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

I have to hand it to you Heff - not only do you find good stories and post them here but you have a true writer's talent for presenting them.



As for the charge of terrorism? I'd love to know how the prosecutor plans on making that charge stick. What this man is doing is a tremendous public service. You're spot on about case law and precedent being the deciding factor in many cases.
What a sad statement this is about the Government of Georgia though.
Those folks in Atlanta think they're the Southern counterpart of DC.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

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.

Yes, they can provide me a copy of the law. I can even look it up online. But those laws aren't the only thing they're using to adjudicate, are they?

That's the problem. The things they are using, for the tenth time, aren't public domain.

Law and it's interpretation isn't intellectual property.

There is nothing else your judged on besides the law. As I said sometimes opinion on what a law says or doesn't say means nothing. Case in point we have several people here that think they understand copy write law. And think if someone rights a review that should be made public for all. Sorry it doesn't work that way if someone writes something like a scientific paper or their review of a law the work is theres.

If I write a paper post it online in a journal that doesn't give others the right to take my paper and post it on there site without my permission. If a lawyer writes a review of case law what on earth makes you believe he is required to let you post his work. You are more than welcome to create your own and post it. Saying someone can't copy write their work just because you are under the impression it should be free is still wrong. People argue when you buy a movie you should be able to copy it and give it to whoever they like because they bought it. Your making the same argument because the public can use something doesn't mean it has to be free.

Doesn't matter which company a judge uses to study case law that company had to spend their money and time preparing it. That company had to pay for it to be reviewed. That company has to then edit the comments and index them into format. And you believe the company should do it for free because for some strange reason you think anything involving the law should be free. It's like saying that just because oxygen is free any chemical that uses it should be free to. This individual has the right to post the last he can even review them and write his own annotations. He doesn't have the right to user ones that others created.

This has to be the dumbest argument for public domain I have ever heard. If this guy had have a brain he's read those papers he posted on line before he is living on the street after lawyers get done.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I have to hand it to you Heff - not only do you find good stories and post them here but you have a true writer's talent for presenting them.

As for the charge of terrorism? I'd love to know how the prosecutor plans on making that charge stick. What this man is doing is a tremendous public service. You're spot on about case law and precedent being the deciding factor in many cases.
What a sad statement this is about the Government of Georgia though.
Those folks in Atlanta think they're the Southern counterpart of DC.

They won't that's not what he's being charged with read the thread.. The op was totally wrong about what this is about. Fact is this man is stealing profiting from it.

a reply to: dragonridr

If you want annotations that are used by judges to rule in a case protected by copyright, then judges should be barred from using those sources to influence their decisions. Judges should make the determination on their own, without the aid of copyright material.

If you want annotations that are used by judges to rule in a case protected by copyright, then I shouldn't be held accountable to such law unless I've paid for access to such material.

Nothing that is used to influence law should be behind any kind of pay wall, copyright, or any other restriction that prevents public domain.


I don't understand why there's such a disconnect with this concept.

a reply to: Hefficide

I am on the side of Mr. Malamud - I think that he is providing a service for the people. I don't think it should be copyright infringement to post laws online. The terrorism angle is out of nowhere. It is even more scary because it means his rights could be taken away, but he is obviously not a terrorist.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: dragonridr

If you want annotations that are used by judges to rule in a case protected by copyright, then judges should be barred from using those sources to influence their decisions. Judges should make the determination on their own, without the aid of copyright material.

If you want annotations that are used by judges to rule in a case protected by copyright, then I shouldn't be held accountable to such law unless I've paid for access to such material.

Nothing that is used to influence law should be behind any kind of pay wall, copyright, or any other restriction that prevents public domain.


I don't understand why there's such a disconnect with this concept.

Your being silly judges pay to go to law school does that mean if you haven't gone to law school you shouldn't be held accountable? This is a stupid argument want to know who has the greatest influence on judges there professors in college. Do you believe if you don't have access to there law books they shouldn't be able to be a lawyer? Where does this stupidity end? Many people buy things to help them do there job better may be instruction manuals tools etc. These books are a tool the lawyers use nothing more. Of the judges chooses he can throw out previous case law ultimately its the judges decision period.

This whole childish notion that you should have access to everything a lawyer has is stupid to say the least if you truly want access go to law school learn the material. If you chose not to or can't hire someone that did.

a reply to: dragonridr

Our taxes pay for the courts, the judges, the police, the jails, all the documents and whatever they produce is public property. If he's selling them that's a whole 'nother thing.

a reply to: Hefficide

...and now the unease is palpable as all feel the labor needed to shift the goalposts when it would be better used to correct the title and content of the OP. It's quite civil to own up to an error in judgement, no matter how small it may be.

a reply to: dragonridr

Your being silly judges pay to go to law school does that mean if you haven't gone to law school you shouldn't be held accountable?

Is that what I said? No. I'll repeat for the 12th time: 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 law is being influence by a book that's not public domain, that law should not apply.

Do you believe if you don't have access to there law books they shouldn't be able to be a lawyer?

Once again, this has nothing to do with lawyers. I'll repeat my point for the 13th time: 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.

Many people buy things to help them do there job better may be instruction manuals tools etc.

Many people aren't responsibly for fairly adjudicating the laws of our society. I don't care what many people do. I care what judges do. Judges shouldn't be privy to case influencing material if it isn't publicly available.

This whole childish notion that you should have access to everything a lawyer has is stupid to say the least if you truly want access go to law school learn the material. If you chose not to or can't hire someone that did.

Let's go to the highest law of the land: The Constitution.

Are you okay with the Supreme Court ruling on our constitutional rights using material that the people of the United States does not have access to? I'm not. Whether an individual understands the material or not, it should be made available to look at and read of their own accord, else it shouldn't be used.

To strip down my argument to it's very basic form is this: No one should ever blindly accept what anyone says on any subject that can't be studied and read without limitation.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: FyreByrd

As the annontation are done by a private (and do we get to know who these estemed legal minds are????) firm the material is considered protected under copy write laws. Then he is clearly in violation.

The republishing of the laws is fine, but when he republishes the laws with the annotation he is infringing on the copyright of those who wrote the annotation as they are the owners of the annotations...something that makes this a copyright infringement case.

I just said that.

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: tsurfer2000h
If you repost your opinion over and over enough, maybe it will become the accepted opinion; no matter how incorrect it may be.

You know this is dumb. You want the law to be that anything connected with Laws is public domain. - I get that and think most people get that.

The law stands today that additional material written by a 'private' party is protected under copywrite. And so - this fellow is in violation of the law.

This doesn't mean that the law is right or as it should be - the issue in the case is what does the law accually say.

Now if you, and I and many others feel this is way out of line then WE need to do something about it and hopefully this case will bring the issue into the open for public debate.

a reply to: FyreByrd

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

If that's not acceptable, then judges need to stop using said material to draw their opinions from.

a reply to: EternalSolace

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

Really? A book which a judge consults instantly becomes public domain?
How about if he listens to music which allegedly led someone to commit a crime. That music is now public domain?

a reply to: dragonridr

... And think if someone rights a review that should be made public for all. Sorry it doesn't work that way if someone writes something like a scientific paper or their review of a law the work is theres. ..

Only until a Judge uses it to set precedence. Then it would become public. The state and it's taxpayers having paid for the interpretation of said law. The 'review' of the law-if used in court-(or if the judge uses it to interpret the law-is no longer protected, and should be made available to the public.

ETA; The parts used for interpretations, not entire articles, songs, etc.

a reply to: Phage

You like the idea that you might be judged on some interpretation of law that you had no way to be privy to?

Also, your analogy makes no sense in light of the topic at hand.

For the umpteenth time... 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.

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.

This is insane... I don't understand how people are okay with our judges determining society's laws without complete transparency.

It's like people are okay with being held liable to obscure laws that can be interpreted, in any which way, without public oversight.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Hefficide

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why it is outrageous that people often say "ignorance of the law is no excuse!", when the phrase might come into play.

This, surely, is ridiculous?

The annotations play into the way the law is applied. They are part of the law, in the same way as a piece of equipment should never reach the user without a manual equal to its complexity. The law is the most complicated tool ever devised, even, some would argue, more so than the LHC. Therefore, it seems utterly outrageous to me, that the law is ever displayed without these annotations, and furthermore that charging to view them is a disgraceful, and mercenary act.

The law is not just. Need I go on?

This. Right here.
Emphasis added by me.

I know I'm late to the party...but had to chime in here...

I had ZERO idea that anything like this was even happening!!

Judges are being paid, by a private company, to state their opinion(s)("annotations") (which in turn becomes said private company's intellectual property) as to why they ruled in this way or that way in a case that they have already adjudicated?



WTF??? Annotations to previous interpretations should be permanently and publicly part of the law.

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

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: tsurfer2000h
If you repost your opinion over and over enough, maybe it will become the accepted opinion; no matter how incorrect it may be.

You know this is dumb. You want the law to be that anything connected with Laws is public domain. - I get that and think most people get that.

The law stands today that additional material written by a 'private' party is protected under copywrite. And so - this fellow is in violation of the law.

This doesn't mean that the law is right or as it should be - the issue in the case is what does the law accually say.

Now if you, and I and many others feel this is way out of line then WE need to do something about it and hopefully this case will bring the issue into the open for public debate.

Okay, your opinion aside please forgive me for one brief pedantic moment; if by now posting you opinion over and over talking about "dumb" you might strive to lear that the word is 'copyright' not copywriter. Learn at least that one thing and I will feel better.

So, I will state this again for posterity: For all those that do not understand that public money is spent for the public good and not for private parties that get to use said information against the public. If you want to charge for your own copyrighted material, do not accept public money for it.

I really can't make it more blunt however I know that some will simply keep on their inane diatribe of thoughtless nonsense and block-headedness to the 23rd power.

I actually hope that you less than a partial, primordial fragment of the original big bang of moron get to face a case in court that makes a decision based upon material that you could not afford to buy because you were defending 'copywrite' law.