WT 2003 CDROM - User agreement! (page 5)

Nosferatu

What would the WTS say if someone wrote to them asking for a copy of the CD Rom? I'm guessing they'd say "Contact your local congregation for a bible study".

onacruse

A great amount of pre-1950 literature is available, on CD, from www.freeminds.com

All WTS copyrights for that info have expired...and quite frankly, the glaring inconsistencies and mind-boggling arrogance of what the WTS has printed in those years is far more damning than anything since the 50s (or late 50s, anyway).

Once Rutherford keeled over, Franz and Knorr made great haste to "clean things up," resulting in fewer and fewer sparklers as the 50s and 60s went along.

Of course, not to say that there aren't, well, maybe, a few things that were still catty-whompous. LOL

Lady Lee

Ummmm a question

How would they know if you typed a post out from an actual hard copy or copied and pasted off the CD?

If I had both the CD and the original there is no way they could prove I copied from the CD.

Now if I did have the CD and the books I suppose I could sell the books on ebay - Right?

searcher

How would they know if you typed a post out from an actual hard copy or copied and pasted off the CD?

Probably by the changes thay make between hard copy and the CD.

seeitallclearlynow

LOL searcher!

laurelin

A CD of WTS teachings to free thinking outsiders might be a hazzard for the door to door work.I think the WTS would not want outsiders studying "Truth" with out being told how to interperate it the history and mistakes and ~~change in doctrine~~ new light.

This is a very good point Lurk and I couldn't help but smile when I read it. It reminded me of that saying:

"I always thought that the law should be interpreted in a lenient manner. Sometimes I lean to oneside, sometimes the other."

mustang

Laurelin,

The older literature is PROTECTED (you seem to be implying that it is not) under the Copyright Laws. And it has ALWAYS been protected, to the same extent. This is so until the Copyrights have expired, without renewal or cannot be renewed.

The problem here is the "EXPRESSED" versus "IMPLIED" declaration of the Copyright. Older literature is more IMPLIED, newer literature is more EXPRESSED in form.

But whether it is Copyrighted with the "one-liner" version or the "half-page" version, makes little difference. That is so, as far as the ACTUAL COVERAGE is concerned. The PERCEIVED COVERAGE could be quite a different story.

This PERCEIVED COVERAGE versus the ACTUAL COVERAGE is likely where the abuse you have encountered comes from. The EXPRESSED Copyright declaration may be having some additional protective effect. Be that as it may, BOTH EXPRESSED and IMPLIED forms are protected equally.

Bottom Line: The Copyright declaration refers to the applicable Laws and that is all that is required to make the part of a case referring to the rights to defense of the "intellectual property".

I will contrast the differences:

OLDER LITERATURE

Media: generally books or printed material, some records or tapes may be encountered

"one-liner" Copyright (the word Copyright and a date)

IMPLIED Copyright declaration: "We" have copyrighted this material; refer to the applicable Copyright Laws for complete details on the extent of our coverage and protection.

NEWER LITERATURE

Media: generally books, but includes CD-ROM's, perhaps some diskettes or tapes; other types maybe encountered

"half-page" Copyright (the word Copyright and a date, PLUS major excerpts of the applicable Copyright Law)

EXPRESSED Copyright declaration: "We" have copyrighted this material, here is a partial statement of the extent of our coverage and protection; for complete details refer to the applicable Copyright Laws.

The exception to the older works being protected or not is those items of literature which have been considered to have gone into the "public domain". Those Copyrights have expired.

The difference amounts to two things:

1) The newer media is somewhat easier to produce a book from, considering Desktop Publishing. I say somewhat because copying printed material is about as easy as computer file manipulations. But the BINDING and production in final form is a major problem for traditional printed material. Desktop Publishing allows an easier transition to the "finished product". This has undoubtedly led to the difference in the Copyright declaration.

2) The EXPRESSED format is much more obtrusive and noticeable than the IMPLIED format. This would seem to be the reason for the confusion and perception that the older material is NOT protected.

Mustang

Country_Woman

this good news of the kingdom shall be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all nations and then the end will come.
Copying this CD and the contents will speed things up a bit.

Maybe they are not willing to dig their own grave...

As for copyrights - its only surprising they are using that tool.....

laurelin

Mustang, thanks for that.

I was under the impression that the older books weren't copyrighted anymore and that was why they had been used on the net. I can't remember where I heard it, but someone once told me that copyright laws only lasted seven years and then you had to renew them. Obviously I got it wrong but it was under this impression that made me think it was easier for people to copy text from books.

Thanks.

Sunspot

**Maybe they are not willing to dig their own grave...

We are happy to work "shoulder to shoulder" to accomplish this task!

WT 2003 CDROM - User agreement!

Share this