Slashdot Mirror
Protecting State Secrets Through Copyright
An anonymous reader writes "The United States has pursued Bradley Manning with full force for his role in supplying classified documents to WikiLeaks, in part because of the substantial difficulty in going after the organization directly. Criminal statutes generally deployed against those who leak classified government documents — such as the Espionage Act of 1917 — are ill-equipped to prosecute third-party international distribution organizations like WikiLeaks. One potential tool that could be used to prosecute WikiLeaks is copyright law. The use of copyright law in this context has rarely been mentioned, and when it has, the approach has been largely derided by experts, who decry it as contrary to the purposes of copyright. But a paper just published in the Stanford Journal of International Law describes one novel way the U.S. could use copyright to go after WikiLeaks and similar leaking organizations directly--by bringing suit in foreign jurisdictions."
Now they should publish an article on how to use international law to reign in the abuse of political, economic and military power by the United States on the international arena.
can last longer teehee....
The Church of Scientology started using this method years ago. It's worked exactly as well as any other means to prevent the dissemination of secrets on the internet.
If I remember right, government works automatically fall into public domain. Wikipedia seems to think so too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Government_works
So how can they, if all government produced works actually fall in the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act?
Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
Guantanamo? It has been used before to evade US Law, if I understood it correctly.
I seem to recall that works done by a government entity belong to the public and are not subject to copyright. Even so, this seems like a rather petty move. Of course, they tortured and held Bradly Manning is solitary confinement for a year without any charges so I guess expecting any sort of civility in the matter is unrealistic.
When all else fails, run.
Ok, if the punishments for copyright law are considered sufficient deterrence for things like treason or espionage that they're WAY too strong. Why on Earth would we want a set of laws that puts distributing a copy of a movie on the same level as disseminating nuclear weapon plans?
If you work on the people's dime and wrote that at work, shall we interpret it as a directive or advice?
Bradley Manning should get whistle-blower protection if there's any impropriety in these "secrets".
The US would have to prove ownership first, thus authenticating the leaked documents. Not quite what they want, is it?
If you would download the article, there is an entire section addressing how the US Copyright Act actually addresses this issue:
"The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. Works of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. There are no valid policy reasons for denying such protection to United States Government works in foreign countries, or for precluding the Government from making licenses for the use of its works abroad."
Do you guys actually think this article would have been published in a legal journal missing such an obvious question?
It is disturbing that the US government is going to such lengths to keep its own citizens in the dark. Something has gone very wrong in Washington.
Funny how the land of the free wants to limit the freedom of the press.
I can understand that a nation wants to protect it's secrets in order to protect it's people but it do not think it should go as far as taking away essential freedom to cover it's own failure's in doing so.
Only works with artistic value can be copyrighted. State secrets, therefore, cannot.
Consider what was shown in those leaks makes me wonder why he is not a hero. The type of secrecy that was publish was damaging to how low we have fallen as a nation we should be ashamed but why would sociopath like leader be ashamed at all of what we do. I would seem that giving a dam is unhealthy for our new world order. Lets see what other bull our government comes up to kill the internet of free speech.
The US government cannot hold copyrights... on anything.
This signature intentionally left blank.
"The United States has pursued Bradley Manning with full force for his role in supplying classified documents to WikiLeaks, in part because of the substantial difficulty in going after the organization directly."
In addition to the little matter of treason. You know, the whole "betrayal of his country" and all that.
Documents created by or for the government, and even copyrighted documents used buy the government in the course of work are not copyrightable or donot preserve any prior copyright privilidge during that time.
The government documents leaked were public property. That includes you. Their DISTRIBUTION was limited by classification and only to the extent it is technically possible and actually achieved. Congress leaks classified documents all the time and once out are out.
The odd thing was when the leak occurred the government at several levels ordered its employees to not download or view the leaked classified documents. That was a bit of a catch 22 for a civilian government employee. Not so much for someone who is non-civilian and effectively property of the government.
This copyright claim is a bogus stretch and should not be allowed to stand.
They can't protect secrets this way. They can punish people, but that is not the same thing. The secret still got out, even if you have their head on a platter. Secrets can only be protected by not leaking them in the first place. Those afraid of the law, can always leak anonymously.
And copyright only prevent verbatim copying anyway. I can tell you what the latest Harry Potter book is about, without breaching copyright. Spoilers and all, ruining it for the moviegoers. And if I get my hands on a copyrighted U.S. state secret, I can tell the secret in my own words. They can keep distribution rights for their carefully and artistically worded version of the secret. No doubt their language is more polished than mine. But I can spread the secret without breaching copyright.
The government's constant attempts to end-run the Constitution, or the fact that American citizens are helping them.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Oh you mean Sanford, the college (among others) who ought to be shut down for racketeering. How about we bring charges against them first, then consider whatever propaganda they continually spew after they are purged.
Except for the ones fighting natural events, all the heros are so called because they commited treason. It is only that they betrayed a side that wan't worth it, or one that lost depending on how cinic you are.
Rethinking email
Was not copyright supposed to protect 'works of art intended for sale to prevent unauthorized copies to be sold in it's place'? Even the name says something about it's intentions... 'copy' & 'rights' ie the rights to copy.
From wikipedia:
Copyright initially was conceived as a way for government to restrict printing; the contemporary intent of copyright is to promote the creation of new works by giving authors control of and profit from them. Copyrights are said to be territorial, which means that they do not extend beyond the territory of a specific state unless that state is a party to an international agreement. Today, however, this is less relevant since most countries are parties to at least one such agreement. While many aspects of national copyright laws have been standardized through international copyright agreements, copyright laws of most countries have some unique features.[2] Typically, the duration of copyright is the whole life of the creator plus fifty to a hundred years from the creator's death, or a finite period for anonymous or corporate creations. Some jurisdictions have required formalities to establishing copyright, but most recognize copyright in any completed work, without formal registration. Generally, copyright is enforced as a civil matter, though some jurisdictions do apply criminal sanctions.
I fail to see how pure reports and letters could, or or even should, be protected by copyright.
My thought on copyrights..
Should not be subjected to copyright:
- Letter intended for one single person. Should be protected by privacy-laws.
- Surveillance camera or home-video from a stationary camera. Should be protected by privacy-laws until they might be classified as something else.
- Report describing some events. Not a work of art just a fact-listing description of events.
- Nothing created by the government. *Maybe*: If created by the government all citizens of the country should have a license to copy, distribute and re-license
- Anything that's not intended for distribution to the public.
Should be protected by copyright:
- Works of art intended for distribution and sale to the public.
Copyright is to Democracy as Cancer is to Life. You read it here first, and I'm the first to describe it quite like that, but killing it is a valiant and worthwhile goal.
It seems we've come full circle. Copyright started as a tool for censorship, and it may soon become one yet again.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Slashdot is full of mouthy hypocrites that have never held a security clearance. Nobody gets drafted, there are only volunteers and the vetting process is gruelling. So, all of you opinionated nobodies feel free to apply and then the 1% that actually get accepted betray the oath you have taken to get there. I am all for the death penalty for treason.
James Freedman seems to have skipped over how Wikileaks was forced to dump the whole archive because some moron released the archive secret key in a.....book about Wikileaks.
Everything the government produces, is paid for by taxpayers. Therefore, if there is copyright, it's owned by taxpayers. You can't steal stuff that is already yours and you paid for it.
Unless the documents Bradley Manning were produced by some outside non-govermental source the CopyRight belongs to the people of the United States and under most circumstances is considered free for use by ***ANYBODY***, WikiLeaks included.
If the GPL can use copyrights to push their agenda, why can't the government?
I suppose the case could be made for fair-use on both sides. Say if wikileaks didn't actually make any money by having published government documents w/o the government's consent. Or if the GPL protected code was published by some group that only took contributions and released under a BSD-license... wait, I guess that doesn't work... ;^)
If I had a dollar for every cockamamie topic for a law student's obligatory note in a law journal, I'd be rich.
Isn't that going to shoot them in far more than the foot?
After all, those copyrights belong to the people of the USA, therefore they should be allowed to read them.
Copyright law happens to be the only handle you have on people who misappropriate email as well as it doesn't require a mutually agree acceptance of conditions.
Email disclaimers have close to nil value, but a copyright notice is a kicker that gives leverage. Unless you're using Google, that is - read the T&Cs..
Insert
For the government to start this kind of lawsuit would open them up to discovery. A civil court in another country would be far less included to accept the "it's classified, so no evidence for you" tactic that works so well here. A strategy such as this would be a legal comedy of errors.
--- Generation X: The first generation to have SIG lines inferior to their parents... ---
Part of my tax money paid for it. I declare that portion to be in the public domain. Let the nitwits figure out which part that is.