With the leaking of this letter I hope it causes a "Witch Hunt" within the bOrg, this is something that will damage them internally more so than the actual leaking of the letter.
Cedars leaked letter requested to be taken down by WTBTS
by umbertoecho 45 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Fisherman
DMCA is a courtesy notice instead of a lawsuit; It is like a cease and desist notice. I suppose that if a party claims they are injured because of what they believe is copyright infringement, they can a sue for damages. At the very least, it costs money to defend. If a party publishes private documents or copyrighted material, there is a risk of being sued. WT does not work like that, generally, because they usually are dealing with (df) JW, and WT ususally defends against (df)JW but does not want to initiate legal action against a JW, but they could if they wanted to. Other religious orders are very orthodox and they will come after anyone that violates their privacy. They will get you, and that is why nobody fools around with them. And when they do, they have been known to pay.
-
punkofnice
Proof positive that the watchtower is just a big business. this time it's showing its bullying side.
As many have said, the WBT$ is getting precious about useless information.
Does the god of the universe need 'copyright'?
-
Amelia Ashton
I love that the society get their knickers in a twist over their leaked letters and videos.
-
fukitol
Cedars blog is fantastic. Subscribing to it gives you all the latest developments and newsworthy information about the organization you need without wasting countless hours of your life on this site where 90% of new threads are just so much whimsical, trivial fluff that disappear as soon as they're started. -
DesirousOfChange
Cedars blog is fantastic. Subscribing to it gives you all the latest developments and newsworthy information about the organization you need without wasting countless hours of your life on this site where 90% of new threads are just so much whimsical, trivial fluff that disappear as soon as they're started.
I don't think it's an "either/or" situation. Both sites are good. They work to accomplish different goals
This site does not necessarily cater to the specific whims or agenda of one person. I feel like I am a part of this site. I'm so grateful for the encouragement and words of advice I've gotten from other members here. I now I hope that I can give that back to others.
Some exJWs still have the JW mindset: My religion is better than yours is and only mine is right and good. This is not a competition.
Doc
-
Jeffro
Village Idiot:
Are those letters copyrighted?
Copyright implicitly applies to any original work, and does not have to be registered. Copyright can therefore be asserted for the letter.
-
_Morpheus
How ironic that someone decries wasting hours on this site as he/she wastes hours on this site decrying it..... -
Simon
I'm so grateful for the encouragement and words of advice I've gotten from other members here. I now I hope that I can give that back to others.
:thumbsup: That really is what this site is and always has been about.
We should all be aiming to become ex-ex-JW's but it's great when people 'hang back' to help others on the same journey.
No one is going to destroy the WTS and it doesn't help those leaving to reach out if we've set ourselves up as their enemy.
-
Simon
If a DMCA notice is sent then can you "reasonably" be allowed a little time to A) see it and B) Act upon it?
Yes, there's a reasonable time to respond but I don't think it's a concrete period. Normally a few days is fine but there's no point dragging your feet.
DMCA is a courtesy notice instead of a lawsuit; It is like a cease and desist notice. I suppose that if a party claims they are injured because of what they believe is copyright infringement, they can a sue for damages.
That is the key part. They could just sue from the off and not follow the DMCA procedure but then the barrier to success is higher and the court is likely to question why they made no effort to request removal first. If they follow the DMCA and you remove the material then you cannot be subsequently sued for it and you have the ability to sue them if the claim is false.
It's a protection unless they request removal of something they do own, isn't covered by any fair-use and isn't removed.
