It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: notmyrealname
Was it not? Have you checked a library in Georgia?
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.
No, as if it were, there would be no OP
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.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: notmyrealname
No, as if it were, there would be no OP
So, pure kneejerk then.
No research.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
You don't have to directly call someone a terrorist to imply that they are.
Consistent with its strategy of terrorism,
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.