Watchtower Sues to Keep Convention Videos Off Internet

Sea Breeze

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/07/20/mormonleaks-founders-pay/?fbclid=IwAR31G8TCJkQ3dTZxjx6mhiNhqNK6FequaiWu_278ZkhIa6VmbyB6HA_jZ28

So I guess the WT holds free public gatherings, but will sue anyone who publishes a video of the free speeches? What happened to advertise, advertise advertise the King and his Kingdom? What a crock.

I didn't know that the conventions were copyrighted. I wonder if the average JW knows this? Obviously an attempt to control legitimate examination of the speeches.

Ever notice how the speeches of theologians are literally all over the internet? Speakers like Billy Graham, John Piper, William Lane Craig, John MacArthur, and J. Vernon McGee are all over the internet with no problem.
They want their messages examined.

But noooooo, the WT. will sue you for publishing their "free" & "public" speeches. Gotta keep it secret - shhhhh.

WTWizard

If they don't want the public discussing the content of the videos, perhaps they are not worth watching at all, from the official source especially. Why would I want only one viewpoint, without anyone being able to examine it? And what if someone is interested but wants to know whether they are getting into the truth or another scam? Seems that those pushing the truth are more open to having their material blabbed across the internet for criticism, even if it means getting a few bad reviews.

On the other hand, those pushing scams will not stand being reviewed. They simply want perfect reviews across the board (itself a red flag--even the best product or service is going to have a few bad reviews from slander, misunderstandings, or simply bad luck).

Drearyweather

Were the Truth and transparency foundation simply publishing entire videos on their site, or providing their critique on certain excerpts?

vienne

I think many here to not understand copyright law. A copyright gives one the choice as to how and when their material is circulated. That it is circulated for free in some context does not give license to others to circulate it. This is especially so with digital material.

Mom circulated some of her books for free to select people and institutions. However, when someone copied it and put it up on the internet, she made them take it down. Her books are for sale in a public context. Taking material you do not have permission to use is theft.

Sea Breeze

Free and public speeches shouldn't be banned, especially from a source that claims to be God's channel of communication on earth.

Don't they want people to hear God speaking?

alanv

They dont want anybody checking and going over the material who is not a JW. When a JW watches the videos, they are not normally using any critical thinking, they just get emotionally attached to whatever is being said or shown. Nothing new here, but be interesting to see what actually happens.

slimboyfat

I think people understand copyright law fine. This person broke copyright law and the result was pretty inevitable. This much is clear. But there is another ethical dimension to this situation it would be crass to ignore. As well as videos and talks, Avoidjw published a lot of secret books and documents from Watchtower such as Elders, CO, and branch guides and letters. These documents have affected the lives of millions who are denied access to their contents. The action of publishing these online may be illegal, but it was an ethical action, in this particular circumstance. For this reason avoidjw deserves our thanks and support. This is not to deny the existence or the value of copyright law, but to acknowledge that an illegitimate act can also be good one.

cyberjesus

Usually authors protect distribution to protect their sale profits.

they are not upset because the are losing profits... they are upset because people who are not their supporters are criticizing their material.

the wt is upset... and also afraid

neat blue dog

I didn't know that the conventions were copyrighted

Everything made is inherently copyrighted from it's release, with or without registration or copyright labeling, that's how
US copyright law works. (Unless the creator explicitly gives notice that it is released under Creative Commons license, with various degrees of restrictions or lack thereof.)

Anna Marina

It seems similar to the approach Scientology.takes to it's media output/teachings.

WT is a mix. From my research all it's false doctrines have their roots in Theo Sufism. Sufism is a kind of Islam. Combine this with Scientology's copyright obession and you have a secret organisation, which is hard to investigate posing as Christian, which is really a form of Islam based on Marvel Comics.

Oh that sounds about right.

Watchtower Sues to Keep Convention Videos Off Internet

Share this