Posts by OrphanCrow

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

OrphanCrow

And another thing...while I am on my copyright soap box...

About the copyright extending past Ray's death. I have read many comments that reflect the attitude that the work should lose its protected status after the author is dead. Previously, I had made the argument that a copyright protection assures the right of inheritance to the heirs. But, that extension functions in a couple other ways, too.

Firstly, the extension gives assurance to the principle I discussed in my last post - that the creative process continues to develop within our culture.

Secondly, it gives some measure of protection to the creator of the work themselves - it assures them that someone can't come and knock them off just for the purpose of forcing their creative material into the common space. A 50 year span past death (different lengths for different cases) also is an insurance clause for the author of the work. So they don't get killed for their creativity.

So... for all of you who say "...the guy is dead now...I don't owe him anything." Well, yeah...but you owe society something - you owe "us" what the copyright principle of creative license was put in place for - the stimulation and development of creative works. The copyright act is there for everybody - for the good of all culture.

I'll sit down now.

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

OrphanCrow

And another thing about the essence of copyright law - it was put in place to stimulate creative growth and development. By protecting existing creative work, the copyright demands that new work be made, and that the creative process continues to unfold.

Copying and distributing the WTS elders manual (and other secret documents) is not being done for the purpose of stopping other creative work from being produced. It may be being used to stop the WTS from its practices that violate human rights' issues...but the action of apostates circulating that copyrighted material does not impede the construction of further creative works of its kind. Therefore, the resistance act of copying the WTS secret material and distributing it does not violate the copyright in principle.

If it can be proven that someone is copying the WTS material and redistributing it for the same purpose it was originally intended for, as an organizational structural rule book, and bypass making their own book...that would be a different matter and would, indeed, violate the copyright.

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

OrphanCrow

berrygerry: I haven't pored through all of this thread, but what I have read is nothing but the biggest bunch of BS ever.
Is there a bloody question?

I dunno...

It is an apple and oranges debate.

They are both fruit, but other than that....they cannot be compared.

Asking moral questions that compare the copyright of Ray's book to the copyright of WTS secret material shows a profound lack of understanding as to what copyright law is designed to protect and how it functions.

The WTS misuses copyright law to suppress material - Ray used copyright law so that he could distribute his voice to the public. The underpinings of their motives for copyright protection were extremely different. Therefore, any discussion that pits the WTS copyright against Ray's copyright is frankly, a discussion that is going around in circles.

The copyright law is applied differently to each case and comparisons are only a red herring. As I said before, the issue with WTS material being distributed publicly is not copyright - it is an internal security issue.

People have brought up the notion of "harm" and how the WTS can claim harm under the copyright act. Well, they can't. Harm, in the context of copyright law, is realized when someone uses the "creative" part of putting 'facts' together without inputting any of their own creativity into it.

For example, this following scenario would consitute "harm".

I get my hands on the secret elders manual and material that pertains to organizational structure. I read it eagerly, so impressed with how well it is written and the detail it has used. I am impressed with the layout of the work, how it is put together. And, I don't like to work, but I want to start up an organization just like the WTS and call it something different. Or maybe...I already have a religious organization but we lack organizational structure and control. So...I steal that WTS elders book and other publications that are valuable to me so that I can do the same thing as the book was intended to be used for - in my own way and for my own gain. And I give copies to my cronies that are going to help me implement all those "creative ideas" and make our own organization that follows those exact instructions.

That would be "harm" in the sense and spirit of what copyright is designed to address. I would have violated the copyright protection of creative material.

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

OrphanCrow

I understand this (the copyright laws are down the document a ways).:

http://carcc.ca/documents/2015EngFeeSchedule.pdf

And a bunch of stuff on patent law and that kind of thing.

Like I said. This is interesting. It interests me to see how laws are changing and responding to technology and the WWW.

Carry on... I am departing.

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

OrphanCrow

But...is it protected material to begin with?

It was not published for any price. In fact, it was donated! For free! I would argue that any copying or reproducing of WTS material is only "helping the cause". They produce non-profit material, right? For public distribution, right? Charitable, not for profit? My copies should help them reduce costs. Good deed, I am thinking.

Who benefits from me not copying it and does that restriction actually place restrictions on the cover up of crime??

Again, does the material actually qualify as protected?

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

OrphanCrow

gnd: Fair use right?...

No.

You do not understand the legal concept of "fair use". You are using the moral or, emotional, concept of the word, not the legal one.

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

OrphanCrow

Mephis: As far as it goes with the current 'debate' about COC in the real world, not really something I want to play with.

I am paying attention.

I 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.

:)

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

OrphanCrow

Mephis, your proposal addresses both issues - that of harm as well as when "copyright" transforms into "evidence".

The copying and distribution of so-called copyright material becomes moot when it is used as evidence in exposing the harm already done by those copyrighted words.

It is political positioning. In fact, that same copyright establishes that the words of the evidence is "fact". Their true words. So, copyright protection is there not just for the one who holds copyright - it protects the public, too. By establishing that what was said is real/true.

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

OrphanCrow

GND, I am saying that it highly questionable as to whether it meets the legal standard under intellectual property law to be considered for protection under "creative license". I don't think it does.

If there are any "laws" that have been broken in the leaking of secret WTS material, the place to place legal culpability would be on the one(s) who leaked the material. They are the ones who are in danger of being prosecuted or internally disiplined. Like, for example, if it was a lawyer who had breached confidentiality of his client. Not the ones who picked up WTS material (evidence) in public space and spread it around.

If the WTS wants to prosecute for the distribution of their "protected" material, it would be best if they looked inside rather that out here in the public spaces. And, they need to be aware that their "protection" and wall of internal security does not sit outside of the common law of the land. Australia proved that to us.

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

OrphanCrow

gnd: Copyright is utilized in any way the copyright holder wishes.

No. You have to establish copyright first. I am saying that their material doesn't meet the standard of what can be copyrighted.

Some things do not have any protection, or very little under intellectual property law. Just because you generated or made something doesn't mean that you can put it out there in public space and ask for protection under any of the intellectual property laws.

Copyright protection is only one part of intellectual property law and The WTS material does not meet the standard to be considered as qualifying for such protection.