34 ms·

I do not understand this story. How can law be "under copyright"?

by ohiovr 7y ago

samfriedman 7y ago
Frequently the letter of the law itself is publicly available, but there are also significant annotations and explanations that form the real body of the law/code as used by the courts, law enforcement, etc. It is these annotations that are copyrighted by the large legal companies contracted to write, compile and publish them. For that reason it is a common occurrence that the version of the law citizens are held to is not a version of the law that is freely available.
- leereeves 7y ago
  > the large legal companies contracted to write Are private companies actually writing annotations that affect judges decisions? That sounds like they are effectively writing the law. Or, if they're just compiling judges' writings, how do they have copyright on those?
  - airstrike 7y ago
    IANAL but I believe those annotations are written by renowned jurists and approved by the state, so presumably they are "writing the law" in the way the state wants it to be written
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >That sounds like they are effectively writing the law. That isn't unprecedented. When Congress passes a law, the executive branch has wide discretion on how to interpret the law into executive action.
- unlimit 7y ago
  > Frequently the letter of the law itself is publicly available, but there are also significant annotations and explanations that form the real body of the law/code as used by the courts, law enforcement, etc So its the interpretation that is used. Then shouldn't the interpretation be open to public? What kind of justice system is this?
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > shouldn't the interpretation be open to public? What kind of justice system is this? The kind where a federal court tells the State of Georgia to do exactly that.
  - thechao 7y ago
    Personally, I feel that the interpretation is almost 100% in the public domain. This is a document created for the state (of Georgia) at the expense of the people of the state (of Georgia); it naturally falls into public domain. The lower court ruled that the annotations were public domain, and the Supreme Court will (hopefully) concur. The state (of Georgia) has a ... requirement(?) to defend (and enforce) the statutes (and contracts) as passed by its legislator. If the state (of Georgia) didn't enforce its own laws, now, that would be a lawless, chaotic state; they'd also not be able to engage in contracts with companies (too much risk). Instead, this thing is going through the well-understood & time-worn constitutional process, as intended: the state (of Georgia) did a thing; a citizen did a thing; they sue each other; and, now, the Supreme Court will decide: is the citizen in the right or is the state (of Georgia) in the right.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    >What kind of justice system is this? The best that money can buy. I think it is time for people to stop having faith in the legal system. It is dangerous waters to tread, but our current system is filled with abuses that are only allowed to continue because people maintain faith.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Radle 7y ago
So you want to copyright your laws, but the SCOTUS said "NO!"... What you do is you pack your laws into something else for example a new fancy construct you have just build. Let's call that new construct "bubbles". So your law is now inside your bubbles and you put copyright on you bubbles... Until the SCOTUS says "NO!" again. It's 3y/o playing government for their business friends.
mhb 7y ago
It's a terrible article. My understanding is that the state has an agreement with Lexis/Nexis to have the laws annotated. In exchange Lexis/Nexis can publish and sell the annotations. Presumably, in order for this relationship to continue, the state must defend its copyright to the annotations which Lexis/Nexis has produced. So although using 'terrorism' is clearly ridiculous, the rest of it is not so clear cut. Also note that the laws with the annotations are available in public libraries. So freemium.
- coldtea 7y ago
  The state should have developed its own annotations or paid Lexis/Nexis to make the annotations public, not have them in this messy limbo state.
- jtaillon 7y ago
  I think the issue here is that the Georgia courts cite these annotations in their opinions, meaning that they effectively have the weight of law. If there is no de facto difference between an annotation and a law, why can one be copyrighted and hidden behind a paywall while the other cannot? This is a separate from the (also unbelievable, to me) issue that a paid private corporation writes these annotations that are then referenced with the force of law by the courts.
- tzs 7y ago
  > It's a terrible article. My understanding is that the state has an agreement with Lexis/Nexis to have the laws annotated. In exchange Lexis/Nexis can publish and sell the annotations. Presumably, in order for this relationship to continue, the state must defend its copyright to the annotations which Lexis/Nexis has produced. I don't understand why they need a relationship. Good annotations are incredibly valuable. When I was in law school, both West and Lexis were publishing annotated versions of both federal law and the law of every state, entirely on their own. Pretty much every lawyer bought the relevant West and/or Lexis products for their practice areas, and pretty much every law library bought more complete sets of these products. Has something changed making it so the publishers need financial encouragement from the state to make annotating worthwhile?
gnode 7y ago
It technically isn't. The annotations in question are expert's analyses of the law, approved by the state. The defendant was told he could publish the actual law, and his own analysis. However it gets really murky when “Georgia’s courts have cited to the annotations as authoritative sources on statutory meaning and legislative intent.” I can see the argument against this being freely publishable. If I wrote a textbook which explains some badly written and archaic laws really well, and lawyers and judges started to look to it as the de facto law, should that void my copyright? On the other hand, the public should have free access to the interpretation of the law as enforced.
- mhb 7y ago
  The public can access the law with annotations at many libraries. Undoubtedly it's very nice to use the online version, but the annotations are accessible without too much effort.
  - vageli 7y ago
    > The public can access the law with annotations at many libraries. Undoubtedly it's very nice to use the online version, but the annotations are accessible without too much effort. This sentiment discounts whole segments of the population with mobility or visual impairments, for starters. Why shouldn't courts become more open over time to scrutiny, taking advantage of technical advances to increase transparency and by proxy faith in the institution of the courts?
    - mhb 7y ago
      Sure, that would be great and there could be a discussion around how that should be funded. But it's hyperbolic to suggest that because the law and annotations are only available for free at libraries in print form that they're not available.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >If I wrote a textbook which explains some badly written and archaic laws really well, and lawyers and judges started to look to it as the de facto law, should that void my copyright? Given copyright only exists under the law, in the rare case that this happens, a sensible fudge would be to make a compulsary purchase of the copyright for the assessed market value, so it can become public domain. Much in the same way as you would do for any other property when you need to build municipal infrastructure through it. The law is essentially municipal infrastructure anywazy, so it isn't that much of a legal stretch.
criddell 7y ago
Sometimes the law will refer to a third party set of codes. For example, the law might say that it's illegal to operate a pressure vessel unless in satisfies all the requirements of ASME Section VIII Division 1 or 2. As you might guess, the ASME boiler and pressure vessel code is a copyrighted work owned by the ASME.
- gnode 7y ago
  This is indeed a problem, but doesn't appear to be the issue in this case. In a sense, this is the opposite. It's more like: The law says: pressure vessels must be pretty sturdy even when really hot. A standard comes along and proclaims to abide by said law, while fleshing out the details of how sturdy and how hot. Lawyers and judges then make reference to it as what the law always meant, and effectively give it legal force.
  - criddell 7y ago
    That's essentially what I was trying to say. It's incorporation by reference. Sometimes it's a bit less direct. They law might require a vessel operator to have insurance and the insurance company will demand that the vessel conform to some private code.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    There should be a difference. If I show my pressure vessel fits the standard the court can accept that under the assumption that the standard is good. Or I can go back to first principals of engineering and show the court that my vessel is correct.
    - criddell 7y ago
      As long as you have a design that a P.E. signed off on, you are fine in the eyes of the court. Your insurance company might have a different opinion though.
    - gnode 7y ago
      > show the court that my vessel is correct. There isn't always a "correct" in any way you can prove. Often you just have norms. If someone heats the vessel up to an arbitrary temperature X, and it explodes, yet the standard which everyone except you followed said it must withstand arbitrary temperature Y, then the court may be inclined to ignore your arguments that temperature X was good enough. Rather than being something you can derive from nature, laws and standards often contain arbitrary values which take into account margins for human error or other "reasonable" measures. In this way, norms gain legal power.
Old_Thrashbarg 7y ago
We posted about our startup who is being sued for hosting the law a couple weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19617073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19617073

I do not understand this story. How can law be "under copyright"?

by ohiovr 7y ago

I do not understand this story. How can law be "under copyright"?

Frequently the letter of the law itself is publicly available, but there are also significant annotations and explanations that form the real body of the law/code as used by the courts, law enforcement, etc. It is these annotations that are copyrighted by the large legal companies contracted to write, compile and publish them. For that reason it is a common occurrence that the version of the law citizens are held to is not a version of the law that is freely available.

leereeves 7y ago
> the large legal companies contracted to write Are private companies actually writing annotations that affect judges decisions? That sounds like they are effectively writing the law. Or, if they're just compiling judges' writings, how do they have copyright on those?
- airstrike 7y ago
  IANAL but I believe those annotations are written by renowned jurists and approved by the state, so presumably they are "writing the law" in the way the state wants it to be written
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >That sounds like they are effectively writing the law. That isn't unprecedented. When Congress passes a law, the executive branch has wide discretion on how to interpret the law into executive action.
unlimit 7y ago
> Frequently the letter of the law itself is publicly available, but there are also significant annotations and explanations that form the real body of the law/code as used by the courts, law enforcement, etc So its the interpretation that is used. Then shouldn't the interpretation be open to public? What kind of justice system is this?
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > shouldn't the interpretation be open to public? What kind of justice system is this? The kind where a federal court tells the State of Georgia to do exactly that.
- thechao 7y ago
  Personally, I feel that the interpretation is almost 100% in the public domain. This is a document created for the state (of Georgia) at the expense of the people of the state (of Georgia); it naturally falls into public domain. The lower court ruled that the annotations were public domain, and the Supreme Court will (hopefully) concur. The state (of Georgia) has a ... requirement(?) to defend (and enforce) the statutes (and contracts) as passed by its legislator. If the state (of Georgia) didn't enforce its own laws, now, that would be a lawless, chaotic state; they'd also not be able to engage in contracts with companies (too much risk). Instead, this thing is going through the well-understood & time-worn constitutional process, as intended: the state (of Georgia) did a thing; a citizen did a thing; they sue each other; and, now, the Supreme Court will decide: is the citizen in the right or is the state (of Georgia) in the right.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >What kind of justice system is this? The best that money can buy. I think it is time for people to stop having faith in the legal system. It is dangerous waters to tread, but our current system is filled with abuses that are only allowed to continue because people maintain faith.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Radle 7y ago

So you want to copyright your laws, but the SCOTUS said "NO!"... What you do is you pack your laws into something else for example a new fancy construct you have just build. Let's call that new construct "bubbles". So your law is now inside your bubbles and you put copyright on you bubbles... Until the SCOTUS says "NO!" again. It's 3y/o playing government for their business friends.

mhb 7y ago

It's a terrible article. My understanding is that the state has an agreement with Lexis/Nexis to have the laws annotated. In exchange Lexis/Nexis can publish and sell the annotations. Presumably, in order for this relationship to continue, the state must defend its copyright to the annotations which Lexis/Nexis has produced. So although using 'terrorism' is clearly ridiculous, the rest of it is not so clear cut. Also note that the laws with the annotations are available in public libraries. So freemium.

coldtea 7y ago
The state should have developed its own annotations or paid Lexis/Nexis to make the annotations public, not have them in this messy limbo state.
jtaillon 7y ago
I think the issue here is that the Georgia courts cite these annotations in their opinions, meaning that they effectively have the weight of law. If there is no de facto difference between an annotation and a law, why can one be copyrighted and hidden behind a paywall while the other cannot? This is a separate from the (also unbelievable, to me) issue that a paid private corporation writes these annotations that are then referenced with the force of law by the courts.
tzs 7y ago
> It's a terrible article. My understanding is that the state has an agreement with Lexis/Nexis to have the laws annotated. In exchange Lexis/Nexis can publish and sell the annotations. Presumably, in order for this relationship to continue, the state must defend its copyright to the annotations which Lexis/Nexis has produced. I don't understand why they need a relationship. Good annotations are incredibly valuable. When I was in law school, both West and Lexis were publishing annotated versions of both federal law and the law of every state, entirely on their own. Pretty much every lawyer bought the relevant West and/or Lexis products for their practice areas, and pretty much every law library bought more complete sets of these products. Has something changed making it so the publishers need financial encouragement from the state to make annotating worthwhile?

gnode 7y ago

It technically isn't. The annotations in question are expert's analyses of the law, approved by the state. The defendant was told he could publish the actual law, and his own analysis. However it gets really murky when “Georgia’s courts have cited to the annotations as authoritative sources on statutory meaning and legislative intent.” I can see the argument against this being freely publishable. If I wrote a textbook which explains some badly written and archaic laws really well, and lawyers and judges started to look to it as the de facto law, should that void my copyright? On the other hand, the public should have free access to the interpretation of the law as enforced.

mhb 7y ago
The public can access the law with annotations at many libraries. Undoubtedly it's very nice to use the online version, but the annotations are accessible without too much effort.
- vageli 7y ago
  > The public can access the law with annotations at many libraries. Undoubtedly it's very nice to use the online version, but the annotations are accessible without too much effort. This sentiment discounts whole segments of the population with mobility or visual impairments, for starters. Why shouldn't courts become more open over time to scrutiny, taking advantage of technical advances to increase transparency and by proxy faith in the institution of the courts?
  - mhb 7y ago
    Sure, that would be great and there could be a discussion around how that should be funded. But it's hyperbolic to suggest that because the law and annotations are only available for free at libraries in print form that they're not available.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
>If I wrote a textbook which explains some badly written and archaic laws really well, and lawyers and judges started to look to it as the de facto law, should that void my copyright? Given copyright only exists under the law, in the rare case that this happens, a sensible fudge would be to make a compulsary purchase of the copyright for the assessed market value, so it can become public domain. Much in the same way as you would do for any other property when you need to build municipal infrastructure through it. The law is essentially municipal infrastructure anywazy, so it isn't that much of a legal stretch.

criddell 7y ago

Sometimes the law will refer to a third party set of codes. For example, the law might say that it's illegal to operate a pressure vessel unless in satisfies all the requirements of ASME Section VIII Division 1 or 2. As you might guess, the ASME boiler and pressure vessel code is a copyrighted work owned by the ASME.

gnode 7y ago
This is indeed a problem, but doesn't appear to be the issue in this case. In a sense, this is the opposite. It's more like: The law says: pressure vessels must be pretty sturdy even when really hot. A standard comes along and proclaims to abide by said law, while fleshing out the details of how sturdy and how hot. Lawyers and judges then make reference to it as what the law always meant, and effectively give it legal force.
- criddell 7y ago
  That's essentially what I was trying to say. It's incorporation by reference. Sometimes it's a bit less direct. They law might require a vessel operator to have insurance and the insurance company will demand that the vessel conform to some private code.
- bluGill 7y ago
  There should be a difference. If I show my pressure vessel fits the standard the court can accept that under the assumption that the standard is good. Or I can go back to first principals of engineering and show the court that my vessel is correct.
  - criddell 7y ago
    As long as you have a design that a P.E. signed off on, you are fine in the eyes of the court. Your insurance company might have a different opinion though.
  - gnode 7y ago
    > show the court that my vessel is correct. There isn't always a "correct" in any way you can prove. Often you just have norms. If someone heats the vessel up to an arbitrary temperature X, and it explodes, yet the standard which everyone except you followed said it must withstand arbitrary temperature Y, then the court may be inclined to ignore your arguments that temperature X was good enough. Rather than being something you can derive from nature, laws and standards often contain arbitrary values which take into account margins for human error or other "reasonable" measures. In this way, norms gain legal power.

Old_Thrashbarg 7y ago

We posted about our startup who is being sued for hosting the law a couple weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19617073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19617073