Posts by Max Divergent

posted

59
Sweet 16 - Happy Birthday to Us !
by Simon in
1. forum
2. announcements
it's the forum's 16th birthday today!.

amazing that not only have we lasted so long but we're still thriving and growing.. thanks to all the people and often colorful characters who've contributed to the site over the years.

some are still here with us, some have since moved on, but all have touched each others lives in some way along our different journeys.. .
Max Divergent

Congratulations Simon and Angharad.
Max
125
Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!
by the girl next door in
1. watchtower
2. bible
now what is your stance?
Max Divergent

Tal...
1. The legal case was cited by name.
2. Your response to how long there's been a XJW online community makes no sense. I just said there was one pre 1996, therefore we're in / about to be in the third decade. That's all.
Windows, DOS and PDF's history are different topics.
125
Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!
by the girl next door in
1. watchtower
2. bible
now what is your stance?
Max Divergent

And just how many decades has there been an online exJW community
We'd be in the third decade to my knowledge.
I started online about 1996 and what one could call an ex-JW online community was already established. H2O is the best remembered part of it, and Randy / Dogpatch's Freeminds too. So, if we said 'from before 1996 to now', that'd be just over twenty years, thus we're at least in the third decade (or just entering the third at the minimum).
Regardless of how long its been, a lot of material has been distributed.
125
Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!
by the girl next door in
1. watchtower
2. bible
now what is your stance?
Max Divergent

All this over British law cases and who should do what is missing the point. No one here is going to win a legal argument. We're not wearing wigs, to paraphrase someone else.
The OP, as I take it, pivots on why should copyright over CoC be treated by anyone as different to the WT's copyright over anything. Illustrated by the hypothetical of 'what if the WT owned the CoC copyright?'.
The issue behind that seems to be in repeated criticism of unauthorized distributors of CoC compared to ongoing acceptance of unauthorized distribution of WT material.
125
Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!
by the girl next door in
1. watchtower
2. bible
now what is your stance?
Max Divergent

If you're going to cite a legal precedent you must provide a link and an explication
'Must' is a bit much in a forum like this.
125
Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!
by the girl next door in
1. watchtower
2. bible
now what is your stance?
Max Divergent

May I just note that, whatever the rights and wrongs of this or that, that the level of debate has risen from name calling and cheerleading for/against to expositing some fundamentals.
For me, I think the fundamental of most import here is consistency.
125
Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!
by the girl next door in
1. watchtower
2. bible
now what is your stance?
Max Divergent

Here, here, GND and cappytan.
Relativism is one thing, inconsistency is quite different.
(And consistent absolutism often results in uncomfortable outcomes).
125
Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!
by the girl next door in
1. watchtower
2. bible
now what is your stance?
Max Divergent

That's because there is a clear difference... and one recognised in law too.
Yep. The black letter of the law is only one approach courts take. Courts in liberal democracies are usually keen to be more relativist than absolutist.
Hence the PMs letter might not be held back from publication under copyright law in the face of overriding public interest.
GND - only called brilliant twice? Dear, let's make it three times! Brilliant! :-)
125
Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!
by the girl next door in
1. watchtower
2. bible
now what is your stance?
Max Divergent

I think the core issue brilliantly uncovered by the OP is that the ethical issues around copyright keeping are relative not absolute.
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.
But...
The ethical argument supporting 'bootlegging' is that the copyright owner was ineffectual in making Franz' works available.
One counter argument to that position is that the copyright owner was in fact a highly effective steward of the copyright in self-interest (and the purpose of copyright, the law being so vigorously upheld here, is the self-interest of owners, not consumer's access to material).
The scarcity of authorized copies and moral chatter about the unauthorized copies has generated high levels of interest in an old book and sympathy for the copyright owner is sky high.
On the back of that sympathy, some have even redistributed her general appeal for money, like here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5688224294895616/friends-you-concerned-about-future-ray-franz-books
All this just before a mooted re-release of the book: high publicity in a niche audience, high sympathy, moral labeling of unauthorized distributors.
For me, it's all relative.
21
Hello again friends...
by alamb in
1. jw
2. friends
i haven't been on here for so long.

peeking in to say hello.

any old friends here?
Max Divergent

Welcome back. There are a few still here from the early days.