Quotes website receives "Cease & Desist"
by Quotes 286 Replies latest members private
-
-
BrendaCloutier
Ok, what I'm seeing here is that QUOTES and WATCHTOWER OBSERVER are both foreign owned companies/websites, and do not fall under the US Copyright and First Amendment laws.
Sounds like a potentially undefendable attack to me. Those cowards.
-
seattleniceguy
Ok, what I'm seeing here is that QUOTES and WATCHTOWER OBSERVER are both foreign owned companies/websites, and do not fall under the US Copyright and First Amendment laws.
It doesn't matter where the web sites are. The material in question does fall under US Copyright laws.
-
Quotes
Again, thanks to all for your ongoing advice an support.
A small update. I sent a second request to my web host this morning. Their response:
=============================
We were mailed a copy as well, you still did not receive it? They have your correct address listed on it. I sent our copy to our attorney who handles these copyright issues.
Regards,
[name removed]
=============================
I sincerely hope that the WT lawyers didn't, um, *FORGET* to send me my copy. Yeah, yeah, that's it. They *FORGOT* to send me my copy.
Seriously, it is possible that my copy is just in the mail; I think my web host is in New York, which would make delivery from New York (assuming that is where the letter originates) a bit quicker than sending it all the way to the Great White North.
~Quotes, of the "waiting by the mail slot" class -
Billygoat
Interesting that you haven't received your copy of the letter. It wouldn't surprise me if they were just trying to scare the host without you even knowing about it.
Watchtower monitors: You underestimate our strength and willingness to fight you. Bullying will get you nothing except bad publicity.
-
OldSoul
There has to be tons of quotes regarding the statement, "You received free, give free," that would be absolute gems in stripping any claims that this information was intended for nothing other than worldwide public distribution. I will launch an exhaustive search of the 2003 WT Library this evening and get back with references.
Respectfully,
OldSoul -
confusedjw
Ok, what I'm seeing here is that QUOTES and WATCHTOWER OBSERVER are both foreign owned companies/websites, and do not fall under the US Copyright and First Amendment laws.
It doesn't matter where the web sites are. The material in question does fall under US Copyright laws.I have to disagree, it does matter. In Russia it is perfectly legal to handle music ripping and downloading - even if the music came from a US band and is covered by US copyright laws.
-
Valis
w00t! Quotes, I've currently emailed this guy and got a response and he said he would look into it. I'm hoping he takes an interest and gets back to me with some suggestions.
-
Jahna
Hello Seattleniceguy
Copyrights can only be enforced in countries that recognize copyright law. In this case Canada does recognize and enforces copyrights, and as Quotes indicates, the web host is in the US. Other countries do not, it depends on the country. If you host this material in another non supporting copy right country, they (the WT) would find it difficult to impossible to remove the site as they would have no legal ground.
There is interesting scenarios being tossed around in regards to other copyright issues in the country of Canada. For example, music companies in the US are unable to stop, sue or even get subscriber information from Canadian ISP?s, in regards to file sharing web sites. This means unlike those in the US, the music industry couldn?t issue law suits against Joe Public Canadian a year or so back when they had the blitz. The Canadian Supreme Court has already ruled against ISP?s forcing to give out subscriber information in piracy cases. Microsoft has also found it hard to press legal claims in Canada in regards to piracy etc. Perhaps moving your web host out of the US and into Canada maybe an answer, temporally. Also consider having someone else register it as your name and address has already been revealed. While Canada may support copy rights, our privacy laws are much stronger and the US corp would have to dance to Canadian tunes not US. Certainly consulting with a local attorney would be prudent.
On another note, when and if you get the notice from the WT, maybe you should publish it on your website, this let?s others become aware of what is going on. Maybe even have an online petition on your site. For goodness sake, it seems rather odd that the WT, the grand publisher of God?s water (which should be given for free) would find quoting the WT?s own material offensive, it?s truth isn?t it? I think the blitz the WT is currently doing to remove their ?truth? from pro, anti and information sites across the internet is at best, suspect. Certainly posting some of the great WT quotes already provided in this thread along with that letter will leave people to speculate about WT intentions. Even their own words contradict this action. What are they so afraid of????
The WT loves to point at cover ups and gloat! Now, what are they covering up, let this become as public as you can get.
Jahna -
AlanF
In principle, I'd just love to see this issue of copyright infringement get to a high-profile court case. Imagine the sort of interaction you might see between a Watchtower spokesman and a good cross examiner:
*=====*=====*=====*=====*=====*=====*=====*=====*
CE: Please explain why you think that quoting bits of your literature for research and educational purposes is an infringement of your copyright.
WT: Well it infringes on our right to distribute our information by ourselves.
CE: I see. Well, has your organization been harmed by letting information from your literature be seen at a website not under your direct control?
WT: I refuse to answer.
CE: You cannot refuse to answer. You're in court and under oath.
WT: But, but ...
Judge: The witness will answer the question!
WT: Alright. We've been harmed because you can't just take bits and pieces of information in our publications out of context and expect to understand it. We've been misrepresented!
CE: Misrepresented? Can you give an example from the website in question that misrepresented you?
WT: [long silence] ... No.
CE: No? You mean to tell me that you claim you've been misrepresented and you can't give any examples?
WT: .... No.
CE: Then how can you claim that you've been harmed?
WT: Well, you have to understand that you can't just take bits and pieces of information in our publications out of context and expect to understand it!
CE: Your honor! Please explain to the witness that he's repeating himself.
Judge: The witness will explain to the court how the website has harmed the Watchtower organization!
WT: I can't do any better than what I've already said!
CE: Alright, let's move on. Now, your organization disseminates what it believes is biblical truth, does it not?
WT: Yes.
CE: You also distribute your literature free of charge, correct?
WT: Without any charge, yes.
CE: Are you familiar with the biblical expression, "you received free; give free"?
Wt: Oh yes! That's why we don't charge for our literature. Of course, we accept donations to our worldwide work.
CE: If someone decides to help you disseminate the biblical truths you claim are found in your literature, without cost to those who receive it and without profit to themselves, is that a bad thing?
WT: Yes!
CE: Why?
WT: Well, biblical truth must come from "the faithful and discreet slave".
CE: What's that?
WT: That's what we call the people in our organization who receive divine direction and disseminate biblical truths from Jehovah.
CE: Is there any difference between biblical truth that comes from this slave and is disseminated directly by it, and the same biblical truths taken from this slave's literature and disseminated by others?
WT: Uh ... uh ... uhhh...
Judge: The witness will answer yes or no!
WT: Yes.
CE: what is the difference?
WT: The one comes from the slave and the other comes from someone else.
CE: Your honor, please instruct the witness not to mock the court!
Judge: The witness will refrain from mocking the court! Answer intelligibly!
WT: I can't do any better than what I've already said!
CE: It should be obvious to the court that no harm has been done to the Watchtower organization by this website's display of material intended for research and educational purposes. The witness is not able to give any information contrary to this conclusion.
Judge: I concur. Next witness.
*=====*=====*=====*=====*=====*=====*=====*=====*
And so it would go.
I think that Watchtower lawyers will understand this quite well, and so would do all they could to prevent Watchtower spokesmen from actually having to explain anything about exactly what their objection to such websites is. Anything concrete they say will work against them.
AlanF