by Ozner 14 Replies latest jw friends
Having now seen the magazine, I also think it has to do with money - partly. The cover is going to be the same on every issue. It hasn't got much colour in it. It will cost much less to produce.
Apart from the fact that they will be able to put more brainwashing information in the JW-only articles - no-one will need to be embarrassed thinking how are they going to offer this to the public.
Copyright laws don't care how you're using the material, or how the material is used by the author. If we take a freely distributed -- but copyrighted -- tract (from any source) and post it in its entirety without the copyright holder's permission, we're in violation of the copyright laws.
The bigger issue, though, is that they can sue you. Remember when the Watchtower went after Quotes*? Maybe he would've won his case, but he couldn't afford to go to court over it. Could any of us? I know I couldn't.
The Watchtower knows they'd have any individual over a financial barrel.
I'm not saying this ability to sue had anything to do with the change to the mags, only that they surely can sue regardless.
Dave
* "Quotes" refers to a poster on JWD that maintained a website of quotes from the Watchtower. These quotes alone (without commentary) showed the Watchtower to have flip-flopped, taught variously contradictory things, called themselves "prophets", everything. They sued him for copyright infringement. Now the site is gone. Bastards. (The site has reemerged here and there under different names, though not from the original poster)
That could be the case. But, why do you think that the WTcoments are now a joint effort on a separate site reposted here?
Dawg,
I think that copyright violations are not dismissed by the Courts because the infringer claims not to make money in violating the copyright. The injured copyright owner can sue for damages resulting from the infringement (whatever they are). The Court may also order an injunction and or impose a fine. Laws cannot be violated because lawbreakers claim they did not make a profit
FAIR USE
Under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. The law does not clearly define the boundaries of fair use, and it is necessary to make a decision on the following four considerations:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such is of a commercial nature or for non-profit educational purposes.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work.
Is the work factual, informative or creative? If the material is factual, the balance is in favor of fair use. If the material is creative, the balance shifts to asking for permission. Copying a commercial work meant for the educational market (workbooks, textbooks) is less likely to be considered fair use.
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
Amount is measured both qualitatively and quantitatively. Quantity must be evaluated relatively to the length of the entire original and amount needed to serve an objective. Use of a small amount of a work tips the balance towards fair use; a large amount tips the balance towards asking permission. Non-profit educational copying leans toward fair use, commercial copying would require asking permission.
4. The effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Details on above can be found here: http://www.wwu.edu/publishingservices/pdf/copyrightpolicy.pdf
Constitutional use of public domain material (uncopyrightable). Everyone has a constitutional right to use material in the public domain without limitation even if it is contained within a copyrighted work.
(perhaps the members only will not be a "public domain" magazine and therefore a violation to copy the material?)
For goodness sake....this IS a publishing company you are dealing with even though it masquerades as a religion. They obviously know any loophole. However, you could "flush them out" with tempting them to sue you for infringement and blow their cover wide open!
