Help! Mike & Kim videos all being deleted by Youtube

by mrmagic 161 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  OrphanCrow

  jp1692: Very thought-provoking

  Good. If you found those papers interesting, try to get your hands on this one (you might have to pay for it...copyright and all that, you know):

  Disciplined Litigation, Vigilant Litigation, and Deformation: Dramatic Organization Change in Jehovah's Witnesses by Pauline Côté, James T. Richardson

  When it comes to "The Law", things are not as black and white as some present it, or believe it, to be. Sometimes, dealing with legal issues is rather like punching a big grey rubber ball around and kicking it whenever you can. The "law" is not black and white and the JW organization is, as presented by Cote and Richardson in the above paper, a "legalistic" organization whose purpose and direction sways and changes as the law around it demands and allows.

  It is a good read and it helps to put issues like this alleged copyright violation into a larger picture and allows us to better understand what is going on with the org's behavior.
• 

  konceptual99

  Whether or not wt actually used copyrighted material without authorization in the past is not a legal defense nor a justification for KM to infringe on wt copyright. Using your standard though, everybody should be allowed to infringe on KM based on them using wt copyright and it would be a double standard in they protected their property. According to your standard, it is open game on KM.

  I am personally not making the claim that K&M are justified in doing what the hell they like on the basis the WT may have their own issues with copyright. This is my position.
  

  • I do think that the WTS have a right to protect their property from unauthorised use.
  • I don't think that the rights of the WTS can be freely trampled on simply by claiming some moral cause or justification.
  • I do think that an organisation can and should be held up to scrutiny.
  • I do think that such scrutiny does permit some kind of "fair use" of the published content of the organisation.
  • I do think that the WT uses it's financial and legal muscle to suppress valid scrutiny and criticism, especially by those essentially powerless to argue their position through the courts.
  • I don't think that this tactic will work in the long term, in fact I think it may even have a negative effect on the WTS.
  • I don't think that there is a clear legal position on this and it's certainly dependant on local laws.

  The WT are not really interested in protecting their copyright. What they are interested in doing is making it hard for critics to produce content. The use of copyright claims in the context of YouTube is a no brainer for them. YT will always take the path of least resistance and go with the claimant. People like M&K cannot realistically hope to challenge the WTS therefore it's job done.
  ....until the content pops up elsewhere on services that the WT cannot influence....
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  The WT are not really interested in protecting their copyright. What they are interested in doing is making it hard for critics to produce content.

  Yeah, like if you found someone trespassing on your property and he was fishing or something and you kick him out. The owner does not want to protect his property, he just doesn't want the person trespassing to fish. You make a lot of sense.
• 

  Incognito

  Fish:. Once again, you miss the point.

  The discussion isn't about trespassing on WT property. It is regarding repeating the message that WT representatives speak or publish in literature, so as to anyalize, make sense of or criticise that information.

  Watchtower claims Jehovah commanded JWs to preach so as to spread his message throughout the entire earth. WTBTS is the organization God created to convey his word and to support the preaching work. I believe it was Fred Franz who claimed that Jehovah is the editor of Watchtower publications.

  Since WT information supposedly originates and is edited by Jehovah, does WT then have the right to claim copywrite on that information? It seems that anyone quoting, distributing or posting that information online, even if only to criticise, is actually assisting to spread God's message.
• 

  konceptual99

  So is the WT bleating about copyright because M&K are using some video produced by the WT or because M&K are critical of the WT? What if M&K were praising the WT? Would they be getting the same attention?
  

  I doubt it.
• 

  Fisherman

  Why does it bother the watchtower, the harm that is caused to the watchtower.

  Hmmmmm, stop killing chickens and pay attention!! Maybe because it is their property? It's like this, as I explained before. When somebody owns something, they don't have to give it away or let others borrow it. And they don't have to give any explanations. People have the same right to their morality and motives as you do believe it or no.

  You deviated from the obvious answer and keep going right back to what is legal and not.

  Well, again as them papers the process server hands you with all the explanations you seek, you have your morality and wt has theirs. You believe yours is better and that gives you the right to infringe on wt copyright. WT believes theirs is better and wants to stop you from doing so. WT tells you to stop. You refuse. You pray to your god and he tells you to infringe (Isis prays too by the way) WT prays to theirs.

  Who's morality is better, yours or wt? Those men dressed in black robes that I told you about don't care. And God wil decide which morality he chooses. -In the meantime it can go either way. WT may have to part with their copyright or you may find yourself parting (immorally in your book) with those little pieces of paper (they call greenbacks in the US) that people use to buy food and pay for legal fees and pay for registering copyrights. The ones you get in exchange for your hard work that people use to purchase things they need or like to own. And although it may be immoral to you if those men sitting on benches force you stop and separate you from those pieces of paper, there are those that don't care and don't agree with your morals. But you are free to believe in whatever morals you like.

  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  My point here is that the WTS presents a less than shining example in the use of others work.

  Maybe or maybe not but that is not decided in a discussion Forum. The point here is what JD highlighted in his post - the consequences of loosing to those men with the black robes that I alluded to in my previous post.

  Isis for example encroach on human life and property for their moral reasons.They feel that countries like the US, the land of the free and the home of the brave, where freedom rings and justice prevails is doing many immoral acts ( Imagine that ! ) and that gives them the moral right to do what they do -whatever the heck they want. Problem for them is that a lot people are opposed to their actions and not necessarily the morality behind their actions- only their actions. So getting back to JD, there are legal consequences for their actions. Moral consequences of immortality should be adjudicated and enforced by someone having moral subject matter jurisdiction.

  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  The WT are not really interested in protecting their copyright.

  Fair Use legal proceedings will decide. A person can plead his cause in Court pro-se if he cannot afford an attorney. All that the person has to do is to explain his side to the judge. You are using excuses for breaking the law. Explain your excuses in Court.
• 

  Fisherman

  @ OC floods the thread with legalese and links to views and books having no legal merit.

  I am eating potato chips in reply to your post. If KM is fighting for fair use, they may or may not win -by the way.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  Fisherman: And they don't have to give any explanations.

  Actually, they do. Mike and Kim bring to light plenty of issues that they simply ignore. Instead of answering these issues, they play the legal game.

  You do the same thing by ignoring the motives of the society and playing the legal game.

  Who's morality is better? Mine or WT? Let me humbly submit that it is mine. I do not go around, knocking on my neighbors doors and tell them that unless they follow my "spirit directed" lead, they will die at Armageddon. Then, when my prophecy fails, I "denounce" the doubters and the deniers as boastful and arrogant unrepentant sinners who will be destroyed at Armageddon.
  

  Evaluate the actions of the "organization" as if it were a human, a man; you will see that such behavior would not be tolerated by anyone. Why ask any less of an organization?