Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!
Orphan Crow, you have your fingerprints all over this very heavily participated thread and I appreciate your input. But it seems to me, even through the assertions of full knowledge of copyright legislation, much of what you are posting is generalization and frankly wrong. People have challenged Watchtower takedowns and lost. Obviously the issue is not a non-sequitur if it has generated this much discussion. But I respect your position.
gnd...oh geez...you didn't read the brief, did you?
The brief is from a recent court case. (05/2015) It sets precedent. It is not a generalized document. Everything I have said, I have supported with documentation.
What more do you want???????
Just because nobody has successfully challenged the WTS copyright take down notices to date, doesn't mean that the notices cannot be successfully challenged. The brief I linked to proves that.
The law can continually be challenged. It is the nature of it.
Frankly, I don't think you understand the legal documents that I have linked to. Or the legal process at all.
YouTube is responsible for ensuring that the takedown order is legitimate. The WT requests for takedown, based on some perceived copyright infringement, are not legitimate.
YouTube (Google) will most likely check it's a valid request as in "the form was completed" but they don't decide if it's legitimate or not - they pass that on to the person who uploaded the video who can contest it if they want but in the meantime it will be taken down because they are not going to risk their money fighting your battles for you.
Whether you think you have a claim or not for it being valid depends on whether you want to go to court over it or not and spend a heap of money.
The copying and distribution of WTS material is not a violation of copyright laws if the intended purpose is for the criticism of the WT.
That's something you would have to argue in court if they decided to pursue the matter.
I realize what you are saying, Simon. And yes, the "fair use" principle would have to be argued in a court of law. I don't believe it has been yet.
However, according to recent rulings, the onus is on the copyright holder to consider if the fair use applies first before making the request.
If the material is fair use (and I believe it is, based upon the brief I linked to and the circumstances of the case it related to), then the copyright holder is liable for damages.
From the article in this thread here:
The law “requires copyright-holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification,” and those that fail to do so can be held liable for damages, said Judge Richard Tallman...
And yes, the "fair use" principle would have to be argued in a court of law. I don't believe it has been yet.
It has, repeatedly. Some people have lost, some have won. What makes genuine fair-use is pretty clear IMO.
There is provision under DMCA take-down notices to counter-sue those using the copyright laws improperly. I haven't seen the WTS do that - they could bury apostate sites under lawsuits (like the Scientologists do) but to their credit they don't, they stick to the law.
Anyway, I think this is all just pointless arguing now by people determined to keep the issue alive so they can then claim it's not really about copyright.
Whilst you may be correct Orphan, I am not aware of a shift in the behaviour of ISPs and sites like YouTube in respect of legal representations from third parties. The de-facto stance is to simply tell the video poster or web site owner to remove the material.
Even if there is a precedent set by the case you mention, it has not really changed anything. Google et al are not interested in the fight and leave it up to the poster/web site owner to pursue any challenge. Most people do not have the resources to mount such a challenge and therefore the status quo remains.
I also have no idea what impact jurisdictional issues have on the matter given the borderless nature of the internet.
As to the very interesting debate raised by the OP...
I hate to say but I think much of the problem is the result of the original copyright holders not pre-empting the inevitable electronic distribution.
Had they moved to electronic distribution, perhaps even with a donation arrangement over traditional payment model then they would have created the channel for electronic delivery of the books.
I appreciate there may have been a number of reasons why this did not happen however I would submit that for many, being able to read the books electronically makes the difference between reading them and not reading them.
Personally I have no problem squaring the circle of breaking WTS copyright to ensure as many people as possible can see the detail of what has been distributed on a need to know basis within the organisation. This would extend to CoC in the hypothetical situation of the OP.
In the current situation I think it is very wrong of people to seek to make money from breaking the copyright on CoC however I also think it is inevitable that people will try and seek the books electronically and it has been a real shame there has been no official way to do this that supports both the copyright and the cost of production/distribution.