Supreme Court Versus Georgia

[theprestige]

Does it say whose bright idea this was? Was it a revenue generating scheme or something else?

It's just an AP blurb.

https://apnews.com/633afdad7292829aea38124fca61ee2c

Did you really think someone was doing investigative journalism on this?

 

[acbytesla]

I agree. However, it does not follow from this that L-N is required to give up its lawful copyright to the materials it produced.

It also does not follow from this that such annotations are part of the law as such. It seems to me that the proper remedy is for the state of Georgia to either write the annotations into a bill, and pass them into law; or else for the state of Georgia to commission annotations under a commons license.

There is a basic principle that the people who do the work should get compensated for it, and that others should not benefit from that work without giving fair compensation. This principle is embodied in copyright law. The court cannot - or at least should not - nullify existing law simply because somebody somewhere feels very strongly that it should be otherwise than it is.

While I agree with you that people should get paid for their work. The idea that a private company should ever be able to own this is flat out wrong.

 

[Thermal]

While I agree with you that people should get paid for their work. The idea that a private company should ever be able to own this is flat out wrong.

They should be paid. When they produce the paid for results, it should become public domain if it is part of our laws that citizens are required to comply with. This ongoing 'pay to know what the laws that govern you are' thing is some horse ****, though.

 

[Giz]

Why is it that eminent domain always seems to be employed in bad faith?

L-N contracted with the state in good faith. They did the work they were hired to do. They received the agreed compensation.

If L-N suspected the state was just going to waive their legal rights and grab the work from them anyway, they might have thought twice about doing the work. Or they might have negotiated a much more equitable deal before signing the contract.

Your proposal seems like gangsterism, to me.

Also, it seems disingenuous to use eminent domain to seize from others work that you could have done, and should have done, yourself. Lexis-Nexis is not the villain here. They should not be treated like one.

I’m saying that Georgia shouldn’t have done what they did. As a result, they should now compensate LN. As it is mandatory , I suggested eminent domain.

I agree that there are many shady uses of eminent domain but I hardly think this is one of them.

 

[theprestige]

While I agree with you that people should get paid for their work. The idea that a private company should ever be able to own this is flat out wrong.

They should be paid. When they produce the paid for results, it should become public domain if it is part of our laws that citizens are required to comply with. This ongoing 'pay to know what the laws that govern you are' thing is some horse ****, though.

Neither of these is how copyright actually works.

If the state didn't want or couldn't use copyrighted material, they should not have commissioned copyrighted material.

Nor should we tolerate the government commissioning copyrighted material and then denying its copyright.

 

[Thermal]

Neither of these is how copyright actually works.

If the state didn't want or couldn't use copyrighted material, they should not have commissioned copyrighted material.

Nor should we tolerate the government commissioning copyrighted material and then denying its copyright.

That's the point. Law should never be saddled with what is essentially a poll tax. No way a pay-as-you-go access to laws should have passed first sniff, much less gone so far.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's the point. Law should never be saddled with what is essentially a poll tax. No way a pay-as-you-go access to laws should have passed first sniff, much less gone so far.

But it isn't access to the laws. It's access to annotations written by a third party which has no legal force. Such annotations may be useful, but it certainly isn't the actual laws. I'm not denied access to the laws because I have to pay for a law textbook, even though a law textbook can certainly be useful in understanding the law.

But does a single person here actually know what these annotations even look like? I certainly don't. I've got no idea whether this is the sort of stuff that might be useful to a layperson or whether it's only useful for legal specialists.

 

[Thermal]

But it isn't access to the laws. It's access to annotations written by a third party which has no legal force. Such annotations may be useful, but it certainly isn't the actual laws. I'm not denied access to the laws because I have to pay for a law textbook, even though a law textbook can certainly be useful in understanding the law.

But does a single person here actually know what these annotations even look like? I certainly don't. I've got no idea whether this is the sort of stuff that might be useful to a layperson or whether it's only useful for legal specialists.

Fair point. I assume they have some significant relevance, or would not be in front of the SCOTUS. I doubt trivialities are often heard there

 

[acbytesla]

Neither of these is how copyright actually works.

If the state didn't want or couldn't use copyrighted material, they should not have commissioned copyrighted material.

Nor should we tolerate the government commissioning copyrighted material and then denying its copyright.

I understand how copyrights work. Again, private companies should never own the copyright on what is public information. Both the State and L N made a mistake.

 

[Giz]

But it isn't access to the laws. It's access to annotations written by a third party which has no legal force. Such annotations may be useful, but it certainly isn't the actual laws. I'm not denied access to the laws because I have to pay for a law textbook, even though a law textbook can certainly be useful in understanding the law.

But does a single person here actually know what these annotations even look like? I certainly don't. I've got no idea whether this is the sort of stuff that might be useful to a layperson or whether it's only useful for legal specialists.

The issue is that the free version is:


“The copyright status of the annotated code matters because the state doesn't publish any other official version. You can get an unofficial version of state law for free from LexisNexis' website, but LexisNexis' terms of service explicitly warned users that it might be inaccurate”

If there was a certified accurate, official version that was free (without annotations) then this would be a different conversation. But the only free version being inaccurate and unofficial... no thanks.

 

[Ziggurat]

I understand how copyrights work. Again, private companies should never own the copyright on what is public information.

What does "public information" mean here? And why are these annotations "public information"?

 

[theprestige]

That's the point. Law should never be saddled with what is essentially a poll tax. No way a pay-as-you-go access to laws should have passed first sniff, much less gone so far.

I agree, except that what you're describing isn't what happened.

 

[theprestige]

I understand how copyrights work. Again, private companies should never own the copyright on what is public information. Both the State and L N made a mistake.

L-N made no mistake. The state contracted them to produce private information. The state is the sole wrongdoer here.

 

[acbytesla]

What does "public information" mean here? And why are these annotations "public information"?

The annotations were made probably for free by third parties to the State. The State shouldn't have the right to sell the copyright of something that was originally public domain. Once it enters the public domain it should permanently be part of the public domain.

 

[acbytesla]

L-N made no mistake. The state contracted them to produce private information. The state is the sole wrongdoer here.

It wasn't private information.

 

[theprestige]

The annotations were made probably for free by third parties to the State.

You are wrong about this:

The annotations are produced by a division of legal publishing giant LexisNexis under a work-for-hire contract with the state.

You are wrong about this too:

It wasn't private information.

The copyright was indeed privately held. If the copyright was to be held by the state government, then the state government should have included that in the contract, instead of trying to declare by fiat after the fact.

Again, L-N abided by the contract, and has abided by their legal entitlement to copyright. They have done nothing wrong. This entire situation was created by the state in bad faith.

 

[acbytesla]

Delete

 

[acbytesla]

Annotations:

"Roberts said the question to ask is “whether the author of the work is a judge or a legislator.”

“If so," he wrote, “then whatever work that judge or legislator produces in the course of his judicial or legislative duties is not copyrightable."

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/20...ap-us-supreme-court-georgia-code-lawsuit.html

 

[acbytesla]

You are wrong about this:

Nope. You are.

You are wrong about this too:

The copyright was indeed privately held. If the copyright was to be held by the state government, then the state government should have included that in the contract, instead of trying to declare by fiat after the fact.

Again, L-N abided by the contract, and has abided by their legal entitlement to copyright. They have done nothing wrong. This entire situation was created by the state in bad faith.

Even the state doesn't own the copyright. This is public information as it was created by the State. And both the State and L N knew it was. This was an attempt to privatize what is inherently in the Public Domain.

 

[theprestige]

Annotations:

Read the article. The work was produced by L-N under contract.