by V 42 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Tatiana

    Now let's all get over there....comment and rate!!

  • Spook

    Why does he defend JW's so?

    I'm sure this will be a highly unpopular statement but here it goes: As an atheist I've been routinely disgusted by the support of women and the homosexual community for religion. I am a bit of a neo-con on some issues these days but I have been a radical for all of my 20's, routinely participating in political dissent, marches and aggressive demonstrations. I think women and gays have suffered the worst at the hands of religion and I balk to see the Chicago homosexual community bending over backwards for ecumenical ends and I am also irked when the local feminists (of the post modern kind, not the classical) fail to rise up for women's rights above Western self-criticisms in foreign policy.

    The filmer of Knocking does have a point: If you believe the bible you really can't escape the condemnation of homsexuality. And at least JW's aren't political (per se, but they are extremely legalistic).

    In conclusion, I don't like that he gives grudging credit where none is due. There is nothing good which JW's do that isn't already done better by someone else. But there is plenty of unique, one of a kind evil.

  • WTWizard

    If it was the Watchtower Society that instigated the action, I would expect more specious reasons for them to come in and obliterate it altogether. I am surprised that they don't pounce on anyone that provides whole magazines on Sendspace, or types whole paragraphs one at a time and then tears them apart.

    They are going to have a miserable time doing that with the articles I choose to rip apart (and, any article that they have used or are using, or will use, to ruin my sex life, will be ripped apart as I find them) because I paraphrase and review the paragraphs. Effectively, I am creating new original works using their bullsxxx as a starting piece, to throw it right back in their faces (which is not a violation of any copyright laws).

    Hopefully, this will be a major setback in their efforts to start a worldwide Second Dark Ages by killing the spread of information.

  • Atlantis

    V: (Six pack).

    Thank you for letting us know the circumstances! You are doing a great job and we appreciate it. We are very happy things have worked out.

    Cheers! Atlantis! & N.

  • Tuesday

    Hey folks, an update as to what's going on with my e-mail. I got a similar response to what V got, basically verbatim. However I did get a response to the links that V provided, of course this gave me a few more questions which I e-mailed to the producer (which I don't think he will be answering). Here is the response I got from the Knocking Director

    Tim -- thanks for asking permission to use our footage. We prefer that you not use any footage from KNOCKING in your videos. This is our policy for anyone. We have sent "cease and desist" letters to both JWs and non-JWs alike. The principle is about protecting the work of independent filmmakers and public television, which has to survive in a commercial media landscape overpowered by corporate giants. We hope you understand. We also hope you will respect our hard work and not take pieces of it to illustrate your own videos. Our footage was shot at great effort and expense. Whether you like KNOCKING or not, it should be respected as one attempt among hopefully many to tell the complex story of Jehovah's Witnesses. Rather than take our footage, we encourage you and others to shoot your own footage and tell your own stories. The more documentaries that exist on a given subject the better. This is what makes outlets like YouTube so great. The KNOCKING footage is copyright protected and we will ask YouTube to remove videos that use our footage.

    As for the links you sent, those appear to be YouTube users that have placed authorized KNOCKING videos on their own channel in its entirety. They have not taken pieces of video from KNOCKING and used it to create their own video on another topic/issue. This of course would violate copyright protected material and we ask JWs and non-JWs equally to not use our footage for this purpose. But if someone wants to place a KNOCKING video in its entirety on their own YouTube channel, this is OK. This practice is the same as being able to email a copyrighted New York Times article to friends, for example, through the New York Time web site. When people forward a KNOCKING video to friends in its entirety as we posted on YouTube, this is fine.

    I did send back a response, since the explination he gave didn't make sense from actual situations that I have dealt with in the past.

    Dear Knocking Director (sorry no name on this e-mail),

    Thank you for your response. I appreciate the quick response, I have forwarded your response to my promoter and the station manager handling our promotion. They have agreed to take the 3 second clip out of my video that would be shown online along with my entrance.

    I do have a couple questions though, for my own knowledge since your response is really like no other I personally have dealt with. From what YouTube told my station manager when YouTube members were distributing our footage; putting any copyrighted material on their site whether it is in it's entirety or otherwise is prohibited. If I were to put Wrestlemania 24 online in it's entirety on YouTube it would be taken down immediately, the same would happen if I put a UFC event in it's entirety on YouTube. Since this is a similar subject matter, several wrestlers (myself included) were shown on MTV's True Life: I'm a Pro Wrestler; if I were to put that documentary online in whole I would be asked to take it down (as a fellow wrestler Chris Dellaire P.K.A. Derik Destiny found out) however if I snipped the clip in which I were featured as long as the footage does not exceed a minute in length many were told this would be acceptable. Many others were told something similar when trying to post footage of themselves from the Documentary Beyond The Mat. Both of these were considered news pieces but would not allow a full reproduction online for views since it would cut into their video sales. If your principle about the news article holds true (which usually the article has a link underneath it saying "e-mail this story to a friend", which I didn't see your footage on your website to share with anyone, but maybe I was mistaken) would you mind if I used your response to forward to these producers so that we may use their footage in it's entirety on YouTube? This response did really prove interesting to me because another promotion I have worked for puts on shows primarily for charity, in doing such they have been featured on many News Broadcasts and since I worked for them I have been featured on several as well. In dealing with these News Stations they always give full permission to use any of their footage, whether it a small clip (which I asked for use on my website) or the entire news story (which the promotion asked for use on it's website). When I forwarded your response to my station manager he responded that it sounds a little fishy but he did have a similar response from a producer of a white surpremist propaganda film which he was told that he could use the footage if it was presented as they had intended it to be, to put forth their agenda. Given the various experiences I've had in trying to get permission to use various footage from a variety of sources I hope you understand why your response puzzled me a bit which is why I've responded with additional questions along with the notification that we will not use the footage. My question would be is this the personal view of the producers that the footage can only be used in the same context of the film or is there an industry standard that you are responding with that I have not come across with any of the other sources I have dealt with? We have several other permissions pending with various sources so any help with a response would certainly be appreciated.

    Thank you,

    Tim Murray (P.K.A. Tim Kilgore)

  • DT


    Thank you for sharing the results of your correspondence. They seem to be far more concerned with criticism than with copyright issues and they are still ignoring the issue of fair use. I would think that as documentary film makers, they would be more concerned with allowing people to debate important issues in a reasonable manner, such as by making fair use of copyrighted works. It's also ironic that they chose not to interview former Witnesses in their propaganda piece and then deny them a voice by disabling comments on their Youtube videos. (The ones on their channel, others are now allowing comments.)

  • Tatiana

    I can't wait to see if they respond to your last email. That was great!!

  • SirNose586

    Yeah!!! I'm back to watching and voting!

  • Burger Time
    Burger Time

    Could the videos posted be promotional clips? This could be why Knocking does not have a problem with it, because they were cut with the intent of promotion? Just putting it out there.

  • Tuesday

    BT- No those are videos of basically the whole movie online. The motives are definetly subject when someone does not want a 3 second clip of their movie used in one video but openly allows full reproduction of their work online. Either they don't want to make money off the work (which they're selling on DVD through their site) or they have an agenda to their work.

    That's kind of the reason I put all the examples I did, basically to show that this isn't a precident, the news story example he gave was completely incorrect, then I asked him straight if this was the personal decision or some law he's following that apparently no one else in the marketplace is following. To me it's fairly obvious that there's some sort of agenda there, because if they're protecting their interests from a 3 second clip then they're going to protect their interests in an entire reproduction. If for no other reason than to prevent people from seeing for free what they would buy on DVD from their site.

Share this