DT

Joined

• started 178 topics
• posted 1,239 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by DT

• 
  74

  "KNOCKING" LEGAL ACTION AGAINST WATCHTOWER COMMENTS

  by V in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this notice was emailed to a third party who embeds watchtower comments videos on his blog:.

  "my name is tom shepard, co-producer and co-director of knocking, a documentary about jehovah's witnesses.

  you have violated u.s. copyright law by not gaining permission to use footage from knocking in the opening sequence of your series of short videos "watchtower comments" archived at the url: http://jehovahswitnessesvideo.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  Here is a good video about fair use. It makes V's three seconds seem pretty insignificant.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo
• 
  14

  Some of My Thoughts on Knocking's Legal Threats

  by DT in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  you may want to check out this thread for background information.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/155256/1.ashx.

  so i get an email from one of the knocking directors threatening legal action over an alleged copyright infringement in the watchtower comments videos.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  I just checked and it appears that the Watchtower Comments videos have been removed from Youtube.
• 
  74

  "KNOCKING" LEGAL ACTION AGAINST WATCHTOWER COMMENTS

  by V in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this notice was emailed to a third party who embeds watchtower comments videos on his blog:.

  "my name is tom shepard, co-producer and co-director of knocking, a documentary about jehovah's witnesses.

  you have violated u.s. copyright law by not gaining permission to use footage from knocking in the opening sequence of your series of short videos "watchtower comments" archived at the url: http://jehovahswitnessesvideo.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  I just checked and the Watchtower Comments videos are gone. It looks like at least one of the threats was real.
• 
  74

  "KNOCKING" LEGAL ACTION AGAINST WATCHTOWER COMMENTS

  by V in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this notice was emailed to a third party who embeds watchtower comments videos on his blog:.

  "my name is tom shepard, co-producer and co-director of knocking, a documentary about jehovah's witnesses.

  you have violated u.s. copyright law by not gaining permission to use footage from knocking in the opening sequence of your series of short videos "watchtower comments" archived at the url: http://jehovahswitnessesvideo.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  It looks like the notice to V could be a hoax. It is very different than than the first notice. The first notice that came to me was from an email address that is listed on the contact page for the "Knocking" website. Does anybody know if that can be faked?
• 
  14

  Some of My Thoughts on Knocking's Legal Threats

  by DT in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  you may want to check out this thread for background information.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/155256/1.ashx.

  so i get an email from one of the knocking directors threatening legal action over an alleged copyright infringement in the watchtower comments videos.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  You may want to check out this thread for background information. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/155256/1.ashx

  So I get an email from one of the Knocking directors threatening legal action over an alleged copyright infringement in the Watchtower Comments videos. This is ironic for a couple of reasons. I have nothing to do with the production of those videos. They are hosted on Youtube. I just embedded those videos on my blog. It's strange that they would contact me instead of the site that is actually hosting the videos. As was discussed in the other thread, they finally contacted the person who is involved in producing them. The message was different. They didn't threaten to sue him. They just threatened to ask Youtube to take them down unless he removed the short segment of video that is in question. Why would they threaten to sue me, but not the producer of the videos?

  I don't know what their motives are, but I can think of some possible reasons for their peculiar actions. One possibility is that they just made a mistake in threatening me. It would be surprising if the director of a documentary lacked the research skills to discover that embedding a Youtube video on a blog does not necessarily mean that you are the producer of that video. Still that is a possibility, and it's the most charitable possibility that I can think of.

  I also feel compelled to wonder if that threatening email was meant to be harassing or intimidating. Let's review the circumstances. My video blog is critical of Jehovah's Witnesses, while the Knocking documentary is very favorable and ignored many of the scandalous details about Jehovah's Witnesses. There are allegations that Knocking received funding from individual Jehovah's Witnesses and they are aggressively marketing their DVDS to Jehovah's Witnesses. The Watchtower Society has also provided help to these film makers, including archival material and permission to film at Assemblies, Kingdom Halls, etc. It is understandable that they would be embarrassed if even a very short segment of their film appeared in a context that is critical of Jehovah's Witnesses, whether or not it was fair use.

  The makers of Knocking have come down hard on criticism of their film and of Jehovah's Witnesses. They have removed commenting from the videos clips that they posted on Youtube. They also started a forum and then closed it down when it received a lot of critical comments.

  I doubt that their only concern was the protection of copyright. The effects of their action go far beyond that. It might seem like a trivial thing to just edit out a few seconds of footage. The problem is that you can't do that on Youtube without starting over. The new video has to start over with a new link, comments, viewer stats, etc. This can be big deal. Watchtower Comments was very popular and reposting the videos means that the old links will no longer work and the search engine traffic will also have to start from the beginning. If the makers of Knocking have a legitimate copyright claim, then fine, they are within their rights. If, however, those three seconds falls under fair use, then this action has the appearance of a reprehensible attempt to stifle public debate about Jehovah's Witnesses. It's not practical to battle this in court, especially since Youtube would probably remove the challenged videos anyways.

  The presence of third parties, like myself, puts a different spin on this situation. I embedded those videos on blog pages that can keep the same URL, even if I change the embeds to the new edited videos. That means that any links to those pages will still work, unlike the links to Youtube. It also means that the search engine traffic I have been receiving on those pages should continue without interruption. It should also mean that the status of those blog pages will help the edited videos to reclaim their former search engine status on Youtube.

  Could this be why I was threatened with unwarranted legal action before they even bothered to contact the producer of those videos? I don't know, but it can be an effective strategy, even if it wasn't intended in this case. It would be understandable if a blogger just decided to remove the embedded videos when faced with that kind of legal threat. This would have made it much harder for the videos to regain their former popularity.

  I better stop for now. I hope to discuss this more in the future. If the Knocking people are trying to interfere with public debate, then this might be a small victory for them, but it will come at a cost in negative publicity. I hope the cost will be big enough to discourage similar actions in the future.
• 
  74

  "KNOCKING" LEGAL ACTION AGAINST WATCHTOWER COMMENTS

  by V in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this notice was emailed to a third party who embeds watchtower comments videos on his blog:.

  "my name is tom shepard, co-producer and co-director of knocking, a documentary about jehovah's witnesses.

  you have violated u.s. copyright law by not gaining permission to use footage from knocking in the opening sequence of your series of short videos "watchtower comments" archived at the url: http://jehovahswitnessesvideo.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  The original owner is the WTS, unless they actually went in and taped this footage themselves.

  I believe they did tape that footage themselves. This link discusses the Watchtower Society's role in that film http://www.knocking.org/watchtower.html

  This is a quote from that page, "KNOCKING's camera crews were also allowed to film at a district convention of Jehovah's Witnesses, inside local Kingdom Halls and accompany Witnesses in the door-to-door visitation work."

  If I remember correctly, that short scene was part of a longer clip that included some of the featured Witnesses in that film, so it appears unlikely that this was Watchtower archival material, although that was also provided by the Watchtower Society.
• 
  74

  "KNOCKING" LEGAL ACTION AGAINST WATCHTOWER COMMENTS

  by V in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this notice was emailed to a third party who embeds watchtower comments videos on his blog:.

  "my name is tom shepard, co-producer and co-director of knocking, a documentary about jehovah's witnesses.

  you have violated u.s. copyright law by not gaining permission to use footage from knocking in the opening sequence of your series of short videos "watchtower comments" archived at the url: http://jehovahswitnessesvideo.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  I have a question. When you edit a Youtube video, can you keep the same link, viewer stats, comments, etc. Or do you just start all over with the new video? If you don't have to start over, it's probably easier to just remove the three seconds. If you have to start over, that is a pretty big hit. That could be their primary motivation for what appears to be a frivolous challenge. If you have to start over, I'm sure a lot of us will help to make comments, embed the new videos, etc.

  I any case, this is more evidence that "Knocking" isn't an unbiased documentary, but a promotional piece for Jehovah's Witnesses. Does anybody have recent information on the claim that Jehovah's Witnesses were involved in funding this film?
• 
  48

  The Future of the Watchtower Society and the Internet

  by DT in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it seems that the watchtower society was very ill prepared for the advent of the internet.

  perhaps, some of the governing body thought the end would come before it became a big problem.

  now it is a big problem and is only going to get worse.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  It seems that the Watchtower Society was very ill prepared for the advent of the Internet. Perhaps, some of the governing body thought the end would come before it became a big problem. Now it is a big problem and is only going to get worse.

  I wonder if they made a big mistake by being so critical of the Internet in it's early years. If they encouraged witnessing on the Internet, they could have easily drowned out the voices of apostates. Now some witnesses are using the Internet to try to defend the Watchtower Society, but they often just make themselves look silly. For example, suppose someone puts up a video that is favorable to Jehovah's Witnesses on Youtube. The people who watch it see all sorts of links to related videos that are critical of Jehovah's Witnesses. If a Witness makes a comment, then it usually doesn't take long for former members to point out its flaws.

  This is a big dilemma for the Watchtower Society. If they relax their stand on the Internet, they will lose a lot of members who are suddenly exposed to the facts. If they continue to be critical of using the Internet, then they will eventually be overcome be technical advances that make the Internet an important and nearly unavoidable part of daily life. Either that or they will have to withdraw even further from normal society.

  Since the Internet is becoming more social, it is becoming harder to view favorable information without also seeing contrary opinions. Of course the official websites of Jehovah's Witnesses don't allow commenting and still have some control over the information (assuming you weren't distracted by apostate sites that came up in a Google search). How long is that going to last? Sites that don't allow comments already face a modest disadvantage because active commenting can help a sites in search results. This trend will probably continue. I assume they will try to maintain their control over information, but this may cause their sites to become increasingly irrelevant and hard to find.

  I can also imagine a time in the not too distant future when it will be far more difficult for site owners to avoid public debate of their claims. Suppose you could install a little device on your search engine that allows you to see what others have thought about the site you are visiting or will take you to other sites (like this one) that provide commentary about their information. This could be devastating for the Watchtower Society.

  How do you think the Internet will effect the Watchtower Society in the future?
• 
  10

  Hypocritical makers of "Expelled" movie expel a biologist from theater

  by Gopher in

  1. social
  2. current

  it's almost too perfect.

  myers, a biologist at the university of minnesota - morris, followed all the rules in order to attend a special screening of ben stein's new pro-intelligent design movie "expelled", but was expelled by the insecure makers of this movie!

  even more ironic, myers was interviewed for and appeared in this movie.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  This is terribly ironic. I would welcome an honest film that challenges weaknesses in our current understanding of evolutionary processes or exposes any unfair treatment of scientists who believe in God. Unfortunately, it appears that this film is just an uninformed attack against science.
• 
  35

  PROVE you are a conscious being

  by journey-on in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  what words would you use?

  what descriptions about your existence would you make to prove you are conscious?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  I can prove my consciousness to me, but not to you.