
If you publish Georgia’s state laws, you’ll get sued for copyright and lose - darkblackcorner
https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/03/public-records-activist-violated-copyright-by-publishing-georgia-legal-code-online
======
klez
Previous discussion
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13995072](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13995072)
just 20 hours ago.

------
kriro
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_

------
huffmsa
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.

~~~
paulajohnson
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.

~~~
huffmsa
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.

------
tomohawk
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.

~~~
matt4077
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.

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

~~~
moomin
The legislature is controlled by political parties. All he's saying is that
politicians put their own electoral interests ahead of those of the country. I
don't think that's even controversial.

------
dovdovdov
The land of the free*.

~~~
MertsA
*Terms and conditions may apply.

------
noahm
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.

------
paulajohnson
I would have thought that this could be challenged under the 14th Amendment
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause](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.

~~~
narrowrail
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](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.

------
liareye
LOW ENERGY

