pdf's of Raymond Franz's books

by Newly Enlightened 277 Replies latest members private

• 

  Simon

  this is confirmation bias. This is PROOF of what I'm saying. And it's proof that I'm also correct about the very thing Simon is saying I'm wrong about.

  No, you are taking me having an opinion about copyright law as "convenient" and an excuse to have an opinion about Lloyd Evans / Cedars. This is absolutely not the case. I don't need any excuse to give my opinion of him if I want to.

  When I state my opinion of copyright law it's based on knowledge and experience of working on my own personal websites as well as sites for global banks and pharmaceutical companies and others and sitting in on far too many meetings about what can and cannot be put online and what permissions do and don't need to be obtained.

  I state what I know as being the law as I understand it because I understand it and have this experience. You can take that as being an attack on someone but that only exists in your mind because you are interpreting things though your own bias and preconceived opinions without knowing all the facts.
• 

  1009

  Simon, I did not encourage anyone to steal, like you said. I am in favor of a reform of the copyright law. That's not just my opinion: there is an international debate about reforming the copyright laws. My opinion does not make me a 'simple, undeveloped' 'goofball', nor a 'simplistic, addlepated ignorant, boorish clown'.
  
• 

  Simon

  We are supposed to believe that? I've just had to delete 2? 3? posts of yours promoting a group advocating piracy and you absolutely did advocate the "take it if I want it" attitude.

  Bleating about being called out on it just makes you look silly.
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  No, you are taking me having an opinion about copyright law as "convenient" and an excuse to have an opinion about Lloyd Evans / Cedars. This is absolutely not the case.
  

  I respectfully disagree. Nobody who is applying bias realizes they are doing it.

  I know I'm not because I'm willing to be wrong. Maybe it is against the law. I'll fully admit this can be the case. I'll also full admit it may not be. I'm not biased either way.

  If yourself and several others were not biased, you'd be able to say, "sure, I may be wrong." But you haven't and you won't.

  And don't get me wrong, it's your right to refuse the possibility of your falability and I don't care that much about this in particular. Again, my only concern is the way it looks to others, and unfortunately too many people who are either pro cedars or neutral keep getting involved and this thread continues to be annoying.
• 

  Simon

  I respectfully disagree. Nobody who is applying bias realizes they are doing it.

  So let me get this straight, the only thing that will convince you that you are right is if I change my opinion about something I know for a fact to be correct and instead say it is wrong?

  If yourself and several others were not biased, you'd be able to say, "sure, I may be wrong." But you haven't and you won't.

  Or, the part you are missing, is that we are informed and know the law ... Don't assume that everyone is as ignorant about something as you are. Why would I say "I may be wrong" when I know that I am not?

  You have setup a scenario where you won't accept any truth but the one you are willing to accept. Don't expect me to play your idiotic game.

  Anyway, I'm done with your nonsense on this and your desire to make this about cedars as a way of shutting the discussion down. It's not about him - it's about anyone who takes a book, slaps their own logo on it and sells it without permission. It maters to this community because it's a very important book by someone a lot of people respected for writing it.
• 

  1009

  I did not advocate a "take it if I want it" attitude. I have said several times that I am willing to pay artists a reasonable amount for the work they do. And I am in favor of a reform of the copyright system.
  
• 

  Simon

  How you want to change the law and why is irrelevant. All that matters is what the law *is*. You are just trying to confuse an issue which is very clear and very simple.
• 

  1009

  We had a discussion about the copyrights of CoC. I made a statement about copyrights in general ('outdated'), and (that's what happens in discussions) we had a further discussions about copyrights in general. A discussion which I personally find very, very interesting. Except Nathans childish insults.

  If you want a specific discussion about the copyrights of CoC, I would like to discuss that it's very hypocrite to blame Cedars of printing CoC, while we all have benefited from the circulation of CoC in PDF-form. Which is also a violation of the copyrights law. I can find several links to the PDF's on this forum.
  
• 

  Simon

  If you want a specific discussion about the copyrights of CoC, I would like to discuss that it's very hypocrite to blame Cedars of printing CoC, while we all have benefited from the circulation of CoC in PDF-form. Which is also a violation of the copyrights law. I can find several links to the PDF's on this forum.
  

  Posted, I'm sure, by people either ignorant of the law or who think they are justified in flouting it.

  This topic started by someone posting a link to the PDF and then finding out it wasn't actually free to be distributed in that way and the link was removed. We're now having a discussion about how it can be made available legally ... in between people going out of their way to make it about "someone else".

  There isn't any disagreement as far as I can tell:

  • The books are covered by copyright, whatever your views on the law
  • Only the copyright owner can authorize reproduction and it doesn't appear they did
  • People have contacted the current owners to try and make sure the books cab be made available

  .

  The rest is just pages of the same people announcing that they are done with the topic only to reappear and demand the world admit it is about cedars or you wanting to promote the end to copyright law.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Back on topic .... it appears that the paperback version of this book is listed at a unusually high price of over $100

  on Amazon for example. It seems the demand has grown but the availability has shorten due to a lack of stock at wholesale warehouses ???
  

  I'm all for distributing this book to the public as well as many JWS but I think it should be done fairly and legally in the process.
  

  I'm guessing that there some Ex-jws don't care about legal rights to owners of this book as a kind of retribution against the WTS.

  If this person is selling this book in US dollars at $10 a piece, what that relates to Romanian money is in question.