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

originally posted by: Phage
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. Got it.

And when music starts determining case law and technicalities, you let me know.

a reply to: EternalSolace

And when music starts determining case law and technicalities, you let me know.

Ok, if you'll let me know that the annotations determined the judgement in original case.

a reply to: Phage

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

I love circles. They're amazing shapes.

originally posted by: Phage
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

You didn't read the article, did you?

a reply to: Flux8

You didn't read the article, did you?

You mean blog post?
Yes, I did.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: babybunnies

If you're held liable to a rule, regulation, or law, would you not expect to have full access to those limitations and any material used to interpret it?

When you take on a job, most employers have an employee manual. Is it fair that you're given this manual and expected to abide by it, but the employer has a seperate book with interpretations of the manual and it costs you to access it?

You do every state can and will provide you a copy of any and all the laws if you request it? However if you want a review of the law and have it explained by someone you better be willing to pay them for their trouble. See you guys are going off on a false tangent you are held to what the laws say. Of you are unable to interpret it or form your own opinions than pay someone like an atty.

I am impressed with your ability to stay focused on an issue so intently, that you never take the time to look at the opposing pint of view. Historically speaking that type of battle plain fails miserably.

As the OP makes clear, JUDGES utilize the material to determine findings in the law. Layers present the sides of the argument/case to the JUDGE. The lawyers are many/most times trained monkeys performing their duty while the judge is most probably doing a sudoku puzzle. The Judge decides the verdict in these cases. Lawyers are empty suits %95+ of the time (if you know a lawyer ask and you will see I am correct here). If you want your lawyer to know the advice the Judge is most probably going to side with, YOU have to pay the lawyer the money to both represent you AND the money to BUY the interpretation of the law. If you get a cheaper lawyer, you get the empty suit and lose your case as your lawyer is not going to buy the material needed without getting paid for it by their client.

So in this case, do you still think that (cue simpleton pronunciation) It's a copyright and that's all there is; done; finite; finshola and yeah if you don't think so, yer stupid!

- or -

Maybe all lawyers should be able to get the same material that the judge will have for free so that Lady Justice and her blind scale actually means something..? "Lady Justice" did not come with a "if you can afford it" disclaimer.

a reply to: EternalSolace

I love circles. They're amazing shapes.

Not a circle.
The defendant distributed copyrighted material without permission to do so. Pretty straight forward.

Upon what do you base your claim that the material was not copyrighted? Law? Precedent?

a reply to: notmyrealname

If you want your lawyer to know the advice the Judge is most probably going to side with, YOU have to pay the lawyer the money to both represent you AND the money to BUY the interpretation of the law.

*sigh* I wish people could understand why that's so wrong...

a reply to: notmyrealname

So. You don't like the legal system (or, apparently, copyright law).
Got it.

Now what?

a reply to: Phage

Yes circles. I've already addressed your comment in a previous post. You have no further basis for any rational argument. Shall I quote for you, once again, where I already addressed the point you've tried to make for the second time?

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.

Has anyone even bothered to look up who this guy is and what he is fighting for?!

Carl Malamud

The man seems to be an activist for the masses and people are freaking out over this? Why would anyone here not be on his side?

a reply to: EternalSolace

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

I beg to differ:

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

If the judge is using copyrighted material to rule in a public court room, then the material should no longer be copyright.

Judges should use material that is available to the public to adjudicate their cases. I don't care how it's made available, through a library or whatever. Just so long as it's made available for free.

You have claimed that because a judge read the material, it is public domain and no longer property of the one who created it. Therefore, the music of NWA is public domain.

a reply to: Hefficide

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
― George Orwell, 1984

A great work of fiction, No?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EternalSolace

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

I beg to differ:

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

If the judge is using copyrighted material to rule in a public court room, then the material should no longer be copyright.

Judges should use material that is available to the public to adjudicate their cases. I don't care how it's made available, through a library or whatever. Just so long as it's made available for free.

You have claimed that because a judge read the material, it is public domain and no longer property of the one who created it. Therefore, the music of NWA is public domain.

No because the opinion used by the court was paid for by the court for use un public proceedings, it should be equally available to the plaintiff and defendant for free; if not, they the court should not be able to use it either.

How can you possibly not understand that?

a reply to: Phage

This is willful ignorance at its finest.

Therefore, the music of NWA is public domain.

And when music starts determining case law and technicalities, you let me know.

You have claimed that because a judge read the material, it is public domain and no longer property of the one who created it.

That's right. Judges should be barred from using any material that isn't freely available to the public. And any material they make the mistake of using that isn't, should be made available for free.

This isn't a hard concept.

You're now held liable for a law I just created. However, you have to pay me $250,000 dollars in order to understand it's meaning. And not understanding it doesn't exempt you from the law. Enjoy your prison cell.

a reply to: Phage

I think the issue people are having is that, if there are annotations that explain how a judge will interpret the law, then that's just as important to the ordinary person as the law itself. Both are parts of the law, and the ability to view the laws should be freely available to all.

a reply to: notmyrealname

No because the opinion used by the court was paid for by the court for use un public proceedings, it should be equally available to the plaintiff and defendant for free; if not, they the court should not be able to use it either.

Was it not? Have you checked a library in Georgia? Or the internet?
law.resource.org...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: notmyrealname

So. You don't like the legal system (or, apparently, copyright law).
Got it.

Now what?

GOOD JOB!

a reply to: notmyrealname

I'm bowing out of this discussion. I'm tired and have not the patience anymore to debate this topic, that I'm passionate about, in a civil manner.

The words and arguments are wasted on individuals who believe that law should be interpreted by the select few and out of reach of commoners to understand.

originally posted by: Glassbender777
The only terror I see being used, Is by the state of Georgia. To terrorize this man.

I agree completely