If you publish Georgia’s state laws, you’ll get sued for copyright and lose (opens in new tab)

(arstechnica.co.uk)

42 pointsdarkblackcorner9y ago15 comments

15 comments

14 comments · 8 top-level

huffmsa9y ago· 2 in thread

It's technically fine as it is right now.

What needs to happen is some bold individual needs to intentionally lose a criminal case because they didn't have access to the annotated texts.

Then it becomes a due process issue and can probably get pushed to the US Supreme Court.

paulajohnson9y ago

I don't think you would need an actual criminal case. "Chilling effects" (i.e. people can't find out the law, and hence might refrain from lawful behavior) would seem to be sufficient.

huffmsa9y ago

Might work, although it might not carry the same weight as full blown criminal proceedings.

Now if you could show that the chilling effect was detrimental to something like business in the state, that might be better.

tomohawk9y ago· 2 in thread

I do wonder what's cheaper - to allow the publisher to recoup costs in this way or for the state to pay for the service up front? It's troubling though, that such a concern would somehow be more important than ensuring all citizens have open and unfettered access to the law.

It's especially galling that local governments routinely incorporate copyrighted "model codes" into law. These model codes are created by unelected, unaccountable groups that have their own agendas. You also end up paying to get a copy of important things such as plumbing/electric codes.

matt40779y ago

It's the direct result of anti-government propaganda. If you starve the state of financial resources, they will, sooner rather than later, have to cut corners knowing that it will cost more in the long run, just to make the numbers work in the short term.

Sometimes those costs are incurred by future governments (lease-back deals), sometimes by the citizen (here). It's the collective version of living paycheck-to-paycheck.

tomohawk9y ago

So, the legislature, which is responsible for appropriations, is starving itself?

1 more reply

dovdovdov9y ago· 1 in thread

The land of the free*.

MertsA9y ago

*Terms and conditions may apply.

paulajohnson9y ago· 1 in thread

I would have thought that this could be challenged under the 14th Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause). "Due process" must surely include being able to find out what laws might apply to you, and a paywall would seem to breach that.

narrowrail9y ago

I can't believe this is still coming up in this thread, but reading the other comments one learns that the laws are available to read you just can't publish them because a private company has that contract.

Here's the link, read away:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/gacode/Default.asp

Edit: Also, I didn't realize this was a dupe until I responded. This discussion already took place.

klez9y ago

Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13995072 just 20 hours ago.

kriro9y ago

Pretty ridiculous. I mean I get that annotations add value but if they are required an annotated version should be available to all citizens. Malamud's fighting a good fight here, hats off.

cough, cough I wonder if the free version of the law follows all accessibility regulations. cough, cough

noahm9y ago

If I need a apply for a license to read the law, can I also claim that I need to be licensed in order to be actually bound by the law?

Obviously I cannot, but the absurdity of the idea that I can be legally bound by something that is not freely available to me is striking.

liareye9y ago

LOW ENERGY

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse