is supposed to be free of charge in the first place.

originally posted by: notmyrealname
Unless Defendant’s infringing activities are enjoined, Plaintiff and citizens of the State of Georgia, will face losing valuable analysis and guidance regarding their state laws.

I did read the quoted bits of the 'civil' suit with all the rigamarole regarding 'rekeying' and 'summaries' being original subcontracted work and the possiblity of 'degredation' of 'annotations' and suchlike.

With all that gobledigook it seems their case, not mentioned prior, their closing argument is that the state will 'LOOSE' the analysis and guidance. How in the heck could they loose access to the original documentation regardless of what this fellow is doing.

Doesn't the State provide this to it's citizens as part of their duty to keep open records? This is an absurd, though hardly surprising, case of privitizing governement duties and responsibilities. And to be clear - I mean the actual summarizing and annotation of the law should be done by public employees and reviewed by law makers to ensure consistancy and accuracy.

Honestly - not even the slightest interesting in legal ramblings - but what's to stop a 'summary and annotation' 'vendor' from spining and skewing the law for their own (or their investors) interests? This is an abuse situation all around. I had no idea that 'judges' relied on this questionable 'extra' material in interpreting the law, I'd always believed they actually read the laws and looked at precedence. I really am naive.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: dragonridr

Funny how you're using the term "criminal" when nobody has been charged with a crime. Care to lecture a bit more on law here?

It is a crime just go rent a movie that's that notice that they have at the beginning from the FBI.

m.fbi.gov...://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/white_collar/ipr/ipr

So your glorifying a thief bottom line. And its really sad that your prejudices you chose to ignore that fact.

Your argument, if you would call it that, is extremely weak and invalid. Comparing copyright infringement for copying and disseminating a movie to that of documentation paid for by the state (with public money) regarding laws that are applied to the state's citizens is comparing bananas to coconuts.

The underlying issue is transparency and fairness in representation before the law here. The state hiring a private company to try and hide material information relating to the application of the law is a very slippery slope to say the least. If this is allowed to stand, the state could write interpretations of the law (which is happening now) and only the people that can afford to pay for the information will have the ability to protect themselves. Do you think that is fair? Do you think that is comparable to a movie thief? Did you even think before you posted?

a reply to: Lakotas

12- 20. Consistent with its strategy of terro rism, Defendant freely admits to the copying and distribution of massive numbers of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Annotations on at least its https:// yeswescan.org website. See Exhibit 3.

And yet it wasn't calling the man a terrorist as the headline says in the article for the OP.

Man Posts Laws Online: State of Georgia Sues - Calls Man A Terrorist

They say it is consistent with it they don't call him a terrorist.

Hell I imagine some of the things I have done could be considered consistent with terrorism...that doesn't mean I am one.

There is a difference.

Taking things out of context seems to be the problem here.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: notmyrealname
Unless Defendant’s infringing activities are enjoined, Plaintiff and citizens of the State of Georgia, will face losing valuable analysis and guidance regarding their state laws.

I did read the quoted bits of the 'civil' suit with all the rigamarole regarding 'rekeying' and 'summaries' being original subcontracted work and the possiblity of 'degredation' of 'annotations' and suchlike.

With all that gobledigook it seems their case, not mentioned prior, is that the state will 'LOOSE' the analysis and guidance. How in the heck could they loose access to the original documentation regardless of what this fellow is doing.

Doesn't the State provide this to it's citizens as part of their duty to keep open records? This is an absurd, though hardly surprising, case of privitizing governement duties and responsibilities.
Why don't you ask the publisher of the quoted text? Or, I will give it a go as to how I see it. The defendant (Malmud) is arguing that if open fair and free access to the law (and relevant supporting materials as applied to the law) are not freely available, they should not be allowed to be used by the state in application of said laws.

Feel free to explain whether you think my interpretation of his comments is correct.

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Hefficide

What part of them referring to his activity as "terrorism" in a lawsuit are you having trouble accepting?

Show me where in the suit brought on by the state of GA that it says anything about terrorism, it doesn't.

What your doing is going by what this man who is being sued is saying not the actual suit itself, but again feel free to show from the original complaint that I linked to that the state of Ga is considering this as anything other than a copyright infringement.

I have read it and it doesn't.

This is about the state of GA. suing this man correct for copyright infringement?

Or is there another one that is exactly like this one where they call him a terrorist in their official complaint?

Funny how people go out of their way to attack government. This is an obvious case if copy write infringement. This man is making money using other people's materials. And somehow it's the state just attacking him. What is this country coming to when we praise criminal behavior.

I would appreciate if you could show me where and how Mr. Malmud is making money from disseminating information that is supposed to be free of charge in the first place.

Because you have no idea what your talking about would be the big reason.. He doesn't have the legal right to display anything with notes others have written when he displays this on his website he is taking someone else's commentary on the law and using it to solicit donations on his website.

Here ill make this incredibly simple for you. We have people that review books and movies they sell their reviews for money. Do you think it's ok if someone decides to just start posting his reviews on their website. See that's called stealing and that's what he's doing if he wants to get the laws and post his comments he's fine but he can't steal others work.

Bottom line he's a thief making money off stealing. And you guys think he's some sort of freedom fighter sad really