Skeptical != cynical.
This lawsuit is about the annotations, not the code.
Illegally? How so?
I'm very hopeful this works. It's easy to be cynical, so I won't say "meh it's all bullshit!" Still, I won't be convinced until I see it provide thrust in a vacuum, away from Earth's magnetic field. It's still far, far too likely it's pushing off something terrestrial. So I'll give them a healthy "go, team, go!"
That said, quoth the article:
"This is the first time that someone with a well-equipped lab and a strong background in tracking experimental error has been involved, rather than engineers who may be unconsciously influenced by a desire to see it work," notes Wired referring to Tajmar's work.
I don't know about that. He is a real professor at a real university, but he also has filed for a patent on a gravity generator, using a process no one has duplicated. Somebody who thinks they've got a gravity generator, but gosh just can't prove it to everybody else, is definitely somebody who may be "unconsciously influenced by a desire to see it work."
The thing is there would be no reason to ever cite the annotation. The annotation is a summary and select quotes from a judge's decision that involved that law. It's like the summary in a
The annotations can't be treated as law because there isn't really new content there. The content is from previous judicial decisions.
I should have organized my thoughts a little better. I said it was reasonable for a city to determine "who can and cannot perform" but it's more like "what events they will and will not permit."
Obviously you must have permitting. Otherwise you can't hold anything, because if two groups want to organize events on the same day, you have to have a way of saying "no, these are the people who have reserved the park, not these other people."
And after that there's issues of logistics for safety, sanitation, etc.
But the control of the "content" is more about what the content brings with it. For instance, if they tried to hold a "gathering of the juggalos" at my public park, I would absolutely oppose the granting of said permit. Not because of an objection to the content of the music (although I do object to it, as it is shitty), but because those events bring with them drugs and violence and leave the city trashed. No thank you.
It's reasonable to get a permit to hold a performance, right? And on that document, you have to say what you're performing, right? So if they get a permit that says "Sunshine Bunny Play for Kids" and then hold a Klan rally, it's okay to bust up the Klan rally, right? They should have gotten a permit that said "Klan rally."
If the permit said "no performances by this guy" and then this guy performs...
I can agree with that. But the headlines are still wrong. "sued for publishing Georgia law."
He's being sued for publishing the annotations, and the annotations are NOT the law. They can't be. They're written by employees of the LexisNexis corporation, so are neither code (bill passed by legislature and signed by governor) nor common law (decision written by a judge).
So, the argument should be "government can't hold copyrights," since everything the government does is paid for by the tax payers. But not, "you can't copyright this because it's law," because it's not law.
1) I think it was stupid to shut down somebody who, while he's had trouble, currently has a message of "stop the violence." The warrants for his arrest are about child support, not violence. Having a warrant does not negate your right to speech.
2) The issue for me would be the language of the permit. You want to do it on private property? No problem. But it is reasonable for a city to determine what acts may and may not perform on public property. So, did the permit say "these are the acts that will perform" and he wasn't on it? Did the permit say "Chief Keef will not perform" and then he did? If so, fine. Shame on the promoters for lying on the permit application. But if it wasn't in writing and they just said "he won't be here" then shame on the city.
No. Decisions written by judges are common law, and the decisions are public domain. Annotations are not. The annotations are writte by employees of the LexisNexis corporation. I'm pretty sure the employees of a corporation are not authorized to write state law.
That is completely not true. Perhaps for you, but I have changed my ideas about many, many things in my life. I want to know things that are true, not simply win arguments.
But I guess there's no point telling you that? You don't believe me and I haven't changed your mind?
If the Georgia annotations are official recognized as part of the legal code, which they are
Then we can stop right there, because they're not. They're written by employees of the LexisNexis corporation. Pretty sure the Georgia legal code is written by the Georgia legislature and signed by the Governor.
States have always been able to hold copyrights. Wouldn't be new. Disturbing? Yes. New? No.
Or you could enlighten us.
Those things are other case decisions, which are not copyrightable. But the annotations, linking the decisions to the cases in concise and useful ways is copyrightable. See my other replies in this thread. Malamud is wrong.