Pirate Party Pillages Private Papers 210
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."
Well Played (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.
Public Domain NOW! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well Played (Score:4, 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.
Re:Well Played (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>purportedly pedophiles? Trying to take down a document says nothing about its veracity.
No but it does demonstrate that Free Speech is no longer the law of the land.
Re:Berne convention will block this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Read into the record. (Score:4, 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.
Re:Public Domain NOW! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well Played (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I agree with their motives... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I agree with their motives... (Score:4, 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?
Re:Well Played (Score:4, 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.
Re:Public Domain NOW! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I agree with their motives... (Score:4, 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.
Re:Public Domain NOW! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Berne convention will block this. (Score:3, Insightful)
There are plenty of international treaties that are ignored, by one or multiple parties.
There are plenty of cases where nothing is, or even can be realistically done about it.
If the people of a country wish their government to withdraw from some treaty or other, I'm not sure that "There is nothing that can be done about it" is the proper answer.
Do you live in sovereign state or not?
Regards.
It's sad.... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about lying? (Score:3, Insightful)
How about if the Pirate Party's version of the ACTA document is completely fabricated? I think lying would be a good reason to take it down, and it wouldn't imply that the document is authentic.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's already the name... Many non-geeks go: "the Pirate Party? If that like the beer-drinker's party? Of the cyclist's-who-always-want-wind-in-their-back party"? And the in-jokes aren't improving the situation either...
You can't win an election with just the geeks, so please maximize your chances by at least pretending to be serious. ... or else it will be the MAFIAA who'll have the last laugh...
Re:Public Domain NOW! (Score:1, Insightful)
You have to sift through a lot of dross to find the real gems, but if all you have is a tiny handful to start with, there's not going to be very many jewels.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't win an election with just the geeks
You can if the votes are tallied by Diebold machines.