by leaving_quietly 75 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
So once again, in order to clarify...
If we cut and past from the JW.ORG site, can they track it to either our computer or to the place we paste it? (eg here)
If so, what action would they REALLY be able to take?
There wont be any big unmarked black vans rolling up with a SWAT team at our doors....
I accessed the site on my phone and that popped up right away. So weird.
They are obviously not talking about their logo, because their copyright request was denied.
zed
In all fairness to ‘Mother’, you can’t blame the WT for coming across in such a threatening manner by wildly highlighting in pink the terms of the dos and don’ts of using JW’s website. After all she (‘Mother’) is currently having her share of problems. As the expression goes… ’Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned’.
My guess is that ‘Mother’ is having her allotment of difficulties with the men in the organization who are showing signs of a less and less desire of working off her ‘honey do list’; meaning that qualified men in the congregations are currently demonstrating a substantial lack of fidelity and interest in carrying the load of the congregations world-wide.
It is opponents like jwn, jwleaks, jwsurvey, reddit xjw and a host of others who are helping WT’s Elders and MSs wake up to the realities of the unscriptural doctrines and teachings of the WTBTS.
So what is a woman to do but to fight back anyway she can to keep what she has even though she is well deserving of the treatment her challengers present!!!
I hope it puts many "interested ones' off going through the site....
How do the terms and conditions vary from ones for this site? (as an example)
steve2:
I can see it's time to bring out the smelling salts again.
There's nothing remarkable about a website having terms of use, particularly around the issue of accessing downloadable items that are copyrighted. It falls under the umbrella of intellectual property rights that most countries have legislative policies and laws on. Those who make use of such terms and conditions are required BY LAW to clearly publicise them to minimize inadvertent breaches and as an act of goodwill ( i.e., not be subject to charge of entrapment as in not warning about copyright infringements then suing a party for doing so.)
Now, please take a few nice deep breaths.
Sure, it's fairly typical to have terms of use. But most web sites don't have a brightly coloured box sliding in to view drawing attention to their terms of use. That's quite odd.
pixel:
How would this affect if I copy/paste from a document? Is there a way they will know?
The terms of use on the site don't (and in practical terms, can't) preclude fair use, which includes copying text for the purposes of criticism or review. As is the case with all copyrighted material, you can freely copy (and publish) portions of their material sufficient to demonstrate the point of your own accompanying commentary.
zed is dead:
They are obviously not talking about their logo, because their copyright request was denied.
Logos aren't generally protected by copyright. They are trademarked.
The JW.ORG trademark was denied because the site provides services (streamed audio and video) similar to those of JW Player.
Things like this are fairly typical for businesses nowadays and they are probably being careful to make things as enforceable as possible.
see: https://termsfeed.com/blog/browsewrap-clickwrap-i-agree-terms-conditions-privacy-policy/
But of course the issue is that it's tupical for businesses ... and that's what they are. If they really had a lifesaving message wouldn't they be telling the world to copy and paste it anywhere they could?
Did Jesus get everyone to sign an NDA before the sermon on the mount?
He probably at least took all their cell phones ...
