Copyrighted material filed in a court case is subject to law and regulation governing public access to court filings. According to the Kansas court clerk that issue is under study by the US Court of Administration along with a slew other digital documentation formats. The defense in Edwards is not to be believed due to its aim to try the case in public with its fiings, press releases, ridicule of the plaintiff, editing of the Citizenfour transcript, filing the DVDs, pretending to be sane as if that could ever be applied to the press-entertainment industry (nor to the national security industry). The article cited by Doug is one of several which have been induced to play advocate for the Snowden melodrama in accord with the Snowden campaign's media initiative wholly based on PR stunts from the very beginning and continuing. This is what seduces the media to join in, for Snowden shrewdly understood that seducing the press into boosting itself out of its current downturn is Faustian but necessary to combat the Faustian deal media has made with consitutional privilege (of which copyright a weapon). Braying about copyright (and natsec) is a standard tool for protecting excessively overvalued property to justify privilege for control of information. Copyright is kissing cousin of official secrecy and they incest, feed one another. Edwards v. Snowden is an informative contest between those two golden cow, sacred cow, bloated leviathans, mirroring the Snowden affair itself. Watch for more methanic bias and bloviation from both sides. At 07:29 AM 3/4/2015, you wrote:
Yeah, posting movies online without consent of the copyright holder is a copyright infringement.---------- PÅ¯vodnÃ zprÃ¡va ---------- Od: doug <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx> Komu: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Datum: 4. 3. 2015 11:11:04 PÅedmÄt: [cryptome] Re: Edwards v Snowden: Copyright & Public Domain IssuesFurther to the copyright and public domain issues raised by this case...see url below.Quote<<<February 14, 2015: Cryptome, a site that posts hacker documents and that sort of thing, incorrectly assumes that, because the film was entered as evidence, it has entered the public domain and is free for anyone to use. Cryptome posts two copies of the full film for download on its website.Defense provided 2 DVDs of Citizenfour as exhibit in Edwards suit. So film in public domain as unsealed record. On HBO 2/23/15. Leaking $. Cryptome (@Cryptomeorg) <https://twitter.com/Crypttomeorg/status/566616227582582785>February 14, 2015"I personally doubt this use of the film would avoid copyright infringement of uses of the film that were not otherwise fair, eg, comment on legal issues pertaining to the film," Jerome Reichman, a professor at Duke University's Center for the Study of the Public Domain, told me.In other words, you can probably download and watch the film to comment on whether or not this lawsuit has any merit. Edwards and Lamfers, therefore, have, by filing this lawsuit, perhaps indirectly exposed classified information to more people. In any case, there are now easy-to-access, direct download links to the film.>>>end of quoteOn 04/03/15 09:53, doug wrote:see url: <http://motherboard.vice.com/read/everything-about-the-edward-snowden--citizenfour-lawsuit-is-batshit-crazy>http://motherboard.vice.com/read/everything-about-the-edward-snowden--citizenfour-lawsuit-is-batshit-crazyA nice timeline and a far better resume than mine... ATB Dougie.