[cryptome] Re: Edwards v Snowden: Copyrig ht & Public Domain Issues
- From: John Young <jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 08:07:40 -0500
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.
---------- Původnà zpráva ----------
Od: doug <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Komu: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Datum: 4. 3. 2015 11:11:04
PÅedmÄt: [cryptome] Re: Edwards v Snowden: Copyright & Public Domain Issues
Further 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 quote
On 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-crazy
A nice timeline and a far better resume than mine...
ATB
Dougie.
Other related posts:
- » [cryptome] Re: Edwards v Snowden: Copyrig ht & Public Domain Issues - John Young
