We have enough mistrust in the government these days and I think labels like "protection racket" should be saved for times when we really need them.
Something I might be inclined to do if they fixed the problem after becoming aware of it.
Did Georgia arrange a deal whereby its citizens can read the law of their land for free?
Did they declare the annotations were no longer considered part of the law?
Or did they spend tax-payer money on prosecuting somebody for having the temerity to make copies of the law?
I think it is not at all reasonable to give Georgia the benefit of the doubt.
My main quip here comes from my strong belief that much of our political climate comes from incendiary remarks (e.g., "protection racket"). And this is counter productive. Even if you are right it is still counter productive.
You catch more flies with carefully crafted honey.
Nobody has an automatic right to be compensated for doing work.
Any right to compensation arises from people having benefited from that work, and from the receipt of that benefit having been voluntary.
Citizens of Georgia are required to obey the law. Judges use the annotations when deciding whether the law has been obeyed.
So, citizens of Georgia have two choices, risk breaking the law, or pay a third party for permission to know whether or not they are breaking the law.
LexisNexis's compensation is about as legitimate as that of a protection racket.
"Say, that's a nice law you have there. Be a real shame if someone were to... annotate it."