Has Wikileaks Violated Copyright Law? Why Isn't it Punished?, page 1

Has Wikileaks Violated Copyright Law? Why Isn't it Punished?, page

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 6-8-2010 @ 09:28 PM by Liberal1984

When on ATS you publish too much of others people work, you become guilty of plagiarism-Copyright Infringement. But if your Wikileaks and publishes 19,000 Pentagon documents, wikileaks.org... without even removing names-other damaging details, then you’re guilty of nothing?

Copyright law seems pretty strict about copying without permission www.copyrightservice.co.uk... But only on Thursday did the Pentagon formerly ask Wikileaks to delete the documents,
english.aljazeera.net...
Naturally Wikileaks has yet to do the right thing!!

My Thoughts About Wikileaks…
When I first heard Wikileaks had released the “Afghan War Diary” reports presumed it would be another Pentagon Papers en.wikipedia.org... where the publics hero(s) actually took the time to read-understand the top secrets documents they were leaking. The New York Times actually used a dedicated team to process Daniel Ellsberg’s information.

As it is, many Afghans who (for one reason or another) who helped provide the U.S with valuable information against the Taliban presence, are now either dead, or due to be –or a refugee. www.smh.com.au...
This makes the Leakers as bad as anyone guilty of the most complacent manslaughter.

I say: The Pentagon needs to make a valid effort to find anyone injured or harmed as a direct result of Wikileaks lack of name editing. That once found, the victim(s) should be granted legal aid, so that they may sue Wikileaks for every possession it has.

I just hope the Lefties dominating (the whole DemoRep establishment) aren’t publicity shy of fighting manslaughter? Cos if that’s the reason for a lack of action, then shame on them!

reply posted on 6-8-2010 @ 09:40 PM by Zaxxon

"Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."

www.copyright.gov...

reply posted on 7-8-2010 @ 08:18 PM by Liberal1984

although it may protect the way these things are expressed

But that’s my point!!
Wikileaks has reproduced military reports, not turned them into their own report. Has even the e.g. format, wording or even print been changed?
It might seem like nit picking, but U.S courts are world famous for giving attention to legal detail-technicality.

Closer attention, to obeying copyright law, could force WakiLeakers into actually reading secret documents, before-if publishing them (since it’s kinda hard not to read something if you need to use it in your Own work).
If Wakileakers had read what they distributed, then maybe some of the Taliban’s “enemies” wouldn’t be in mortal danger? Then we'd having nothing but praise for their public service. Instead I believe this website is a public threat, the type that's immorally, irresponsible.

reply posted on 7-8-2010 @ 08:36 PM by Chamberf=6

Wikileaks gave the origin of the material though. That's what made it credible, too.
Not every single thing in writing is copyrighted.
Would you then argue that the early leaks of Project Blue Book were copyright infringement?

BTW I don't agree that Wikileaks shedding some light on the true things going on was immoral. Just the opposite. If a person or entity knows that what they do is watched over, they act more responsibly and morally, in general.

[edit on 7/8/2010 by Chamberf=6]

reply posted on 7-8-2010 @ 08:46 PM by misinformational

reply to post by Liberal1984

I say: The Pentagon needs to make a valid effort to find anyone injured or harmed as a direct result of Wikileaks lack of name editing. That once found, the victim(s) should be granted legal aid, so that they may sue Wikileaks for every possession it has.

The Pentagon was afforded the opportunity to remove any names within the Afghan War docs prior to their release, they declined:

“Prior to our release of the documents, we approached the US authority and asked to check the document so that they can take care of their agents, but they told us they have no interest,” he said. “We are no more responsible than the US government which says that they are not interested in removing the names. It is very unfortunate. We did our absolute best to minimize any possible harm that was there.”

Source: 234next.com... (good article for those interested.

reply posted on 10-8-2010 @ 03:02 AM by spiritualzombie

This is exactly what is playing out right now:
U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks, 18 Mar 2008
wikileaks.org...

reply posted on 11-8-2010 @ 09:13 PM by Liberal1984

I didn’t know the Pentagram had been given the opportunity to edit these documents (ABC only mentioned the danger the documents posed to informants!).

I guess they were reluctant to hire someone to do the job of Wakileaks? Even so, it only means the Pentagram shares in the blood of its employees. To wakileaks defenders I just ask: How much reading someone’s life worth? If someone can answer that, then maybe they can explain why Wakileaks wasn’t in the wrong!!

But nothing above affects the lack, of information processing, originality, present in the Wakileak’s reproduction of government work.

Pages: ^^TOP^^