by the girl next door 125 Replies latest watchtower bible
OK, I modification to my rant.
The purpose of copyright is to protect the author's right to collect compensation for the work they did in producing the work, and control how its used. If the WTBS purchased the rights to CoC, would be to protect its ass, not the copyrighted work.
If the WTBS doesn't want its ass to be a target, it can stop treating people the way it does.
TGND: I thought a hypothetical would be good for an exercise in intellectual honesty.
No. You're just muddying the already made-murky ethical waters concerning this issue.
You might as well ask this hypothetical:
Q1: Would you steal a car from a sweet, innocent little old lady? A1: Never.
Q2: What if some thieves stole if from her, would you steal it back? Q2: If I thought I could get away with it, absolutely!
Girl Next Door
You are brilliant!
Downloading a pirated copy of CoC is exactly as egregious as downloading a pirated copy of the KS10.
No it isn't.
KS10 has no monetary value, downloading a copy does not take any money from anybody.
The WTBS is a tax exempt organization. I'm paying for their right to publish crap and annoy people in an effort to sell it.
The WTBS is secretive. It destroys people's lives without any transparency in the process. As I said above, if they don't like what gets done to them, they can stop doing it to their membership.
I regard breaking the law to shed light on the corruption of the WTBS as an act of civil disobedience, like eating at lunch counters that won't serve you. Back in the day, I blocked streets to protest the war in Vietnam, its the same idea.
TGND: Both are equally wrong legally despite anyone's spin on morals or ethics.
I, of course, completely disagree.
Have you never heard of civil disobedience?
As I posted on another thread in reference to the question about downloading copies of Shepherd the Flock of God or other WTBTS publications which are not intended for general public distribution:
Doing so is a copyright violation.
When I do that, I KNOW I am breaking a law. I am doing it deliberately and with full and complete comprehension of the possible consequences. For me it is an act of civil disobedience, albeit a relatively small one.
Considering all of the things that my involvement with this religion has done to bring irreparable damage to my life, my family relationships and those of countless other, I have absolutely no compunction at all in breaking this law in respect to them, but only to them.
Normally I like your posts, TGND, and generally agree with them, but you really missed the boat on this one.
Let's review: It's a cult!
TGND: Obliette, this post doesn't muddy the issue.
BTW, ironically enough, you left the "u" out of my name. It's Oubliette. Spelling counts.
Contemplating the idea of Watchtower owning the copyright of CoC only heightens the examination of just how intellectually honest we are when it comes to our position on copyright infringement which seems to be the topic of the month.
Oubilette: Have you never heard of civil disobedience?
Yes. I agree.
I see it more of an act violating the WTS' secrecy "rules" than a violation of copyright laws.
Copyright laws are there to protect creativity. For example, a telephone book isn't protected. No creativity there. And facts aren't protected. Oh shit...I just realized something. The WTS is one of the most creative entities out there!
Eh...regardless. Civil disobedience against authority structures and the instutionalized structures such as the WTS is built into our democratic process. Each and every individual is viewed on the same legal status as a corporation. The democratic process is supposed to put us on a level playing field but it rarely does.
*to add: if the OP were true, and it was revealed that the WTS had bought the rights and tried to eliminate or alter the book, I would be copying it like crazy and flooding the world with it. But...that is not the case here...
WBTS can't charge for stuff but they do get heavily subsidised by my taxes. I'm more than happy to help spread things under their copyright already, and oops if it means they don't get website hits, so it's just more of the same. In any case, I really don't have an issue with making something available if the sole purpose of someone obtaining rights is to suppress it.
So the copyright law only applies if we agree with the organistion the copyright belongs to? If we don't agree with them or don't like them then all bets are off?
If we take that principle a bit further and extend itt to other laws, what's acceptable? Murder, for example. Is murder ok if the murdee (new word!) is a bit of a twat? Taking the point to extremes perhaps but it is the logical conclusion.
Landy: So the copyright law only applies if we agree with the organistion the copyright belongs to? If we don't agree with them or don't like them then all bets are off?
Yup. It's like learning how to not take shit from a bully. Sandbox rules.
