[LINK] wikileaks back

[Tom Koltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Jan Whitaker
> Sent: Saturday, 4 December 2010 11:07 AM
> To: Link list
> Subject: Re: [LINK] wikileaks back
> 
> 
> At 10:55 AM 4/12/2010, Kim Holburn wrote:
> >As for Amazon, it certainly was interesting.  They haven't said
> >exactly what it was that wikileaks had done.  They hosted the 
> >collateral murder leaks on their cloud without issues.
> >
> >http://www.fastcompany.com/1707262/why-lieberman-had-nothing-
> to-do-with
> >-amazon-dropping-wikileaks
> 
> Someone mentioned that Amazon did it on copyright grounds. AFAIK, 
> that doesn't hold water either. I don't think the US Govt retains 
> copyright the way Australia does for 'the crown'. Since government 
> generated stuff is paid by tax payers, tax payers own it. US govt 
> info is generally free, particularly if electronic and no 
> cost for printing.
> 
> A work of the United States government, as defined by 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law>United 
> States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee 
> of the 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United
> _States>U.S. 
> government as part of that person's official 
> duties."<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work
> _by_the_U.S._government#cite_note-0>[1] 
> The term only applies to the work of the federal government, 
> including the governments of "non-organized territorial areas" under 
> the jurisdiction of the U.S 
> Government,<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_w
> ork_by_the_U.S._government#cite_note-206.02e-1>[2] 
> but not state or local governments. In general, under section 105 of 
> the Copyright 
> Act,<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_
> the_U.S._government#cite_note-17usc105-2>[3] 
> such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under 
> U.S. law, sometimes referred to as "noncopyright." The act only 
> speaks about domestic copyright. The USA can still hold the copyright 
> of those works in other 
> countries.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_wo
> rk_by_the_U.S._government#cite_note-3>[4] 
> 
> 
> Amazon is in the US, so except for their UK offices, would have no 
> copyright considerations in the US itself.
> 
> There are Exemptions: 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U
.S._government#Exemptions
>These are mainly US owned companies, like the Postal Service.
>
>Jan

One has to wonder how the Australian Government, paid for the taxpayers
and elected by same, has the ability to claim copyright on work created
by Government employees (or contractors)and paid for by the Government
purse.

Copyrighted Toilet Database indeed...

Possibly there was no Getup or EFF activity when the legislation was
slipped through the back door.

Removal of said "Government Copyright" would be an important step
towards Open Government and win back some of the credibility lost by our
Politicians during the Howard years.
 
Tomk