Posts by Mephis

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

Mephis

That seems like a claim with no basis. Do you have anything to back it up?
Let me guess, mass trespass / right-to-roam ... what else ya got?
Your example of a news expose doesn't cut it IMO as copyright is a pointless claim in such a case (and would be covered under "fair use" clauses). You can't put the genie of a revealed secret back in the bottle but that is different to the detailed instruction on how to create a genie.

Specificially on copyright?

Lion Laboratories v Evans

Full defence accepted.

Ashdown v Telegraph (which re-established that a defence of publishing something in a way which contravened copyright was perfectly acceptable if that was the final acceptable defence and there were no other ways to present the material)

edit: ah found the quote from Griffiths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Griffiths,_Baron_Griffiths on it. "The defence of public interest is now well established in actions for breach of confidence. It also extends to breach of copyright."

So, yeah, basis.

And, no, I specifically excluded fair use by saying the full letter would be published. Or if I didn't, apologies and assume that it is implied with full knowledge that you could skirt the issue with judicious use of other alternatives.

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

Mephis

Dude they wear wigs when arguing about this stuff.

I once was editor for a rag, only tiny - print run of 2.000, which came across an embarrassing letter about how a public figure was misusing funds. His solicitor sent a very expensive headed letter claiming copyright and seeking damages. Our cheap and cheerful reply was cribbed from Arkell v. Pressdram. It went no further. Seriously though, there are ethical questions about someone making money from another person's copyright (wrong), but the example you give isn't going to be one of them. It's not whether or not the WBTS is likeable or not - they could be cuddly fluffy bunnies - but there'd be a clear public interest defence in preventing them claiming copyright to suppress a work critical of themselves. Much as if a highly critical report which they'd paid for themselves somehow got leaked. Some laws bow to other laws. Because wigs. ;)

@OC - can see where you're coming from, yeah. As far as it goes with the current 'debate' about COC in the real world, not really something I want to play with. Have sympathy for those who make it available outside of what is a clear copyright which should be enforced. Not least because there are those who will not be able to access it otherwise. May salve my conscience by purchasing a couple of copies to 'pay forward' for a couple of others.

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

Mephis

Here, the dominant ethical norm seems that the Watchtower's copyright is relatively less worthy of protection because they use copyright to do bad things, and the copyright owner's rights are relatively worthy of protection because Ray and Cynthia Franz chose her to carry the copyright forward.

That's because there is a clear difference... and one recognised in law too. Let's reframe the substance of the OP to show the problem.
The British PM writes a very, very long letter which calls into question his ability to govern the country. A newspaper gets hold of the letter. Can the British PM expect to be able to exercise his very real and very valid copyright over that letter to prevent publication? If you live in a country where the answer is 'yes', then you should be demanding a change in the law. In Britain, a judge would tell him where to put his complaint about broken copyright. There is no ethical dilemma involved.

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

Mephis

Copyright is utilized in any way the copyright holder wishes. However we weigh in on it, if it agrees with us or not, violation of copyright is illegal, even when that copyright is to suppress or protect financial loss.

Obviously depends on jurisdiction, but there are very valid defences for doing it here in Britain. I'd suggest the WBTS obtaining copyright to suppress inconvenient information contained in CoC would fall under one of those defences.

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

Mephis

Eh?

British courts consistently find that the 'public interest' defence outweighs any right to private property. In the scenario set out in the OP, the WBTS have to demonstrate that someone has harmed them financially to claim damages. If one shares freely and to inform against a cult, then I'm wondering what possible harm/damage they will be claiming to have been done. thegirlnextdoor makes one argument in her post, and if that's the best available, then the WBTS would be arguing in favour of the public interest defence :D

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

Mephis

Watchtower would argue that the illegal distribution of their copyrighted work meant only for their BOEs could cause many rank and file members to leave the organization, taking their voluntary contributions to the world wide work with them. That is financial loss. It may be ethical from our standpoint to do so, and it most definitely is to wake people up causing them to abandon the WT organization. But it does not lift the violation of copyright infringement. Call it civil disobedience if you like.

I'd love to see the WBTS lawyers try to argue that. "You see the harm is that when people realise we're full of nonsense, they stop giving us money." No. They have to show that they have been harmed financially by making CoC available in spite of them holding copyright on it. People really do confuse breaching intellectual property law with criminal law. They two very very different things.

Now, in conjunction with this, you will see in this forum, on reddit, and on multiple FB walls, that there is a huge number of ExJWs that are still justifying the pirating and distribution of CoC. To us it is unethical and morally corrupt to do so. But justifications for "civil disobedience" are really only in the eye of the beholder aren't they?

Not really. There's a very clear distinction between holding copyright to suppress and holding copyright to benefit financially from using that copyright.

Watchtower is just as livid over the breach of copyright for their publications, documents, files, letters etc. as are the large percentage of us that now unequivocally believe the piracy of CoC is horrendous. Which leads me to another question.
Why now? Why such a pinnacle of outrage with this issue today? Tens of thousands of pirated PDFs of CoC have circulated for many years amongst this community. I find it extremely ironic that a Cedars video and a Mike Kim rebuttal have propelled this issue at present into epic proportions.

Pass. i was addressing the issue you raised in your OP. I don't find breaking copyright particularly outrageous. I used to technically break it every time I transfered media from one device to another. Even the courts recognise the shambolic nature of current copyright law. Lots of froth with this current noise, lots of silliness, not my monkeys, not my circus.

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

Mephis

It's breaching copyright law. But it's a civil offence, and it's for them to show how they've lost financially from anything they distribute free of charge being distributed, erm, free of charge. I'd have more of a problem if people were charging for, or benefiting financially from, something within copyright which was available for free elsewhere. That's just rude. But in the scenario painted by the OP, can you imagine the press coverage of the book the dubs want to suppress from being read? It's nominal damages and no costs awarded to the plaintiff stuff even if you lost the case.

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

Mephis

So the copyright law only applies if we agree with the organistion the copyright belongs to? If we don't agree with them or don't like them then all bets are off?
If we take that principle a bit further and extend itt to other laws, what's acceptable? Murder, for example. Is murder ok if the murdee (new word!) is a bit of a twat? Taking the point to extremes perhaps but it is the logical conclusion.

If you're confusing protection of intellectual property with physical harm then we're on very, very different pages. Civil versus criminal is the page I'm on. Just how exactly do I harm the interests of the WBTS by copying something they want to suppress? Mull that over a little and figure out which is the greater right - the right to knowledge about a harmful cult, or the right of a cult to suppress that information. I'm saying the latter causes the greater harm and so I'd be happy to answer any suit for damages they'd press. Your mileage may, does?, vary.

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

Mephis

Contemplating the idea of Watchtower owning the copyright of CoC only heightens the examination of just how intellectually honest we are when it comes to our position on copyright infringement which seems to be the topic of the month.

WBTS can't charge for stuff but they do get heavily subsidised by my taxes. I'm more than happy to help spread things under their copyright already, and oops if it means they don't get website hits, so it's just more of the same. In any case, I really don't have an issue with making something available if the sole purpose of someone obtaining rights is to suppress it.

17

Transfer of Bank Balances and Kingdom Halls.

by kramer in

jw
friends

two things related to ongoing comments regarding forgiving of loans / transfer of balances to the wtbs and the ownership of kingdom halls.

firstly, i would argue that congregations don't care that bank balances have been transferred to the society.

i would contend that people contribute to the preaching work, and that's it , so long as there is enough in the bank to maintain the hall with a reasonable reserve, then i doubt many would argue against it.

Mephis

but why would the individual charities ever believe they own their own churches anyway? Publishers are just volunteers for a charity , they can no more claim ownership of a hall as can somebody that donates to a donkey sanctuary claim ownership of part of the stables. The society aren't 'stealing' anything as the publishers have never owned the hall. And even if they did any congregation would hand over ownership to the society if asked , if it's deemed to be needed

Dub publishers are more akin to donkeys who pay their own board, paid for the stables to be erected in the first place and used to be able to decide when to change the straw.

Does the CO have a better idea of the needs of a local congregation than those there? Does London Bethel? If all the money being contributed for the refurb goes to London and then they refuse to sanction the refurb, does that sound right? How about all the money saved up for a new hall and the go ahead now doesn't come through? Or the donations which paid for a local kingdom hall which gets sold and then those who donated now have to travel the 20 or 30 miles for meetings which they'd paid for a hall to avoid?

Sure, the WBTS operates a hierarchical religion whilst pretending to be otherwise. It's that tension which is exposed when they suck all the money out of local bank accounts and then say they'll decide what happens with it. The local elders may nod it through, but they're trustees for their congregation and can be held account as a group for their actions as that.