Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Don't Share That Law! It's Copyrighted

Expand Messages
  • Randy Conn
    California claims copyright to its laws, and warns people not to share them. And that s not sitting right with Internet gadfly, and open-access hero, Carl
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      "California claims copyright to its laws, and warns people not to
      share them. And that's not sitting right with Internet gadfly, and
      open-access hero, Carl Malamud. He has spent the last couple months
      scanning tens of thousands of pages containing city, county and state
      laws — think building codes, banking laws, etc. Malamud wants
      California to sue him, which is almost a given if the state wants to
      continue claiming copyright. He thinks a federal court will rule in
      his favor: It is illegal to copyright the law since people are
      required to know it. Malamud helped force the SEC to put corporate
      filings online in 1994, and did the same with the patent office. He
      got the Smithsonian to loosen its claim of copyright, CSPAN to stop
      forbidding people from sharing its videos, and most recently Oregon to
      quit claiming copyright on state laws." Malamud's talk at Google ("All
      the Government's Information") is also well worth watching.

      The hyperlinks in the above and some interesting user discussion are
      available at:
      http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/03/181251
    • Frog Farmer
      ... That s why they run this website: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html Can you say, Catch-22 ? ... See, he never read Article XX, section 3, of his own
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 4, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Randy Conn wrote:

        > Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Don't Share That Law! It's Copyrighted
        >
        > "California claims copyright to its laws, and warns people not to
        > share them.

        That's why they run this website:

        http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

        Can you say, "Catch-22"?

        > And that's not sitting right with Internet gadfly, and
        > open-access hero, Carl Malamud. He has spent the last couple months
        > scanning tens of thousands of pages containing city, county and state
        > laws - think building codes, banking laws, etc. Malamud wants
        > California to sue him, which is almost a given if the state wants to
        > continue claiming copyright.

        See, he never read Article XX, section 3, of his own state constitution,
        and the Business and Professions Code that regulates attorneys, and so
        he is capable of entertaining the belief that mere neighbors can
        exercise judicial powers without having taken the one required oath of
        office, and that other so-called attorneys can represent anyone when out
        of compliance with B&P 6067. Both laws are available thanks to the
        state sharing with you what some fools who collect paychecks from it may
        sue over for being shared on its own website above.

        > He thinks a federal court will rule in
        > his favor: It is illegal to copyright the law since people are
        > required to know it.

        I will wager that the man is so much in a hurry to win, he will permit
        unsworn paycheck endorsers to act as judges and attorneys totally
        unchallenged for their bona fides and required official filings. That's
        what most people do!

        > Malamud helped force the SEC to put corporate
        > filings online in 1994, and did the same with the patent office. He
        > got the Smithsonian to loosen its claim of copyright, CSPAN to stop
        > forbidding people from sharing its videos, and most recently Oregon to
        > quit claiming copyright on state laws." Malamud's talk at Google ("All
        > the Government's Information") is also well worth watching.

        You can make major mistakes and still win. I know that I myself have
        won cases not so much because I was right, but because my opponents were
        inept.

        Regards,

        FF
      • gimesumodat
        ... You know.....I ve had this notion from reading cases that nobody seems to care if the Judge is really a judge or the attorney signing the document is
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 4, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...>
          wrote:

          > I will wager that the man is so much in a hurry to win, he will permit
          > unsworn paycheck endorsers to act as judges and attorneys totally
          > unchallenged for their bona fides and required official filings. That's
          > what most people do!

          You know.....I've had this notion from reading cases that nobody seems
          to care if the Judge is really a judge or the attorney signing the
          document is really an attorney and in good standing. Seems to me that
          proof of these things should be a part of every record made.
        • Frog Farmer
          ... It is assumed and presumed to be in order, and in the record (that s what the record is for!) because those two people make their daily living by working
          Message 4 of 4 , Sep 4, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Gimesumodat wrote:

            > You know.....I've had this notion from reading cases that nobody seems
            > to care if the Judge is really a judge or the attorney signing the
            > document is really an attorney and in good standing. Seems to me that
            > proof of these things should be a part of every record made.

            It is assumed and presumed to be in order, and in the record (that's
            what the record is for!) because those two people make their daily
            living by working with each other and as the line of "defendants" passes
            by they see only more $$$ signs and no reason to slow the flow. The
            individuals who SHOULD care more are these "revenue sources" a.k.a.
            "defendants". Many are not even made into "real" defendants, but when
            you tell them that they are one, they believe it! Then they act in
            accordance with that false conclusion of law, to their own detriment,
            like WWII Jews being assigned to a color-coded railcar, and getting into
            the line that matches the color they were told, like obedient complying
            no-waves-making consenters to tyranny. Few probably are aware of the
            legend on New Hampshire license plates ("Live Free or Die"). Soon
            Americans will be told which line to get in. Most will do it. But more
            than expected will not!

            Regards,

            FF
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.