by enoughisenough 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
''It's hilarious how many times they are proved wrong and even prove themselves wrong. Where do you start with that one? No wonder TOMO tries to remain drunk.''
AS they double-down on such ridiculous, unsubstantiated dogma, they paint themselves into a corner more and more. One that will be impossible to get out of.
Hi PON!
The Youtuber is British, mate. Like me. I'm not sure how American amendments apply to him.
Whatever the law that provides freedom of speech( in the US it is the constitution) there are contingencies that also apply. In the US, there is case law for one. But first one needs to determine the venue where the tort occurred to determine jurisdiction. If it occurred in UK, then Brit law could apply unless there are prior agreements between the counties or even terms of service agreed to on youtube, etc.
I think the WTS is trying to use copyright law in these cases, where they are accusing people (like McFree) of using material without express permission. The law (at least in the USA) almost always sides with the person using the material unless the use meets certain criteria. What the WTS wants is to intimidate people into removing videos or documents without proceeding to a court of law. This works frequently because those people do not have the resources to fight back. When they do, the WTS usually loses the case and/or (as in the McFree case) drop it.
They also try to get personal info on the people uploading content if they think the person is an active JW (as McFree is, if I am not mistaken). Then they can disfellowship them. McFree's lawyer pointed out that the WTS is not interested in pursuing copyright claims as much as they are seeking personal info to punish those who speak out against them. Once they have the personal info, they usually do not pursue the copyright claims any further. This is, effectively, a misuse of the legal system.
When they do, the WTS usually loses the case and/or (as in the McFree case) drop it.
That is for the Courts to adjudicate but any owner of a copyright is within his legal right to defend it. Don’t like it, too bad.
This is, effectively, a misuse of the legal system.
You can pursue that claim legally except that there is no law that says that it is abuse of process. For example SCOTUS decided not too long ago that police are within their authority to run anybody’s plates for any reason they like. The decision stemmed from a complaint in lower Courts that rogue police were getting personal information from the plates and selling it. The legal issue was whether or not running plates requires the standard of arguable reasonable suspicion. Court decided that they don’t need any legal grounds to do it. Many other examples. The principle here is that wt owns the copyright and at any point in a lawsuit they can legally drop it. And that is the law. Don’t like it? Write to congress for example.
They don’t hate being proven wrong.
They already know it’s wrong…
…whilst believing it’s true…
…at the same time.
If anything they said was actually Biblical they wouldn't need copyright, I believe any copyright from the writers of the Bible has long since run out. (yes, I know there was no such thing as copyright in those days)
They just don't like people pointing out the ungodliness of their org and having it splashed all over the place for the world to see the real insidious nature of their cult.
Well, Thank God for the Internet - yes, and for a free press, too
Fisherman: That is for the Courts to adjudicate but any owner of a copyright is within his legal right to defend it.
What McFree's lawyer was saying is that the WTS will sue an individual over claimed violation of copyright, but once they get the individual's personal info, they no longer pursue the copyright claim. In other words, they are not concerned about copyright, they want to intimidate critics into silence. The method they are employing is unethical and legally questionable.
The method they are employing is unethical and legally questionable.
That’s what the courts are for. And the State Bar. If an act is legal and people don’t like it based on personal ethics, too bad. What prosecutors do for example is to threaten a defendant to plead guilty to lesser charges or face added charges whether or not those added charges will stick. They would need to be defended and very expensive to do so and there is a risk that a person can be convicted. A defendant doesn’t like that but the law says if is legal to do it.
If you want to me mess with someone’s copyright, that infringed person can pursue legal action. You can run but you cant hide from the owner. Don’t like it, sue them back.
Fisherman: If you want to me mess with someone’s copyright, that infringed person can pursue legal action.
Sure. And if you don't have an issue with someone misusing the courts to try and get someone's personal information --not because of an actual copyright issue, but to silence criticism-- well... okay. I get the impression that the WTS would not see things the same way if the roles were reversed, though.
