Copyright changes

by LoyalLeon 4 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  LoyalLeon

  It seems to be a minor change, but interesting is the date it went into effect:

  Although it is known for long that the Kingdom Ministry is not prepared by the Writing Dept. but by the Service Dept. this has only recently been officially acknowledged by a change of copyrights. The copyright for the km is no longer hold by the WTBTS of Pennsylvania but by the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Guess which issue of Our Kingdom Ministry is the first to bear the new copyright? Exactly, the nice August 2002 issue. This fine insert is the first issued under the new copyright.

  LL
• 

  Simon

  Interesting ... well spotted!
• 

  abbagail

  Thanks "eagle eye"! What are the implications of this, if any? Or is it merely a technicality of no consequence?

  Just curious.

  Grits
• 

  Amazing

  Good catch LL: There is some significance as Grits questions suggest. On the surface the change appears to be a minor technical change reflecting organizational structure.

  There is no special magic if the Copyright remains with the Pennsylvania Corporation and no special magic if it is moved to the CCof JW. There is no real need to change. However, the Society is working to divorce as much as possible from their publishing corporations. The Pennsylvania Corporation is equivalent to a holding corporation. By having all the sub-corporations taking their own responsibility, then in the event of a lawsuit, they will try to distance themselves from the troubled entity. If the lawsuit is serious enough, this will not really help them, as new laws have allows penetration of such corporate shields.

  Example: Suppose a victim of molestation sues the Elders and the local congregatrion and names the Watchtower Society as co-defendant, and in this namers all the entitites, then if the victim prevails and wins a judgment against the Elders, the local congregation and the Watchtower Society, they will win against all entities as long as the Court did not dismiss against any entity.
• 

  abbagail

  Amazing, you show up just at the right time. Thanks for the detailed explanation. You have great Brains. :-)

  One more Q: Wouldn't anyone who sues (or their attorney) be wise enough to include ALL of the corporations as defendants from the Get-Go, rather than merely elder/cong/WTS? In other words, I don't see how the WTS splitting up their holdings, creating sub-corporations, etc. could protect the society if the plaintiff merely adds ALL the corp's names as defendants in the first place.

  --OR-- Could it be that if the incident of abuse/cover-up occurred in the past, BEFORE these sub-corporations were created, does that preclude these sub-corps. from being included as defendants?

  I better stop here. I'm confusing myself.

  Grits