Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!
Memphis: you claimed that "British courts consistently find that the 'public interest' defence outweighs any right to private property" but the case you mention is incredibly specific and related to providing evidence. I don't think you have proven your claim by a long way.
Simon: You said: "That seems like a claim with no basis. Do you have anything to back it up? Let me guess, mass trespass / right-to-roam ... what else ya got?", are you asking for something like a statement such as:
(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
Thought we were talking about copyright law, but if you're having difficulty accepting the argument, I can't help further than to point you to something like the European Convention on Human Rights. i'd be interested in knowing why you disagree?
Thirdly, an underlying principle that is part of the establishment of the copyright laws is such that the protection of ownership of "creative material" would stimulate more creative projects/endeavours. That is one of the primary purposes of copyright.
Fourthly, the publication of "fact" is not creative.
Your understanding of what constitutes "creative material" is incorrect. Though facts are not specifically subject to copyright, the manner in which facts are expressed are subject to copyright. Whether a work purports to be fictional or factual is irrelevant.
a community that has shared illegal copies of CoC and WT copyrighted material for decades,
I had to chuckle at this. Decades? And just how many decades has there been an online exJW community, and shared what? Tens of thousands of copies, I think you said in an earlier post? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
I can't LOL enough for that one. Please 'flesh this out' as well.
PS. Instead of downloading it, I borrowed a copy. What a novel idea.
And just how many decades has there been an online exJW community
We'd be in the third decade to my knowledge.
I started online about 1996 and what one could call an ex-JW online community was already established. H2O is the best remembered part of it, and Randy / Dogpatch's Freeminds too. So, if we said 'from before 1996 to now', that'd be just over twenty years, thus we're at least in the third decade (or just entering the third at the minimum).
Regardless of how long its been, a lot of material has been distributed.
'Must' is a bit much in a forum like this.
Funny, that. You've obviously not participated in any atheists vs Xtians threads. :D
That is the angry atheists' credo on this DB, and seems to be accepted in the 'belief' discussions. It's not my style, but other atheists vehemently demand that Xtians adhere to it. Of course, this thread is only a debate about legalistic and ethical matters, so I guess no one should require that links and explanations be provided.
We'd be in the third decade to my knowledge.
I started online about 1996 and what one could call an online community was already established. H2O is the best remembered part of it. So, if we said 'from before 1996 to now', that'd be just over twenty years, thus we're at least in the third decade (or just entering the third).
I suggest you read up on the history of PDF, and then ponder how many 'decades' CofC was around in PDF form, easily available (with the cost of software, printer, and a PC!) for downloading and printing before 2000. That would be the only reason to pirate it instead of buying it, right? After all, it was not an expensive book, correct?
Computers and administration was my field from 1980 - 1992, so I can accurately say that until the mid 90s, Windows was not even the standard in all offices. Working at the telephone company in 1992, we were still using DOS as our OS (I worked with the Information Centre, producing documents and even a textbook, yes, little old me, was a techie in my previous life, so you picked the wrong person to try and make this point with). So, the "decades" argument you make is, well, let's just say it makes no sense to this poster.
* know your facts before you make a sweeping statement class
I haven't pored through all of this thread, but what I have read is nothing but the biggest bunch of BS ever.
Is there a bloody question?
1. The legal case was cited by name.
2. Your response to how long there's been a XJW online community makes no sense. I just said there was one pre 1996, therefore we're in / about to be in the third decade. That's all.Windows, DOS and PDF's history are different topics.
I remember the H2O days and remember buying copies of CofC for JW's who wanted to read it, but were too afraid to make the purchase in their own name. --Not saying there weren't digital copies in the mid-90's, but I'm not sure if they were as widely available or as easy to find as they would be today.
berrygerry: I haven't pored through all of this thread, but what I have read is nothing but the biggest bunch of BS ever.
Is there a bloody question?
It is an apple and oranges debate.
They are both fruit, but other than that....they cannot be compared.
Asking moral questions that compare the copyright of Ray's book to the copyright of WTS secret material shows a profound lack of understanding as to what copyright law is designed to protect and how it functions.
The WTS misuses copyright law to suppress material - Ray used copyright law so that he could distribute his voice to the public. The underpinings of their motives for copyright protection were extremely different. Therefore, any discussion that pits the WTS copyright against Ray's copyright is frankly, a discussion that is going around in circles.
The copyright law is applied differently to each case and comparisons are only a red herring. As I said before, the issue with WTS material being distributed publicly is not copyright - it is an internal security issue.
People have brought up the notion of "harm" and how the WTS can claim harm under the copyright act. Well, they can't. Harm, in the context of copyright law, is realized when someone uses the "creative" part of putting 'facts' together without inputting any of their own creativity into it.
For example, this following scenario would consitute "harm".
I get my hands on the secret elders manual and material that pertains to organizational structure. I read it eagerly, so impressed with how well it is written and the detail it has used. I am impressed with the layout of the work, how it is put together. And, I don't like to work, but I want to start up an organization just like the WTS and call it something different. Or maybe...I already have a religious organization but we lack organizational structure and control. So...I steal that WTS elders book and other publications that are valuable to me so that I can do the same thing as the book was intended to be used for - in my own way and for my own gain. And I give copies to my cronies that are going to help me implement all those "creative ideas" and make our own organization that follows those exact instructions.
That would be "harm" in the sense and spirit of what copyright is designed to address. I would have violated the copyright protection of creative material.