Protecting State Secrets Through Copyright

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Protecting State Secrets Through Copyright

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday May 20, 2012 @01:30AM from the listen-to-the-law dept.

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."

35 of 142 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

That's just great by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-20 01:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Been done. by SuricouRaven · 2012-05-20 01:37 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
1. Re:Been done. by geekmux · 2012-05-20 01:59 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  The Church of Scientology isn't a sovereign nation.
  Yes, you're absolutely right. It's a...religion.
  (took me 10 minutes to type this, as I couldn't contain my laughter for 9 of them...)
2. Re:Been done. by DevConcepts · 2012-05-20 02:02 · Score: 2
  
  That's not what they think.
3. Re:Been done. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-20 05:46 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  At least since 1986
4. Re:Been done. by budgenator · 2012-05-20 06:54 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That always gets me laughing every time I hear it, because you can't copyright facts, only creative works, so you know what that says about CoS.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
5. Re:Been done. by rtb61 · 2012-05-20 16:47 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The catch with copyright, firstly you must make the claim that all documents exposed are true and factually (they already shot themselves in the foot with that when they claimed in the first few weeks it was all a lie) and secondly you have to claim damages, that you wish to sell the documents at the copyrighted ones are harming your revenue (now we all know that is not true and if it was, what is Bradley Manning being accused of, copyright infringement).
  All of this desperate clutching at straws to bury the documents indicates two more things. Firstly the reality exposed in the documents undermines future lies they intend to tell. Secondly they can not hide under national security, the crimes exposed and weaken the defence that the accused Bradley Manning was forced to publicly expose those crimes because, his superior officers were failing to do so. It is illegal to obey an illegal order and it is a criminal act, accessory after the fact, to hide crimes.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Public domain? by Admiral+Burrito · 2012-05-20 01:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

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
1. Re:Public domain? by buchner.johannes · 2012-05-20 01:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This Note will explore these difficulties, such as the government works issue, potential fair use or fair dealing defenses, as well as various non-legal obstacles to success, eventually reaching the conclusion that prosecuting WikiLeaks internationally for copyright violations is potentially more viable than any of the methods of criminal prosecution heretofore explored publicly by government attorneys and legal scholars.
  
  Or, you can just not bring the case to court and hold people indefinitely without prosecution for several years. Then they don't have anything to defend against. A debtors' prison if you will.
  
  --
  NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
2. Re:Public domain? by AliasMarlowe · 2012-05-20 01:56 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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
  
  TFA deals with exactly that. The US government is allowed to hold copyrights which are assigned to it, including the copyright of works by outside contractors (many activities producing "government" documents are outsourced, even in Defense). TFA conjectures that some of the documents disclosed by Wikileaks would fall into this class, so that Wikileaks could be pursued in foreign courts for copyright violations. Also, the US government is explicitly allowed to assert copyright over its own works outside the US. So in principle almost any unauthorized disclosure of US government documents outside the US would be a violation of US government copyright.
  It's a Byzantine, almost Stasi-like approach to quashing what are probably truthful revelations. One would hope this interpretation would be thrown out by any reasonable court in the EU. It would be a faint hope indeed in many countries (such as the UK).
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
3. Re:Public domain? by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-05-20 02:32 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This article is speculative; the US has not actually brought a copyright suit.
  If it were to be brought it would happen in Sweden where copyright suits are difficult (as the article points out).
4. Re:Public domain? by Bengie · 2012-05-20 02:53 · Score: 2
  
  The discussion isn't if Wikileaks won't get in trouble, but how/why the government wants to use civil law to prosecute. I guess the bonus is if they use civil law, they must allow the use of a jury, then you run into the whole jury nullification issue.
5. Re:Public domain? by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-05-20 02:58 · Score: 2
  
  That makes no sense. You are entitled to a jury in any criminal case and in any major civil case.
6. Re:Public domain? by hemo_jr · 2012-05-20 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  Exactly! The government can't copyright ANYthing. That Stanford Law Journal article was written by one of our new breed of REALLY idiotic lawyers. Seriously. The quality of lawyers that are graduating now (by and large) is truly horrific. Our increasingly short-attention-spans do not good lawyers make! Welcome to Idiocracy!
  I blame it all on Dick Wolf. Twenty years of his shows stretching any and all laws to fit his prosecutors' agendas has presented the newly minted lawyers with a truly warped sense of law.
7. Re:Public domain? by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2012-05-20 05:05 · Score: 2
  
  Unless you're in the military. Then you get a tribunal.
  If you're in the military, you get a court-martial (or a non-judicial punishment, a.k.a. Article 15, for minor offenses -- but even there, you always have the right to request a court-martial, if you really think that's a good idea ...) Even official POWs get this. The "military tribunal" is a made-up kangaroo court which only applies to people falling into the equally made-up "enemy combatant" status.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
8. Re:Public domain? by budgenator · 2012-05-20 07:05 · Score: 2
  
  Think about it a $250,000.00 per violation times a couple million downloads times hundreds of documents equals the entire GDP for the planet for a thousand years or so
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
9. Re:Public domain? by zlives · 2012-05-20 07:33 · Score: 2
  
  i mean TO copyright a document before you can bring a copyright infringement suite, wouldn't someone have to have access to the material. The CR owner couldn't just say we have some documents that may or may not exist that are also copyrighted... so you can't leak them? or we will sue!?
Public Domain / FOIA? by Skinkie · 2012-05-20 01:39 · Score: 2

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!
Public documents are now copyrighted? by Whammy666 · 2012-05-20 01:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Public documents are now copyrighted? by ajdlinux · 2012-05-20 01:50 · Score: 2
  
  In the US, sure. Outside of the US, US government works may very well be covered by local copyright laws. In many countries, government works are protected by copyright, and it may very well be the case that the same provisions apply to US government works within their jurisdiction.
You know when a law is too strong when... by Rich0 · 2012-05-20 01:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?
1. Re:You know when a law is too strong when... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-20 02:19 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  MPAA would love that.
Re:Guantanamo? by Joce640k · 2012-05-20 01:50 · Score: 2

Politicians can't make a career out of Guantanamo, they'd prefer most people not to know.
Wikileaks + Bradley manning? There's quite a few votes to be had there...

--
No sig today...
Proving ownership by perl6geek · 2012-05-20 01:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

The US would have to prove ownership first, thus authenticating the leaked documents. Not quite what they want, is it?
1. Re:Proving ownership by TapeCutter · 2012-05-20 16:12 · Score: 2
  
  Their reactions from day one have already confirmed the authenticity of the documents.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Guantanamo? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-20 01:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Politicians can't make a career out of Guantanamo, they'd prefer most people not to know.
Wikileaks + Bradley manning? There's quite a few votes to be had there...
ORLY?
Candidate Obama: CLOSE GITMO! IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! IT'S A WAR CRIME!!!!
President Obama: See, Gitmo is still open! See how tough I am against terrorists!!!!
Public Domain - RTFA by Mattwolf7 · 2012-05-20 01:56 · Score: 4, Informative

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?
Facts can't be copyrighted. by fredmosby · 2012-05-20 02:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Facts can't be copyrighted. by fredmosby · 2012-05-20 03:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Most of what was leaked never should have been a secret. The governments been keeping its activities secret so it doesn't have to be accountable to its citizens.
  
  Bradley Manning may be a traitor to the government, but not to the American people.
2. Re:Facts can't be copyrighted. by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2012-05-20 05:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Something is very wrong, indeed. Bradley Manning should have been charged with treason and hanged.
  I'm sure what you meant to write is: "Bradley Manning should have been charged with and tried for treason, and if convicted, sentenced to death."
  
  The fact is that all these pussy liberals are going to soft on him. Traitors must be punished and executed.
  It's always interesting to see how quickly conservatives are ready to abandon their alleged commitment to the rule of law and the purity of the US Constitution.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
3. Re:Facts can't be copyrighted. by fredmosby · 2012-05-20 05:42 · Score: 2
  
  What you're basically saying is "If the general population knew what the government was doing they would disapprove. So the government need to keep its actions secret." I couldn't disagree more. In order for a democratic government to work properly it needs to ba accountable to the people. That can't happen if the people don't know what the government is up to.
  
  If people don't have realistic accounts of what happens in war they will believe the Hollywood version where the good guys never kill innocent people.
4. Re:Facts can't be copyrighted. by CodeBuster · 2012-05-20 06:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There is no need to charge him with treason. Pvt Manning is a uniformed member of the United States Army and as such is subject to military justice which includes the possibility of death if convicted of the charge of aiding the enemy (which he has indeed been charged with). Of course, the prosecutors have already said that they will not seek the death penalty so the point is moot, but it should be noted that treason is generally prosecuted against civilians, the Rosenbergs for example, and not uniformed members of the armed forces who are subject instead to much harsher military disciplines if convicted of similar or even lesser crimes.
Re:Unconstitutional by peppepz · 2012-05-20 02:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

I find it interesting that when a country censors Twitter for "blasphemous content", it's universally deprecated, but when the USA tears down a site for "copyrighted content", then it's freedom at work.
Not Sure Which is Worse: by CanHasDIY · 2012-05-20 04:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

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
It's the other way around by marcosdumay · 2012-05-20 05:00 · Score: 2

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