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."

30 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. In other news... by Thelasko · · Score: 5, Funny

    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".
    1. Re:In other news... by krou · · Score: 5, Funny

      If Peter's Pirate Party pillages a peck of private papers, how many private papers did Peter's Pirate Party pillage?

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    2. Re:In other news... by PeterBrett · · Score: 5, Funny

      All of them, yarr!

    3. Re:In other news... by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 4, Funny

      Perchance Pirate Party Private Paper Pillaging Prompts Protests? Perhaps Personal Power Prevails? Private Plutocratic Plundering Prevents Public Performance, People's Participation. Preposterous Proposals Per Privileged Punks!

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    4. Re:In other news... by FuckingNickName · · Score: 3, Funny

      Phrase play perceived pleasing? Perhaps.

      Precious? Positively!

      Pointless? Plainly.

    5. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lighten up. Just because he plays the politics game doesn't mean he has to be a complete 'hole.

  2. Read into the record. by kabloom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Read into the record. by mea37 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure what the flaw in your reasoning is, but I can say with reasonable confidence that if it only took a single Congressperson to put any given piece of information in the public eye without repercussion, we'd live in a very different world than we do today.

    2. Re:Read into the record. by Christian+Engstrom · · Score: 5, Informative
      A MS Word version of (what I believe is) the same ACTA document can be found on my blog: Consolidated ACTA leak as Word document.

      I don't really think that any parliamentary immunity will be necessary in connection with spreading this document, but as a Member of the European Parliament I can confirm that I have it, in case it turns out to be useful.

      /Christian Engström
      Member of the European Parliament
      Piratpartiet (The Pirate Party), Sweden

      --
      Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
  3. Well Played by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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'
    1. Re:Well Played by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      Well, your book is wrong. Suppose the Pirate Party posts a paper positing that parliament pokes preteens and are thus purportedly pedophiles? Trying to take down a document says nothing about its veracity.

    2. Re:Well Played by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well, your book is wrong. Suppose the Pirate Party posts a paper positing that parliament pokes preteens and are thus purportedly pedophiles? Trying to take down a document says nothing about its veracity.

      But the process would: if a court order was obtained on the grounds that it was false, defamatory, etc, then the government has stated it's false. If however they claim it's an official secret, privileged information, etc, that confirms the substance.

      Australia does have courts and laws, the government can't just send the Gestapo around. They need to have some legal justification for their actions.

    3. Re:Well Played by c-reus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I guess one of the reasons for hosting the ACTA is to see how the government responds to it. If they demand it to be taken down on the basis of copyright infringement or breach of NDA terms, then it's quite clear there's something fishy going on (that hasn't been discovered yet). If the government claims that the document is libelous ("we never wanted those things that are written in the document and have our name next to it"), then they're in denial -- or perhaps the document is faked. This would become clear after the ACTA documents are publicized by those that take part of the negotiations (not a leak but a "proper" publication).

      If the government ignores the whole deal, then they either don't care or don't see anything wrong with it.

  4. Public Domain NOW! by headkase · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Public Domain NOW! by headkase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Interactive media, people can get their Blender Alien models in good shape and with the Free engines the newest "sanctioned" Aliens game would actually have to be really awesome to keep up with the competition. Competition is what content holders are scared of, they don't like the idea that a modern Terminator could be made - you know just in case they happened to maybe cash in on it a bit more in the next eighty (give some decades too) years of government monopoly they already have. Or they could do what they do right now which is ignore all these works while saying: "not yours, fuck off." Gaming wise would stand to see the biggest explosion and you can be sure as shit that is exactly what terrifies content oligarchies of today.

      --
      Shh.
    2. Re:Public Domain NOW! by headkase · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you think that in 3000AD I should not be able to say "Aliens!" because whether its a millennium from now or eighty more years I'm still equally dead. Copyright isn't about corporate welfare forever into the future, it's about giving incentive to create. The deal is that in exchange for your limited monopoly after that period it becomes public domain. It has been distorted so far out of line that the public domain has no real meaning anymore - without doing a benefit analysis anywhere along the way other than "more copyright is good!" I think that more culture outweighs more copyright - that's how we make other people more like us. They made their profit with their limited monopoly now they want to renege on the other side of the deal? That's theft. Funny content industry is doing exactly what they accuse others of doing.

      --
      Shh.
  5. Logo by MrTripps · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
  6. What a world by kurt555gs · · Score: 4, Funny

    In this parallel universe, the Pirates are the good guys!

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
  7. Berne convention will block this. by leuk_he · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Berne convention will block this. by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You gave the answer yourself. All it takes is a government with the bollocks to do it. So we are all doomed...

    2. Re:Berne convention will block this. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Informative

      Part (7) says countries can maintain their current length as of the signing date (for US 1987) So there's nothing preventing a roll back to the signing date for each respective country.

      Part (8) In any case, the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed; however, unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work.

      Is interesting as well.

      What's also interesting is that the US adopted the UCC Geneva instead of the Berne in 1955 because the various clauses in the Berne Convention, such as the life of the author clause, were in direct contradiction with US law.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  8. What about Ninja's? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  9. But PPAU still need your membership! (it's FREE) by tick-tock-atona · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  10. Re:I agree with their motives... by bbqsrc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It has been in discussion for two years, isn't two years long enough?

    --
    Disagree != mod troll.
  11. Re:I agree with their motives... by Diss+Champ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What sort of screwed up system would prevent discussion of something because it was amoung "issues currently up for debate"? Isn't the whole point of a debate to supposed to be to discuss something?

  12. Re:I agree with their motives... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    However, I wonder if parliamentary decorum doesn't traditionally restrict public discussion of issues currently up for debate...

    I think I speak for the people when I say fuck decorum if it conflicts with public debate. It is The People who will be suffering the effects of these bad to-be-laws for the foreseeable future if they should be passed, and therefore it is the people who must be able to debate the issues. That which flourishes in the dark and cannot withstand the light of public scrutiny has no place in the institutions of men.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. It's sad.... by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  14. Incorrect Statement There by headkase · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  15. Prove it! by Dogbertius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!

  16. It's [fairly] safe to join the Pirate Party by feepcreature · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're wrong! It's pretty safe to join, without making civilisation collapse.

    The Pirate Party isn't fighting for responsible copyright laws, they want to gut the whole thing.

    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"