by Quotes 286 Replies latest members private
We can win this. It looks to me as though we definitely fall under Fair Use. And if they want to play technology, I'm sure we have on this board the combined tech expertise to keep them guessing forever. I would be willing to contribute software design time / brainstorming to keep this up.
SNG
The bad part of it is, Quotes can fight it all and win, but..... his host may not want the fight, so they, and I have seen it so many times, may pull his site just to avoid trouble. This happened to a person I know that did a write up on Scientology, along with much other stuff not relate to them. He is still in court (and BTW he is from Canada as well) over the whole thing so far as I have heard. He moved his site and is now limited on information he can let Canadians view about the Scientologists. If your interested, here is his email address i's on his main page, so I am not uncomfortable letting you have it [email protected] he may have info/help for you, as this is a simular case.
Seedy
How about some off-shore hosting? :-)
SNG
I would be interested in the exact wording of the letter from the Watchtower, as this affects us all if they are attempting a new strategy. It will surely get big publicity from us all collectively, so they should be prepared to do battle.
yours,
Randy Watters
Thanks for you feedback everyone. I'm considering many congingencies now, but first must see a copy of the C&D letter.
Updates as the become available.
~Quotes, of the "Defending and Legally Establishing The Good News" class
http://quotes.watchtower.ca/
What if an organization were set up that were close to the JWs, but wasn't the JWs, that taught opposite to what they teach? Would that safeguard websites, so that the Ying-Yangs at Bethel couldn't touch them because they were their own entity?
Since they are a corporation for religious teaching, maybe an entity or organization that were set up similarly could escape the WTBTS's maniacal crap.
Nos:
Beware of the Voice of Strangers talk
I don't see how they can control what happens with audio recordings that are made at Open-to-the-Public gatherings. The only thing your recording proved, perhaps, is that the speaker at that convention didn't follow the manuscript verbatim. LOL
On the other hand, there were also transcripts there that were part of the PUBLIC domain - i.e., a lengthy transcript from the House of Commons where Glen How was a guest, and used that platform as a means for Preaching? and offering JW literature to Members of Parliament. There was also a transcript of a radio interview with JR Brown - which would be considered to be the property of the radio station, not the WTS.
If there's anything the WTS fears, it's exposure, and the Internet has been the perfect tool for doing that - no wonder the WTS has released their legal hounds.
Love, Scully
Hopefully you can get a scan up of this letter when you get it.
sKally
i would think that some of the copyright laws have expired on the older publications? dont they have a limit of 25-50 yrs then become public?
quotes i hate that this is happening and know its gota be stressful but i hope you know we got your back and appreciate all you do!
I really think you're right Alan about just throwing in some critical commentary.
It would only slightly marr the beauty of how Quotes only lets the texts speak for themselves, but the site should then be untouchable.
