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."

Comments

Re:Risky...

[Tomcat666]

"I fixed your post for you"

From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/IFYPFY

Re:They pay photographers

[Cow Jones]

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.

Journalists don't create stories???

[JonTurner]

>>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:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut ...and only after an internet firestorm has to admit it:
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.

Re:That's what bothers me

[dns_server]

By law the white house must keep an archive of all messages. Unfortunately bush "accidental" lost 2 years of email archives.

Read your own link?

[Moraelin]

Err... read your own link, dude.

Quoting from the English version of that Venezualan copyright law, that you linked to:

5- The author of an intellectual work shall have, by virtue of the mere fact of his creative act, a right to the work which shall itself include rights of moral and economic character as specified in this Law.

The rights of moral character shall be inalienable, unattachable, unrenounceable and imprescriptible.

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:

1. The provisions of this Law shall protect the rights of authors in all creative intellectual works, whether literary, scientific or artistic in character and whatever their nature, form of expression, merit or purpose.

The rights recognized by this Law shall be independent of the ownership of the physical medium in which the work is embodied, and shall not be subject to compliance with any formality.

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:

2. The following in particular shall be considered included among the intellectual works referred to in the foregoing Article: books, pamphlets and other literary, artistic and scientific writings, including computer programs and the associated technical literature and users' manuals; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatico-musical works, choreographic and mimed works the stage movements for which have been set down in writing or otherwise; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works and other audiovisual works expressed by any process; works of drawing, painting, architecture, engraving or lithography; works of applied art that are not mere industrial designs; geographical illustrations and maps; plans, three-dimensional works and sketches relating to geography, topography, architecture or science; and, finally, any literary, scientific or artistic product susceptible of disclosure or publication by any means or process.

It seems to me like if they're worthy of being disclosed or published by Wikileaks, they just met this requirement.

Sorry to give you a hard time about it, but I think it's very important for people to realize that copyright law is not the same throughout the entire world.

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 ;)

Re:Read your own link?

[Moraelin]

How does copyright interact with public information? Who knows what the deal in Venezuela is with public records, but if I requests e-mails from a state agency in the U.S. under a public information act, would I be allowed to distribute them, even though they are copyrighted? (This is actually kind of personally important, because I have a bunch of documents requested under a public information act that are on a public web server)

If I read IIRC paragraph 3 right, laws, government acts and the like are not eligible for copyright there. It does not seem to imply however, that private correspondence of official persons gets the same exemption.

Second, those e-mails would be copyrighted under Venezuelan law, not U.S. law... but because of the U.S's international agreements, could Wikileaks still get in legal trouble for violating foreign copyrights?

AFAIK that's the whole _point_ of that treaty: each country recognizes the IP of people in other countries that signed it. You can get sued even if you're in the UK and pirate an US movie. Because that US company's copyright is still recognized as valid copyright in the UK. You can (at least theoretically) get sued in Venezuela for pirating an EA games or Microsoft Office. (EA = USA company.) So it seems only _fair_ (not to mention, again, that's what that treaty says) that the USA also recognizes the IP of someone in Venezuella as valid, legally-protected IP.