Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!
Can I flesh it out? Well it was just a stab in the dark.
I have no idea why Watchtower is successful in taking down public entries that they claim infringes copyright or their motivations to do so except for the obvious.
Because copyright is irrespective of tangible loss.
Negative expose of their copyright material hurts their bottom line. Members. Members donate. Lose members, lose money. How can I flesh it out any more?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but on the surface, it sounds like you were attempting to establish an ethical equivalency, so flesh it out via a little detail. It what way is the exposure negative? How would it hurt their bottom line? Why would members leave?
If the argument could be made, do you think it would have applied to Franz, who included a wealth of offical letters, internal memos, etc. in CofC?
Mephis: As far as it goes with the current 'debate' about COC in the real world, not really something I want to play with.
I am paying attention.
I have had to be familiar with how intellectual property laws work and I am very interested in the impact that the WWW has had on the interpretation and application of these laws.
At one time, I was pretty active in the art industry - an active member of a photographer's gallery and a board member on that gallery for a couple years. We dealt with international artists sometimes. An understanding of copyright laws and intellectual property laws have been critical to much of my life and work as an artist. And it continues to be. I have read through the copyright act several times. And whenever I have had unanswered questions, I have spoke to people with legal experience. Copyright law and appropriation were also issues I would include in my classes - what each were and what the difference between the two were and to use each effectively, legally and ethically. Appropriation as a political act was something that discussed, theoretically and practically played out at times, as tools of the artist. The artist as "voice".
So...yeah. I am paying attention to how this plays out. It matters to me personally. I have many friends who are writer and/or artists. And it is intellectually challenging. I like legal stuff.
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?
Your example of a news expose doesn't cut it IMO as copyright is a pointless claim in such a case (and would be covered under "fair use" clauses). You can't put the genie of a revealed secret back in the bottle but that is different to the detailed instruction on how to create a genie.
Specificially on copyright?
Lion Laboratories v Evans
Full defence accepted.
Ashdown v Telegraph (which re-established that a defence of publishing something in a way which contravened copyright was perfectly acceptable if that was the final acceptable defence and there were no other ways to present the material)
edit: ah found the quote from Griffiths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Griffiths,_Baron_Griffiths on it. "The defence of public interest is now well established in actions for breach of confidence. It also extends to breach of copyright."
So, yeah, basis.
And, no, I specifically excluded fair use by saying the full letter would be published. Or if I didn't, apologies and assume that it is implied with full knowledge that you could skirt the issue with judicious use of other alternatives.
Well lets take the KS10. Distributed in its entirety. Maybe it is just thrown on a website or Facebook group. People read it. They realize Watchtower is bat shit crazy and they pack their bags and leave. OR, there is a lengthy blog pinpointing all the bullshit from the KS10 that is posted in its entirety. Fair use right? Not so much. The entire book is posted in an effort to expose Watchtower by their own writings. It falls out of fair use because of extent of body of work posted AND changing its intended purpose. Of course WT is going to challenge it. And they have done so successfully not just with the KS10 but with an array of their other "copyrighted" material. The reason why so much of it still proliferates is because WT does not have the manpower to combat it. But many, even on this forum, will attest to Watchtower ripping their information off the internet because of copyright violations.
gnd: Fair use right?...
You do not understand the legal concept of "fair use". You are using the moral or, emotional, concept of the word, not the legal one.
Reproducing any copyrighted work in its entirety is not "fair use". Even if you are examining each paragraph for educational purposes as you go along.
But...is it protected material to begin with?
It was not published for any price. In fact, it was donated! For free! I would argue that any copying or reproducing of WTS material is only "helping the cause". They produce non-profit material, right? For public distribution, right? Charitable, not for profit? My copies should help them reduce costs. Good deed, I am thinking.
Who benefits from me not copying it and does that restriction actually place restrictions on the cover up of crime??
Again, does the material actually qualify as protected?
Orphan Crow, respectfully, I think it is you that may not understand copyright legislation.
Well lets take the KS10.
Distributed in its entirety. Maybe it is just thrown on a website or Facebook group. People read it. They realize Watchtower is bat shit crazy...
JW's themselves are fond of pointing out that there is little to nothing in the KS10 that is not also found in the corpus of JW literature distributed to the rank and file. Why would reading it in one place be worse than reading it in another?
Don't misunderstand. If you're defending the legal right of the CCoJW, WTB&TS, etc. to have this stuff taken down, then I agree with you. But that has nothing to do with the ethical equivalency you seem to be arguing for.
I understand this (the copyright laws are down the document a ways).:
And a bunch of stuff on patent law and that kind of thing.
Like I said. This is interesting. It interests me to see how laws are changing and responding to technology and the WWW.
Carry on... I am departing.