Posts by Mephis

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

Mephis

Memphis: you claimed that "British courts consistently find that the 'public interest' defence outweighs any right to private property" but the case you mention is incredibly specific and related to providing evidence. I don't think you have proven your claim by a long way.

Simon: You said: "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?", are you asking for something like a statement such as:

(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

Thought we were talking about copyright law, but if you're having difficulty accepting the argument, I can't help further than to point you to something like the European Convention on Human Rights. i'd be interested in knowing why you disagree?

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

Mephis

Thank you Mephis, now we have a more balanced presentation of the facts, which is quite a bit different than the terse statement you initially provided indicated.

It's exactly the same. Really. You're trying to find fault where there is none. There was a period of less than a year where case law shifted because of a ruling on video stills.

And 'no' to your presumption.. Simon got his answer. You have your's.

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

Mephis

Oubliette -

The first link from google gives a full overview of the case: http://kb-law.info/wt_dev/kbc.php?decision=172&&land=UK&lang=EN&page=UK

From the link you quoted the first line from...

"There is no official statutory provision offering 'in the public interest' as a defence to copyright infringement. However can it be used?

The answer is yes but only in very rare circumstances can/ does a Defendant raise these grounds in order to avoid successful action for copyright infringement against them.

Lion Laboratories v Evans - this case saw the publication of an internal memo which criticised the accuracy of breathalysers sold by the claimant. The defendant raised the public interest defence on the grounds that investigations should be made regarding the accuracy of the equipment to avoid incorrect readings when used by the police on motorists.

The three members of the Court of Appeal all accepted this defence."

The article then goes on to discuss how case law shifted one way and then back since, under the impact of various new legislation.

If you're expecting an essay from me to refute Simon's contention this is about right to roam, I'll decline the invitation :)

Don't be lazy. Create a coherent argument providing tangible evidence or stand down.

Erm, no? Happy to provide the names for you to do your own reading though. It's a bit more than right to roam but whatever.

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

Mephis

If you're going to cite a legal precedent you must provide a link and an explication, preferably one by a recognized jurist and perhaps a summary of your own.

It's very, very well known.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Lion+Laboratories+v+Evans&oq=Lion+Laboratories+v+Evans&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4.438j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

For an example of a fair treatment defence, Hubbard v Vosper deals with culty secrets and exposing them.

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

Mephis

Orphan Crow wrote: have had to be familiar with how intellectual property laws work and I am very interested in the impact that the WWW has had on the interpretation and application of these laws.
At one time, I was pretty active in the art industry - an active member of a photographer's gallery and a board member on that gallery for a couple years. We dealt with international artists sometimes. An understanding of copyright laws and intellectual property laws have been critical to much of my life and work as an artist. And it continues to be. I have read through the copyright act several times. And whenever I have had unanswered questions, I have spoke to people with legal experience. Copyright law and appropriation were also issues I would include in my classes - what each were and what the difference between the two were and to use each effectively, legally and ethically. Appropriation as a political act was something that discussed, theoretically and practically played out at times, as tools of the artist. The artist as "voice".
So...yeah. I am paying attention to how this plays out. It matters to me personally. I have many friends who are writer and/or artists. And it is intellectually challenging. I like legal stuff.

I'm sort of minded towards the comment of one judge, and how one then applies it. Very conscious from my NUJ card carrying days, and also my own work, of the importance of copyright in ensuring people get what is rightfully their's. But anyways, the comment which I think is a useful test and places a responsibility to ensure that no direct financial loss is caused, or, if it is, adequate restitution is made:

If a newspaper considers it necessary to copy the exact words created by another, we can see no reason in principle why the newspaper should not indemnify the author for any loss caused to him, or alternately account to him for any profit made as a result of copying his work. Freedom of expression should not normally carry with it the right to make free use of another's work - Lord Philips in Ashdown v. Telegraph

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