WTBS GETS SHIRTY WITH JW

by JEMIMAH 29 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  JEMIMAH

  BELOW IS AN EMAIL FROM A BRO I KNOW WHO HAS A WEBSITE TO HELP JWS GET SCRIPTURES AND MATERIALS THEY MAY NEED, IN IT YOU WILL FIND THE SOCIETY COMMENTS AND HIS OWN.

  Dear Jem this a letter I received from Patterson, this morning. I would appreciate your comments as I know you work on the ****** desk in London.
  Cheers

  [Letterhead from the Legal Department at Patterson]
  October 19, 2001
  Dear Brother ********:
  We note that on your Internet Web site www.*******.com you have placed source material for the Theocratic Ministry School, as well as material from Examining the Scriptures Daily. You should be aware that the Watch Tower Society’s publications are copyrighted material. Copyright infringement occurs when one copies and distributes copyrighted material without the copyright holder’s permission. This is true even if no profit is involved.
  While we appreciate that you may have good intentions, as a matter of policy the Watch Tower Society does not grant permission for its publications to be distributed as you are doing. Therefore, we request that you remove this material from the Internet. Please do not view this as a personal disapproval. Rather, this position is a policy that helps protect the Watch Tower Society’s copyrights.
  Also, we note that you have a link to Watchtower’s official site, www.watchtower.org. So that there is no misperception that Watchtower has some connection with your site, we ask that you please remove this link.
  We thank you in advance for your cooperation and send an expression of our warm Christian love and greetings.
  Your brother,
  (signature of an Associate General Counsel)

  My comments
  Legally speaking, the Society is the copyright holder. Not objecting to an unauthorized distribution might constitute dilution of copyright. If the copyright is diluted, any apostate could republish the Society’s material, changing it to their own evil ends, and the Society couldn’t take that person to court to stop it. That would be Very Bad Indeed.

  I thought that acknowledging the Society’s copyright would be enough to protect their rights. But copyright law as applied to the Internet is vague. The courts are still working out the details, a situation that makes lawyers nervous. So it’s good for us to be understanding when the Society makes a request like this, even when it seems that their request makes life more difficult. Besides, it’s their material after all; they should get to say how it gets distributed.

  It was nice to not read any objections to the scripture lists. Copyright law allows for excerpts to be made, and I infer that scripture lists are not copyright infringements. So I hope to keep providing the scriptures, even if the Society objects to my distributing other excerpts of their materials. (The size of an excerpt that doesn’t violate copyright must be one of those details that isn’t fully worked out yet.)

  I have to admit that I believe that only an idiot would confuse this web site with the Society’s simply because my pages link to theirs. But, human nature being what it is, maybe somebody has done exactly that. Anyway, it’s easy to comply with the request, and these pages are useful even without the link.
  For the future
  I’ve stopped distributing the School material and Daily Text via these pages. Now if you want the files, you’ll need to mail me personally and ask for them.

  Although I have no evidence that the Society is even considering it, I hope that they will eventually publish daily and weekly study material from their own web site. Letters from so many brothers and sisters have convinced me that this material helps them to improve their personal study: single parents who work and struggle to build up their children’s spirituality, publishers who make large-print copies for the elderly, pioneers trying to balance service time with personal study time, and elders who care for their congregation and family and selves and who need to save time whenever possible.

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THE SOCIETY ARE GETTING A BIT MIFFED

  JEM
• 

  SixofNine

  Besides, it’s their material after all; they should get to say how it gets distributed.

  Actually, nah, not really. Think about it, no profit, only information and commentary, distributed freely and vigourously, with the idea that it will save lives.

  Remember, the copyright is not nor ever has been in question. But so what.

  Nope, they couldn't make a copyright case like this stick for all the money in the world, IMO. But he is probably right, they may have to show that they tried, for cases where the material is altered.

  I’ve stopped distributing the School material and Daily Text via these pages. Now if you want the files, you’ll need to mail me personally and ask for them.

  BTW, what does this person see as the difference (between his old methodology and his new one) here? The eyes of the Society?

  Also, we note that you have a link to Watchtower’s official site, www.watchtower.org. So that there is no misperception that Watchtower has some connection with your site, we ask that you please remove this link.

  Of course they can ask, but it is funny to me that they would ask, as many links to WT.org as I have seen out there. Makes me wonder if they aren't suspicous of the guy, like maybe they worry that he will "turn".
• 

  Bodhisattva

  Can anyone think of any time where their materials has been "altered" by apostates? LOL. The worst thing to do is reprint it in exact context. I think I may link to Watchtower.org just to see if it gets them miffed. So far music companies have objected to linked to download sites (not to them) and movie companies have objected to links to the code to descramble DVD data to read on Linux computers (which code is NOT needed to make pirated copies). But I've only seen companies opject to links to them in cases where it is linked from a negative website, and I think only from sites critical of someone else; e.g. ford.com, linked from f*ckgeneralmotors.com, sued 2600.com. I think. Anyway, they have NO standing to object to someone, favorable or unfavorable, linking to them.

  Bodhisattva
• 

  Seeker

  Yes, the can copyright their material, for as soon as you write something down you automatically have certain legal rights to it unless you give them up. And the way the courts have been viewing copyright matters, there is no way the Society would lose in court if they tried to protect their copyright. Hey, it's their material, they have the right to do whatever they want with it, even sticking it in a dark vault.

  Of course, one wonders why they don't want to let their light shine as brightly as possible by disseminating the material over the Web using their own Web site. What's that? They want to use it only in field service so as to perpetuate the money-making operatioin they have going, and putting it out for free on the Web would obliterate that? Of course, how could I forget...
• 

  Gozz

  The Society's always knownt he Internet is theeir biggest enemy. They wouldn't even let it be used to propagate their version of the Gospel. As more JWs go on the Internet and access information the Watchtiower Society wouldn't want them to see, there'll be more Watchtower articles and Service Talks about the Inmternet; they're already running scred withthe UN saga. With this letter coming 10 dyas after the UN expose, it's temting tot think there's been a general UN/Internet alert... Down the Tower falls. Deception cannot live for long.
• 

  Moxy

  as indicated above, issues surrounding copyright and the internet are far from clear and there are many factors that can come into legal consideration.

  from http://fairuse.stanford.edu/library/faq.html :

  What is fair use?

  Fair use provisions of the copyright law allow for limited copying or distribution of published works without the author's permission in some cases. Examples of fair use of copyrighted materials include quotation of excerpts in a review or critique, or copying of a small part of a work by a teacher or student to illustrate a lesson. New issues about fair use have arisen with the increased use of the Internet. At the time of publication, a bill is pending in Congress concerning whether fair use provisions will be extended to appropriate users/uses of copyrighted Internet materials.

  When is copying is allowed by fair use provisions of the law?

  There are no explicit, predefined, legal specifications of how much and when one can copy, but there are guidelines for fair use. Each case of copying must be evaluated according to four factors:

  * The purpose and nature of the use--If the copy is used for teaching at a nonprofit institution, distributed without charge, and made by a teacher or students acting individually, then the copy is more likely to be considered as fair use. In addition, an interpretation of fair use is more likely if the copy was made spontaneously, for temporary use, not as part of an "anthology," and not as an institutional requirement or suggestion.
  * The nature of the copyrighted work--With multimedia material there are different standards and permissions for different media: a digitized photo from a National Geographic, a video clip from Jaws, and an audio selection from Peter Gabriel¼s CD would be treated differently--the selections are not treated as equivalent chunks of digital data.
  * The nature and substantiality of the material used--In general, when other criteria are met, the copying of extracts that are "not substantial in length" when compared to the whole of which they are part may be considered fair use.
  * The effect of use on the potential market for or value of the work--In general, any use that supplants or diminishes the normal market for the original work is considered an infringement, but a use does not have to have an effect on the market to be an infringement.

  Although all of these factors will be considered, the fourth factor is the most important consideration in determining whether a particular use is "fair." Where a work is available for purchase or license from the copyright owner in the medium or format desired, copying of all or a substantial portion of the work in lieu of purchasing or licensing a sufficient number of "authorized" copies would be presumptively unfair. Where only a small portion of the work is to be copied and the work would not be used if purchase or licensing of a sufficient number of authorized copies were required, the intended use is more likely to be found to be fair.

  mox
• 

  SixofNine

  And the way the courts have been viewing copyright matters, there is no way the Society would lose in court if they tried to protect their copyright. Hey, it's their material, they have the right to do whatever they want with it, even sticking it in a dark vault.

  It just isn't so simple. I would be very curious to know of a copyright case that makes you think this. Personally, I doubt they would even have a chance against usage as with this guys web site - not that he would fight them. If now, they had a history of creating their material and then sticking it in a dark vault, a court might grant them some help in continueing to do so. The WTS however, has a history of publishing their alzheimistic ramblings to anyone who will listen. Does anyone really think a judge would not take that into consideration? Perhaps judge Rutherford, but not any real judge.

  Of course their words are copyrighted. We have a saying in photography, "when it's created, it's copyrighted". The same is true of writing. In fact, even as I type, my words are being copyrighted as fast as I put them into this very discussion board. Bodhi-bing bodhi-boom bodhi-sattva, a copyrighted play on words! Please use responsibly.
• 

  Erich

  Is copying of words, texts and scriptures - transmitted via Internet and cyberspace - a kind of theft included in EXODUS 12:15 or not? What did Jesus say about such a theft?

  I think this would be a very interesting question, and we all need answer from the WTS.

  Besides: Who gave WTS the power to sue against copyright-infringment?
  If a brother's idea got stolen (what happens ten million times all days all around the world) who gives compensation to him?
• 

  joelbear

  Is the good news of the kingdom copyrighted?
• 

  sf

  Interesting history regarding the internet handle you "use":

  "Three biblical female names that are found in early New England lines -- Jemimah, Keziah and Keren-happuch -- have puzzled researchers for centuries. These were the names of Job's beautiful daughters who received an inheritance with their brothers. Why these names were so appealing is something we can only guess. It has been suggested that this triad of names helped out at a time of that rare happening, a birth of girl triplets. However, the names of Jemimah and Keziah continued to be popular well into the 19th century, but one seldom find a Keren-happuch."

  Are you female, incidently?

  sKally

  wcrestnpeace