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

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: notmyrealname
Huh? So making the annotations, which are by public servents I assume, readily available for free will cause the state to stop making them? What a line of BS i've ever heard of. That's what our tad dollars go for.

Seeing that you made such an immensely strong argument AND because I am getting closer to doing something more important than posting to you (like looking for navel lint) I have this reply:

When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you.

If you read the entire thread and all you have to offer is what you have posted, read the above comment.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EternalSolace

Judges should use material that is available to the public to adjudicate their cases. I

The material was available to the public. The trouble is, the defendant decided it was ok to publish copyrighted material on his own. It isn't ok.

This action for injunctive relief arises from Defendant’s systematic, widespread and unauthorized copying and distribution of the copyrighted annotations

Your statement could potentially cause me to concede my argument.

The material was available to the public.

In what way was it made available to the public? Through payment, or for free?

a reply to: EternalSolace

In what way was it made available to the public? Through payment, or for free?

Does it matter? Copyrighted material is copyrighted material. If it's mine it is my right and my right alone to decide how it is distributed.

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.

a reply to: Phage

It does matter. Law should not be determined through privileged information. Sure, someone can copyright material that has annotations on law. However, a judge has no business using that material unless it's public domain.

a reply to: EternalSolace

However, a judge has no business using that material unless it's public domain.

So, if someone says that rap "music" caused their son to kill someone, the judge cannot listen to that "music" because it is copyrighted.

Got it.

a reply to: Phage

Does a judge listening to rap music determine how a law is applied? Does it determine length of sentence? Does it determine monetary damages? Does it determine technicalities in court? Does rap music determine whether an individual actually killed?

Got it.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Does a judge listening to rap music determine how a law is applied?

Not really relevant, but it might. If the judge finds that the "music" was indeed an incitement to commit a crime.
But, since it's copyrighted, he can't listen to it to take it into account. He just has to take the parents' word for it.

a reply to: Phage

And when music starts containing legal interpretations, your point might be valid.

To elaborate, you're discussing evidence in court.


Said evidence doesn't contain legal interpretation.

a reply to: EternalSolace

And when music starts containing legal interpretations, your point might be valid.

Oh, it does. Plenty of interpretations, legal and otherwise. Doesn't make them valid (or public domain).

But are you saying that the judge based his decision on the annotations? Mind reader are you?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EternalSolace

And when music starts containing legal interpretations, your point might be valid.

Oh, it does.

But are you saying that the judge based his decision on the annotations? Mind reader are you?

Seriously? Your argument bombed and the only fallback position is to prove the judge made his decision on the annotations?


Judges have tossed out jurors for less.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Your argument bombed and the only fallback position is to prove the judge made his decision on the annotations?

No.

Your argument holds no weight because your claim is that the material is not copyrighted. It is.
It is the property of the creator. The creator alone has the right to determine how the material is distributed to the public.

a reply to: Phage

www.techdirt.com...

Even If The State Of Georgia Can Copyright Legal Annotations, Should It?


...
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."

This might go to a higher court. According to the counter argument the gov't, and therefore the people, own the material since copyright was passed to the state of Georgia. Whether a private agency did the work, is inconsequential. That's their problem how they recoup. And if this was supposed to save taxpayers money by commercializing the annotated versions, I wonder how much this lawsuit is costing us. Was it worth it??

a reply to: Flux8

This might go to a higher court.

It might.
In the (copyrighted) opinion of Mike. Did you get his permission, btw?

Copyright

by Mike Masnick

Mon, Jul 27th 2015 1:44pm

www.techdirt.com...

I wonder how much this lawsuit is costing us. Was it worth it??

Me? Not a cent.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EternalSolace

Your argument bombed and the only fallback position is to prove the judge made his decision on the annotations?

No.

Your argument holds no weight because your claim is that the material is not copyrighted. It is.
It is the property of the creator. The creator alone has the right to determine how the material is distributed to the public.

I don't claim that the material isn't copyrighted. No where, in any of my posts, did I claim it wasn't copyrighted.

My claim, for God only knows how many times I've said it in this thread, is this:

Any material a judge uses to influence a case in a public court, should be accessible to the public. Whether it's accessible in a public library, an online archive, or wherever doesn't matter.

If a material is behind any form of pay wall, a judge has no place using it to influence his opinion.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Any material a judge uses to influence a case in a public court, should be accessible to the public.

Are you claiming it wasn't?
Based on what?

If a material is copyrighted, and is behind any form of pay wall, a judge has no place using it to influence his opinion.

Nonsense. It is the sole discretion of the owner of the copyright to decide how the material is distributed. Unless you think that NWA gave up their copyright when a judge listened to their music?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EternalSolace

Any material a judge uses to influence a case in a public court, should be accessible to the public.

Are you claiming it wasn't?
Based on what?

That, I don't have the information to. If the material the man was copying and redistributing was available online, or through a library, then I can see where he was in the wrong. However, the OP insinuated that the annotations that were being used were only available through LexisNexis.

I don't know how LexisNexis publishes their material. I don't know whether it's only available through a pay wall, or if its freely available in a public library.

I'm merely stating that if the defendant in this case is distributing the material that's only available through payment, then the defendant is right in what he did. As any material used to adjudicate a case should be free.

a reply to: EternalSolace

As any material used to adjudicate a case should be free.

Ok, so freely distribute the music. See how far that gets you.

a reply to: Phage

Nonsense. It is the sole discretion of the owner of the copyright to decide how the material is distributed.

This is amazing. I don't know how many more times I could say this and not make it any clearer.

A judge has no business using material to adjudicate a case in a PUBLIC COURT, if said material isn't readily available to the public for free.

That doesn't mean that a copyright owner can't decide how material is distributed. It means that a judge has no business using it unless the copyright holder makes the material public domain.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EternalSolace

As any material used to adjudicate a case should be free.

Ok, so freely distribute the music. See how far that gets you.

I'll repeat...

Does a judge listening to rap music determine how a law is applied? Does it determine length of sentence? Does it determine monetary damages? Does it determine technicalities in court? Does rap music determine whether an individual actually killed?

a reply to: EternalSolace

That doesn't mean that a copyright owner can't decide how material is distributed. It means that a judge has no business using it unless the copyright holder makes the material public domain.

Heh. Sure.
So the judge in the NWA trial had no business listening to the music when considering the case because it was not in the public domain. Got it.