|
This is a letter I just wrote to the Britannica.com Customer Service to complain about the copyright violations in the information given to me by members of the Bowie, Maryland Kingdom Hall. I have also written a similar letter to
www.religioustolerance.org
, since the information was plagiarized from their site.
I am considering writing a formal letter of complaint to the Bowie Kingdom Hall, but if I do so, I would like to make sure that ALL the elders receive a copy of my letter. I don't want it to inadvertently be directed to the elder who cut-and-pasted this information in the first place.
Any comments and/or advice would be welcome!
Marjorie
Thank you. Your submission has been received by Britannica.com Customer Support. | |
| Full Name: | Marjorie XXXXX |
| E-mail Address: | XXXXXXX |
| Phone Number: | XXXXXXX |
| Type of Inquiry: | Content/Copyright Permissions |
| Where are you located?: | USA |
| Description of your inquiry: | I am concerned with a copyright violation. Your site says: "Copyright, Patent and Trademark Protection All materials in this Site, including, without limitation, Site layout, "look and feel," functionalities, design, text, images, graphics, video and audio content ("Materials") are the property of Britannica, its affiliated companies or licensors and are protected by international copyright, patent, and trademark laws." Last month I was given a packet of information from members of the Bowie, Maryland Jehovah's Witnesses. The first page of the packet contained definitions of the terms BCE and CE, and these definitions were made to appear as if they came from your website. The search screen from your website is reproduced and cut- and-pasted in a way to make it appear the definitions come from Britannica. My husband was also told that the first page came from the Britannica. In point of fact, the definitions are copyrighted material pirated from another source: www.religioustolerance.or g. They are lifted, verbatim, same fonts, italics, formatting, etc. from that site, but are attributed to the Britannica. This is blatantly dishonest and I believe it is a violation of your copyrighted "look and feel" as well as your copyrighted name. I have written to religioustolerance.org and I am writing to you. I would like to write to the congregation that gave me this deceptive information. If you are interested in seeing a copy of what they gave me, please let me know how to send the information to you. Sincerely, Marjorie XXXXXXXXXXXXXX |
Exposing Maryland congregation's plagiarism and copyright violations
by Alleymom 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Alleymom
-
Alleymom
Here is the thread where I first wrote about this:
-
StinkyPantz
You go girl!
-
Alleymom
Here is the letter I wrote to OCRT.
Subj: Information from your site plagiarized and attributed to Britannica Date: 6/27/03 8:30:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: (deleted) To: [email protected] Dear OCRT ---
I read the information on your site regarding copyright violations and thought you might like to know about a violation.
Last month a member of the Bowie, Maryland (USA) Jehovah's Witnesses dropped off a packet of information for me regarding their organization's understanding of Bible chronology.
The first page of the packet contained a definition of BCE and CE which was pasted up in such a way as to appear that it came from a search of the Britannica.com website. The person who gave my husband the document told him that the first page came from the Britannica.
Something didn't seem right to me ... the fonts didn't match the Brtiannica site, and when I searched their site I couldn't find the same BCE/CE definitions. When I searced altavista with phrases from the definitions, I found your site. The definitions of BCE and CE were lifted, verbatim, from your site. The same fonts, italics, etc. were used. But instead of crediting your organization, they are attributing this to the Britannica.
(By the way, you do have a small error in your definition. You refer to A.D. as an "acronym". In point of fact, it is an abbreviation and not an acronym. I know, that is a small detail, but you might want to fix it when you get a chance. It rang a false note with me, which is what alerted me to look at the definition more closely, since I didn't believe the Britannica would make the error of referring to A.D. as an acronym.)
Now, regarding the copyright violation. I would like to be able to tell the JW's who gave me this information that it definitely DOES NOT come from Britannica. Can you email me back and verify that the definitions of BCE and CE are your own original copyrighted material? I am considering writing a letter to the elders of the congregation informing them of this deception.
If you wish to write to them yourselves, I can send you a copy of the plagiarized information.
It bothers me that someone would steal information from your site and make false representations about it coming from the Britannica. I am a real stickler for scholarly honesty, accurate citations, etc.
Regards,
Marjorie XXXXXX(last name and address deleted)
-
outnfree
Interesting. Wonder who the publisher is in Bowie who went to all the trouble to cut and paste? Did s/he like www.religioustolerance.org's definititions better, but didn't dare let anyone else in the congregatioon know s/he visits such a site? It's an "apostate" site, after all, right? No tolerance for any other worship than "true worship" among the JWs.
I wouldn't like to be that publisher, whoever s/he is....
Nice work, alleymom!
outnfree
-
Alleymom
I wouldn't like to be that publisher, whoever s/he is....
That's the one thing holding me back. I don't want to get the person responsible for the cut-and-paste job into terrible trouble.
I have an appointment for a return visit this morning, and I will try to find out who gave Eve this information (I am certain she did not do this herself).
Marjorie
-
OrbitingTheSun
That's the one thing holding me back. I don't want to get the person responsible for the cut-and-paste job into terrible trouble.
Yea, that is a difficult position to be in. If a publisher did it, he/she was probably doing what (in his/her distorted perspective) he/she thought was right. In that case, it was a bad idea...but not as bad as an elder or another person of authority dispensing the information to unsuspecting publishers. If the latter was the was case, I would push the matter because a statement can be made. If a publisher did it, I'd still indicate that it was wrong but be careful not to ostracize that person. (It is nothing for a congregation to place all the blame on one person and "mark" them, if not worse.)
I am happy you are investigating the situation. Let us know how it goes.
-
GermanXJW
I they copied just a definition and even made it clear where it came from than it is fair use according to copyright laws.
-
Alleymom
GermanJW ---
I[f] they copied just a definition and even made it clear where it came from than it is fair use according to copyright laws.
That is NOT what the person did. He lifted copyrighted material from one site and cut-and-pasted it to make it appear that it came from the Britannica site. He took the Britannica search engine page and stitched it together with the definitions from the first site so that what you see right across the middle of the page, in the format and font and bannner of the Britannica website are the words: Encyclopedia Britannica Search Results You Can Trust But the material does NOT come from the Britannica. And these are NOT search results you can trust. This was deliberate deception. Furthermore, the definitons were taken from a site which runs banner ads for love spell kits, hardly the kind of site a JW should be visiting. The site, www.religioustolerance.org, is run by a Wiccan, an atheist, an agnostic, a Christian, and a Buddist. Orbiting the Sun very kindly posted my scan of the page in the previous thread if you want to see it for yourself. Orbiting --- Thank you. I see that you understand the reasons for my hesitation. If this was done by an ordinary publisher (which I doubt) I do not want to make trouble. On the other hand, if it was done by one of the congregational leaders I think it should be reported to the entire body of elders. If that should prove to be the case, it would be an opportunity to bring up the fallacy of the 607 chronology in some detail to each of the elders. Marjorie
-
DJ
Alleymom,
Hi. Good going. I doubt that you would get anyone in trouble. Theocratic warfare is acceptable....aka lying to jw's if they feel it would further their cause. Exposing falsehood is not wrong and they teach falsehood. love, dj