by the girl next door 125 Replies latest watchtower bible
If you're going to cite a legal precedent you must provide a link and an explication, preferably one by a recognized jurist and perhaps a summary of your own.
It's very, very well known.
For an example of a fair treatment defence, Hubbard v Vosper deals with culty secrets and exposing them.
Mephis, I clicked on the first link in the Google search you provided and found this:
"There is no official statutory provision offering 'in the public interest' as a defence to copyright infringement." - Jody Tsigarides.
That statement by Ms. Tsigarides (whoever the heck she is) hardly supports your claims. It does in fact the opposite.
Saying something is "very, very well known" is not helpful nor academically sound rhetoric. It is in fact "puffing."
Don't be lazy. Create a coherent argument providing tangible evidence or stand down.
If you're going to cite a legal precedent you must provide a link and an explication
'Must' is a bit much in a forum like this.
Oubliette -
The first link from google gives a full overview of the case: http://kb-law.info/wt_dev/kbc.php?decision=172&&land=UK&lang=EN&page=UK
From the link you quoted the first line from...
"There is no official statutory provision offering 'in the public interest' as a defence to copyright infringement. However can it be used?
The answer is yes but only in very rare circumstances can/ does a Defendant raise these grounds in order to avoid successful action for copyright infringement against them.
Lion Laboratories v Evans - this case saw the publication of an internal memo which criticised the accuracy of breathalysers sold by the claimant. The defendant raised the public interest defence on the grounds that investigations should be made regarding the accuracy of the equipment to avoid incorrect readings when used by the police on motorists.
The three members of the Court of Appeal all accepted this defence."
The article then goes on to discuss how case law shifted one way and then back since, under the impact of various new legislation.
If you're expecting an essay from me to refute Simon's contention this is about right to roam, I'll decline the invitation :)
Don't be lazy. Create a coherent argument providing tangible evidence or stand down.Erm, no? Happy to provide the names for you to do your own reading though. It's a bit more than right to roam but whatever.
MD: 'Must' is a bit much in a forum like this.
OK: Should.
Are you happy now?
Mephis: "case law shifted one way and then back since, under the impact of various new legislation."
Thank you Mephis, now we have a more balanced presentation of the facts, which is quite a bit different from what the terse statement you initially provided indicated.
Thank you for proving my point: these situations are too complicated to be reduced to simplistic solutions.
Mephis: Erm, no?
No to which, my call to create a coherent argument or to stand down?
Thank you Mephis, now we have a more balanced presentation of the facts, which is quite a bit different than the terse statement you initially provided indicated.
It's exactly the same. Really. You're trying to find fault where there is none. There was a period of less than a year where case law shifted because of a ruling on video stills.
And 'no' to your presumption.. Simon got his answer. You have your's.
All this over British law cases and who should do what is missing the point. No one here is going to win a legal argument. We're not wearing wigs, to paraphrase someone else.
The OP, as I take it, pivots on why should copyright over CoC be treated by anyone as different to the WT's copyright over anything. Illustrated by the hypothetical of 'what if the WT owned the CoC copyright?'.
The issue behind that seems to be in repeated criticism of unauthorized distributors of CoC compared to ongoing acceptance of unauthorized distribution of WT material.
Simon got his answer
Memphis: you claimed that "British courts consistently find that the 'public interest' defence outweighs any right to private property" but the case you mention is incredibly specific and related to providing evidence. I don't think you have proven your claim by a long way.
