Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pirate Party Pillages Private Papers

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the information-wants-to-be-free dept.

Australia 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."

cancel ×

210 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In other news... (5, Funny)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656324)

Peter Piper picked a pack of pickled peppers.

That headline is a mouthful.

Re:In other news... (5, Funny)

krou (1027572) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656400)

If Peter's Pirate Party pillages a peck of private papers, how many private papers did Peter's Pirate Party pillage?

Re:In other news... (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656586)

Out of the way, Peck!

Re:In other news... (5, Funny)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656598)

All of them, yarr!

Re:In other news... (0, Troll)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657578)

As hilarious as your comment is, it's hardly fitting for the subject of the story. You're here representing the Pirate Party; It says so in your signature.

Way to trivialise an important political statement, Deputy Campaigns Officer for the Pirate Party UK.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31656692)

Sounds like Peter's going to be in a real pickle soon.

Re:In other news... (2, Informative)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656736)

Well, since you asked (WikiAnswers citation):

A peck is a measure of volume associated with dry goods. It is rarely, if ever, used to measure liquids. It is equal to 16 dry pints, which is about 0.311 cubic foot. Note the word dry. A dry pint is not the same as a liquid pint. Four pecks equal a bushel.

Now, I'm not sure how many papers (are these US letter, A4, what?) fit into either a pint (are they flat or folded, have they been shredded, if so how finely, what?) or a bushel, but there's a starting point for your calculations.

Re:In other news... (0, Offtopic)

ari_j (90255) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657006)

The papers are all digital. So you have to measure how many bits fit into a one-peck bucket.

Re:In other news... (1)

solevita (967690) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656628)

Alliteration. I think it was deliberate. Shock news: Editors write headline to catch reader's attention ;)

Re:In other news... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657036)

This is Slashdot. 'Editors write headline' is shock news. 'Editors {any active verb}' is generally considered news.

Re:In other news... (0, Offtopic)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656844)

Sally sells seashells by the seashore

Re:In other news... (0, Offtopic)

YttriumOxide (837412) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656904)

Sally sells seashells by the seashore

Works better with "she"... as in, "She sells seashells by the seashore, the shells she sells are seashore shells I'm sure".

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31657342)

Sea shells see cells by the trillions!

Re:In other news... (1)

Gravitron 5000 (1621683) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657492)

She smells sheep smells by the sheep store.

Re:In other news... (1)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657656)

She sells C-shells by the seashore.

And her prices for bash shells are a ripoff!

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31657686)

If you were going to use a name, the historically accurate version would have to be "Mary" because Mary Anning [wikipedia.org] was the person for which the saying was written (she really did sell sea shells and other things by the sea shore in Lyme Regis). But "Mary" doesn't alliterate, so "She sells seashells..." is how it goes.

Re:In other news... (4, Funny)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656850)

Perchance Pirate Party Private Paper Pillaging Prompts Protests? Perhaps Personal Power Prevails? Private Plutocratic Plundering Prevents Public Performance, People's Participation. Preposterous Proposals Per Privileged Punks!

Re:In other news... (3, Funny)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656926)

Phrase play perceived pleasing? Perhaps.

Precious? Positively!

Pointless? Plainly.

Re:In other news... (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657594)

Pterodactyl.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31657118)

I was thinking exactly the same about the story headline. A tongue twister for the /. crowd. "Pirate Party Pillages Private Papers"

Re:In other news... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657144)

Are all against alliteration? AAAARG!!!!!

Re:In other news... (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657460)

Are all against alliteration? AAAARG!!!!!

No, those of us below the age of 5 find it hilarious.

Re:In other news... (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657866)

There are four year olds on /.? You sure you not an FBI agent?

Re:In other news... (1)

jb_nizet (98713) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657800)

I suffer from stammering, you insensitive clod!

Read into the record. (4, Interesting)

kabloom (755503) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656348)

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.

Re:Read into the record. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31656404)

What a great idea.

Re:Read into the record. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31656618)

They don't hold any seats, they're a joke not a real party.

Re:Read into the record. (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656764)

They do actually have one seat in the european parliment. I've no idea what the european parliments rules on such things are though.

Re:Read into the record. (1, Informative)

pv2b (231846) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656966)

Two seats, not one - ever since the Lisbon Treaty was ratified.

Re:Read into the record. (2, Funny)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657750)

I don't think "Pirate Party Australia" has any seat in the European parliament, nor will they have in the near future.

Re:Read into the record. (1)

pv2b (231846) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656860)

As far as I know, yes - the Pirate Party Australia does not currently hold any seats.

If by "they" you mean the collection Pirate Parties in general, you'll find that Piratpartiet (Sweden) has two Members of European Parliament. That's more than some "established" or "legitimate" political parties in Sweden. ;-) Pretty good for a joke.

Re:Read into the record. (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657018)

Well, to be fair, there hasn't been a (Federal) election since they were formed, so the Australian Pirate Party couldn't really have any seats (by-elections notwithstanding) yet.

Not that I think they WILL get any seats come next election. But still...you never know.

Re:Read into the record. (3, Insightful)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656826)

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:Read into the record. (2, Informative)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656978)

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.

Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

As I recall, SCOTUS has interpreted that to mean legislators have immunity from prosecution for legislative acts; that they don't abuse that right is a sign that they are (sometimes, at least) adults. Of course, Congress could still censure a member if the did something outrageous.

Re:Read into the record. (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657078)

To address the grandparent's comment, remember that immunity from prosecution doesn't mean immunity from political repercussions. It will, for example, be likely to significantly reduce the chance that you will find yourself on any of the influential congressional committees, where the power really lives. It may also result in the party deciding not to back you at the next election (less common in the US, I believe, but in the UK it's not unheard of for the party to decide to run a candidate other than the sitting member).

Re:Read into the record. (2, Interesting)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657260)

At least in the US, the obvious public interest and lack of commercial value would *clearly* trump any potential copyright claim in the document itself in a first amendment analysis.

No sane judge would order this taken down for copyright reasons.

"National security grounds" might be a different story.
My understanding is that our government is attempting to justify the secrecy on these grounds.
But this is obviously complete bullshit...

About time... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31656352)

Glad that someone is finally using government 'tricks' against them - the whole 'catch 22' thing that the PPA have going is making me all fuzzy inside.

Well Played (5, Insightful)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656368)

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.

Re:Well Played (3, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656550)

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 (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656636)

>>>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:Well Played (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31656752)

a) free speech really isn't the law of the land in australia and never has been.

b) i don't really know of any country where libelous speech is protected.

Re:Well Played (3, Insightful)

c-reus (852386) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656922)

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:Well Played (1)

ibwolf (126465) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657886)

Of course, if they try to use libel as a reason to take this down and then later when ACTA documents are published that proves to be a lie, they will have perjured themselves. So that route isn't really feasible unless these documents are in fact fake (or sufficiently obsolete that the eventual ACTA documents will bear only a passing resemblance).

In any case it will be interesting to see what measures (if any) are taken against this publication.

Re:Well Played (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31657502)

Australia doesn't have "free speech." They have limited free political speech due to a court ruling but they do not have "free speech" quantified in law.

Re:Well Played (4, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656864)

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.

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:Well Played (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31656638)

Now that the document is published, is there anything in it that we didn't already suspect or know?

Re:Well Played (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656816)

Well this depends largely of the content of said document and the events surrounding it (context). In this case it will work, in another it might not.

Re:Well Played (1)

Deadstick (535032) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656848)

OK...I shall post a message that you like to set fire to puppies. If you make me take it down, we'll know you do.

rj

Re:Well Played (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31656862)

No... It's a check play. "Checkmate" would be if they had it read into the minutes of the legislatures and parliaments of several of the differing countries in addition to
doing what they're doing now. It makes it clear just precisely what they're up to. As it stands, at least one of my Senators won't be getting my vote as they're
in line with savaging our rights in exchange for "protecting" IP- as evidenced by a stupid form e-mail they sent in reply to my concerns about the overall lack of
transparency they've got in the whole thing. A lack of transparency the US and a few others asked for- which wasn't needed if it was all above board like they're
claiming it is.

Re:Well Played (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656884)

Sometimes a checkmate is really a catch-22. Be careful of your footing when you make a sweeping statement like that.

Re:Well Played (2, Funny)

jmknsd (1184359) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657200)

Well, there is always the option of knocking all of the pieces off the board and throwing a tantrum.

Public Domain NOW! (5, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656386)

The one issue that would make me vote for the Pirate Party when they come to my nation is that they platform on restoring an actual PUBLIC DOMAIN. None of this pretend public domain, if it doesn't expire in my lifetime there is no public domain - there is only lip-service. A period of say 20 years or so: imagine if you could go to any bittorrent site and download any movie, music, book, or software from 1990 or before? And that's not even whats important, whats important is derivative works: say a new movie based on Alien with actual alien characters, plot devices, and characters! These new works would then be eligible for their own copyright and with a well so deep to draw from you can imagine the explosion of works that would result from having a public domain! But of course, we have now, the content industry is hoarding every work to themselves in perpetuity stealing works that could have been right out from under our noses.

Re:Public Domain NOW! (1)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656652)

God. Sequels are bad enough as is. Sequels by every hackneyed wanna-be director makes me just want to cringe.

Of course, I guess it could go the other way too. Some of the cheesy 1990's action films could be redone into really awesome films - Judge Dredd, Demolition Man, and anything with Steven Segall in it.

Berne convention will block this. (4, Informative)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656688)

Countries are bound by an international treaty. shorting copyright is not an option.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works/Articles_1_to_21 [wikisource.org]

article 7:

(1) The term of protection granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty years after his death. ....
(6) The countries of the Union may grant a term of protection in excess of those provided by the preceding paragraph ....
(7) Those countries of the Union bound by the Rome Act of this Convention which grant, in their national legislation in force at the time of signature of the present Act, shorter terms of protection than those provided for in the preceding paragraphs shall have the right to maintain such terms when ratifying or acceding to the present Act.

So by international treaty they can shorten the copyright to the length it was when signing the treaty, or lengthen it arbitrary, but no country can shorten it below the length set in the treaty.

A pirate party is free to discuss this issue, but is almost impossible to make this a law, unless there was a law before the countries signed the Berne convention that limited the length. The only way to do this is a trick: leave Berne convention, set a copyright of 5 years and then join again. I bet this is not a point a minority party can establish.

Re:Berne convention will block this. (2)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656762)

At least you didn't dash my cynicism totally, there is a way out! And it highlights all the MORE reasons that ACTA as law that will impoverish generations to come must be stopped before everyone signs on to it and are then obligated to each other to uphold the stupidity!

Re:Berne convention will block this. (3, Insightful)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656780)

You gave the answer yourself. All it takes is a government with the bollocks to do it. So we are all doomed...

Re:Berne convention will block this. (2, Insightful)

jvkjvk (102057) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657412)

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.

Re:Berne convention will block this. (3, Informative)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657668)

Part (7) says countries can maintain their current length as of the signing date (for US 1987) So there's nothing preventing a roll back to the signing date for each respective country.

Part (8) In any case, the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed; however, unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work.

Is interesting as well.

What's also interesting is that the US adopted the UCC Geneva instead of the Berne in 1955 because the various clauses in the Berne Convention, such as the life of the author clause, were in direct contradiction with US law.

Re:Public Domain NOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31656748)

The one issue that would make me vote for the Pirate Party when they come to my nation is that they platform on restoring an actual PUBLIC DOMAIN. None of this pretend public domain, if it doesn't expire in my lifetime there is no public domain - there is only lip-service. A period of say 20 years or so: imagine if you could go to any bittorrent site and download any movie, music, book, or software from 1990 or before? And that's not even whats important, whats important is derivative works: say a new movie based on Alien with actual alien characters, plot devices, and characters! These new works would then be eligible for their own copyright and with a well so deep to draw from you can imagine the explosion of works that would result from having a public domain! But of course, we have now, the content industry is hoarding every work to themselves in perpetuity stealing works that could have been right out from under our noses.

You've either:

1) Never have read fanfic.

2) Have read (or have written) fanfic, and didn't notice how horrible it is.

Re:Public Domain NOW! (4, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656834)

Interactive media, people can get their Blender Alien models in good shape and with the Free engines the newest "sanctioned" Aliens game would actually have to be really awesome to keep up with the competition. Competition is what content holders are scared of, they don't like the idea that a modern Terminator could be made - you know just in case they happened to maybe cash in on it a bit more in the next eighty (give some decades too) years of government monopoly they already have. Or they could do what they do right now which is ignore all these works while saying: "not yours, fuck off." Gaming wise would stand to see the biggest explosion and you can be sure as shit that is exactly what terrifies content oligarchies of today.

Re:Public Domain NOW! (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657032)

Then again the concept of space marines vs primitive clawed aliens vs high tech aliens isn't really that unique to AvP and with a little creativity you could make a game that's AvP in everything but brand. All I see copyright doing when it comes to things like that is force people to make up their own damn characters and build their own brand.

Re:Public Domain NOW! (5, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657168)

Do you think that in 3000AD I should not be able to say "Aliens!" because whether its a millennium from now or eighty more years I'm still equally dead. Copyright isn't about corporate welfare forever into the future, it's about giving incentive to create. The deal is that in exchange for your limited monopoly after that period it becomes public domain. It has been distorted so far out of line that the public domain has no real meaning anymore - without doing a benefit analysis anywhere along the way other than "more copyright is good!" I think that more culture outweighs more copyright - that's how we make other people more like us. They made their profit with their limited monopoly now they want to renege on the other side of the deal? That's theft. Funny content industry is doing exactly what they accuse others of doing.

Re:Public Domain NOW! (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657488)

The word "aliens" is a trademark in this case, limiting copyrights has no bearing on that.

Anyway, I'm just pointing out that the benefits of PDing a lot of commercial stuff aren't as big as some people assume.

Re:Public Domain NOW! (2, Interesting)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657682)

I disagree. Not that there shouldn't be any copyright but that I disagree that the only voices that are heard are copyright maximalists and their voice is taken as gospel by government. It would take a fool to think that anyone is looking out for their best interests. What I am advocating is going with the spirit of the original deal not subvert it away through back-room deals until it doesn't have any meaning anymore. Are we a culture of jackals seeking to maximize everything for ourself? Or a people vibrant in evangelizing our ideas to every corner of this world?

Re:Public Domain NOW! (1)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656756)

A period of say 20 years or so: imagine if you could go to any bittorrent site and download any movie, music, book, or software from 1990 or before?

I think 20 years is a bit too short nowadays with videos and such easily stretching back that far. I would go 30 years, but that's my opinion. Highway to Hell, Who's Next & IV would all be free of copyright restrictions and I can wait a few more years until Appetite for Destruction is loose.

And that's not even whats important, whats important is derivative works: say a new movie based on Alien with actual alien characters, plot devices, and characters

Fan fiction based in the universes of Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Porter and the like is great, but obviously the owners of the franchises are not going to go hunting down their own fanbase (leave that to the MAFIAA)because of stories which are generally dicey at best. They do *OWN* the franchise after all and they have the right to make sure the franchise does not fail. Would I WANT to see a movie based on a derivative work of Alien? I have no problem with companies still controlling the franchises and having control over the works released under their banner but their older works released to the public.

Re:Public Domain NOW! (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656902)

Here's where a public domain benefits everyone: derivative works have their own copyright. They also have the legal right - not something that can be pulled out from under them on the whim of an "owner" - to make their own profit. I am absolutely convinced that the total new profits from public domain material would dwarf the profits pulled in by a few in Hollywood right now. The problem Hollywood has with it is that they wouldn't own every single penny. And as Citizens with public domain our culture: what we persuade the rest of the world with would also explode. None of that matters right now, its all about keeping every penny in as few pockets as possible. Even if that means that in total there is only a fraction of a penny for one compared to a vast wealth for many more.

Re:Public Domain NOW! (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656940)

Sorry, missed a close italics tag after "their own profit.."!

Re:Public Domain NOW! (2, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657112)

> I think 20 years is a bit too short nowadays with videos and such easily
> stretching back that far.

The point is to give authors a financial incentive to create works, not to make sure that they are able to extract every conceivable nickle of revenue from every work. Twenty years is quite long enough to make an author glad he wrote the thing.

Re:Public Domain NOW! (2, Interesting)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657246)

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.

Re:Public Domain NOW! (2, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657356)

Use it or lose it is an idea that deserves exploration. As long as token measures like "re-issuing a limited edition" and parlor tricks like that didn't count as "using" it I'm actually open to the idea. If you make Terminator 17 and all of them along the way have made enough profit that you'll be making a Terminator 18... It would still accomplish the goal of releasing the majority of works into a public domain where everyone would have a fair deal and shot at the tapestry of culture. What I'm looking at is an explosion in culture and "Use it or Lose it" could fit with that too.

Re:Public Domain NOW! (1)

zobier (585066) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657520)

FUCK THE MAFIAA!

Re:Public Domain NOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31657524)

"But of course, we have now, the content industry is hoarding every work to themselves in perpetuity stealing works that could have been right out from under our noses."

It's not like they are "stealing" works (although in the terminology that copyright maximalists regularly use, maybe it is), it is more like they are staking a claim in some new territory and walling it off to prevent anyone else from using it without their permission. They're making property out of something that wasn't *specifically* owned previously, although you could as equally argue that it belonged to everyone before (i.e. the commons). The truth, of course, is that genuinely "virgin" territory hasn't existed in millenia, and they're laying their claims on top of a palimpsest [wikipedia.org] as if no idea has ever been present there before. It's a huge, permanent land grab.

Re:Public Domain NOW! (0)

brit74 (831798) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657842)

The Pirate Party is bad because they want to make everything public domain - a pretty extreme overreaction, don't you think? Additionally, while I agree with shorter copyright limits, one could make the argument that infinitely-long copyrights are better for society than no copyrights. How is that possible? Because the fact that the public has to pay for something doesn't render it valueless (it's not like copyrighted-material is only valuable when it reaches the public domain), and without copyrights, there is no good economic model for the production of a lot of new work. (Just think of all the copyrighted software that you've bought, and got value from. The fact that you didn't get it for free doesn't mean it was worthless.) Now, I'm not arguing for long copyrights, I disagree with them. I'm just arguing that the whole Pirate Party idea of eliminating copyright is worse than what we've got.

Logo (3, Funny)

MrTripps (1306469) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656536)

They should replace that flag logo with a kangaroo wearing an eye patch. Maybe have a koala on its shoulder instead of a parrot.

What a world (4, Funny)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656558)

In this parallel universe, the Pirates are the good guys!

What about Ninja's? (4, Informative)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656700)

Who do you think gave them these documents eh? Right... nobody... nobody sees the Ninja!

Re:What about Ninja's? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657154)

nobody sees the Ninja!

Two Words .... Chuck Norris!

Re:What a world (2, Funny)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656792)

Not only *good*, the pirates are some of the chosen few touched by his noodly appendage, which would make them the equivalent of *saints*!!! http://www.venganza.org/ [venganza.org] .

I agree with their motives... (2, Interesting)

Tsian (70839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656682)

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:I agree with their motives... (3, Insightful)

bbqsrc (1441981) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656888)

It has been in discussion for two years, isn't two years long enough?

Re:I agree with their motives... (3, Insightful)

Diss Champ (934796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656900)

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:I agree with their motives... (1)

Tsian (70839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656980)

Though I certainly think that the ACTA treaty does not qualify, can you not imagine any instances where it might be necessary for a government to debate something in secret?

Are there issues where the public at large should trust their elected officials to make the decisions which best suit the needs of a populace as a whole? Are there perhaps situations where the populace as a whole knowing might lead to worse decisions being made? I'm honestly not sure as to the answer to these questions, but I do think that there are probably issues (for example pertaining to national security and military intelligence -- again, both areas into which I do not think ACTA falls) where the populace as a whole is best served by not being informed.

The point of debate is certainly to discuss -- that isn't the issue... the question is how wide an audience should participate in the discussion.

Re:I agree with their motives... (1)

bbqsrc (1441981) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657026)

I don't think the argument is against governments being able to privately discuss and debate legalities without public scrutiny. The argument is that once the government has had enough time to develop an argument to present to the public, why should that argument remain secret? How will that benefit their constituents?

Re:I agree with their motives... (1)

Jer (18391) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657122)

Are there issues where the public at large should trust their elected officials to make the decisions which best suit the needs of a populace as a whole? Are there perhaps situations where the populace as a whole knowing might lead to worse decisions being made?

In a perfect system, where politicians have only the best interest of the country at heart I'd agree with you.

We don't get perfection, unfortunately.

The handful of areas where better decisions might be reached by keeping things secret from the public are dwarfed by the massive number of areas where worse decisions will ultimately be reached by keeping things secret. Without knowing what's being discussed, we can't know which category it falls into.

So you're forced into either trusting the politicians to be good gatekeepers and trust their judgment to know which ones should rightly be kept secret and which ones should be openly debated, or you choose not to trust them at all and realize that some bad decisions are going to be made in a handful of cases to have the transparency you need to have a government run by the people, for the people.

Given that the selection process for politicians is not, in any country that I know of, actually done on the basis of their merit as intelligent decision makers who are able to navigate those kinds of ethical/moral quandaries (and is more often based on their aptitude at running a political campaign or what political party they belong to, neither of which really selects well for "governing qualities"), it seems like it would be better to err on the side of transparency, and allow that we're going to occasionally get some sub-optimal decisions in exchange for knowing what the hell our government is actually doing in our name. Since it's our government we really have the duty to watch it. And, frankly, whenever we stop watching it and trust it that's usually when the REALLY GODDAMN BAD decisions seem to get made in secret...

Re:I agree with their motives... (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657346)

Though I certainly think that the ACTA treaty does not qualify, can you not imagine any instances where it might be necessary for a government to debate something in secret?

Good thing ACTA has nothing to do with any nation's military operations or classified military projects, otherwise you might have had a good point.

Re:I agree with their motives... (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657042)

Because it is up for debate amongst a group trying to reach consensus before they present the agreed upon result to the everyone else.

Sure you can argue that that is a stupid idea in the first place, but the point of debate is for a group to reach consensus not to convince everyone else/get input from everyone else.

This makes much more sense in the Australian tradition of voting along party lines than in the US where it isn't the norm for everyone to vote with their party.

Doesn't make it a good thing of course.

Re:I agree with their motives... (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657236)

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:I agree with their motives... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31657434)

But restrictions on public discussion are precisely the problem.
Keeping some specific details of, say, national security matters might be appropriate for a representative government, but not something like this.
The oppressive, secretive process being engaged in by all the governments that are parties to this mess cannot be allowed to stand.
That's a matter of principle, and has nothing to do with the end results.

Re:I agree with their motives... (2)

redhog (15207) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657872)

If your country restricts the discussion (free speech) for its citizen of issues currently being discussed by its parliament, it can not have much of a democracy.

Democracy means holding politicians responsible towards the people for their actions and opinions.

Yes but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31656778)

\This document must be protected from ~:~~:~:~~::;~:~~~u~n~l~s~ed e-mail or fax, discussed ovcrunsecured phonelines,andstoredonunelassified computer systems. It must be stored in a ~~~tOrsecuredbuilding. room,or cabinet.

But PPAU still need your membership! (it's FREE) (5, Informative)

tick-tock-atona (1145909) | more than 4 years ago | (#31656870)

Please, if you're an Australian citizen and are concerned at all about ACTA, the Australian internet filter, ridiculous software patents and Big Media's stranglehold on copyright laws then join the Pirate Party Australia [pirateparty.org.au] !

They only need a few more members to be able to officially register as a political party and it's now FREE TO JOIN! Just print out the form, sign it, scan/photograph it, email it in and be part of the solution.

Re:But PPAU still need your membership! (it's FREE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31657132)

Just print out the form, sign it, scan/photograph it, email it in and be part of the solution.

Why such a convoluted joining process? Why not just fill out a web form and press submit, see Aussie reference http://austlii.edu.au/~alan/electronic-signatures.html [austlii.edu.au]

Re:But PPAU still need your membership! (it's FREE (2, Informative)

bbqsrc (1441981) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657238)

The Australian Electoral Commission does not allow this. They're a tad archaic.

Don't Join the Pirate Party (1)

brit74 (831798) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657916)

The Pirate Party isn't fighting for responsible copyright laws, they want to gut the whole thing. It's an extreme overreaction that gives us a system that's *worse* than the current system. I'd support an organization that was more moderate on these issues. The Pirate Party is anything but moderate. Count me as one vote against the the Pirate Party's ridiculous "system".

It's sad.... (5, Insightful)

ma1wrbu5tr (1066262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657532)

that world governments can't seem to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, or end the diamond trade related genocides in Africa, but let big business whine about "potentially lost profits" and it's "World Leaders To The Rescue" Da.. Da.. DAAAA! Fucking disgusting. Let's hope ACTA turns out better for the little guy than the US's InuranceCompanyCareReformBill.

Can you say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31657630)

Yarrr ....
Did ya' know that "ok" is an old sailor acronym for "all correct."

How about lying? (2, Insightful)

brit74 (831798) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657680)

"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."

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:How about lying? (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657814)

Wouldn't be a problem if ACTA wasn't a secret.

Re:How about lying? (1)

fibonacci8 (260615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657860)

Then it could be published as a work of fiction, allowing the author to copyright it.

Re:How about lying? (1)

redhog (15207) | more than 4 years ago | (#31657908)

Then they'd have to prove that it is a lie.

Also, several international NGOs have reviewed the document and attested that it seems to be the real thing, given correspondence to previously leaked chapters, the style of writing the stakeholders and other information in the document.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?