There seems to be a little more to this than meets the eye. The state laws themselves are available for free. The defendant lost because he published the law and various commentary on the law, and the commentary is protected by copyright. The weird thing is that apparently the commentary is “official” in Georgia, unlike in other states. The judge rejected the argument that “official” endorsement implies the commentary is in the public domain.
To be clear, while you can’t PUBLISH the law, you are still able to read it on the government’s site, right?
And then you could presumably publish portions of it for specific discussion, as derivative works allowed under standard copyright law.
I have no idea WHY this would be copyrighted though.
One of the commentators claimed that if you look go through the website, you have to agree not to publish any of it.
Yes, GA state law is available here. I skimmed a few sections and didn’t pay anything. But first I had to agree to this (my emphasis):
Terms & Conditions
Your use of this service is subject to Terms and Conditions. These Terms and Conditions do not apply to the Statutory Text and Numbering contained in the Content of the site. However, the State of Georgia reserves the right to claim and defend the copyright in any copyrightable portions of the site. Please indicate your agreement to the Terms and Conditions by clicking “I Agree” below."
So presumably I can redistribute the statutory text freely, but not the (copyrighted) commentary.
Republicans are getting increasingly worried about GA-6 and Larry Sabato just moved it from ‘Likely Republican’ to ‘Toss-Up’.
(I think I still put my money on a Dem loss, but putting the fear of God into them is good enough)
Yeah, they are prepped, and ready to move to New Zealand.
Is the new policy “Deport them all, and let God sort them out”?
My wife, a decade-plus green card holder, has now applied for citizenship, because of Trump. So, thanks, Donald?
Given how things are going, it might make more sense for you to apply for citizenship from wherever SHE is from, dude.
She’s from the Philippines, which now has their own Donald Trump.
I’ve been looking at property in Belize, however.
Oh, hey guys! AT&T and Comcast are saying they’re totally going to be cool, so you should be cool, about that whole selling their customers’ data thing.
[quote]First and foremost, all of the rhetoric that asserts – without any factual support – that the CRA vote suddenly eliminated consumer privacy protections is just plain wrong. The reality is that the FCC’s new broadband privacy rules had not yet even taken effect. And no one is saying there shouldn’t be any rules. Supporters of this action all agree that the rescinded FCC rules should be replaced by a return to the long-standing Federal Trade Commission approach. But in today’s overheated political dialogue, it is not surprising that some folks are ignoring the facts.
AT&T’s privacy protections are the same today as they were five months ago when the FCC rules were adopted. We had the same protections in place the day before the Congressional resolution was passed, and we will have the same protections the day after President Trump signs the CRA into law. The Congressional action had zero effect on the privacy protections afforded to consumers.
It is also flatly untrue that the Congressional action eliminated all legal protections governing use of consumer information.[/quote]
[quote]
But I am a Cubs fan, and I always hope in March or April that this will be the year! Oh wait a minute; it really happened. Maybe a fact-based debate really can actually happen here after all. Bring on the goat![/quote]
[quote]
At Comcast, we respect and protect our customers’ personal information. Always have, always will. We do not sell our broadband customers’ individual web browsing history. We did not do it before the FCC’s rules were adopted, and we have no plans to do so.[/quote]
[quote]
There has been a lot of misleading talk about how the congressional action this week to overturn the regulatory overreach of the prior FCC will now permit us to sell sensitive customer data without customers’ knowledge or consent. This is just not true. In fact, we have committed not to share our customers’ sensitive information (such as banking, children’s, and health information), unless we first obtain their affirmative, opt-in consent.[/quote]
See? Everything’s going to be jim-dandy!
Oh man that’s a relief. Where would we be without our corporate entities looking out for us?
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/I+can+change+relax+guy+take+a+break_71d194_4267882.jpg
This is just not true. In fact, we have committed not to share our customers’ sensitive information (such as banking, children’s, and health information), unless we first obtain their affirmative, opt-in consent*.
*Use of internet implies consent
In the grim socialist hellhole of Minnesota, there is only the libcuck restriction of the god-given freedoms of our benevolent telecom overlords.
But…but…this will restrict their choice *snort* of ISPs!!1!
I’m glad the Cabinet thinks that ethics and conflicts of interest are something they should keep joking about instead of actually taking seriously:
If things get too bad, you can always move to a foreign land, like Cleveland, or East Dakota.
And Verizon said what, it was against the law? We’ve been doing it all along…
Since their guy won, can we coastal elite types ever be given the ‘misunderstood community’ treatment?
Thing is Trump is a coastal elite, of the uneducated parvenu kind but coastal nonetheless. Prominent Heartland types have more sense of propriety.
That is he’s more a “what’s the problem with New York” than Kansas, thought it was Kansas that gave him power. He’s the grubbiest, grasping, insecure kind of finance capitalist, but his sort is completely based in values of the Wolf of Wall Street.