by West70 29 Replies latest jw friends
I came up with a similar idea for a website and am willing to claim a domain name and pay the hosting. Because I have limited time, I will only set up this website where committed members will answer the question of the visitors. I am in the ability of setting up a CMS where the members can easily answer the questions and add new tags or categories. Whoever is interested can use the contact form on my website. Mails will be answered after Christmas.
Rado Vleugel
"WWW.WATCHTOWERSAYS.CRAP"
I think that, by using the name WATCHTOWER in the name, you're making the first mistake, but I could be wrong.
I would like to see a site similar to quotes, except that it is a repository of scans. Actual scanned WT and AWAKE and Publications. NO CD-ROM data.
If they are initially tagged with relevant information correctly, they should show up at the top of every search engine.
I am willing to work on this with someone.
-ithinkisee
Legal point #1: If your site is CLEARLY offering criticism—even if you are using their own words to critique their words, you are not breaking the fair use laws (which are more lax in the U.S.) so long as you are not profitting from the use. However, that doesn't keep them from suing you and tying up your resources in a protracted Intellectual Property suit.
Legal point #2: If your site is hosted in a specific country, you are sued under that country's laws.
Legal point #3: Many countries are extremely lax in their interpretation of "fair use," to the point that they will not even hear cases that do not grossly exceed understood meanings of the terms.
Legal point #4: In order to file suit against the owner of a Web site, you would first have to know who the owner is.
West70, you have a PM.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
ithinkisee,
It's coming. They have opened a can of worms they never meant to open. If they knew what was good for them, they would issue a formal apology and give Quotes his site back.
But, when have they ever known what was good for them? They surely know how to polarize people against them. Its the persecution complex.
JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, WT MONITORS—You are about to be VERY persecuted, but it won't be because you are Christians. You don't carry the message carried in the First Century. You haven't EVER been persecuted for the sake of Christ's name, you don't even carry his name ON you. You carry Jehovah's name. But you aren't even persecuted because of his name.
You are persecuted because you expect to wage Theocratic WARfare without a battle in response, then you gnash your teeth when you meet resistance.
Theocracy means rule by Theo Jaracz. I'm certain the double-meaning is not lost on him. Your persecution is coming because you reject the law of Christ while keeping the traditions of men set forth in Acts 15. Your persecution is coming because you have put trust in the sons of earthling men. As you will soon discover, they cannot save you.
AuldSoul
The more anti watchtower websites there are the better it is. Fortunately the WTS has done all it could to deter their R&F from putting up websites that promote their points of view so the anti WTS sites predominate by far.
They say that having that one official site is enough but in fact they fear that the R&F will soon find the truth about the WTS if they begin arguing on the net.
How about your sever being in Sealand,which claims independence.
Sealand is very, very expensive, I looked into it. It was thousands a month as I recall.
Kwin
Badboy,
How about your sever being in Sealand,which claims independence.
Good idea, until you see how much they charge for hosting!!
AuldSoul,
Legal point #1: If your site is CLEARLY offering criticism—even if you are using their own words to critique their words, you are not breaking the fair use laws (which are more lax in the U.S.) so long as you are not profitting from the use. However, that doesn't keep them from suing you and tying up your resources in a protracted Intellectual Property suit.
I think that's why Quotes threw in the towel: despite not offering criticism, he had a sound legal case. But not the resources to sustain a long legal challenge. WT knew this and, like any bully, used their financial strength to crush him. Yet again, might won out over right.
Legal point #2: If your site is hosted in a specific country, you are sued under that country's laws.
So far as I have been able to research, only three countries in the world do not have ANY copyright laws: Bhutan, Ethiopia and Nepal. I may be wrong: anyone care to check?
Legal point #3: Many countries are extremely lax in their interpretation of "fair use," to the point that they will not even hear cases that do not grossly exceed understood meanings of the terms.
This sound worth checking further.
Legal point #4: In order to file suit against the owner of a Web site, you would first have to know who the owner is.
There are many foreign web hosting companies who operate a policy of 'what we don't know, we can't tell.' You register only with a username and password. They will register your chosen domain name (including .com and .org domains, often at extremely competitive prices!) using their own name as a proxy.
The weak point, though, is the payment system. Since 9/11 es[ecially, it's virtually impossible to make anonymous online payments. There was one system called eGold, but it's US-based and last week was raided by a combined team of FBI and Secret Service agents.
I did say 'virtually impossible,' because it is possible, but only really feasible for the mega-rich who can afford the luxury of anonymity. For a (substantial!) price, you can obtain anonymous credit cards, etc. But even they leave a paper trail.
I think one of the most promising options is to look for a web hosting company in an Islamic country where JWs are not only banned (a banned organization can't exactly raise a court action for breach of copyright) but actively persecuted, and which has ineffectual and unenforced copyright laws. Are there any promising candidates?
AMEN,BROTHER!
