Georgia Accuses Activist Of ‘Terrorism’ For Posting State’s Legal Code Online
The state of Georgia is claiming that an open records activist broke copyright law and committed an act of terrorism simply because he posted the full, annotated versions of the state’s legal code online.
In a lawsuit filed last week, Georgia officials accused Carl Malamud of Public Resource.org of engaging in an 18-year “crusade to control the accessibility of U.S. government documents” when he scanned and reposted the annotated version of the Georgia legal code. The code is used by courts to make decisions on the law.
The state, in the suit, also “points directly to the annotated version as the official laws of the state.”
READ MORE at LiberalAmerica.org
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Andrew Bradford
Andrew Bradford is an author, academic, and political activist who lives in Atlanta. He is a Senior Writer for Liberal America and also has his own blog at deepleftfield.info
66 responses to Georgia Accuses Activist Of ‘Terrorism’ For Posting State’s Legal Code Online
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Cliff Webb July 27th, 2015 at 11:38
He committed no offense. This will not stand. The law belongs to the people, not our servant government.
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 13:06
It’s a civil lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution.
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 11:54
Statutes are not copyrighted — but annotations are. That’s the problem here. There are numerous online sources for UNANNOTATED Georgia statutes — such as the Cornell Legal Information Institute. Georgia Legislature itself provides free access to ANNOTATED Georgia statues through LexisNexis. You can also get annotated statues in your state by going to your local courthouse library.
Statutes are drafted at the expense of the taxpayers and therefore belong to everyone. Annotations, however, are a product of legal research and analysis by scholars and professionals, not public servants — and as such, they cannot be disseminated willy-nilly. Nor is there a fundamental right to access legal commentary, as opposed to just the statutes themselves.
tracey marie July 27th, 2015 at 12:26
How is that terrorism?
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 12:53
The complaint alleges merely that the defendant himself referred to his own actions as “terrorism”. So I guess it’s up to him to explain what he meant by that when they take his depo.
tracey marie July 27th, 2015 at 14:03
the entire phrase not your cheery picked one…standards terroism, against government making money off the people who want to access their laws and the way they are interpreted.It was very clear but your meme would be interrupted if you used both words not just the one .
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 14:15
“Cherry-picked”? Unlike you, I actually clicked on that link. And then I did a Google search to see exactly what happened here. You, on the other hand, are basing your outrage solely on the woefully misleading headline. You CAN access your laws for free — you can’t access secondary materials, and you aren’t entitled to those materials. Moreover, the man in question was not charged with terrorism. The CIVIL COMPLAINT by the state alleges that he himself referred to his activities as “terrorism” — which is the only context in which the word “terrorism” appears in this whole affair. But thank you (not) for proving once again that inaccurate reporting that seizes on a single inflammatory word ripped completely out of context gets more traction than boring facts.
tracey marie July 27th, 2015 at 14:17
if you had clicked on it you would have seen STANDARDS, before terrorism. you cherry picked, it is obvious and you took a 2009 comment and implied it was said in 2015. In simpler words, you lied.
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 14:20
YOU lied. Because this man has not actually been charged with terrorism.
Warman1138 July 27th, 2015 at 12:52
Keeping people uninformed, what a novel concept for government.( eyes roll to back of head, brain shuts down, waiting for reboot ) So one could get into trouble for printing an annotated copy of copyright law for violating copyright law. Doesn’t this sound really stupid or is it just me, besides if their is no monetary means involved what harm is there? Especially since it’s the publics property and the info is openly available. It is isn’t it and if not what’s with that? The state of Georgia’s government must be incredibly F#$%$d or undeserving of the peoples trust. Gee, want to know what the law is in Georgia, don’t bother to ask, hire a lawyer.( eyes roll to back of head, brain shuts down, reboot fails, error, error )
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 13:05
The state of Georgia already provides online access to its statutes. Also: do you know what “annotated” means?
Warman1138 July 27th, 2015 at 13:31
To furnish with notes and Georgia’s pursuit of this is still stupid, might as well make reading it against the law too.
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 13:47
Right. Annotations are “notes”. Those “notes” are usually longer than the statutes they comment on. They consist of legal research and analysis prepared by legal professionals — not legislators — for a third-party private publisher. As such, they are protected by copyright laws. You have the right to access statutes for free. You DON’T have the right to free legal education beyond that access. And in any event, it’s a moot point, because the legislature already does provide access to annotations as well — but it is within its rights to limit their dissemination.
tracey marie July 27th, 2015 at 13:51
with terrorism charges?
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 14:11
Can you please provide a link to evidence that this man was charged with terrorism? Thank you, much obliged.
tracey marie July 27th, 2015 at 14:17
Is that a back pedal, it’s okay we all know you lied and attributed a 2009 comment to 2015.
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 14:20
No, that’s not a backpedal, that’s a statement to the effect that this man has not, in fact, been charged with terrorism. But feel free to prove me wrong by linking to the criminal complaint you claim exists.
tracey marie July 27th, 2015 at 14:23
and yet you lied and said he has to explain his words….from 2009 and your statement was incomplete to follow your meme. You are wrong, now making up more garbage. Done with you.
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 14:28
He doesn’t literally have to explain his words, but since he is the one who referred to himself as a terrorist, he’s in the best position to do so. In any event, in a civil deposition, a party must answer virtually all questions posed, so if he’s asked what he meant by “terrorist”, I’m afraid he’ll have to answer. Now, if he says “that was some hyperbole”, that’s a perfectly fine answer; but it doesn’t change the fact that the State of Georgia DID NOT CHARGE HIM WITH TERRORISM.
The fact that his comment is from 2009 is neither here nor there. The statute of limitations applies only to the accrual of a cause of action, not to evidence that may be used to establish a prima facie case. Since he isn’t being sued for saying “I’m doing terrorism”, but for violating copyright, that statement can be brought up.
A piece of advice, tracey: to play lawyer, you really need a law degree. And, preferably, some experience. Because the laity among you, who think that their limited understanding of “common sense” makes them legal experts — you are very, very bad at it.
rg9rts July 27th, 2015 at 14:59
read the original story…took my own advice
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 15:30
From Rawstory:
“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.”
From Techdirt: “The lawsuit says the following:
Carl Malamud, has indicated that this type of strategy has been a successful form of “terrorism” that he has employed in the past to force government entities to publish documents on Malamud’s terms”
So: while Rawstory uses the inflammatory language to the effect that Malamud has been “accused of terrorism”, it is clear that:
1. The civil allegations in question are based on Malamud’s own characterization of his activities as “terrorism”; and
2. Malamud has not been criminally charged with terrorism.
The text of the civil complaint is available here: https://ia801504.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gand.218354/gov.uscourts.gand.218354.1.0.pdf
The word “terrorism” appears twice in the complaint, in consecutive sentences, in paragraphs “19” and “20”. The term clearly refers to the defendant’s own characterization of his actions, however hyperbolic. There is no actual claim for “terrorism” in the complaint; the only two claims stated are both for statutory copyright infringement.
rg9rts July 27th, 2015 at 16:11
Got kicked off RS for defending myself against a troll
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 16:32
The hell you say.
rg9rts July 27th, 2015 at 16:37
No sense of humor I suppose
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 16:45
Oh, are we gonna talk about me again? Not that I don’t feel flattered but I’m sure the six people who may read this exchange over the next century would much rather be treated to the riveting tale of your heroic RS exploits.
rg9rts July 27th, 2015 at 16:56
Not picking on you…old news…I was attacked by a troll…suggested he resembled a bodily function and I assume we both got the boot…no warning just adios
rg9rts July 27th, 2015 at 16:58
My only heroic exploits is the taking on of SUNY and beating them at their won game using their own forces to defeat them
CandideThirtythree July 27th, 2015 at 21:50
No one here cares what you say, the only place anyone would care would be over at Fox nation or Stormfront but since they are all illiterate I guess that would be pointless.
burqa July 28th, 2015 at 09:18
You skipped over the second usage of the word “terrorism,” even though it is the one that I think caused not just RawStory, but also Michael Hiltzik at the L.A. Times to say the same thing:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-state-of-georgia-copyright-wall-20150727-column.html
In the first usage, the word is used in reference to a statement by Malamud.
In the second usage, I think you are wrong. Those filing the suit used it, apparently accepting Malamud’s employment of the word. Note that, unlike the first instance where they refer to Malamud’s usage, they didn’t put it in quotation marks the second time. It’s as if they were saying, “He called himself a “terrorist.” Well we think he is a terrorist, too.”
Just because they didn’t charge him with terrorism doesn’t mean they don’t think he is one, according at least to his own definition. I doubt Malamud’s definition fits the statute.
Just because the government didn’t charge Al Capone with murder it doesn’t mean they didn’t think he was a murderer.
AmusedAmused July 28th, 2015 at 09:40
I provided a link to the actual complaint and quoted it verbatim in one of my responses. The complaint clearly refers to defendant’s own comment. Feel free to review the pleadings, if accuracy is something you care about. They didn’t charge him with terrorism nor made any of their civil claims about terrorism. Both counts of the complaint are for copyright violations. They didn’t accuse him of murder either.
While using inflammatory language in pleadings is certainly bad lawyering — precisely because we know certain journalists scan filings for those bons mots, misrepresent their context, and then let the uninformed public outrage distort the situation further — the plaintiff did not do what it’s accused of doing; it didn’t charge the defendant with terrorism and it didn’t sue him for terrorism. As to what the individual legislators privately think of him in their thoughts, it’s neither here nor there. A negative opinion of someone isn’t tantamount to a legal accusation.
Warman1138 July 27th, 2015 at 17:57
What came first? The chicken or the egg?
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 21:10
*yawn*
If you object to the idea of copyright laws, that’s a different discussion altogether. That said, “the chicken or the egg” argument is completely unpersuasive to someone who’s actually familiar with statutory annotations.
Warman1138 July 27th, 2015 at 21:19
It’s an honest question, philosophically based as well as scientifically, since your answer is ” yawn ” this discussion is ended. Have a nice day.
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 22:23
Ah no. It was a rhetorical question, and an ignorant one.
William July 27th, 2015 at 22:01
Following this thread with interest. I think this is a lot like the old “Fertigo” book I was required to have in my cruiser. Essentially a publisher condensed and listed the various parts of the criminal code into a more readable (for us non lawyers) format.
The publisher was very protective of the property. A vocational school that taught law enforcement asked if they could copy parts of the book for lesson guides. The publisher denied the request, making it very clear that any copying and dissemination could result in a civil action.
Although the law is public record, the effort to catalog, condense and provide a less tedious medium is indeed intellectual property.
At least that’s how I understand this.
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 23:09
Annotations have less to do with format (though there is that too) and more with how courts apply statutes in particular cases. The outcome in particular cases isn’t always evident on the face of the statute; that’s where courts come in, and annotations become relevant.
For example, in my state (not Georgia), the statute that defines the scope of mandatory disclosure in civil cases is about 2 pages long. The annotations consist of about 50 pages of commentary discussing legislative history, differences in application among concurrent jurisdictions and analysing especially problematic case decisions. That, in turn, is followed by a couple of hundred pages listing and summarizing every single case decision that touches upon the subjects covered by the statute. That’s what annotations are. What’s more, since courts never stop issuing decisions, all thus stuff must be updated. Back in the stone age, before the internet, publishers could get away with updating annotations on an annual basis, with every new paper issue. Now, they have to update and revise pretty much constantly. As much as I hate to side with the suits here, this involves a massive amount of work and is very expensive.
burqa July 28th, 2015 at 08:54
So you are saying that cases are decided on information that is not available to everyone and you insist that we have no right to all of the information used in a decision?
Perhaps you like that kind of secrecy, I don’t. I also don’t think that our judicial system was set up to allow for such. Indeed, our system seems to favor openness when it comes to information used in a trial.
AmusedAmused July 28th, 2015 at 09:49
Did you even READ the comment you are responding to? Are you capable of understanding the difference between a case decision and a digest?
You have free access to case decisions as well as statutes. Feel free to read them and analyze them on your own time and with your own efforts. What you AREN’T entitled to is have professionals do the heavy lifting of analyzing statutes and cases for you for free. In fact, courts do not actually rely on annotations and never cite them in their rulings (Techdirt explicitly admitted that that part of its article was false). You are free to do your own research and have unfettered access to the raw materials; you are not entitled to have other people do the research for you — unless you pay them.
Moreover, as I previously mentioned, the public can access annotations for free — and even copy them for personal use — by visiting the county law library. I know, that would require the person to actually lift his tukhis and shimmy on over to the courthouse, but if that’s your definition of “secrecy”, then I guess there is nothing else left to discuss.
burqa July 28th, 2015 at 10:28
If the judge is relying on these other notes to decide the case then the defendant and the rest of us should have just as free access.
I am in favor of ending this kind of secrecy.
If the judge consults a John Grisham book, I want to know about that, too, even though Grisham would still retain his rights to what he wrote.
I do not expect to have legal textbooks given to me free of charge or free admission to law classes, but when it comes to what a judge relies upon for a decision, I see no reason to keep that secret.
I’m no lawyer but I am somewhat familiar with the notion of secret trials in our history and how that idea has been rejected.
I think it might be interesting to see what courts have said previously consisted of a “public trial”.
Oh, and while we’re being pedantic, professionals would not analyze cases “… for you, for free.”
The correct English would be “…for you, free.”
I can’t recall the commercial that introduced this false usage into our language, but do recall this was where it came from.
And it’s not spelled “tukhis” but “tuchas.”
AmusedAmused July 28th, 2015 at 11:55
Judges don’t cite annotations in their case decisions. Annotations, like all treatises, are not binding legal authority. (That’s Law 101 for you.) And in any event, case decisions themselves are freely available to the public.
Judges “rely” on secondary sources only to the extent that such sources facilitate their research. But that’s a very flimsy basis on which to make commercial products available to everyone for free. It’s like saying that because doctors employed by non-profit hospital “rely” on medical literature for reference, all that literature should be distributed to everyone free of charge.
Besides, you don’t address the practical problem I laid out. Legislators are paid to draft statutes. Judges are paid to write case decisions. However, neither legislators nor judges write annotations. Those are written by lawyers and scholars, for money. Now, if you declare that they henceforth must write annotations for free, how will you force them to do it?
CandideThirtythree July 27th, 2015 at 21:47
So you are a right-winger working for the state of Georgia?
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 22:22
No, but my dislike of right-wingers doesn’t extend to the point of making **** up, distorting facts or misrepresenting the law. There is plenty to criticize right-wingers for without sinking to that level. One should never lose one’s integrity.
burqa July 28th, 2015 at 08:46
What if the annotations were entered as part of the public record?
AmusedAmused July 28th, 2015 at 09:50
We are talking about the legal process here. What is your understanding of something being “entered” as “public record”?
burqa July 28th, 2015 at 12:24
When laws are debated, often supporting materials are used in the debate and often related works are entered into the public record.
But here you come, the legal expert, saying not a single one of these annotations was ever entered in the public record. Have you checked or are you just trying to get by with bluster?
Oh I saw what you wrote about those annotations. I can’t help but wonder whether the authors’ contracts ever call for their copyright of their writing to go to the company they sold the work to. So if they sold their work to the private company, that company could sell it to the state.
If you lived here, you could cancel your Westlaw subscription – all that stuff and much more is free to the public at the Rappahannock Regional Library headquarters on Caroline Street, Fredericksburg. The Law Library stays open after hours for attorneys.
The good folks at Westlaw have not protested the way this has cut into their business.
I do not feel everything should be available to everyone free. There are proprietary business secrets, private communications that should remain private and government secrets, to name a few that come to mind. I can’t conceive of a legal opinion such as these only being available to some of us. These are not trade secrets. They are not codes and ciphers. They are not mushy love letters.
If the judge uses them to convict me, I want to know what he used and believe I should have the right to see whatever it is and everyone else should, too.
AmusedAmused July 28th, 2015 at 15:02
Fine, if you are claiming that your arguments are based on facts rather than speculation, feel free to cite a case decision that’s based on annotations. Or a dozen cases. Because in my 12-year career, I don’t think I saw a single one, but perhaps your vast experience as a litigator has been different.
As for the fear that a judge may use something you have no access to, to convict you — I don’t think you have any understanding of how legal process works, and this comment format is too limited (and my life is too short) to explain it to you in excruciating detail, especially in the face of resistance to any information that challenges your preconceived notions of how the legal system works. Why should I lead a horse to water when it’s kicking like that?
Generally speaking, I support the work of activists who aim to educate the general public about law. After all, if the general public took advantage of those opportunities — and there are already tons out there — maybe I wouldn’t be here right now, feeling like I’m debating the concept of color with a congenitally blind person. But alas, there are two problems here. First, this particular activist made a booboo in this particular case. Second, the general public, with rare exceptions, doesn’t want to be educated about law, and in fact, doesn’t think it NEEDS to be educated about law. It just wants to shout, stomp its feet, have its biases confirmed and cling to its own, hopelessly wrong, understanding of law. You want to enter tens of thousands of pages of scholarly commentary into “public record” and put it up online for free? Fine, write to your legislature. I’m sure people like me will line up to spend our lives writing that stuff for no compensation, so that people like you may then proceed to not read it, beacause you already know the law from Law & Order and My Cousin Vinny.
burqa July 28th, 2015 at 16:25
I think it is pretty obvious that a great deal of what I am saying is speculation.
To answer your challenge to “… cite a case decision that’s based on annotations.,”
According to the state of Georgia, ther answer would be – all of them – because the state ““points directly to the annotated version as the official laws of the state.”
I’m quoting the last line of the OP. Didn’t you even bother to read the OP you are commenting on?
So now you’re saying that Georgia judges don’t work from the “official laws of the state”?
Or, if they are, the accused, whose fates those judges decide, is done using material kept secret, because Lawd knows what would happen if the Rooskies got ahold of the annotated versions of Georgia state law.
Oh and as far as being a litigator, my experience in court is quite limited, but I am undefeated in the cases in which I represented myself.
You batting 1.000 in the courtroom, counselor?
And just to be clear, are you licensed to practice law in Georgia?
AmusedAmused July 28th, 2015 at 16:40
*Headdesk*
Annotations are not laws. Annotations are not laws.
Annotations are not laws.
Plates aren’t food.
Flea collars aren’t dogs.
Apples aren’t oranges.
Annotations are not laws.
Annotations are not laws.
Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?
burqa July 28th, 2015 at 16:43
So the annotated version doesn’t contain annotations?
I asked a few questions you have not answered, councelor….
AmusedAmused July 28th, 2015 at 22:08
An annotated version contains statutes and annotations. Statutes are laws. Annotations are not laws.
No, I am not licensed to practice Georgia, but this is completely irrelevant. First of all, to the extent that I’m suggesting that what I’m doing here is illegal or unethical, a casual discussion about a legal case does not constitute the practice of law, so: once again, a swing and a miss on your part. Second, annotations are not laws in Georgia, just like annotations are not laws anywhere else. Annotations, by definition, are not laws. You know, just like cars in Georgia aren’t horses.
As for my “batting average”, I will not dignify that BS question with an answer, not to mention the fact that you wouldn’t accept my answer anyway. There is no comparison between you and me. You, in your capacity as a carpenter, come to court on account of mechanics’ liens or unpaid invoices or minor traffic violations or some administrative licensing issues or minor criminal offenses, like not keeping a dog on a leash or smoking a joint or whatever. I know that to someone like you, it feels like a victory of Biblical proportions when you “win” on some technical BS. To me, your so-called practice consists of chicken-**** that isn’t worth my time or my expertise. The cases I deal with are incomparably more complicated than anything you’ve ever come across, and I handle about thirty of them simultaneously — hundreds over my career. For you to interrogate me about my “batting average” is akin to bragging to a surgeon about how good you are at applying a bandaid. Besides, if your case load, o “undefeated” one, is anything like mine, there are only three possible explanations:
1. You are practicing law without a license, which is a felony. With a twist of fraud, most probably.
2. You get sued by hundreds of people and get hundreds of violations issued to you, which means you are a terrible carpenter and a terrible person.
3. You are one of those hyper-litigious people who bring scores of incoherent, utterly meritless lawsuits, with pleadings written in mad chicken scratch, most likely because you suffer from a mental illness. If that’s the case, my condolences, and I hope you get help.
“Here are a couple other questions you didn’t get around to answering: So now you’re saying that Georgia judges don’t work from the “official laws of the state”?”
ANNOTATIONS. ARE NOT. LAWS.
Where is the second question? Oh, I see. Not only do you not understand diddly squat about law, you can’t even count to two.
“Or, if they are, it appears you are claiming the judges decide the fates of the accused using material kept secret, because Lawd knows what would happen if the Rooskies got ahold of the annotated versions of Georgia state law.”
Judges do not decide the fates of the accused using annotations. Annotations are not laws. Furthermore, annotations are not kept secret — which you would have known, had you actually used that law library for anything more productive than scratching your ***.
burqa July 28th, 2015 at 22:48
You still haven’t answered why the state says the annotated version is “the official law of the state.”
Maybe it is because you don’t know Georgia law and think you can bluff your way through on that one. They are the ones contradicting you – the Georgia state government which I imagine has some people in there licensed to practice in the state who can explain how it i that annotations are the official state law.
Looks like I hit a sore spot asking about your batting average. Must be nothing like my all-star level 1.000 undefeated, untied record. Your guesses as to the charges are all a bunch of swings-and-misses – – – to be expected from those with low batting averages.
For the numbered points:
1) It is legal for people to represent themselves here in Virginia, at least it was when I was kicking ass and folks were calling me “Perry Mason.” If you want, I can describe how great that feels, especially when you’ve put on a highly entertaining, winning performance that people remember 20 years later. I can go into detail for you so you can live vicariously through me and see how it is for those of us who just win win win, baby.
2) False. But it is certainly flattering for you to imagine I won hundreds of cases without a loss, which makes your sorry batting average look even worse, given the sample size of my victories you imagine.
3) False again. I didn’t bring these cases, they were launched against me and I won every time. One of my fave moments came in one case where, just as I reached a crescendo making my case, the judge, with perfect timing, held up his hand and, shooting the lawyer I was macerating, to get the hell out of his courtroom. That was a high moment for me, especially because that same damned lawyer had allegedly represented me and didn’t even know what papers he drew up meant or what simple English words I added and we cosigned meant.
Now, for my two questions, you did not say whether or not Georgia judges operated with “the official laws of the state.”
For the second one, it is clear you are the one who can’t count to two. After you answered the second one (or attempted to), you did not realize what you had just done.
But you were quite helpful to the point I’ve been making since the beginning. You said the judges did not use annotations in the last post and in another one it looks as if you are saying they never have.
Fine.
Problem solved. Just take them away from the judges when they are deciding cases so they are not using secret information and are issuing decisions after thumbing through them. In that case no one would know what they took into consideration when it comes to deciding a case besides the actual law itself. Why not just take away this tool you say they don’t use anyway?
You still haven’t explained why the state legal eagles who are licensed to practice in the state and you are not, who have experience and know the customs followed there which you don’t know because you haven’t practiced there and even if you had, your lousy batting average would indicate you didn’t know what you were doing in the first place.
.
burqa July 28th, 2015 at 23:00
I wish you knew what it was like to be – Number ONE!
The Top Dog.
The Big Cheese.
The Boss.
Champion.
The Big Kahuna.
The Blowtorch in Bondage – no wait, that’s Iggy.
Too bad you haven’t known the success I have in the courtroom. Yeeees, with my string of slam-dunk, gavel-bustin’ victories the worst I could do would be tied for first.
I tell ya, AmusedAmused, it’s a great feeling to wake up, stretch and get a self-satisfied grin knowing that to others, this is the Top Dog getting out of bed and it’s the undefeated undisputed heavyweight Champ heading down to breakfast and a brand new day.
“Hmmm, who will be today’s unfortunate opponent” you would wonder, if your record wasn’t so awful and you ha the best record around.
Next up I’d sort my fan mail, setting aside some of the “cheesecake” shots of young California hard-bellies who have heard of my fame and seen my FB pictures of me, bare-chested, riding a horse across the beach at the edge of the waterline, long flowing locks behind me, a slight grin on my face, knowing what a good workout this is for my Arabian stallion named Altador and also knowing I’ll be winning my next case by lunch time.
Do you ride, AmusedAmused?
illinoisboy1977 July 27th, 2015 at 13:27
Perhaps someone should tell the state of Georgia that the legal code is public information and there can be NO copyright on it. I think the judge will laugh them right out of the courtroom.
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 13:45
The code — yes; annotations — no.
illinoisboy1977 July 27th, 2015 at 14:02
Annotations on existing statute are not, in and of themselves, part of the code. But, if they’re compiled and released by the state, they’re as much in the public domain as if they were part of the code. Anything owned by the state is owned by the taxpayers and, therefore, is in the public domain.
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 14:10
They are NOT complied and released by the state — that’s the point. They are compiled and released by a third-party publisher, a private company. “Compiled” isn’t even the right word here. Annotations don’t just grow on trees, or exist somewhere out there for people to gather. Someone has to create them. Not legislators — legal scholars. Those people are paid to do so by private publisher; the public budget doesn’t cover it.
illinoisboy1977 July 27th, 2015 at 14:28
If that’s the case, the state of Georgia still doesn’t have legal standing to sue. Under your argument, the injured party would be the publisher. They would have to be ones to file suit, not the state of Georgia.
AmusedAmused July 27th, 2015 at 14:30
If you used Georgia’s website for it, or Georgia’s copy of the books, then the state could have standing. It’s also possible that whatever purchasing contract Georgia has with the publisher creates that standing.
illinoisboy1977 July 27th, 2015 at 14:32
I’ll definitely follow this one. Looks interesting.
StoneyCurtisll July 27th, 2015 at 22:20
thats right.
burqa July 28th, 2015 at 08:16
Maybe there’s a disclaimer in there that reads something like broadcasts of sporting events where they say “Any rebroadcast of some or all of this program is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of this station or the National Football League…
rg9rts July 27th, 2015 at 14:57
You can’t make this stuff up….you wonder if they realize how stupid they appear to the sane world(not Texas)
amersham46 July 27th, 2015 at 20:28
The Georgia official should be called before the Judge ,,,, an be given 3 gavel bonks on the top of the head , and be sent back to the capital building with a message that both the Governor and Attorney General are asked to appear to get their bonks
Warman1138 July 27th, 2015 at 22:08
Multiple parts of the state of Georgia refer to the OCGA ( Official Code of Georgia Annotated ) as the law of Georgia rather than the unannotated version. The US Copyright Office has declared such to be not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works weather they are Federal, State or Local. Edicts of government, judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances and similar legal documents. Source ( Techdirt from the rethinking dept. )
burqa July 28th, 2015 at 08:12
We can tell whether the guy who posted the legal code broke the law by checking the code he posted online….seems he would have checked to see if doing so was legal….
maggie October 19th, 2015 at 02:07
just when we thought democracy was for everyone…the gov has to rub it in our faces that democracy is only for the gov and not for voters…;( obviously Malamud doesn’t get that…please note sarcasm….and then someone school georgia hard for a big settlement for this guy….;)