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."
Read into the record. (Score:5, Interesting)
They should read it into the record of any parliament that they have seats in -- legislators (at least in the US, and I assume other countries too) have immunity from arrest for speech made as part of their legislative business. If they desire to declassify this information, then doing it in a way that's clearly part of their legislative business is the best way to keep the information public.
I agree with their motives... (Score:3, Interesting)
And admire their resolve to make the treaty public -- indeed I am curious to see what it contains.
However, I wonder if parliamentary decorum doesn't traditionally restrict public discussion of issues currently up for debate...
Just because it is an unwritten rule does not mean it should be casually ignored... as much as we might disagree with the end results.
Re:Public Domain NOW! (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm always of the opinion that making copyright "use it or lose it" would work best for encouraging the creation of creative works (if making a sequel or such counts as using the IP, the original work will sooner or later run out of sales potential and if they want to keep the IP they've gotta make another work with it) as well as preservation of older works.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Public Domain NOW! (Score:3, Interesting)
Prove it! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Read into the record. (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe the same people who claimed to believe in the Jedi religion on the national census (Google it if you don't believe) will vote for them?
If there was such an entity as the Pirate Party, and it was possible for them to actually be represented, in the U.S., I would vote for them, even if they are a one cause "gimmick" party.
Why? Because they at least would represent one area of the things I care about. Yes, members of both current parties generally have one area (at least) I agree with too, but generally they offset this by having a giant stock of ideas I find repugnant.
With a one trick pony, I avoid this. With enough of them, you might get a whole horse.
Re:Public Domain NOW! (Score:2, Interesting)
No, not if one understands human history one can't. Humans created art before copyright, and some of those works have come down to us today. Meanwhile, existing copyright is preventing the preservation of existing works [boingboing.net].
Sure there are. There's various forms of patronage, there's government-funded production (which is no more an intervention into the "free market" than copyright is), and there's my favorite, royalty-right: anyone can copy a work for free, but commercial use -- selling copies or derivative works -- requires payment of a royalty. (Modeled on songwriter royalties: sing in the shower all you want, but sing at the bar to bring in more customers, and the songwriter gets their nickel.)
Feeling like poking a stick at the system today... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm pondering.... The document says it is "confidential" not "classified" so I'm sitting here reasoning that if the NY Times can publish classified (and weren't some marked Top Secret) war documents then I outta be able to get away with mirroring a copy of this here in the US of A. The fun part is I'd do it on my homepage hosted on a public library's site and equipment. Now the way I see it one of three results are possible.
1. I get shipped off a federal pen and buggered for the next ten years or more. This outcome would be bad but is it a realistic risk?
2. I get a take down notice. I comply. :) And then we find out if the EFF is done with insane BDS ravings and ready to actually defend the online world from a real out of control Justice Dept. After all, news of the takedown and the legal wrangling would create far more interest in the document than it would ever get on a crappy homepage that hasn't even been updated for a while. Imagine the public relations nightmare Holder would be walking into! After almost eight years of deranged ravings about Bushitler's Justice Dept wanting to violate all sorts of fundemental rights at libraries, or hell just shutting them down or something because he was such an unhoopy frood and all, to now have them forced to take on the Obama Justice Dept for a real attack on a library would be so much fun to watch. Always good when you can cause chaos in the camp of one's foes AND strike a blow for Freedom at the same time. This scenario has so much potential for an Epic Win I can't imagine it actually happening.
3. Which leads to the more probable option: Nothing happens. Oh well, try again.
I really can't see any risk of #1 but before I actually do it I figure it is worth tossing the idea out for comment first.