QUOTES.CA What won't the WBTS admit?

by hamsterbait 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hamsterbait

  
  The Fantastic Quotes Website said that as of 2005.01.31, The WT has not specified which books, specifically, they feel are still copyright protected.
  
  
  
  

  I wonder who?? FF? FF?FF?? Who died so recently these books would still be in the copyright regulations.

  That would bring the credentials of this charlatan under scrutiny yet again. It was after the Olin Moyle (???) trial that the WT decided to publish anonymously, as they were shown to be amateurs in the realms of scholarship. (Leolia proves this all the time)

  Also financially this would disadvantage them, as any surviving relatives of the writers, would be entitled to a part of any monies gained as a result of sales or promotion of those works still within the time limit of the copyright laws. So Ray as a relative would be due some money as would any surviving progeny of Da Judge's son, or Russelll's relatives. That might lead to the discovery of where the money is really siphoning to - perhaps someone in a mansion that only a genius could find.

  Hell, why did the WT form so many dummy corporations in the early 20th century??

  HB
• 

  kls

  Hammy ,where have you been ?
• 

  toreador

  So who are they telling that who it was that wrote the books I wonder.

  Tor
• 

  skyman

  Great
• 

  Honesty

  I wrote all of them from 1879 til 2005 and demand my share of the WT profits immediately.
• 

  candidlynuts

  i think i should be paid for having to read so many of them for 40 yrs.
• 

  DannyHaszard

  Dissident Jehovah Witness Gets Legal Threats
  The Open Press (press release) - 5 hours ago
  ... demonizing the Internet, the Media, the United Nations, and other non-Witness entities as ... of the web site, is a former member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses ...

  Check your Google and msn news alerts for JW keywords for next 72 hours Quotes.ca has friends who are nailing the Watchtower on this.
• 

  greendawn

  Good that they got caught in a dilemma of their own after putting so many in a position where they had to choose between bad and bad.
• 

  Elsewhere

  I got the news alert this morning!

  http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/30154.html
• 

  rebel8

  The law is that copyright for an author lasts through his life, and for so many years after his death. (Blondie will confirm this - with a source I betchya-) :::

  I'm not Blondie, but here it is. Everything you ever wanted to know about US copyrights is pretty much at this site. I think this falls under both work for hire and anonymous works. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html#duration

  How long does a copyright last?The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after Jan. 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics.

  This doesn't mean quotes is violating it, however. The law isn't that specific. I think the WTS is hoping a judge will interpret any "apostate" use of their literature as a violation. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

  http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

  Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

  3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

  The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.