Posts by OrphanCrow

Utopian literature of the late 19th century would have influenced Russell's writings, for sure. After all, Russell didn't set out to create a religion, he wanted to sell his books. The religion happened after his books were written, not before.

Here is another utopian book that was popular around the same time - it was written just prior to "Gates Ajar" and could have been on Russell's bookshelf as well.

"Gates Wide Open" by George Woods.

https://archive.org/details/gateswideopenors00wood

An edition of this work, entitled " Future Life ; or, Scenes in Another World," was published by Derby and Jackson in the fall of 1858. The firm failed in the spring of 1859, and the plates were resold to the author, and have remained in his possession unused until the present time, when the recent popular and attractive book of Miss Phelps, entitled " The Gates Ajar," suggested its republication and the change of title which is now made. The Author hopes his readers will be gratified witli this attempt to picture the Scenes and Society of Another World. Washington, May 1, 1869.

Russell was not a great prophet - he was a just a product of his culture who took advantage of the free capitalist market in America in the late 19th century. Utopian (and dystopian) literature was quite popular at the time.

*to add - Phelps published two sequels to Gates Ajar:

"Beyond the Gates"

https://archive.org/search.php?query=beyond%20the%20gates

"The Gates Between"

https://archive.org/details/thegatesbetween30540gut

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

OrphanCrow

I realize what you are saying, Simon. And yes, the "fair use" principle would have to be argued in a court of law. I don't believe it has been yet.

However, according to recent rulings, the onus is on the copyright holder to consider if the fair use applies first before making the request.

If the material is fair use (and I believe it is, based upon the brief I linked to and the circumstances of the case it related to), then the copyright holder is liable for damages.

From the article in this thread here:

The law “requires copyright-holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification,” and those that fail to do so can be held liable for damages, said Judge Richard Tallman...

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

OrphanCrow

gnd...oh geez...you didn't read the brief, did you?

The brief is from a recent court case. (05/2015) It sets precedent. It is not a generalized document. Everything I have said, I have supported with documentation.

What more do you want???????

Just because nobody has successfully challenged the WTS copyright take down notices to date, doesn't mean that the notices cannot be successfully challenged. The brief I linked to proves that.

The law can continually be challenged. It is the nature of it.

Frankly, I don't think you understand the legal documents that I have linked to. Or the legal process at all.

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

OrphanCrow

Oh...and by the way, the brief that I linked to could be used to challenge the take down orders that YouTube is giving to people who post WT material for the purposes of criticism.

YouTube is responsible for ensuring that the takedown order is legitimate. The WT requests for takedown, based on some perceived copyright infringement, are not legitimate.

The copying and distribution of WTS material is not a violation of copyright laws if the intended purpose is for the criticism of the WT.

The pitting of the WT copyright against Ray Franz's book copyright is a non-sequitir debate.

125

Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door in

now what is your stance?

OrphanCrow

Designer Stubble: If the WT were to buy the rights, illegal copies would go viral.

If the WTS bought the copyright for the purpose of suppressing it or altering it, I would be the first in line to flood the world with copies of Ray's book. And I wouldn't be at all concerned of the legal consequences of my actions.

For anyone who cares to pursue this, the following article deals with exactly that issue - the buying of a copyright for the purposes of censorship:

Copyright as censorship? Katz v. Chevaldina

And for a detailed brief explaining why someone cannot buy copyright for the purposes of suppression:

https://www.eff.org/document/amicus-brief-eff-katz-v-chevaldina

If the WTS chose to buy the copyright for Ray's book and use it in the same way that Ray intended - to publish and circulate his books in its original form and content, well...I would say...good, all the more power to them.

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.