by Simon 217 Replies latest forum announcements
Thanks, Shepherd, for this info. Welcome to the Forum!
Are Ronald L. Slater and Gregory Allen Bethelites? What department do they work in? Are they at Patterson? Just curious.
Edited:
Just found this:
http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/12563-ny-ronald-slater-629057.html
Gregory Allen is mentioned here:
http://www.jw-media.org/aze/20100310.htm
So, if Shepherd is correct, let me be the first to say hello to Brothers Slater and Allen!
I'll add one more thing.
Shepherd is right that the book is all over the Internet. Try doing a search for
2010_ks10-E.pdf
and you'll see what I mean.
Shepherd wrote,
"Ronald L. Slater or Gregory Allen, the two who are monitoring this site and sending out the DMCA notices from Bethel,"
Be interesting to call Patterson about this.
Oh god, was I off the mark thinkin the whole internet could be shut down.
@shepherd:
You are completely wrong, however, if you think posting a third-party link is illegal - it is not. Let me repeat that - it is not illegal to post a link to a third party site, even a file hosting site.... This is BS, it will not and can not happen simply because someone posts some links. DMCA targets the site HOSTING the files.
I don't BS and I never stutter. My purpose in contributing to this thread was to give @Simon information that might protect this website and nothing more. I think Jehovahs-Witness.net to be a good place for folks to vent and receive the help they need to regain their bearings or their senses should they be in fade or disfellowshipped or have a disassociated status, for many others, feeling alone and cut off from their family and former friendships with Jehovah's Witnesses, have questions, but may be too embarrassed or angry to speak to anyone, and some have contemplated suicide, whereas here they learn that they can speak anonymously about their feelings.
I really don't want to see this site suddenly disappear because that could prove to be devastating to so many, especially to the regulars here who have developed many cyber friendships here and are still working through their issues. (Although I do not post comments to every thread, I have read many of the posts on this site.) You're giving bad advice here, and my hope is that @Simon ignores your advice, which is a choice that only he can make. If by knocking the advice I have given here you are seeking glory from posters to this site, I have no problem with that, but I have made clear in this thread what my motivation is. I can tell you -- and I do tell you -- that what I've received here from many of the posters to this thread is contempt, whose posts @Lady Lee has gratefully removed. You can have the glory.
I realize that most of you here are not lawyers, but I would like everyone here, including @shepherd, to read the following excepts (the URLs from which each were taken are provided) so that you might better understand the point I have made and am making here. Not one of you is my client and I am now advising anyone here of anything in my professional capacity, but I won't describe what you will be reading, except to point out to you that these excerpts are from a Utah case, filed in 1999 and decided in 2000, involving URLs that led to a Mormon handbook that the Mormon church had not authorized to be uploaded to the hosting website nor downloaded over the internet by anyone using a URL link or URL reference to the hosting website in an email.
Having said this, I've appended to this post two (2) excerpts from the transcripts made from two separate court proceedings.
@djeggnog
http://www.utlm.org/underthecoveroflight/transcripts/statusconference111899.htm
THE COURT: OKAY.MR. BARNARD: THE THREE U.R.L.'S THAT WERE IN THE E-MAIL THAT CAUSED THE REQUEST IN THE SECOND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, OF THOSE THREE U.R.L.'S, ONE OF THOSE IS IN AUSTRALIA, AND THERE'S SERIOUS QUESTION ABOUT THE EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF U.S. COPYRIGHTS.
WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER TWO U.R.L.'S, THEY ARE APPARENTLY U.R.L.'S HERE IN THE UNITED STATES. WITH REGARD TO THOSE, WE GET INTO WHAT CONSTITUTES CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT, AND WHETHER OR NOT SIMPLY GIVING AN ADDRESS--NOT A LINK, BUT SIMPLY GIVING AN ADDRESS OF A U.R.L. CONSTITUTES CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT. SO WITH REGARD TO AUSTRALIA WE'RE SIMPLY DEALING WITH ONE OF THOSE U.R.L.'S.
THE COURT: TELL ME THEN, JUST FOCUSING ON THE U.R.L.'S HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, HOW DO YOU--HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE CASE LAW THAT SEEMS TO SAY THAT CONTRIBUTING OR ENCOURAGING PARTIES TO READ THE INFRINGING MATERIAL OR TO PARTAKE OF THE INFRINGING MATERIAL IS SUFFICIENT?
MR. BARNARD: WELL, THE FIRST CASE THAT DEALT WITH CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT IS THE GERSHWIN CASE. AND THE CASES THAT HAVE COME SINCE THEN SAY THAT FOR A PERSON TO BE GUILTY OF CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT, THEY MUST KNOW THAT THE MATERIAL IS INFRINGING, AND THEY MUST SUBSTANTIALLY OR MATERIALLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE ACT OF INFRINGEMENT. AND THAT'S THE CRUX. IT'S TO THE ACT OF INFRINGEMENT.
THE ACT OF INFRINGEMENT IS WHOEVER CREATED THOSE U.R.L.'S, AND PUT THE HANDBOOK ON THE WEB SITE, THOSE PEOPLE MAY WELL HAVE COMMITTED PRIMARY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT BY DOING THAT. THEY'VE REPRODUCED THE DOCUMENT. THEY PUT IT ON THERE. THEY MAY WELL HAVE THAT--HAVE COMMITTED THAT PRIMARY INFRINGEMENT.
THE NEXT QUESTION THEN IS HAVE MY CLIENTS MATERIALLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY CONTRIBUTED TO THAT INFRINGING ACT. THE ANSWER IS NO. MY CLIENTS DO NOT KNOW THE THREE PEOPLE THAT HAVE PUT UP THOSE WEB SITES. MY CLIENTS HAVE NOT HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THEM; HAVE NOT IN ANY WAY ENCOURAGED THEM TO ENGAGE IN THAT INFRINGING ACT.
NOW, IF WE LOOK AT IT FROM THE OTHER STANDPOINT, THE WEB USERS OR THE BROWSERS THAT GO LOOKING FOR THIS, INFORMATION, IF THEY CALL UP THAT WEB SITE--THEY USE THE U.R.L., THEY CALL UP THE WEB SITE AND THEY SEE THAT INFORMATION ON THE WEB SITE, THAT IS NOT--IT'S OUR POSITION INITIALLY THAT SIMPLY VIEWING INFRINGING MATERIAL ON A WEB SITE IS NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
THE COURT: AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BY THAT ARGUMENT THEN, MR. BARNARD, IS YOUR CLIENTS' ACTIVITY IS LIMITED SOLELY TO ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO READ INFRINGING MATERIAL, WHICH IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT AN INFRINGING ACTIVITY?
MR. BARNARD: AT THE WORST, THAT'S RIGHT. OUR POSITION IS SIMPLY SAYING THIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AT THESE U.R.L.'S. WHETHER THAT IS THE NEXT STEP OF ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO DO IT, I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS. AND WHEN WE LOOK AT GERSHWIN AND ITS PROGENY, IT REQUIRES SOME MATERIAL, SUBSTANTIAL ACT OR SOME AID TO AN INFRINGING ACT.
SO ASSUMING THAT JOHN Q. PUBLIC CALLS UP THAT WEB SITE, FINDS THIS INFRINGING INFORMATION, AND THEN JOHN Q. PUBLIC READS IT, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS AN INFRINGING ACT, OR THEN TAKES THE NEXT STEP AND DOWNLOADS IT, WHICH MAY WELL THEN BE AN INFRINGING ACT, AND THAT BROWSER, THAT USER BECOMES THE PRIMARY INFRINGER, WHAT HAVE MY CLIENTS DONE TO MATERIALLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY AID THE INFRINGER? THEY HAVEN'T BOUGHT THE COMPUTER FOR THEM. THEY HAVEN'T PROGRAMMED IT FOR HIM. ALL THEY'VE DONE IS SAID, "THIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AT THIS ADDRESS."
AND IN MY MEMO I SUGGEST THAT'S COMPARABLE TO SAYING TO SOMEBODY, "THERE'S A PHOTOCOPY SHOP A BLOCK AWAY. AND IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE PHOTOCOPY SHOP, THEY MAKE PHOTO COPIES." AND IF SOMEBODY HAS IN HAND A COPYRIGHTED BOOK, AND YOU'VE TOLD THEM WHERE THE COPY--PHOTOCOPY OFFICE IS--SHOP IS, YOU'VE NOT COMMITTED AN INFRINGING ACT. AND I THINK WHAT MY CLIENTS HAVE DONE IS COMPARABLE TO SIMPLY TELLING SOMEBODY WHERE A PHOTOCOPY SHOP IS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
AND I KNOW YOU'VE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO OPPOSE THIS, AND I RECOGNIZE THAT PUTS YOU AT A DISADVANTAGE, MR. ZENGER, BUT WHAT DO YOU RESPOND TO IT?
MR. ZENGER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. FIRST OF ALL I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT ACTUALLY HAS TWO TYPES. ONE IS WHERE YOU--YOUR PERSONAL CONDUCT YOU ENCOURAGE PEOPLE, AND ANOTHER TYPE IS WHERE YOU PROVIDE EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES, INK, PAPER, SOFTWARE AND THE LIKE.
AND THE INTERESTING THING THAT WE FIND ABOUT THE DEFENDANTS' ARGUMENTS IN THIS CASE IS THEY DON'T ADDRESS THE FACTS IN THIS CASE. AND LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. COUNSEL JUST NOW ARGUES WE DIDN'T BUY THEM THE COMPUTERS. WE DIDN'T GIVE THEM THE SOFTWARE. GREAT. WE DON'T CONTEST THAT THEY BOUGHT THEM THE COMPUTERS AND SOFTWARE, SO WE DON'T THINK THEY'RE AIDING IN THAT WAY.
BUT THEY ARE AIDING IN THEIR PERSONAL CONDUCT BY ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO GO TO SITES WHERE THOSE COPIES ARE AVAILABLE. AND IN FACT WHEN PEOPLE WRITE TO THEM AND SAY, "I TRIED TO GO GET ONE BUT COULDN'T GET IT, WHAT DID I DO WRONG?" THEN THEY CORRECT THEM AND EXPRESSLY SHOW THEM HOW TO GO GET IT AND WHAT THEY WERE DOING WRONG BEFORE.
I WOULD LIKE TO POINT THE COURT TO ONE PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT WE BELIEVE IS HIGHLY RELEVANT TO THIS ACTION. AND, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE A COPY FOR THE COURT AND A COPY FOR MR. BARNARD. MAY I APPROACH THE BENCH?
THE COURT: SURE. THANK YOU.
MR. ZENGER: I HAVE PROVIDED YOUR HONOR AN EXCERPT FROM THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT IN WHICH THEY WERE ADDRESSING THE SAFE HARBOR FOR ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS. THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET. AND IN THAT SECTION 512(D) IT STATES THAT THERE IS POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR REFERRING OR LINKING USERS TO ONLINE LOCATIONS CONTAINING INFRINGING MATERIALS AND DOING SO BY USING DIRECTORIES, INDICES, REFERENCES, POINTERS OR HYPERTEXT LINKS. NOW, SURELY, IF THERE IS--IF THERE IS A POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR I.S.P.'S, THEN THERE IS A POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR THE PEOPLE POSTING THAT INFORMATION OR PROVIDING IT.
AND OUR VIEW ON THAT IS CONGRESS NOW IN 1999 HAS RECOGNIZED THE HIGHLY DAMAGING EFFECT OF STEERING PEOPLE TO INFRINGING SITES. AND IF THE I.S.P. CAN BE LIABLE, THEN MORESO THE LIGHTHOUSE MINISTRY AND THE TANNERS IN THIS CASE WOULD BE LIABLE FOR REFERRING USERS TO ONLINE LOCATIONS CONTAINING INFRINGING MATERIAL AND DOING SO USING DIRECTORIES, INDICES, REFERENCES OR POINTERS.
http://www.utlm.org/underthecoveroflight/transcripts/pi112399.htm
THE COURT: OKAY. THEN WE GET TO THE WHO. WHO IS THE PRIMARY INFRINGER? AND HOW, THEN AGAIN--AND MR. BARNARD RAISES A POINT THAT I HADN'T THOUGHT OF. IF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT--IF INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT, IF IT'S STRICT LIABILITY, AND IF SOMEONE--JOHN Q. PUBLIC, AS MR. BARNARD SAYS--BUT IF SOMEONE HAPPENS UNWITTINGLY TO GET INTO AN INFRINGING SITE, IS THAT PERSON TRULY A PRIMARY VIOLATOR? I MEAN THAT IS A LITTLE BIT SCARY.MR. ZENGER: YOUR HONOR, THEY ARE INFRINGERS, BUT THE COPYRIGHT STATUTE HAS PROVISION FOR THAT. THEY HAVE PROVISIONS FOR INNOCENT INFRINGERS, AND IT GOES SIMPLY LIKE THIS: IF SOMEONE INNOCENTLY INFRINGES AND THEY'RE PUT ON NOTICE OF IT AND THEY CORRECT IT, THEN THEY'RE BASICALLY OFF THE HOOK.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE HAVE HERE. WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO KNOW THE COPIES OUT THERE ARE UNAUTHORIZED, WHO KNOW THAT THEY--THAT I.R.I. DOES NOT WANT THE COPIES REPRODUCED, AND WHO KNOW THAT THEY ARE--THAT COPIES THAT ARE BEING MADE ARE UNAUTHORIZED, AND THEN WHO GO OUT AND INDUCE AND CAUSE OTHER PEOPLE TO DO IT.
THIS ISN'T THE INNOCENT INFRINGER CASE, AND THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM IN THE COPYRIGHT LAW FOR INNOCENT INFRINGERS NOT NEEDING TO FEEL LIKE THE FEDERAL COURT IS GOING TO COME POUNCING ON THEM EVERY TIME THEY--IF THEY INADVERTENTLY OR INNOCENTLY INFRINGE.
THE COURT: WHERE IS THAT PROVISION FOR INNOCENT INFRINGERS? IS IT STATUTORY OR CASE LAW?
MR. ZENGER: YES, IT IS. IT'S IN THE STATUTE.
THE COURT: COULD YOU TELL ME THAT, PLEASE.
MR. ZENGER: I BELIEVE IT'S SECTION 504, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. ZENGER: SO THAT IS A--THAT'S A NONISSUE. CERTAINLY WE DON'T HAVE THAT CASE. WE HAVE ASKED AND ASKED AND ASKED AND ASKED FOR THEM TO STOP, AND THEY JUST SAY, "NO. WE'RE GOING TO KEEP GOING." THIS ISN'T THE INNOCENT INFRINGER CASE.
NOW THEY SAY, "WHO? THERE'S NO EVIDENCE WHO. I'LL TELL YOU WHY THERE'S NO EVIDENCE WHO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE WITHHELD THE NAMES. THEY POST ON THEIR WEB SITE, AS SET FORTH IN OUR MEMORANDUM IN EXHIBIT 2, TWO PEOPLE WHO SAID, "THANKS. WE GOT A COPY." OR, "WE TRIED TO GET A COPY AND WE JUST DIDN'T GET IT RIGHT. WHAT DID WE DO WRONG?" AND THEN THEY TELL THEM HOW TO DO IT RIGHT. OKAY. RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THIS LIST OF E-MAILS THEY SAY, "NAMES WITHHELD."
OKAY. TELL ME RIGHT NOW WHO ARE THE E-MAIL SENDERS OF OCTOBER 30, 1999? AND AS SOON AS THE TANNERS TELL US, THEN YOU'LL HAVE AT LEAST TWO FOR SURE, BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT IN THEIR OWN STUFF. SO AS SOON AS THEY TELL US, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO TELL THE COURT.
BUT THERE'S AN INTERESTING THING GOING ON HERE. THE TANNERS HOLD THEMSELVES OUT AS RELIABLE RESEARCHERS, ACCURATE IN STATING THE FACTS. WELL, THEY SAY HERE THAT PEOPLE HAVE MADE COPIES. THEN WE NEED TO HAVE THEM TELL US IF THESE ARE MADE UP E-MAILS OR IF THESE ARE TRUE OR FACTUAL E-MAILS. AND IF SO, WHO SENT THEM THESE E-MAILS? THEY WITHHELD THE NAMES. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WE HAVEN'T GIVEN YOUR HONOR THE NAMES IS BECAUSE THEY'VE WITHHELD THEM FROM US.
SECONDLY, THE POSTERS, THE PEOPLE WHO POST THE UNAUTHORIZED COPIES, YES, WE BELIEVE THEY'RE INFRINGERS. THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. AND SO WE HAVE TWO SETS OF PRIMARY INFRINGERS; THOSE WHO HAVE POSTED THE INFORMATION AND NOW THOSE WHO GO, KNOWING THAT THE COPIES ARE UNAUTHORIZED, KNOWING THAT THERE'S NO AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE FURTHER COPIES, GO AT THE INSTRUCTION AND BEHEST AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF LIGHTHOUSE AND THE TANNERS TO GO MAKE THOSE ADDITIONAL COPIES, TWO OF WHICH WE HAVE RIGHT HERE FROM THEIR OWN WEB SITE. THIS IDEA OF THEY DON'T KNOW WHO IT IS IS RIDICULOUS.
THEY TALK ABOUT MR. JOHN Q. PUBLIC STUMBLING ACROSS THESE MATERIALS. AGAIN, THEY'RE ARGUING SCENARIOS THAT ARE NOT THIS CHASE. THIS ISN'T THE CASE OF SOMEONE JUST INNOCENTLY BEING OUT THERE SURFING THE WEB AND FINDING THEM. THIS IS THE TANNERS HOLDING UP A GREAT, BIG SIGN SAYING, "UNAUTHORIZED COPIES OF THE CHURCH HANDBOOK ARE ON THE WEB. COME AND GET IT. AND HERE IS HOW YOU GET IT
Background to the case referred to above can be found here:
http://www.utlm.org/underthecoveroflight_news.htm
I don't know enough to comment on this. Perhaps others do?
I sigh.
I don't want glory (if you have a persecution complex, see a doctor) and I don't challenge your motives, which are wholesome. If you read carefully what I said I stated that Simon's wishes should be respected and that people should not post the links.
What I was commenting on was the legal aspects.
The transcript you mention is interesting but you should be aware that no one has EVER been found guilty in the USA for posting a LINK to a third-party site in violation of any part of the DMCA. Almost all of the court transcript quoted are not not the conclusions of the court/judge but from some lawyer trying to support his client's case. In legal terms that has no value at all in establishing legal precedent.
"You're giving bad advice here" - what I am doing is stating the legal facts. If you don't like it that's OK too. I had hoped to allay your obvious but unfounded fears. I know the WTBS can be scary, but they are not the all powerful people you think they are. They cannot get this site shut down because of a few links, and that is a fact.
They cannot get this site shut down because of a few links, and that is a fact.
Personally I don't want to see that tested.
Simon got notice to remove the links and they have been removed. New links will also be removed.
I would like to comment specifically on the case you have brought up:
The group earlier that year (1999) had posted parts of the Church Handbook of Instructions, and had agreed to take the material down under an earlier temporary restraining order. It later posted e-mail from visitors to the site that gave URLs for other Web sites that had posted parts of the book.
Posting the book is illegal - the group was guilty of posting the handbook and then linking to it later after it was being hosted elsewhere.
In the end the case was settled between both parties. That means the judge did not rule in favor of either party. No legal precedent was set.
http://www.utlm.org/underthecoveroflight/signedsettlementandthankyou.htm
The judge did not rule as to whether posting links were illegal. This case also had the complication that the group admitted earlier posting the handbook onlie, which is illegal. But since the case was settled, no ruling took place on that either.
So, as I have said before, it is still not established in law that posting links to a third-party site is illegal. period.
"Simon has asked that links are not posted, and it is his site and we should respect that."
- From my first post, in case it was missed.
