Help! Mike & Kim videos all being deleted by Youtube

by mrmagic 161 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  AverageJoe1

  @Sparrowdown

  Are the elders letters copyrighted?
  

  As to elder's letters (or letters to the congregation), here's my view, for what it's worth: they are not copyrighted. How can you copyright a letter?

  EG. I write a letter to @Sparrowdown including some very personal details, maybe even a photo. If he then goes and shows that to all and sundry, then I have no leg to stand on, as that is HIS prerogative. The letter is addressed to him so therefore becomes HIS property, not mine. What he does with it afterwards is entirely up to him, even if that entails embarrassing me as the sender (that should teach me to think more carefully before sending anything that could incriminate me, in a practical sense.)

  Where have the letters come from that are available online from places like www.avoidjw.org ? They have NOT come from the WTS but rather (at least originally) from ELDERS (or other members of the congregation) to whom the letters were addressed, who have then made them public, as is their right, even though instructed not to do so.

  As to videos and publications, then that's a whole different kettle of fish as you are dealing with copyrighted intellectual (I use the word very loosely!) property.
• 

  darkspilver

  AverageJoe1: As to elder's letters (or letters to the congregation), here's my view, for what it's worth: they are not copyrighted. How can you copyright a letter?
  

  It's an interesting question, and one that comes up mostly with letters written by famous people, rather than run-of-the-mill everyday correspondence, but it is the same principle.

  FWIW, here's my view....
  

  A letter consists of two distinct things:

  1: the physical letter itself, ie. the paper it is written on; and
  2: the actual words written on the paper.
  

  The recipient of the letter owns the physical letter, and can sell it to someone else.

  The actual words of the letter though remain with the writer who retains copyright in the normal way.

  In principle it therefore works the same as if you had bought (or had been given) a book or novel.

  You can sell the physical book to someone else, but the author still owns (copyright) the words.
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Since WT information supposedly originates and is edited by Jehovah, does WT then have the right to claim copywrite on that information?

  That is a moral question. You have your morality and wt has theirs. If you don't like wt morality go eat bananas and tuna fish or something. But if you break the law, wt will take you to Court and you are ofree to do the same thing if you don't like what wt does. If you don't think that is moral, Too Bad!!! Go start your own religious movement, and if your movement infringes on wt copyright, guess what? WT will see you in Court again, and if you don't like it?? Too Bad for you again!
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Actually, they do. Mike and Kim bring to light plenty of issues that they simply ignore. Instead of answering these issues, they play the legal game.

  Tell it to the judge.

  You do the same thing by ignoring the motives of the society and playing the legal game.

  Legal proceedings is no game. Your theory of wt moral motives is no excuse to break the law. Your morality does not trump over the law. If you like it and believe it is better go eat a bolony sandwich.

  Who's morality is better? Mine or WT? Let me humbly submit that it is mine.

  you can believe that if you like but if KM are breaking the law the Courts will stop them.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  Fisherman: All you care about is the law, not the motives of the society or the motives of KM. Morality is not a factor here, it is the law. If Morality was important, than you would care about the motives, the circumstances, etc. Yet, you disregard all this.

  What does this say about you, personally? Would you describe yourself as a person with strong personal moral convictions? Would a just man give up his personal power of reasoning to "a judge"?
• 

  Fisherman

  The letter is addressed to him so therefore becomes HIS property, not mine. What he does with it afterwards is entirely up to him,

  That is true but not always. There is a flaw in your statement. Let me illustrate. I have confidentiality agreements with my workers. I send them letters all of the time containing protected information. It is NOT entirely up to them to publish the letters I send them about company matters.
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  They have NOT come from the WTS but rather (at least originally) from ELDERS (or other members of the congregation) to whom the letters were addressed, who have then made them public, as is their right, even though instructed not to do so.

  If a letter is not addressed to Elder Judas Iscariot or to Joe Pub about non confidential stuff but is addressed to a WT agent acting in his official capacity or to The Body of Elders, the letter and the information the letter contains may be considered to be wt property and it may not automatically be a person's right to make such letter public. Another word of caution, intellectual property must not have to be copyrighted to be protected.

  Suppose, a wt letter is deemed to be wt property and not the property of an elder or of another person that took the letter, how does this affect a third party that received the information and published it without the permission of the owner? It depends on the substance of the letter and other variables but possession of information that is not yours does not automatically give you the right to publish such information even if the information is not copyrighted. ( wt letters may or may not be.)

  A congregant may not automatically have the right to publish a letter sent to The Congregation.
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  how some individuals and organizations have used copyright laws, not to protect their intellectual rights, but to suppress legitimate criticism.

  That's what Fair Use legal proceedings are all about.
• 

  AverageJoe1

  Thanks for the clarification Fisherman. I didn’t think about it in a company context.

  I’ll give you a “G” for use of illustrations!

  
  
• 

  Wakanda

  They're baaack!

  Mike and Kim challenged the nine copyright strikes, and wt did not respond.

  All the videos taken down by youtube are restored, and they uploaded a video to Mike and Kim today.

  Copyright laws are about suppressing criticism???? Show your reference Fisherman.