Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Protecting State Secrets Through Copyright

Posted by samzenpus on 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."

14 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. That's just great by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  2. Been done. by SuricouRaven · · 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.

  3. Public domain? by Admiral+Burrito · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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. Public documents are now copyrighted? by Whammy666 · · 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.
  5. You know when a law is too strong when... by Rich0 · · 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 · · Score: 4, Funny

      MPAA would love that.

  6. Proving ownership by perl6geek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The US would have to prove ownership first, thus authenticating the leaked documents. Not quite what they want, is it?

  7. Public Domain - RTFA by Mattwolf7 · · 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?

  8. Facts can't be copyrighted. by fredmosby · · 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 · · 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 · · 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.