In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that the State of Georgia cannot hold copyright on its laws with annotations. Until now, it cost $400 to gain access to the full text of the state laws with annotations giving the laws current context. The annotations are created by a committee made up of members of the state legislature.
In the majority opinion was written by an unusual coalition, of Chief Justice John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
Does it seem weird to anyone that a state tried to claim copyright over the laws it uses to govern the public? This is weird medieval crap where there are secret laws you must abide by. Also that's a really weird mix of justices who came up with the majority opinion.
ajc.com
Secret laws
It's not just weird; it's unconstitutional.
>Does it seem weird to anyone that a state tried to claim copyright over the laws it uses to govern the public?
Weird? No. Not if you're paying attention.
South Carolina claims copyright on their constitution.
Of course laws should be copyright protected. This makes it easier for the state to prosecute and the public to sue anyone who tries to use an altered copy of the law as part of a fraud or other deception. Obviously there would need to be requirements for the State to publish.
>use an altered copy of the law as part of a fraud or other deception.
Lol are you fucking retarded
Thomas sided with the minority, saying the ruling would lead to states no longer publishing annotations. I don't often disagree with Thomas but that's stupid reasoning. The constitutionality of something doesn't depend on if someone will continue doing it or not when told of it's constitutionality. Also while $400 is a lot of money for the average person to access the laws, the number of lawyers who do pony up the $400 can't be enough for this to be a serious source of income for the state with a $27.5 billion budget.
And most state flags are patented as well as various U.S. Government flags.
The state could just charge them with fraud if they commit fraud. Why try to prosecute fraud as a copyright violation?
>Does it seem weird to anyone that a state tried to claim copyright over the laws it uses to govern the public?
Holy shit
Thank goodness. I get charging for personal copies, but copyright is just loon.
Not speculation, as people have been caught doing just that. Usually it involves employment issues.
Going to need a citation there sport. I only know of one government flag that's copyrighted, which is ironic since no one would ever want to copy it.
>Why try to prosecute fraud as a copyright violation?
Cool it with the antisemitism
One office, or one nightly goal from a bad organization. Or both. Bet $the 'bar association' is responsible.
>Not speculation, as people have been caught doing just that.
That's my point.
>trying to use a fraudulent edit of a doc behind a paywall
Vs
>trying to use a fraudulent edit of a freely available doc
Which do you think is easier
Charging for a bound printed copy to recover the cost would be understandable but the reason for the lawsuit in the first place was a citizen made the laws available for free online. In that case the distribution of the laws was at no cost to the state government.
Niggardly. WTF auto correct... I want my laptop!!
Why not? It certainly shows a lot of premeditation on the part of the offender.
Servers cost some money, a website costs 9.99 per month...
>using a fake edit isn't enough
Based statist retard
>state govs have anything remotely resembling a modern server with modern servers costs
ok shlomo. Most state govs unemployment systems have completely shit because they're running it on some 40 year old (literally) programming language on old ass hardware
No copyrighted, patented. Go to Google patents and search the Name of Your State. The U.S. flag is patented for international treaty issues. The U.S. Coast Guard flag is patented and if they catch you flying it at sea (assuming you are not a coast Guard ship) they will charge you, among other things, with a patent violation under Federal law.
>you're under arrest
>what for?
>you have to pay $399.00 plus tip to find out
the absolute state of georgia cucks
For text search, 40 year old programs are fine. Shit, COBOL is underrated AF. But why you call me jew is confusing, dickweed.
Lots of people seem to be misunderstanding this issue.
The laws are of course public. Anyone can freely browse Georgia code.
Laws are interpreted by the judicial system. In Georgia, these interpretations are added as annotations on the public laws.
You can browse the code and the judicial rulings separately. The annotated version combines these into an "enhanced" version of the code.
>secret laws
They aren't secret. Both the code and court rulings are public. The annotated version connects the two for you.
The issue could be fixed if a state declares annotating the laws as part of the legislative process. If this happened, the annotations must be provided to the public, free of charge.
Or go to your public library or Courthouse where you can look it up for free and make copies for a dime. Also your State's website.
>COBOL
That's the old ass shit I was actually talking about, and it's not text search, as I understand it, its the fucking backend to their whole system.
Also, fuck any language that makes you spell out "multiply"
>why am I a jew
because I thought you were the other nigger defending the 400 pay wall
Courts in the US do not legislate, so these should be very brief?
They also do not "rule" except on evidence inside a hearing and only for that hearing. We have no unitary legislators or royals who decree ruling.
>Courts in the US do not legislate
*wink wink*
>Courts in the US do not legislate
user I...
you're not going to find the annotated code online or in the library. and reading the statute to mount a defense is useless without the revisions & annotations.
Have been lied to and sat quiet?
Yes and no. Courts interpret the laws. Sometimes, new interpretations beyond the original intentions and meaning can arise. Annotations help link the new affordances by the courts to the books.
The whole system of laws we all have right now bugs me.
Nobody actually follows the law.
Nobody even fucking knows what "the law" on anything actually is.
If I asked a hundred folk off the street to recite a statute, or legal judgements in a case or whatever, I would have 100 "I can't"s.
People don't follow the law really, 90% of the time people just don't do shit they think is bad.
Law only matters to lawyers, corporations and government.
Yet they have the gall to claim that ignorance of the law is not an excuse? There's so many millions of fucking laws you cannot possibly know all of them, yet legally you are expected to.
I wish we had a system of general principles of conduct, of which ignorance is not an excuse, and violating these principles is crime. Then all the intricate legal wankery is folded underneath these and is basically all civil not criminal. So the worst punishment you'll get for violating some bullshit, probably by accident is a fine. Not sent to prison for X years.
Typically this comes from a jew run 'law school". Thanks for ignoring the document that empowers you. Perhaps the answer is to claim no jurisdiction? Or does that hurt the pride?
t. supports Brown V. Board of Education