Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!

by the girl next door 125 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Mephis

  Eh?

  British courts consistently find that the 'public interest' defence outweighs any right to private property. In the scenario set out in the OP, the WBTS have to demonstrate that someone has harmed them financially to claim damages. If one shares freely and to inform against a cult, then I'm wondering what possible harm/damage they will be claiming to have been done. thegirlnextdoor makes one argument in her post, and if that's the best available, then the WBTS would be arguing in favour of the public interest defence :D
• 

  wannaexit

  Downloading a pirated copy of CoC is exactly as egregious as downloading a pirated copy of the KS10. We justify downloading the KS10 because Watchtower is evil.

  Disagree with this statement. No one is profiting by downloading the DS10
  
• 

  cappytan

  I am an equal opportunity copyright violator.
• 

  Mephis

  Copyright is utilized in any way the copyright holder wishes. However we weigh in on it, if it agrees with us or not, violation of copyright is illegal, even when that copyright is to suppress or protect financial loss.

  Obviously depends on jurisdiction, but there are very valid defences for doing it here in Britain. I'd suggest the WBTS obtaining copyright to suppress inconvenient information contained in CoC would fall under one of those defences.
• 

  Oubliette

  TGND: justifications for "civil disobedience" are really only in the eye of the beholder aren't they?

  By definition, yes. But many others may agree and that's historically one way that unjust laws have been changed.

  TGND: ... violation of copyright is illegal ...
  

  Now you're getting it.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  gnd: Copyright is utilized in any way the copyright holder wishes.

  No. You have to establish copyright first. I am saying that their material doesn't meet the standard of what can be copyrighted.

  Some things do not have any protection, or very little under intellectual property law. Just because you generated or made something doesn't mean that you can put it out there in public space and ask for protection under any of the intellectual property laws.

  Copyright protection is only one part of intellectual property law and The WTS material does not meet the standard to be considered as qualifying for such protection.
• 

  the girl next door

  Also, my apologies to Oubliette and Orphan Crow in getting your user names wrong. It was not intentional.
• 

  the girl next door

  Orphan Crow said:
  You have to establish copyright first. I am saying that their material doesn't meet the standard of what can be copyrighted.

  Are you really asserting that everything Watchtower puts on paper is not copyrighted? Or is it not copyrighted to your level of acceptance?
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Now what is your stance?

  The same.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  GND, I am saying that it highly questionable as to whether it meets the legal standard under intellectual property law to be considered for protection under "creative license". I don't think it does.

  If there are any "laws" that have been broken in the leaking of secret WTS material, the place to place legal culpability would be on the one(s) who leaked the material. They are the ones who are in danger of being prosecuted or internally disiplined. Like, for example, if it was a lawyer who had breached confidentiality of his client. Not the ones who picked up WTS material (evidence) in public space and spread it around.

  If the WTS wants to prosecute for the distribution of their "protected" material, it would be best if they looked inside rather that out here in the public spaces. And, they need to be aware that their "protection" and wall of internal security does not sit outside of the common law of the land. Australia proved that to us.