Georgia accuses activist of ‘terrorism’ because he posted ‘copyrighted’ legal code online - Polidicks

[IMG]http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Carl-Malamud-Wikipedia-800x430.png[/IMG] [I]MugShot of Terrorist[/I] [QUOTE]The state of Georgia claims an open records activist broke copyright law — and maybe even committed a terrorist act — by posting the full, annotated versions of the state’s legal code online. State officials claim in a lawsuit filed last week that Carl Malamud had engaged in an 18-year “crusade to control the accessibility of U.S. government documents” by scanning and reposting the annotated version of the Georgia legal code, which courts often rely on to make decisions on the law, on his website Public.Resource.org. The state also “points directly to the annotated version as the official laws of the state,” reported Techdirt. The basic legal code is readily available for free online and in print, but the state claims in its suit that information in the annotated legal code is copyrighted. The lawsuit cites a remark made by Malamud in 2009 describing his efforts to post government documents online as “standards terrorism” to accuse the digital activist of committing acts of terrorism. “Consistent with its strategy of terrorism, (Malamud) freely admits to the copying and distribution of massive numbers of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Annotations,” the lawsuit claims. The state, which complains in the suit about Malamud’s online donation campaigns to fund his operations, argues that it cannot maintain online records on its annotated legal code without charging residents to access the documents.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/georgia-accuses-activist-of-terrorism-because-he-posted-copyrighted-legal-code-online/"]Source[/URL]

I'm confused is he a terrorist because be broke copyright or because he blew up a bus of innocent children in the name of his horrific agenda?

[QUOTE]“Consistent with its strategy of terrorism, (Malamud) freely admits to the copying and distribution of massive numbers of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Annotations,”[/QUOTE] Ah yes, the classic Distributed Annotation Gambit, a classic amongst guerrillas

[quote]The state, which complains in the suit about Malamud’s online donation campaigns to fund his operations, argues that it cannot maintain online records on its annotated legal code without charging residents to access the documents.[/quote] Why not get this why not just use [I]taxes[/I] to [I]pay for government expenses[/I] Dedicate one cent from everyone's taxes to go to paying the hosting fees and you'll have more than enough money left over.

[QUOTE=Last or First;48314767]Why not get this why not just use [I]taxes[/I] to [I]pay for government expenses[/I] Dedicate one cent from everyone's taxes to go to paying the hosting fees and you'll have more than enough money left over.[/QUOTE] But that makes too much sense.

[QUOTE=Last or First;48314767]Why not get this why not just use [I]taxes[/I] to [I]pay for government expenses[/I] Dedicate one cent from everyone's taxes to go to paying the hosting fees and you'll have more than enough money left over.[/QUOTE] That is too hard - and we can't have this joker making us look bad by being one guy running on small-time donations doing our work.

I didn't think law falls under copyright, anywhere, no matter what you do with it.

This was a thing for a while when people thought the NSA was spying on their every move. I copy and pasted the same thing like years ago. I also live in Georgia so.... Anyone care to harbor a terrorist?

How can the definition of a terrorist be so ambiguous? It's really not a good thing if copy pasting a bunch of text files albeit copyrighted ones is enough to land you that title.

[QUOTE=Last or First;48314767]Why not get this why not just use [I]taxes[/I] to [I]pay for government expenses[/I] Dedicate one cent from everyone's taxes to go to paying the hosting fees and you'll have more than enough money left over.[/QUOTE] Honestly with the volume of visitors, and the almost completely free costs for storage these days, it should be free but someone's making money licensing it so they won't make it free

[QUOTE=NoobieWafer223;48315274]This was a thing for a while when people thought the NSA was spying on their every move. I copy and pasted the same thing like years ago. I also live in Georgia so.... Anyone care to harbor a terrorist?[/QUOTE] can you pay 266 rent?

How the hell can you even claim terrorism on a lawsuit?

[QUOTE=TheKingofBees;48315765]can you pay 266 rent?[/QUOTE] fuck

I'm confused aren't all laws supposed to be public knowledge?

[QUOTE=gufu;48315942]How the hell can you even claim terrorism on a lawsuit?[/QUOTE] A plucky district attorney wanting to make a name for himself/herself by setting a radical precedent. This is the same sort of half brained shit that got aron swartz accused of wire fraud for the same thing

[QUOTE=matt000024;48317680]I'm confused aren't all laws supposed to be public knowledge?[/QUOTE] In this case they also are [quote]The basic legal code is readily available for free online and in print, but the state claims in its suit that information in the annotated legal code is copyrighted.[/quote] So the puzzling thing is why is it a problem of any sort, and why would it be not only on par with terrorism but literally terrorism?