Watch Tower sues Quotes for $100,000 plus plus plus...

by Quotes 354 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • free2beme
    free2beme
    What's at issue here is the "fair use" of copyrighted material. Even Harry Potter can be quoted if done in keeping with the fair use provisions.



    I copyright can be persued to what ever degree the person who hold it, is willing to spend in court. To see the history of the organization and know they will protect their material in court, and then act shocked when they do, makes no sense. Also, are you aware of how copyrights work. If I were to right a script and use names like Harry Potter, to explain something or in stories, trust me, Hollywood would not use it and if they did, JK Rowlings would get some payment. Even playing a song on the radio requires a radio station to pay the artist a small amount, normally about 10 cents per play time. If anyone is a Simpsons fan, then they might remember a Simpsons episode in which Homer Simpson joins a cult and thinks they are building a space ship to go to the mother world. Well in that episode, which should be something you all see, the lawyers of religion are shown for what they are ... A VERY POWERFUL TOOL. Here is how it work, you might have a case of "fair use" ... GREAT! Now I am going to send my $500 per hour lawyer to go against you $250 per hour lawyer to say otherwise. I have endless resources to spend on lawyers and you on the other hand have your income, a family, etc. and I doubt you can even come close to spending the amount of money or time I can. So guess what, you loss and now your case can set a precident for the next poor guy claiming "fair use" ... yes, A VERY POWERFUL TOOL. ------------------------------------------- Interesting link on copyrights http://www.whatiscopyright.org/ Fair Use.

    Fair use or fair practice is utilization of a portion of a copyrighted work "as is" for purposes of parody, news reporting, research and education about such copyrighted work without the permission of the author. Use of copyrighted works, or portions thereof, for any other purpose is not deemed fair use, so be careful! That includes copying text or scanning pictures from postcards, magazines, books or any other work. Scanning a photo of the Amazon Forest printed in National Geographic and using it without permission on your personal web site about your family trip to South America will most likely not be considered as fair use. However, if you republished the photo on your site to comment on the photo as it was published in National Geographic, this would most likely be considered fair use. You still have to credit your source by naming the author of the work on the same page. In any event, it is always safer to take the time and effort to contact the owner and request permission to use the owner's work, and more likely than not the owner will be very appreciative and give you a favorable response.

    ---------------------------------------------

    What I found interesting is that you are basically at the mercy of the person holding the copyright, as to how they see the use of their information by yourself. So if they say you are doing anything that they do not see as "fair use" and determine your actions to be otherwise. Here comes the lawyers! Here is what the judge will ask ... Are you a Witness? If not, why would you publish Witness information online? If you stated, "for a resource?" They would ask, "are you aware the Witness offer their own resources without your help?" If you said no, then you would look like a fool, since your quoting literature that says this. If you said "yes" then you would be asked why you felt you needed to help and whether or not you asked the Watchtower if they needed help. If you said you didn't, well it will go on and on like that forever.

    What if you won!!!! Ding dong the witch is dead! Wait, what is that noise .... APPEAL! Now more lawyers ... and now what? New venue! No no, it can't be, are we going to be in court forever trying to get this information of "fair use" continued. YES!

  • free2beme
    free2beme

    But wait, this is Canada, shouldn't that make a difference? http://www.whatiscopyright.org/ ... also mentioned the following ... awesome site by the way on copyrights, I thought the information the guy shared was great. Of course, he will probably sue this site now for having a link to his page.

    International Copyrights.

    There are no "international copyrights" that enable you protect your work throughout the world. However, most countries are members of the Berne Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC), which allow you to protect your works in countries of which you are not a citizen or national. Under these treaties, the following works may be protected: (i) both unpublished and published works of an author who is a national or resident of a country that is a member of these treaties; or (ii) published works, with permission, of an author who is not a national or resident of a country that is a member of these treaties. In this case a work may be considered simultaneously published in several countries if it has been published in two or more Berne Union countries within 30 days of its first publication.

    To benefit from the above protection, there are no formal requirements established in the Berne Convention other than having the author's name on the work. Under the UCC, a copyright notice is required. This notice should consist of the copyright symbol "©" accompanied by the year of first publication and the name of the copyright owner, for example: Copyright © 2002 John Smith. This notice is to be placed in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of the claim to copyright.

    So, what does this mean? Well, if John Smith is a resident of Canada (member of the treaties), and if somebody in the United States (also a member country) accesses John Smith's website, which complies with (i) and (ii) above and displays the proper notice of Copyright © 2002 John Smith (as required by the UCC) - I am of the opinion that my work is considered to be "published", and therefore protected, in the United States as well as in Canada.

    Fear not site admins! http://www.whatiscopyright.org does say this!

    If you'd like to link to http://www.whatiscopyright.org so that others may learn of copyrights you are welcome to do so
  • DazedAndConfused
    DazedAndConfused

    Wow, this is a long thread to read through. When it first started reading I got to thinking about the WTBTS (?) being sued by Scientists (?) because of quotes that were taken way out of context? In theses instances there was commentary before and after the quotes to make the words fit their needs at the thime.

    On the Quotes site there is no commentary, just the words straight from the WTBTS. The site states it has nothing to do with the WTBTS. What is taken from the quotes would be the interpretation of the person reading it. Kind of like "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

    Could this information about these cases be looked up, verified, and used in th court case? Just a thought.

  • justhuman
    justhuman

    I thought that the WT would be "happy" because Quotes all they do is to inform the puplic regarding Watchtowers teachings. Plus the DON'T say anything bad about the WT.

    So if the WT teachings change from time to time, and they cannot hold to the one true teaching of the Bible, and their quilty for false prophecy, lies, and many other things that they hide from their followers, then THEY are the ones that should be sued!!!

    Or maybe they run out of cash, so they start to sue every webside in the world that they consider "apostatic".

  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep
    The very thoughts of good people are morally sound and directed toward what is fair and just. Since righteous ones are motivated by love for God and for fellow humans, their intentions are good. The wicked, on the other hand, are motivated by selfishness. Consequently, their designs—their methods of reaching their objectives—are deceitful. Their actions are treacherous. They do not hesitate to lay a trap for the innocent, perhaps in a court of law, by false accusations. Their words are “a lying in wait for blood” because they want to harm their innocent victims. The upright ones, having knowledge of the wicked plots and the wisdom needed to be cautious, are able to avoid this danger. They may even be able to warn the unwary and deliver them from the deceitful schemes of the wicked. OKM July 18, 2005
  • foreword
    foreword

    All watchtower litterature falls under "Works for hire". This is mostly done when the artist or writer uses someone elses assets to produce the works and is being paid to do so. The individuals writing articles do not retain their ownership of the works, it is passed on to the individual or corporation in this case the Watchtower (that is why you never see who initially wrote the article.). I'm not too familiar with "writings", but in the music industry this is pretty common. Even some well known bands were tricked into signing contracts which included "works for hire" clauses passing on their rights to ownership to record companies and such. Ex: Beatles, Rolling Stones, CCR...the list goes on.

    I picked this up somewhere

    The "fair use" exemption to copyright law was created to allow commentary, news reporting and education *on* copyrighted works without the permission of the author. In this case, the "on" is important. You must be commenting on or reporting about the *work*, not the subject matter of the work. If you could have reported the facts in your own words, but didn't to save typing, it's probably not fair use. If you needed to demonstrate something about the actual work or writing, then it might be fair use.

    Fair use is almost always a short excerpt and almost always attributed. It should not ruin the commercial value of the work (which is why reproduction of the entire work is generally verboten.)

    Notice the
    If you could have reported the facts in your own words, but didn't to save typing, it's probably not fair use

    It seems to me that they know you have done this using their CD-ROM, in other words using a copy and paste function. You might need to alter the presentation to hide this fact.

    In the licence agreement they put more emphasis on the "software" part rather than the data. Are you using the software on your site as part of the search function?

    I wish you luck on this,

    mark

    http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~lyl/copyrightmyths.html

  • Kenneson
    Kenneson

    Free,

    If the Watchtower is so protective of its material, why doesn't it keep it to itself? If their literature is so confidential why does it have JW's trudge from door to door trying to "place" it in the people's hands? Years from now they will be embarrassed by what they pass off as truth today. No wonder they don't want people to know what they wrote in the past! It's not about copyright. They don't want the public to see this info, pure and simple. They can't take justified criticism, but they love to dish it out to other religions.

  • dorayakii
    dorayakii
    Anyone send a link to the UK Guardian?

    -ithinkisee

    Yes I sent the link last night to Stephen Bates the Religious Affairs correspondant of The Guardian

    The address is: [email protected] for anyone else who wishes to write to him... the more the merrier i say...

  • crinklestein
    crinklestein
    Similarly the WTS literature, though technically purchased through voluntary payment, may be deemed by a Judge to be "purchased". If so, I an enterprising bureaucrat may inquire about WTBTS profits and ask them to submit a rather hefty tax bill. Something to think about.

    You could always say that you never donated money for the CD but instead for the World Wide Work. :) It would be their burdon to prove whether or not it was purchased.

  • dilaceratus
    dilaceratus

    Dear Foreward:

    In response to your comments, I again draw attention to the cumulatively transformative value of the extensive Highlighting done on the Quotes website, as well as the archiving and categorization of the quotes from an enormous base of material, all of which provide both real and implied editorial content.

    [Dilaceratus]


    As I commented some months ago on this topic (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/9/91228/1534143/post.ashx#1534143):

    23 May 2005
    The Drive

    Dear Quotes:

    When this harassment issue arose earlier, I had assumed that it would be resolved by your counsel's excellent response. Around that time the following article appeared:

    http://slate.msn.com/id/2112477 (Osama, Call Your Agent! Is Doubleday violating Bin Laden's copyright? By Brendan I. Koerner)

    While dealing with American law, its essence pertains to the Berne Conventions. It offers a good, succinct popular overview, with specific relevances to the fair use issues you face, suggesting that in some instances even a one hundred percent usage of booklength source material may not infringe on a copyright. Additionally, one avenue possibly worth pursuing are the editing, categorizing, and and particularly the highlighting you use on your website, which of itself offers both real and implied cumulatively transformative information. At any rate, the counsel you obtained seems to be first-rate, and must have assured you that there is no merit to this harassment.

    Tactically, there could be no advantage to the WTS pursuing this worthless case to the point of actually suing you, since, unlike most of their idiocies which harm only those within their power, such a lawsuit would have real news value. Jehovah's Witnesses value systems and motivations are so beyond my ken, however, that should they continue, you may expect both whatever support you require and an exponential increase in the spread of the information you sought to distribute with your website.

    My congratulations on your achievement with your website (which I have read, and enjoyed in a rather perverse way). Its effectiveness is evident.

    Best regards,
    [Dilaceratus]

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit