Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks To Sell Hugo Chavez' Email
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Wikileaks seems to be a bit hard-up for cash, so they're trying a little experiment. They plan to auction off an archive with three years worth of Hugo Chavez' email. The winner will get a period of embargoed access to break any stories they can find in the files, while Wikileaks will later publish the archive in full. Wikileaks plans to use the profits for their legal defense fund, but they may run into trouble because most reputable news outlets have policies against paying sources."
"I fixed your post for you"
From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/IFYPFY
Two Worlds - One Sun [Spirit]
And does this mean that no UK newspapers are reputable as every single one of them pay their sources?
Although this is off-topic, I had to respond as actually whilst Hitler may have expired the copyright in his works hasn't. In Germany, as with the rest of the EU, copyrights are for life of the author plus seventy years. If he had beneficiaries (which, as far as I am aware, he didn't) they would would hold the copyright for his works until 2015 given he died in 1945.
Things that you think are out of copyright probably aren't, thanks to the current global IP regime.
Not global, or even 'the rest of the EU' as here in England copyright is 50 years from creation, whether the author is still alive or not.
(yes, I am completely off-topic and just picking at semantics, thank you for noticing.)
The wiki suggests that he left anything of value to the Nazi party, but doesn't say what became of the assets of the party after the end of the war. Whoever got the party's assets probably (at least in theory) holds the copyright to the diary.
"At the time of his death, Hitler's official place of residence was in Munich, which led to his entire estate, including all rights to Mein Kampf, changing to the ownership of the state of Bavaria. As per German copyright law the entire text is scheduled to enter the public domain on December 31, 2015, 70 years after the author's death. The copyright has been relinquished for the English, Dutch and Swedish editions."
quoted from this page.
Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
>>Journalists don't create stories, they document existing events.
I'm sorry, but that's just naive.
Just a few examples to hopefully open your eyes:
Dan Rather's famous forged Air National Guard documents (for which he was fired, but stands behind with his infamous "fake but accurate" quote):
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526&only
This wasn't just some staff reported in Podunk Arkansas, it was a lead anchor who was willing to end his career in order to further propaganda piece that was obviously fake. Makes me wonder what other pieces he pushed in his many years as news anchor and senior editor.
The New York Times accepts (read: publishes without edit) Barack Obama's Op-Ed but "rejects" a piece by John McCain. No bias there. Nosir. Nope.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.nyt/
Reuters accepts the most amateurish photoshop jobs: ...and only after an internet firestorm has to admit it:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/reuters-caught-blowing-smoke-faking-photos
Tennessee newspaper published blatantly altered photograph to promote political agenda: http://terryfrank.net/?p=2964
Iran gets in on the photoshop act: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp
And then you have the FREQUENT odd Reuters captions: It seems that every time Israel takes out a terrorist with a missile, the area is flooded with "youth" that "inspect" the wreckage. (in reality, they are looking for bits of body parts, for they believe that by touching bits of the dead "martyr", they help secure a spot in heaven. Grisly and repulsive.)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25627_Palestinian_Car_Swarm_Watch
And I'll finish with the most vile, disgusting example I've ever seen. The Associated (with terrorists) Press publishes staged photographs of dead children arranged by a (so called) palestinian "press agent". Pure propaganda.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22123_Green_Helmet_Admits_Staging_Photos&only
which is promptly carried to the United Nations and presented there:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/22669_Fauxtography_at_the_United_Nations
That's what I was able to put together with 5 minutes of work. I could continue for hours (days?) but hopefully this will open your eyes to the fact that there are people in the "news" that have clear agendas and aren't above creating stories where none exist in order to influence you. Not to mention those who write with bias.
...here in England copyright is 50 years from creation, whether the author is still alive or not.
I don't think that's correct. I'm pretty sure our copyright is harmonised with the rest of the EU.
This says "70 years from the end of the year of the authors death". 50 years from creation is only for sound recordings.
By law the white house must keep an archive of all messages. Unfortunately bush "accidental" lost 2 years of email archives.
You might not like Hugo Chavez or his policies. Hell, you might even hate him. But I've never heard about anyone standing in a wall for anything. There even was a military coup against him and do you know what? Only one guy is being prosecuted (the guy who was made president) and he fled but he is certainly not facing facing death/torture or anything resembling a "wall". Several ex-top allies have "deserted" him over the years and do you know what? They are living in Venezuela being part of what is called the OPPOSITION. Yes, there is such a thing in Venezuela and, by the way, they are actually heard outside (duh!) and, amazingly, in Venezuela (most of all) - most of the media is totally against him.
He is a populist and often acts like a buffoon but he was elected, he faced the public opinion in a referendum to remove him from office and when he tried to make changes to the constitution last year, he submitted them to the public and lost (by a very small margin). He acknowledged the defeat and said that he would try to hear the people (obviously that is not necessarily the truth). Where else do you see such an open process? Certainly not in the US or most countries in Europe.
Err... read your own link, dude.
Quoting from the English version of that Venezualan copyright law, that you linked to:
Which part of "by the mere fact of his creative act" is confusing you? By the very act of creating something, you already have copyright on it in Venezuella too. :P
I also quoted the next line because it also pretty much spells it out that even though he's a public figure and all, he still isn't losing that copyright.
Also, before that:
It's plain english, not even legalese. But if someoneone needs a translation: no, he doesn't have to register copyright anywhere, and there is explicitly no requirement of merit or purpose for it to apply. Still not clear? Well, let's read on:
It seems to me like if they're worthy of being disclosed or published by Wikileaks, they just met this requirement.
That is a valuable idea indeed, but it still doesn't quite justify a knee-jerk posting that even where it doesn't apply at all. The relevant paragraphs aren't different in its provision or spirit from US copyright law at all. Maybe post that remark where it actually applies? Just a thought ;)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Interesting blanket statement. Is that why millions of his supporters brought the capital to a halt in the CIA-backed coup?