4 ms·

Not debating that Georgia should make it easier for folks to do what they want with the copy they publish for free but... What's fair is that LexisNexis be com

by csneeky 10y ago

Not debating that Georgia should make it easier for folks to do what they want with the copy they publish for free but... What's fair is that LexisNexis be compensated for the value it has added to that Law (e.g., the "annotations"/links). They did the work. It is up to them how to share it. And sharing for free isn't always a viable business. Note that there is nothing to stop Public.Resource.Org or anyone else from adding their own metadata on top of that Law and publishing it. But if it was done by LexisNexis and licenced by the state of Georgia of course they will come after someone that tries to publish the Law + The Annotations. And they would be right to in a capitalist society (which is where we all live and how we thrive). If Georgia can still come after someone else for annotating the Law themselves (original work, not a copy of the work LexisNexis did) and sharing it how they want then I would agree there is some kind of problem there. But NOT the problem implied by the article headline (which is a little clickbaity IMHO).

ar0 10y ago
I agree that the problem as far as I understand it is not really that related to copyright: the law (unannotated) is freely available, as it should be, and of course value-adding annotations by private enterprise can hold enforcable copyright. (The references in other comments below to EU regulations etc. are thus not really applicable, as also in the EU you have freely available laws but privately copyrighted annotations and comments to these laws.) What I gather from the article, though, and which I do find in a way even stranger than the copyright question, is this: Apparently Georgia has made the annotated version of their law "official"! Can this be right? For me, this sounds far worse than the copyright question - it would mean that you give an official stamp of approval to privately prepared annotations? The article is not that clear on this question. Wikipedia [1] has some more on it, but not being a lawyer, I also can't answer the question I would have about it, which is this: What's the role of these privately prepared annotations for the judiciary process? Are they treated like law, because they are published together with the law? Or are they treated like any other private comment / annotations out there would? This, for me, seems to be the crucial question. If it is the former, they should be freely available (and, more importantly, not be written by a private company!). If it is the latter, then I think LexisNexis has some point claiming their copyright, no? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Code_of_Georgia_Annotated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Code_of_Georgia_Annot...
- csneeky 10y ago
  I don't know what is means for something to be "official" in this context. I do think they (the Law and the metadata) should be clearly separated and what is free should really be free, and what isn't should be made available as per whatever terms Georgia negotiated. If Georgia fucked those terms up and are bound by something we all feel isn't reasonable it needs to be stated, and I think we might be doing just that here on HN.
roderickm 10y ago
Judge Story "went on to acknowledge the Georgia situation is 'an unusual case because most official codes are not annotated and most annotated codes are not official.' Despite the fact the OCGA is official law, the judge said its annotations are entitled to copyright. The Georgia General Assembly has made clear 'that the OCGA contains both law and commentary,' Story wrote, and the two are distinguishable." Removing commentary or replacing with original commentary would abridge the official code. If LexisNexis should be compensated for the value they added, then the state should pay them for that value, just as they pay the legislators to write the law. The resulting code should be freely available to every citizen bound by it.
- csneeky 10y ago
  Could not agree more. I think this is a great point and I hope Georgia does what it can to renegotiate whatever deal it made to this end (making it all clear and free) when it gets the chance. If that is indeed the problem here.
parenthephobia 10y ago
> What's fair is that LexisNexis be compensated for the value it has added to that Law. Nobody has an automatic right to be compensated for doing work. Any right to compensation arises from people having benefited from that work, and from the receipt of that benefit having been voluntary. Citizens of Georgia are required to obey the law. Judges use the annotations when deciding whether the law has been obeyed. So, citizens of Georgia have two choices, risk breaking the law, or pay a third party for permission to know whether or not they are breaking the law. LexisNexis's compensation is about as legitimate as that of a protection racket. "Say, that's a nice law you have there. Be a real shame if someone were to... annotate it."
- csneeky 10y ago
  We can also give Georgia the benefit of the doubt and assume there was a decision maker involved in this at some point who (rightly and in good faith) thought annotations might be a great thing to add to the official law to make it more robust/useful. And they had no idea of the potential negative consequences of the way they went about procuring and labeling the resulting artifact. We have enough mistrust in the government these days and I think labels like "protection racket" should be saved for times when we really need them.
  - parenthephobia 10y ago
    > We can also give Georgia the benefit of the doubt Something I might be inclined to do if they fixed the problem after becoming aware of it. Did Georgia arrange a deal whereby its citizens can read the law of their land for free? Did they declare the annotations were no longer considered part of the law? Or did they spend tax-payer money on prosecuting somebody for having the temerity to make copies of the law? I think it is not at all reasonable to give Georgia the benefit of the doubt.
    - csneeky 10y ago
      They have not. But any attempt to make them see the light will fall on deaf ears and make them dig in their heels when it uses rhetoric. My main quip here comes from my strong belief that much of our political climate comes from incendiary remarks (e.g., "protection racket"). And this is counter productive. Even if you are right it is still counter productive. You catch more flies with carefully crafted honey.

by csneeky 10y ago

ar0 10y ago

I agree that the problem as far as I understand it is not really that related to copyright: the law (unannotated) is freely available, as it should be, and of course value-adding annotations by private enterprise can hold enforcable copyright. (The references in other comments below to EU regulations etc. are thus not really applicable, as also in the EU you have freely available laws but privately copyrighted annotations and comments to these laws.) What I gather from the article, though, and which I do find in a way even stranger than the copyright question, is this: Apparently Georgia has made the annotated version of their law "official"! Can this be right? For me, this sounds far worse than the copyright question - it would mean that you give an official stamp of approval to privately prepared annotations? The article is not that clear on this question. Wikipedia [1] has some more on it, but not being a lawyer, I also can't answer the question I would have about it, which is this: What's the role of these privately prepared annotations for the judiciary process? Are they treated like law, because they are published together with the law? Or are they treated like any other private comment / annotations out there would? This, for me, seems to be the crucial question. If it is the former, they should be freely available (and, more importantly, not be written by a private company!). If it is the latter, then I think LexisNexis has some point claiming their copyright, no? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Code_of_Georgia_Annotated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Code_of_Georgia_Annot...

csneeky 10y ago
I don't know what is means for something to be "official" in this context. I do think they (the Law and the metadata) should be clearly separated and what is free should really be free, and what isn't should be made available as per whatever terms Georgia negotiated. If Georgia fucked those terms up and are bound by something we all feel isn't reasonable it needs to be stated, and I think we might be doing just that here on HN.

roderickm 10y ago

Judge Story "went on to acknowledge the Georgia situation is 'an unusual case because most official codes are not annotated and most annotated codes are not official.' Despite the fact the OCGA is official law, the judge said its annotations are entitled to copyright. The Georgia General Assembly has made clear 'that the OCGA contains both law and commentary,' Story wrote, and the two are distinguishable." Removing commentary or replacing with original commentary would abridge the official code. If LexisNexis should be compensated for the value they added, then the state should pay them for that value, just as they pay the legislators to write the law. The resulting code should be freely available to every citizen bound by it.

csneeky 10y ago
Could not agree more. I think this is a great point and I hope Georgia does what it can to renegotiate whatever deal it made to this end (making it all clear and free) when it gets the chance. If that is indeed the problem here.

parenthephobia 10y ago

> What's fair is that LexisNexis be compensated for the value it has added to that Law. Nobody has an automatic right to be compensated for doing work. Any right to compensation arises from people having benefited from that work, and from the receipt of that benefit having been voluntary. Citizens of Georgia are required to obey the law. Judges use the annotations when deciding whether the law has been obeyed. So, citizens of Georgia have two choices, risk breaking the law, or pay a third party for permission to know whether or not they are breaking the law. LexisNexis's compensation is about as legitimate as that of a protection racket. "Say, that's a nice law you have there. Be a real shame if someone were to... annotate it."

csneeky 10y ago
We can also give Georgia the benefit of the doubt and assume there was a decision maker involved in this at some point who (rightly and in good faith) thought annotations might be a great thing to add to the official law to make it more robust/useful. And they had no idea of the potential negative consequences of the way they went about procuring and labeling the resulting artifact. We have enough mistrust in the government these days and I think labels like "protection racket" should be saved for times when we really need them.
- parenthephobia 10y ago
  > We can also give Georgia the benefit of the doubt Something I might be inclined to do if they fixed the problem after becoming aware of it. Did Georgia arrange a deal whereby its citizens can read the law of their land for free? Did they declare the annotations were no longer considered part of the law? Or did they spend tax-payer money on prosecuting somebody for having the temerity to make copies of the law? I think it is not at all reasonable to give Georgia the benefit of the doubt.
  - csneeky 10y ago
    They have not. But any attempt to make them see the light will fall on deaf ears and make them dig in their heels when it uses rhetoric. My main quip here comes from my strong belief that much of our political climate comes from incendiary remarks (e.g., "protection racket"). And this is counter productive. Even if you are right it is still counter productive. You catch more flies with carefully crafted honey.