Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Your Rights Online

Wikileaks To Sell Hugo Chavez' Email 313

Posted by samzenpus
from the how-much-to-look-through-his-garbage dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Wikileaks seems to be a bit hard-up for cash, so they're trying a little experiment. They plan to auction off an archive with three years worth of Hugo Chavez' email. The winner will get a period of embargoed access to break any stories they can find in the files, while Wikileaks will later publish the archive in full. Wikileaks plans to use the profits for their legal defense fund, but they may run into trouble because most reputable news outlets have policies against paying sources."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikileaks To Sell Hugo Chavez' Email

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Risky... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tomcat666 (210775) on Thursday August 28, 2008 @06:00AM (#24776773) Homepage

    "I fixed your post for you"

    From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/IFYPFY [wiktionary.org]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28, 2008 @06:27AM (#24776901)

    And does this mean that no UK newspapers are reputable as every single one of them pay their sources?

  • by GBC (981160) * on Thursday August 28, 2008 @06:38AM (#24776939)

    Hitler's rights have expired

    Although this is off-topic, I had to respond as actually whilst Hitler may have expired the copyright in his works hasn't. In Germany, as with the rest of the EU, copyrights are for life of the author plus seventy years. If he had beneficiaries (which, as far as I am aware, he didn't) they would would hold the copyright for his works until 2015 given he died in 1945.

    Things that you think are out of copyright probably aren't, thanks to the current global IP regime.

  • by Lyrael (1196443) <Lyrael@gmail.com> on Thursday August 28, 2008 @06:48AM (#24776979) Homepage

    Not global, or even 'the rest of the EU' as here in England copyright is 50 years from creation, whether the author is still alive or not.

    (yes, I am completely off-topic and just picking at semantics, thank you for noticing.)

  • by Cow Jones (615566) on Thursday August 28, 2008 @07:49AM (#24777289)

    The wiki [wikipedia.org] suggests that he left anything of value to the Nazi party, but doesn't say what became of the assets of the party after the end of the war. Whoever got the party's assets probably (at least in theory) holds the copyright to the diary.

    "At the time of his death, Hitler's official place of residence was in Munich, which led to his entire estate, including all rights to Mein Kampf, changing to the ownership of the state of Bavaria. As per German copyright law the entire text is scheduled to enter the public domain on December 31, 2015, 70 years after the author's death. The copyright has been relinquished for the English, Dutch and Swedish editions."

    quoted from this page [wikipedia.org].

  • by JonTurner (178845) on Thursday August 28, 2008 @08:04AM (#24777395) Journal

    >>Journalists don't create stories, they document existing events.
    I'm sorry, but that's just naive.

    Just a few examples to hopefully open your eyes:

    Dan Rather's famous forged Air National Guard documents (for which he was fired, but stands behind with his infamous "fake but accurate" quote):
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526&only [littlegreenfootballs.com]
    This wasn't just some staff reported in Podunk Arkansas, it was a lead anchor who was willing to end his career in order to further propaganda piece that was obviously fake. Makes me wonder what other pieces he pushed in his many years as news anchor and senior editor.

    The New York Times accepts (read: publishes without edit) Barack Obama's Op-Ed but "rejects" a piece by John McCain. No bias there. Nosir. Nope.
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.nyt/ [cnn.com]

    Reuters accepts the most amateurish photoshop jobs:
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut [littlegreenfootballs.com] ...and only after an internet firestorm has to admit it:
    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/reuters-caught-blowing-smoke-faking-photos [sweetness-light.com]

    Tennessee newspaper published blatantly altered photograph to promote political agenda: http://terryfrank.net/?p=2964 [terryfrank.net]

    Iran gets in on the photoshop act: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp [nytimes.com]

    And then you have the FREQUENT odd Reuters captions: It seems that every time Israel takes out a terrorist with a missile, the area is flooded with "youth" that "inspect" the wreckage. (in reality, they are looking for bits of body parts, for they believe that by touching bits of the dead "martyr", they help secure a spot in heaven. Grisly and repulsive.)
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25627_Palestinian_Car_Swarm_Watch [littlegreenfootballs.com]

    And I'll finish with the most vile, disgusting example I've ever seen. The Associated (with terrorists) Press publishes staged photographs of dead children arranged by a (so called) palestinian "press agent". Pure propaganda.

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22123_Green_Helmet_Admits_Staging_Photos&only [littlegreenfootballs.com]

    which is promptly carried to the United Nations and presented there:
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/22669_Fauxtography_at_the_United_Nations [littlegreenfootballs.com]

    That's what I was able to put together with 5 minutes of work. I could continue for hours (days?) but hopefully this will open your eyes to the fact that there are people in the "news" that have clear agendas and aren't above creating stories where none exist in order to influence you. Not to mention those who write with bias.

  • by PhilHibbs (4537) <snarks@gmail.com> on Thursday August 28, 2008 @09:14AM (#24778131) Homepage Journal

    ...here in England copyright is 50 years from creation, whether the author is still alive or not.

    I don't think that's correct. I'm pretty sure our copyright is harmonised with the rest of the EU.
    This [worc.ac.uk] says "70 years from the end of the year of the authors death". 50 years from creation is only for sound recordings.

  • by dns_server (696283) on Thursday August 28, 2008 @09:17AM (#24778175)

    By law the white house must keep an archive of all messages. Unfortunately bush "accidental" lost 2 years of email archives.

  • by pjabardo (977600) on Thursday August 28, 2008 @10:00AM (#24778723)
    You might not like Hugo Chavez or his policies. Hell, you might even hate him. But I've never heard about anyone standing in a wall for anything. There even was a military coup against him and do you know what? Only one guy is being prosecuted (the guy who was made president) and he fled but he is certainly not facing facing death/torture or anything resembling a "wall". Several ex-top allies have "deserted" him over the years and do you know what? They are living in Venezuela being part of what is called the OPPOSITION. Yes, there is such a thing in Venezuela and, by the way, they are actually heard outside (duh!) and, amazingly, in Venezuela (most of all) - most of the media is totally against him.

    He is a populist and often acts like a buffoon but he was elected, he faced the public opinion in a referendum to remove him from office and when he tried to make changes to the constitution last year, he submitted them to the public and lost (by a very small margin). He acknowledged the defeat and said that he would try to hear the people (obviously that is not necessarily the truth). Where else do you see such an open process? Certainly not in the US or most countries in Europe.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28, 2008 @11:01AM (#24779617)

    What you buy determines what they sell. Consumers create the news! Right now, the consumers are buying Obama, and McCain is staying on the shelf. It's not a conspiracy - or if it is, you're a member of it.

    Consumers are buying Obama because the media are eagerly selling him. It's the same way they sold Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and George W. Bush... first you build up a celebrity brand, then you market the hell out of it.

    If it starts to get old, you can try to reposition the brand a few times. And so George Bush morphs from Compassionate Conservative to the Healer of the Troubled Nation to the Leader in Time of War. Barack Obama morphs from Peace-maker and Conciliator, to Agent of Hope and Change, to something that is yet to be formed.

    And when people eventually get sick of the brand, the media can still get quite a bit of mileage out of it by reselling it as an object of derision.

  • Read your own link? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Moraelin (679338) on Thursday August 28, 2008 @12:19PM (#24780687) Journal

    Err... read your own link, dude.

    Quoting from the English version of that Venezualan copyright law, that you linked to:

    5- The author of an intellectual work shall have, by virtue of the mere fact of his creative act, a right to the work which shall itself include rights of moral and economic character as specified in this Law.

    The rights of moral character shall be inalienable, unattachable, unrenounceable and imprescriptible.

    Which part of "by the mere fact of his creative act" is confusing you? By the very act of creating something, you already have copyright on it in Venezuella too. :P

    I also quoted the next line because it also pretty much spells it out that even though he's a public figure and all, he still isn't losing that copyright.

    Also, before that:

    1. The provisions of this Law shall protect the rights of authors in all creative intellectual works, whether literary, scientific or artistic in character and whatever their nature, form of expression, merit or purpose.

    The rights recognized by this Law shall be independent of the ownership of the physical medium in which the work is embodied, and shall not be subject to compliance with any formality.

    It's plain english, not even legalese. But if someoneone needs a translation: no, he doesn't have to register copyright anywhere, and there is explicitly no requirement of merit or purpose for it to apply. Still not clear? Well, let's read on:

    2. The following in particular shall be considered included among the intellectual works referred to in the foregoing Article: books, pamphlets and other literary, artistic and scientific writings, including computer programs and the associated technical literature and users' manuals; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatico-musical works, choreographic and mimed works the stage movements for which have been set down in writing or otherwise; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works and other audiovisual works expressed by any process; works of drawing, painting, architecture, engraving or lithography; works of applied art that are not mere industrial designs; geographical illustrations and maps; plans, three-dimensional works and sketches relating to geography, topography, architecture or science; and, finally, any literary, scientific or artistic product susceptible of disclosure or publication by any means or process.

    It seems to me like if they're worthy of being disclosed or published by Wikileaks, they just met this requirement.

    Sorry to give you a hard time about it, but I think it's very important for people to realize that copyright law is not the same throughout the entire world.

    That is a valuable idea indeed, but it still doesn't quite justify a knee-jerk posting that even where it doesn't apply at all. The relevant paragraphs aren't different in its provision or spirit from US copyright law at all. Maybe post that remark where it actually applies? Just a thought ;)

  • by Moraelin (679338) on Thursday August 28, 2008 @04:44PM (#24784703) Journal

    How does copyright interact with public information? Who knows what the deal in Venezuela is with public records, but if I requests e-mails from a state agency in the U.S. under a public information act, would I be allowed to distribute them, even though they are copyrighted? (This is actually kind of personally important, because I have a bunch of documents requested under a public information act that are on a public web server)

    If I read IIRC paragraph 3 right, laws, government acts and the like are not eligible for copyright there. It does not seem to imply however, that private correspondence of official persons gets the same exemption.

    Second, those e-mails would be copyrighted under Venezuelan law, not U.S. law... but because of the U.S's international agreements, could Wikileaks still get in legal trouble for violating foreign copyrights?

    AFAIK that's the whole _point_ of that treaty: each country recognizes the IP of people in other countries that signed it. You can get sued even if you're in the UK and pirate an US movie. Because that US company's copyright is still recognized as valid copyright in the UK. You can (at least theoretically) get sued in Venezuela for pirating an EA games or Microsoft Office. (EA = USA company.) So it seems only _fair_ (not to mention, again, that's what that treaty says) that the USA also recognizes the IP of someone in Venezuella as valid, legally-protected IP.

  • by vandan (151516) on Thursday August 28, 2008 @08:44PM (#24787999) Homepage

    Chavez has demonstrated many times that he does not recognize individual rights

    Interesting blanket statement. Is that why millions of his supporters brought the capital to a halt in the CIA-backed coup?

If you had better tools, you could more effectively demonstrate your total incompetence.

Working...