Portions of any work that are quoted are reproduced on the basis of the "fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review" section 41 of the Copyright Act 1968.
let's look at the Australian Copyright Council's fact sheet on Fair Use:
The Federal Court has stated that “criticism and review” involves making a judgment of the material concerned, or of the underlying ideas. Criticism and review may be strongly expressed, and may be expressed humorously, and need not be balanced. The defence can apply where the criticism or review takes place in a commercial context, such as in published books or newspapers or on commercial television.
However, the court emphasised that the purpose of criticism or review must be genuine. If the person has other motives – especially if these motives involve using the material to make a profit, or using a competitor’s material to
divert customers from the competitor – the fact that they have also engaged in a form of criticism or review is not
enough to prevent the use from infringing copyright
All other content on this site is copyright Iain Hall and may not be reproduced in any form with out explicit permission of the author.
Anyone who comments at the Sandpit under a pseudonym does so on the clear understanding that by doing so they are giving any and all rights and ownership of those comments to the site-owner who may reproduce them in any form or at any other site or venue entirely at his own discretion.
Hero. Look at No justice for Bradley Manning by Charles Davis.
Recognise that military justice, anywhere, is about as far from justice as this blog is.
I wonder what the defacto Minister for Defence Sax, has got to say about that comment. Shalom
I think that is a bit harsh Lin.
I think this blog, and more importantly its owner, is pretty even handed. That’s why I came here, and not some of the other rags around.
The military, to all that haven’t served, is an institution that can be hard to understand. Hell, I spent a couple of decades living it, and still came out with massive questions as to how some things work ? It has a weird sense of tradition, law, and most of all, bloody minded logic. That was Australian military too, as for the American military, a whole different kettle of fish.
As for the case above, he would have had to sign a confidentiality clause, when he entered. As to whether or not that clause justifies not releasing the above video (which btw has been around for a while), is a judgement call. He made that call, and unfortunately has to live with the consequences.
The most imortant matter here is, and what is foremost in my mind is ?
The press agencies, the television news services that scored points showing, and critiquing the video when they got it, now have a responsibility I think, to go in and bat for the young man. If they actually have the guts to do that, is the only question left unanswered.
The young man has a tough road ahead of him, unless he gets a massive groundswell of civivy support.
As to whether he gets that, is up to the networks, who profited from the vision, have the guts, to rally that support on his behalf ? Personally, I think they will let him down. After all, they have their vision, and will probably leave the young man swinging.
Malcontent, so traitor. If he’d been a whistle-blower, alerting the US Government or the world to crimes being committed I’d give him some respect. But his story seems to be just one of being unprofessional in his role, sitting behind the safety of a desk – bored – and like the girl no one wants to dance with he “put out” just to get some attention.
The US Army holds some responsibility too for allowing these nincompoops to act with minimal oversight. Manning has just had the misfortune to be the one caught – or stupid enough to leak.
Actually Lin I think that the Al Jezerra piece is rather unbalanced and suggesting that Manning was acting on some sort of high principle is something of a projection from the author of the piece. The sheer volume of data that he stole suggests that he was far less concerned with any particular er, “indiscretion” of the US military or governemnt than that.To steal that much data suggests the hacker’s motivation to me, he did it because he could and once he had taken it he really did not think that much about the consequences to those named in the documents, his country or fro that matter the consequences that he now faces.
now that is a far more balanced report than the one that you have cited
Have it your own way Iain.
I don’t tend to always believe the establishment’s view of a preliminary hearing after only two days. I’m particularly troubled by this passage in your quoted report—
Just in case you’re still out on your limb, Iain, you might want your readers to think about this article from The Independent, a UK newspaper.
I’m sure that anyone can find other opinions about how this case has destroyed the future for whistleblowers. Those ordinary people who don’t have the support of such as Wikileaks, just the support of users of Queensland Health Services and the like.
The last paragraph of The Independant article is at the heart of the issue. US authorities are responsible for the intelligence disaster. Pte Manning is a sworn member of the US military. He appears to have failed in his duties and a trial will now try and decide the reason why. If he is ideologically opposed to keeping secrets and the offical protocol for their eventual release he shouldn’t have joined the army.