OK - Elsewhere! In the UK your site is up and running beautifully!
The Watchtower Society killed my website
by Elsewhere 185 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
collegegirl21
So if the WT is watching us, how come they can't pull the plug on this website?
After reading this post, it makes me extremely mad knowing that because they are so insecure with people who truly believe in the "truth" finding a small website (no offense) and having it be taken down is going to help. Why don't they worry about what is going on within their cultist bunghole and get the elders who doing things wrong, the people living double lives, or better yet, why don't they take a look at their lives, I mean, what do they have to say for themselves? "Yep, I work for WTBTS and I get to monitor websites all day, look at me, I deserve to live forever." No way you chicken f*ckers! They are worse than we are! -
Clam
We shall overcome some day
-
Oroborus21
Jourles,
I don't think there is a difference. I would consider the BOE to be the same as internal company memos. Regarding the IM website, the copyright holder of internal memos (presumably these companies) COULD assert a copyright claim. whether the web-host (Tucows) would be liable is whether it fell under the protection of the DMCA and whether it was aware of the copyright infringement. Perhaps after receiving a complaint Tucows makes the web owner remove content. After all the site has been in existence since 2002 and only has 2466 memos online. But that might be due to it not being well-known or more probably due to the fact that most internal memos are boring as hell and not entertaining or interesting.
Not too mention the fear that employees should have about posting such internal memos because if their identity is found out they will be fired.
We must remember though that at the heart of copyright protection is the economic protection. We have copyright in the first place so that the creator/owner of a creative work (using the word creatively loosely of course) will be protected in exploiting that work to their financial gain. If the copyrighted material has no intrinsic economic value, (which is why things ultimately fall into "public domain" because they are deemed to no longer be economically valuable after a certain period of time), then a court of law is not going to allow the copyright holder to prevent others from using such valueless material.
The WTS has legitimate claims regarding its copyrighted works such as publications. Even though this stuff is not technically for sale or commercialy exploited. For example, the child custody pamphlet. By having to request this from the Society, it increases the chance that such a person would make a donation to the Society or be a member or otherwise support the Society. Thus there is economic value in protecting its distribution. Even the Flock book could be found to have economic value.
RE: the BOE letters, I would find it dubious to claim economic value for these and it would probably hinge upon the actual content of the BOE letter. Letters with content that would harm the Society financially would probably be given copyrighted protection and those that didn't might not be awarded such protection.
-Eduardo
-
Gerard
My web site with the Rand Cam review has remained untouched and no threat has been dished out. No copyright issues, just facts: -
sf
Gerard, you are wrong. That page is down. And it is messing up this thread.
-
Finally-Free
A few more posts and this thread will be on the sixth page.
W
-
-
-