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

originally posted by: Phage
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?

No, as if it were, there would be no OP; did you take your genius pills today?

a reply to: notmyrealname

No, as if it were, there would be no OP

So, pure kneejerk then.
No research.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
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.

Take solace that there are people that understand the gravity of the situation and don't let the others bother you. The only thing I would like to impart with you is that, probably most everyone here has a vote and this is one of the 'top' forums online….

…think about it….

a reply to: notmyrealname

good point.... although "top" might be an overstatement. though i will check the traffic, of course.

but your real genius shines through, from your encouragement. i have now collected the revised statues of my state......... and am thinking about starting a non-profit to get these in the hands of ALL inmates in my state. gravity. is right. thank you. achilles heel, maybe?

A simple case of copyright infringement.
The outrage in this thread is due to the fact that the annotations are related to Georgia law. Some think that this is suppression of information but it is not. Viewing the legal code of Georgia and legal decisions of judges is open to all citizens without charge, but the annotations he published to solicit donations are copyrighted material offering the opinions of many legal experts on a given law, mainly before decisions based on the law are made. The company that provided such materials paid for their development and charges a fee for others to read them. The defendant paid for such annotations and then published them for all to read while soliciting donations to his site. Had he bought a best seller and posted it for all to read while asking for donations, this forum would have no trouble seeing his crime.
He is trying to get paid for illegally publishing the work of others by playing the role of 'bad boy' who is 'sticking it to the man.' To do this properly, he builds his own rep by calling his tactic "terrorism" and suckering in those who do not understand copyright infringement and theft of intellectual property. He can call his tactic what he wants, but the tactic is actually theft.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: notmyrealname

No, as if it were, there would be no OP

So, pure kneejerk then.
No research.

That seems to be the catalyst for what started this thread. Then for added wow effect, an upside down flag was applied as you enter to influence opinion and appeal to the anti establishment folk from the get go. Junior propaganda stuff.

originally posted by: Hefficide


The loophole that Georgia is using to initiate this lawsuit is laughable at best. Their position? The laws themselves might be public domain... but the legal annotations to those laws are not. For $378.00 you can pay Lexus Nexus for access to the annotations - but otherwise you are stuck hiring an attorney to get the benefit of knowing exactly how a Judge is going to approach any given interpretation of a statute.

It bears mentioning that the legal annotations are heavily considered in the Court's interpretation of a law. In fact case law and annotations are exactly the tools that Judges use to interpret and administer a law.

OK...Devil's advocate..

He is not posting the actual full text of the laws...which are public domain.

He is posting a Private Companies' "annotations"..That company being LexusNexis?

The basic legal code is readily available for free online and in print, but the state claims in its suit that information in the annotated legal code is copyrighted.

The annotated legal code is currently available for $378 through legal publisher Lexis Nexis or through a complicated series of steps through the Georgia General Assembly website.

an·no·tate
/ˈanəˌtāt/

verb
past tense: annotated; past participle: annotated

add notes to (a text or diagram) giving explanation or comment.
"documentation should be annotated with explanatory notes"

Could he have saved himself the copyright threat by changing the wording of LexusNexis's annotations?


LexisNexis..

LexisNexis Group is a corporation providing computer-assisted legal research as well as business research and risk management services.[2][3] During the 1970s, LexisNexis pioneered the electronic accessibility of legal and journalistic documents.[4] As of 2006, the company has the world's largest electronic database for legal and public-records related information.[5]

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a company that makes it's money by making laws accessible electronically..OK, but those laws are still public domain, he has a right to publish them.

They also make money by "annotating" those laws...Notes on relevant case law and how the laws have been interpreted by the courts in the past.

Should he be able to publish that work that LexisNexis has invested in without concern for copyright?

Not sure...On one hand if judges use those annotations to deliberate cases, that might warrant a compelling case that those annotations belong in the public domain. It also raises the question about a private corporation having significant influence on how our Judges rule on cases? Hell..what if the Koch Brothers or Some Liberal Boogey-man Billionaire (Soros) bought LexisNexis and began influencing those annotations to reflect a political agenda? Shouldn't our judges be responsible for interpreting the law themselves...their own "annotations"??

I see both sides, but not sure where I land yet.

The "Terrorist" bit seems irrelevant and not serious. They quote Malamud's post of "Standards Terrorism" to show that he was aware of breaking copyright laws and it was intentional, but they don't accuse him of terrorism.

The lawsuit cites a remark made by Malamud in 2009 describing his efforts to post government documents online as “standards terrorism” to accuse the digital activist of committing acts of terrorism.

“Consistent with its strategy of terrorism, (Malamud) freely admits to the copying and distribution of massive numbers of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Annotations,” the lawsuit claims.

Lexis Nexis is a private company. Nobody has free access to it. Not even the government. We pay an annual fee for access. So does the State of Georgia, or anyone else who wants to use their service.

This is NOT government run or maintained. West Law is the other primary legal research company. It charges as well. Every practicing attorney and many upper level business positions, along with any government attorney, from local, to state, to federal, pays the subscription rates to use what is an invaluable tool.

a reply to: usernameconspiracy

Actually, if your average adult was to subscribe to Lexis, with no legal background, and no understanding of how to research case law, how to Sheppardize a case you find relevant to determine if it is still a valid primary authority, whether it is mandatory or persuasive authority, is the case authoritative in the proper jurisdiction, how other case law may impact the decision in any case you might find, etc., then that person would find Lexis or West Law fairly useless.

One could, however, do a fine job of presenting a very poor case in their defense by thinking they understand how case law works.

Did you notice the attorneys name? "Anthony B. Askew"

My answer... Yes, I agree that he is.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
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.

Again, one more time - then the law has to be changed.

I don't agree with it either but do understand the distinction between what "should be" and what "is".

a reply to: EternalSolace

You don't have to directly call someone a terrorist to imply that they are.

Except in this case the OP headline clearly states GA called him a terrorist, but what they put in the complaint was this...

Consistent with its strategy of terrorism,

Being consistent with it's strategy of terrorism...is a far cry from being called a terrorist. Something they never did to the man.

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: Hefficide

It's a slippery slope when something is labeled as a terrorist act. Where does it end? I think that calling him a terrorist for making sure that others know the laws is ridiculous. I hope the suit ges thrown out.

Calling himba terrorist IS terrorism in and of itself. It strikes fear in the hearts of those who would attempt to attain knowledge of the laws of their own land, and/or share this knowledge with their fellow citizenry who's lives are being directly effected by these laws, effectively terrorizing the population.

a reply to: Hefficide

The copyright stuff is silly, but they might get away with it. That they would push it says a lot, though, because how can people obey the law if they aren't allowed to know all of the little subtleties? That's the goal there, I suspect; to allow them to call anyone a criminal, and have people unable to know enough to defend themselves. Court appointed attorneys are paid by the state, of course, so how unbiased are they?

The terrorist angle is indeed scary, but seems par for the course these days. Remember the DHS document that said anyone carrying a copy of the Constitution was a "potential terrorist"? Your offer is quite accurate.

And for Georgia -

a reply to: Hefficide

Ha! Another milestone of the project Georgia Guidestones.



Anyway... Public.Resource.Org is a nonprofit and the data free for public use, innit? 'Standards terrorism'? Well.. sounds pathetic but he might actually be right on the money with regards to the barbarism of paywalls and a lawsuit based on copyright infraction...

Go ahead and sue him, that's a very good contribution to the coming revolution. Well done, Georgia!

*doublefacepalm*

So, the government is claiming copyright on the distribution and interpretation of law, based on the idea that a subcontractor typed them up? Like a legal monopoly on law manipulation?

a reply to: SlowNail

Lexis is a private company, not a government company. Their work product is copyrighted. Anyone can subscribe to Lexis (or Westlaw) but actually understanding the complexities of it, and case law, is another thing altogether.

a reply to: pteridine

I hope he requests the actual copyright documentation from the copyright office specifically showing the annotations listed. If they don't have them, the annotations are not, in fact, copyrighted (at least that is my understanding of the law regarding copyrights - I hold many myself and tried to get "blanket coverage", but was informed there is no such thing).
Calling him a terrorist, well, that is defamation of character, libelous, and slanderous. I would personally counter sue.

a reply to: Phage

Sounds like Draco, 7th cent BC Athenian nobleman, who was given the job of writing down and codifying the laws
after the lower classes complained of the unfair treatment dealt out in the law courts

The laws he wrote were known for their harshness thus giving us the word DRACONIAN for punishments which are
overly harsh

a reply to: usernameconspiracy
So, yes then?