Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Party Pillages Private Papers
David Crafti writes "Pirate Party Australia has made the move to host the recently leaked ACTA document in order to highlight the lack of government transparency in the negotiation process. We believe that the document is not under copyright, and we are not party to any NDAs, so there should be no restriction on us posting it. We would like to see what the government (any government) tries to do about it. If it turns out that there is some reason that we have to take it down, then we will, but if this happens, it will only validate the document's authenticity."
Peter Piper picked a pack of pickled peppers.
That headline is a mouthful.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
They should read it into the record of any parliament that they have seats in -- legislators (at least in the US, and I assume other countries too) have immunity from arrest for speech made as part of their legislative business. If they desire to declassify this information, then doing it in a way that's clearly part of their legislative business is the best way to keep the information public.
We would like to see what the government (any government) tries to do about it. If it turns out that there is some reason that we have to take it down, then we will, but if this happens, it will only validate the document's authenticity.
We will post this to show what you guys are up to.
If you try to get it taken down, it shows everything in the documentis true and real.
That, my friends, is called a checkmate in my book.
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
The one issue that would make me vote for the Pirate Party when they come to my nation is that they platform on restoring an actual PUBLIC DOMAIN. None of this pretend public domain, if it doesn't expire in my lifetime there is no public domain - there is only lip-service. A period of say 20 years or so: imagine if you could go to any bittorrent site and download any movie, music, book, or software from 1990 or before? And that's not even whats important, whats important is derivative works: say a new movie based on Alien with actual alien characters, plot devices, and characters! These new works would then be eligible for their own copyright and with a well so deep to draw from you can imagine the explosion of works that would result from having a public domain! But of course, we have now, the content industry is hoarding every work to themselves in perpetuity stealing works that could have been right out from under our noses.
Shh.
They should replace that flag logo with a kangaroo wearing an eye patch. Maybe have a koala on its shoulder instead of a parrot.
"I'm not a quack, I'm a mad scientist! There's a difference." - Dr. Cockroach
In this parallel universe, the Pirates are the good guys!
* Carthago Delenda Est *
And admire their resolve to make the treaty public -- indeed I am curious to see what it contains.
However, I wonder if parliamentary decorum doesn't traditionally restrict public discussion of issues currently up for debate...
Just because it is an unwritten rule does not mean it should be casually ignored... as much as we might disagree with the end results.
Countries are bound by an international treaty. shorting copyright is not an option.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works/Articles_1_to_21
article 7:
(1) The term of protection granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty years after his death. .... ....
(6) The countries of the Union may grant a term of protection in excess of those provided by the preceding paragraph
(7) Those countries of the Union bound by the Rome Act of this Convention which grant, in their national legislation in force at the time of signature of the present Act, shorter terms of protection than those provided for in the preceding paragraphs shall have the right to maintain such terms when ratifying or acceding to the present Act.
So by international treaty they can shorten the copyright to the length it was when signing the treaty, or lengthen it arbitrary, but no country can shorten it below the length set in the treaty.
A pirate party is free to discuss this issue, but is almost impossible to make this a law, unless there was a law before the countries signed the Berne convention that limited the length. The only way to do this is a trick: leave Berne convention, set a copyright of 5 years and then join again. I bet this is not a point a minority party can establish.
Who do you think gave them these documents eh? Right... nobody... nobody sees the Ninja!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Please, if you're an Australian citizen and are concerned at all about ACTA, the Australian internet filter, ridiculous software patents and Big Media's stranglehold on copyright laws then join the Pirate Party Australia!
They only need a few more members to be able to officially register as a political party and it's now FREE TO JOIN! Just print out the form, sign it, scan/photograph it, email it in and be part of the solution.
The Australian Electoral Commission does not allow this. They're a tad archaic.
Disagree != mod troll.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
that world governments can't seem to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, or end the diamond trade related genocides in Africa, but let big business whine about "potentially lost profits" and it's "World Leaders To The Rescue" Da.. Da.. DAAAA! Fucking disgusting. Let's hope ACTA turns out better for the little guy than the US's InuranceCompanyCareReformBill.
Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
"If it turns out that there is some reason that we have to take it down, then we will, but if this happens, it will only validate the document's authenticity."
How about if the Pirate Party's version of the ACTA document is completely fabricated? I think lying would be a good reason to take it down, and it wouldn't imply that the document is authentic.
The Pirate Party is platforming on reducing excessive copyright terms. A quick Google search: shows depending on the country of operation values such as 5 and 10 years. I think those are too low, I think a minimum should be 14 years as that was good enough when distribution was primitive and I think with negotiation the magic number should fall between 15-20 years. The Pirate Party is not against copyrights, they are against excessive copyrights.
Shh.
Seeing as those involved with ACTA don't exactly have too much credibility in the eye of the public, how are they to "prove" the document has been doctored without releasing their original copy? Even better is the fact that those involved with ACTA could simply change it and re-release it themselves, claiming that this new "people-friendly" version is the true original. Since there's no effective time stamp as the original document was never released, the only credible source appears to be those that went out of their way to leak the document in the first place. Check!
You're wrong! It's pretty safe to join, without making civilisation collapse.
From the Aussie Pirate Party FAQ:
What are your main policy areas?
We aim to protect civil liberties and promote culture and innovation, primarily through... [various free speech, privacy and anti-censorship issues... ], and
* Reforming the life + 70 years copyright length
* Decriminalisation of non-commercial copyright infringement
Do you support abolishing intellectual property entirely?
No. We believe that the original goals of intellectual property protections, which are to promote creativity and invention, are reasonable. We don't believe that prosecuting non-commercial file sharers for copying a song from the 1940s is reasonable, however.
Do you think that commercial copyright infringement or patent infringement is ok?
No. Our position is that companies should pay for the use of copyrighted works and patented designs.
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
"We believe that the document is not under copyright"
Uh, how/why?
I mean, I agree with the principle behind providing it, but if somebody wrote a document then the list of circumstances where something isn't under copyright is pretty small. Which one supposedly applies in this case?
"When it comes to the law, the courts have always said there can be no copyright because people are obligated to know what it says."
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Well, this being Australia, this might under the notion of common law copyright, which is a very different animal than statutory copyright.
The notion that authors have a natural right to control their published works in common law is a matter long settled: they don't. However in some jurisdictions (the United States for example), authors have a right to control the use of their unpublished works. So if Wikileaks gets a hold of J.K. Rowling's next novel and puts it on-line, in the US they are considered to have violated a fundamental right of the author to control her unpublished works. Once the works are published, her rights are very different.
The problem with a copyright claim when it comes to something like ACTA is that it's not really about protecting the author's expression. It's an attempt to parlay an acknowledged legal right over expression into an extra-legal power to limit news coverage of government activities. If there is any party whose interests ought to be protected in a case such as this, it is the public who employs the officials drafting this thing. The public's interest is not in revenues from sales of this law's text or possible derivative works from this law. It is in the nature and extent of obligations and restrictions that are going to be placed on them by the law -- something that is not in any sense intrinsically copyrightable.
The status quo ante here is that anyone who gets wind of what's going on with something like this can blow the whistle, if they're willing to take the risk. The rest of society is not obligated to help government officials squelch the leak. Officials are allowed to work without the public scrutinizing every jot as it is written, but if anyone in the process is alarmed enough, they can blow the whistle and the officials have to give an accounting of what they are up to. That's a reasonable compromise.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I'm pondering.... The document says it is "confidential" not "classified" so I'm sitting here reasoning that if the NY Times can publish classified (and weren't some marked Top Secret) war documents then I outta be able to get away with mirroring a copy of this here in the US of A. The fun part is I'd do it on my homepage hosted on a public library's site and equipment. Now the way I see it one of three results are possible.
1. I get shipped off a federal pen and buggered for the next ten years or more. This outcome would be bad but is it a realistic risk?
2. I get a take down notice. I comply. :) And then we find out if the EFF is done with insane BDS ravings and ready to actually defend the online world from a real out of control Justice Dept. After all, news of the takedown and the legal wrangling would create far more interest in the document than it would ever get on a crappy homepage that hasn't even been updated for a while. Imagine the public relations nightmare Holder would be walking into! After almost eight years of deranged ravings about Bushitler's Justice Dept wanting to violate all sorts of fundemental rights at libraries, or hell just shutting them down or something because he was such an unhoopy frood and all, to now have them forced to take on the Obama Justice Dept for a real attack on a library would be so much fun to watch. Always good when you can cause chaos in the camp of one's foes AND strike a blow for Freedom at the same time. This scenario has so much potential for an Epic Win I can't imagine it actually happening.
3. Which leads to the more probable option: Nothing happens. Oh well, try again.
I really can't see any risk of #1 but before I actually do it I figure it is worth tossing the idea out for comment first.
Democrat delenda est