Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door 125 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  cofty

  So the copyright law only applies if we agree with the organistion the copyright belongs to?

  It's a question of ethics. Nobody has argued about the legal position.

  If the WT obtained the copyright to COC it would be the moral equivalent of book-burning by a totalitarian regime. Spreading the information would be a moral good regardless of the law.

  That is not the current position with COC. The copyright holder is in the process of making the information widely available and it is ethical to support that.

  Is murder ok if the murdee (new word!) is a bit of a twat?

  No. Complete red herring.

  We live in a society where we agree to give the state a monopoly in violence. It works better than allowing everybody to murder people they find annoying.

  Motive matters.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Heh...isn't there something in the bibble book about this? How you have to use the "tools of the Master's house" to tear down the Master's house?

  That is how I view the appropriation of the drivel that spews forth from the Tower. Tools for dismantling.
• 

  TD

  It's a question of ethics. Nobody has argued about the legal position.

  Yes. One of the more common reasons the Pay Attention publication proliferates illegally is because people have an ethical right to know the "rules" of a judicial proceeding in concise and authoritative form, and that right has been denied them.
  
• 

  OrphanCrow

  TD: One of the more common reasons the Pay Attention publication proliferates illegally...

  I would even question if it actually is illegal to distribute that publication. It was not produced for economic gain, it was just restricted in its distribution.

  Distributing this "free" book is only increasing its exposure, not threatening its genuineness or hurting the WTS in a real, economic way. Distributing their material does not really violate copyright laws.

  All that sharing the WTS material does, is allow everybody to see what they already distribute - secretly.

  Sort of like getting your hands on the kind of WTS material that the ARC subpoenaed. And gave to the public, like it should be.
• 

  Landy

  It's a question of ethics. Nobody has argued about the legal position.

  If the WT obtained the copyright to COC it would be the moral equivalent of book-burning by a totalitarian regime. Spreading the information would be a moral good regardless of the law.

  That is not the current position with COC. The copyright holder is in the process of making the information widely available and it is ethical to support that.

  No. Complete red herring.

  We live in a society where we agree to give the state a monopoly in violence. It works better than allowing everybody to murder people they find annoying.

  Motive matters.

  Yeah - you're right - it was never gonna be a defendable position
• 

  Village Idiot

  We respect those who respect others. We disrespect those who don't.
• 

  Simon

  This is confusing legality with morality as others have already pointed out. Normally and hopefully the two coincide but sometimes they don't.

  It's illegal to kill someone but maybe morally justified on occasion. The "stealing a car" is a good example too.

  It would still be breaking copyright law to pirate copies of the WTS secret elders manual but what the big difference between that and CoC is that there is never any legitimate route for people to buy and read the elders manual.

  It isn't justified simply because the WTS is a huge publishing corporation. There's little justification for stealing Harry Potter for instance because nothing is preventing you from easily obtaining a legitimate copy.

  It's also confusing the intent. The intent behind pirating CoC wasn't to make it available (it previously was available legitimately and the pirating adversely effected that). It was to make money or gain self-promition from it. Both utterly selfish reasons that are later spun into some Robin-hood-esque tail after the fact to justify it.
• 

  Mephis

  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.

  If you're confusing protection of intellectual property with physical harm then we're on very, very different pages. Civil versus criminal is the page I'm on. Just how exactly do I harm the interests of the WBTS by copying something they want to suppress? Mull that over a little and figure out which is the greater right - the right to knowledge about a harmful cult, or the right of a cult to suppress that information. I'm saying the latter causes the greater harm and so I'd be happy to answer any suit for damages they'd press. Your mileage may, does?, vary.
• 

  never a jw

  Fine with me. The WT pays for the copyrights. They can do whatever they want, and I will support the protection of that right. It's a non-issue for me. Nothing has been muddied. It's the law and one cannot only obey or abide by the laws when it is convenient to one's personal interest. What I do not support is their tax exempt status. It appears that they don't deserve it. In fact, I would those law to be changed to be a lot more stringent to exclude, abusive cults and financial fraud, which I believe the WT is guilty of.
  
• 

  Simon

  Also worth noting that "civil disobedience" isn't a let-off or an excuse for any crime. It's really the notion that people are willing to break the law and accept the consequences of their action in order to highlight a cause (and possibly change the law).

  Infringing on copyright may be an act of "civil disobedience" to some but it doesn't excuse you of any guilt for doing it. What you copy and the reasons for it will determine the morality and whether onlookers view you as a courageous martyr risking your wellbeing for the greater good or an opportunist git looking to make a quick buck from someone else's work.