DMCA Complaint from The WatchTower for links to KS-10 'Shepherding' book

by Simon 217 Replies latest forum announcements

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    they technically are in the right for enforcing their rights.

    I don't think that has been established. First of all, most of what goes on in the exJW world, and especially here on JWN, definitely falls under "fair use", as it is very serious criticism (and often parody) of the WT society. I'm thinking especially of Quotes case - this was not established law, this was just them bullying him because they have far more money than he does. His site was perfectly legitimate (under US law, anyway).

    Laws have purpose, and copyright law was not established to protect secretive organizations. Of course they are going to try to use the law to their advantage, but that doesn't mean they are "in the right".

    But also, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but this idea of linking to a site that host the "Flock" book is much like WikiLeaks - and I don't think even the extremely powerful forces that are trying to shut them down are doing so by claiming copyright infringement, are they?

  • undercover
    undercover

    6o9,

    Quotes situation is a little different. He quoted entire articles; he wasn't distributing copyrighted material. Quotes downfall was that he tried to let the material stand on it's own. No criticisms, no parody, no refuting - just quotes. That's where the WTS claimed he was violating the copyright law (in addition to being embarrased by their own words, which pretty much proves Quotes whole point). Quotes, if he had chosed to go to court may could have won. But he would've gone broke doing it. That's why he didn't fight it.

    In the last couple of days, people have been posting links to where people can download without proper permission copyrighted material. The discussions that have been carried on, complete with qoutes of certain sections of the book are fine. That falls under fair use. Distributing the book doesn't.

    But right or wrong, legal or illegal, why flaunt it? We know from Quotes that the WTS has the power and money to force the issue if they want. I doubt Simon has the resources to fight the WTS in court, even if he was in the right and completely legal. I say let's help protect Simon, and other ex-JW sites, and be smart... don't advertise the distribution of the book. Be sneaky and do it where the WTS can't see it or control it. In the long run, it's probabaly more damaging.

  • donuthole
    donuthole
    I don't think even the extremely powerful forces that are trying to shut them down are doing so by claiming copyright infringement, are they?

    The mormon church unsuccessfully attempted to get their secret elders manual off of Wikileaks using the same legal arguments that the Watchtower legal has used when the previous Flock book was put up on various websites. In both cases the religions are using copyright law, not to protect financial interests in a printed work, but to block publications of secret internal memorandums that happen to be published in a book form. The original intent of copyright law has been pushed beyond published works in order to protect secret internal documents from leaking. For instance Diebold, Inc. used copyright law to block the publication of internal memos and e-mails claiming copyright protection.

    Whether or not their claims are legally justified it is easy for big corporations to fire off bullying cease and desist threats and make claims of copyright infringement. In most circumstances the ISP will readily comply to avoid a lawsuit.

    With the rise in popularity of Wikileaks and other whistle-blower blogs and websites I'm sure there will be important legal challenges to the ways copyright is currently being used. It will be interesting to see which way the legal wind blows on the matter. I would really like it to be tested in court if fair use can be applied to publication of secret internal manuals for research purposes.

  • Mad Sweeney
    Mad Sweeney

    I'm all about protecting this board and also respecting the law.

    That said, I don't even recognize the Borg's right to exist so therefore I don't respect any rights they may claim to have, legal, moral, or otherwise.

    So in the future, it is probably best to keep links to downloads such as this in PMs or emails.

  • donuthole
    donuthole

    I didn't want to start a new topic so I'm posting here. This is a write-up about the mormon church's legal moves to block the publication of their own secret elders' book. It is relevant to the Watchtower and worth a read for all who may be interested in this sort of thing.

    http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_receives_copyright_infringement_claim_from_Mormon_Church

    The Wikimedia Foundation has received a copyright infringement claim from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, widely known as the Mormon Church or LDS Church. The infringement claim is in reference to a URL used as a source in a Wikinews article about Mormon Church documents leaked to the website Wikileaks, titled "Copy of handbook for leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints obtained by Wikinews". The URL was originally cited as a link in the sources subsection of the article. The Wikimedia Foundation is a donor-supported non-profit organization which runs Wikipedia and Wikinews. This is the first time that the Wikimedia Foundation has received a copyright infringement claim regarding an article published by Wikinews.

    The Wikinews article, originally published on April 19, described material in the Church Handbook of Instructions. The work is a two-volume book of policies and is a guide for leaders of the Mormon Church. Wikinews obtained the Church Handbook of Instructions from Wikileaks, a whistleblower website which publishes anonymous submissions of sensitive documents while preserving the anonymity of its contributors. Wikileaks describes the material as significant because "...the book is strictly confidential among the Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka LDS in short form) bishops and stake presidents and it reveals the procedure of handling confidential matters related to tithing payment, excommunication, baptism and doctrine teaching (indoctrination)."

    The material was released on the Wikileaks website on April 16, and according to the site was first made available on the document sharing website Scribd. A message at Scribd now states: "This content was removed at the request of copyright agent B. S. Broadbent of the Intellectual Property Division of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

    On May 5, the Wikimedia Foundation received a copyright infringement claim from Intellectual Reserve, Inc., the legal entity that owns the intellectual property of the Mormon Church. The infringement claim is addressed to Jimmy Wales, the designated agent of the Wikimedia Foundation, and requests that access to the link to Wikileaks be removed. The link was removed from the article on May 5 by a Wikinews administrator, and the article remains available without the link. The infringement claim was sent by Berne S. Broadbent, president of Intellectual Reserve, Inc. and director of the Intellectual Property Division of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. According to Mike Godwin, general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, the Mormon Church has not filed a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notice with the foundation.

    In 1999, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, prominent critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, released material from the Church Handbook of Instructions to the Internet through their organization Utah Lighthouse Ministry, without including the copyright notice of Intellectual Reserve, Inc. or obtaining permission from the church. The website of the Utah Lighthouse Ministry describes as its purpose: "...to document problems with the claims of Mormonism and compare LDS doctrines with Christianity." The Tanners had received a copy of the 1998 edition of Church Handbook of Instructions from an anonymous sender in October 1999. They published 17 pages of the 160-page handbook on the Utah Lighthouse Ministry website.

    The church sent the Tanners a letter threatening a copyright infringement lawsuit if the material was not removed, and the Tanners removed the material from their site the same day, and posted the church's letter to their website. The website still contained links to other locations that had the material, and an article in the Salt Lake Tribune listed addresses of these links. The church sued the Tanners through its company Intellectual Reserve, in the 1999 case Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry.

    The plaintiffs filed their complaint on October 13, 1999, and the United States district court issued a preliminary injunction on December 6, 1999 barring posting of the material by the defendants as well as posting links to other websites which contain the material. The New York Times and other news publications called the injunction a "chilling effect". In November 2002, the church dropped the lawsuit against Utah Lighthouse Ministry, on condition that the Tanners destroy all copies of the Church Handbook of Instructions, and not include more than 50 words at a time from the handbook in any of their future articles.

    Cquote1.svgWikiLeaks will not remove the handbooks, which are of substantial interest to current and former mormons. WikiLeaks will remain a place were people from around the world can safely reveal the truth.Cquote2.svg

    Wikileaks

    Wikileaks has received copyright infringement claims from organizations including the Church of Scientology's Religious Technology Center and the Swiss Bank Julius Baer, and the Chinese government attempts to censor every website with the word "wikileaks" in the web page address. Bank Julius Baer sued Wikileaks after sending cease and desist letters in January 2008 which cited the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. As a result of the lawsuit, the bank obtained an injunction preventing the site's domain name registrar from associating with Wikileaks, but this injunction was lifted in March 2008 and Bank Julius Baer dropped the case.

    As of May 13 Wikileaks had not taken down the material on the Church Handbook of Instructions, and a second webpage at the site with a different version of the material was also still available. In a statement to Wikinews, a Wikileaks representative commented on the material hosted at the site: "WikiLeaks will not remove the handbooks, which are of substantial interest to current and former Mormons. WikiLeaks will remain a place where people from around the world can safely reveal the truth."

  • sd-7
    sd-7

    As the one true religion, they sure have a lot of things they don't want the public to see. This doesn't explain why it took them until 2008 to separate the study articles from what was given to the public. As concerned as they are about information control, clearly they were never too quick on the uptake about it anyway.

    So, since this is clearly a business just as much as it is a religion, shouldn't elders have to sign some sort of confidentiality agreement before getting a copy of this manual? I guess they're confident enough not to bother with that sort of thing.

    "Fear will keep the local elders in line--fear of disfellowshipping."

    "And what of the apostates? If they obtained a complete technical readout of the elder's manual, it is possible, however unlikely, that they might find a weakness--and exploit it."

    "The elder's manual you refer to will soon be back in our hands."

    "Any attack made by apostates against this organization would be a useless gesture, no matter what elder's manuals they've obtained. This organization is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it."

    "Don't be too proud of this theological terror you've constructed. The ability to disfellowship an elder is insignificant, next to the power of the scriptures."

    "Don't try to frighten us with your scriptural ways. Your sad devotion to independent understanding of the scriptures has not helped you conjure up the copyright injunction, nor given you the clairvoyance to find the apostates' base--ack....ack!"

    "I find your lack of faith disturbing."

    "Enough of this! Now the Legal Department will find the location of these apostate sites by the time this elder's manual is operational. We will then crush the apostates with one swift stroke."

  • undercover
    undercover

    Thanks for the references on that, donut...

    Interesting read.

  • brotherdan
    brotherdan

    Nice starwars ref, sd-7!

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    I say let's help protect Simon, and other ex-JW sites, and be smart... don't advertise the distribution of the book. Be sneaky and do it where the WTS can't see it or control it. In the long run, it's probabaly more damaging.

    I think we agree on this for the most part. I do think some advertising, some open distribution, is a good thing. Molesting bees and all that, you know? ;)

  • Joliette
    Joliette

    LOL @ this thread

    Why are WT leaders so determined to keep that book out of the hands of the r&f witnesses

    This is 2010 not 1910. You can't keep information from people anymore.

    Why are they still trying to act like this is the 1970's.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit