I'm not arguing for ethical equivalency. It's a moot point. What I am arguing for is the negligence in identifying the hypocrisy of a community that has shared illegal copies of CoC and WT copyrighted material for decades, now suddenly finding their moral compass and justifying a separation of compliance to law between two entities, one they support and one they do not. Seems clear to me. I am surprised by the obfuscation of so many participating.
Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!
by the girl next door 125 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
cappytan
I'm not surprised. Most of the faux outrage is because of the individual involved. People holding a grudge against an individual and leaping at the chance to gripe about him. That's the root of this. -
Max Divergent
Here, here, GND and cappytan.
Relativism is one thing, inconsistency is quite different.
(And consistent absolutism often results in uncomfortable outcomes).
-
TD
I'm not arguing for ethical equivalency. It's a moot point. What I am arguing for is the negligence in identifying the hypocrisy of a community that has shared illegal copies of CoC and WT copyrighted material for decades, now suddenly finding their moral compass and justifying a separation of compliance to law between two entities, one they support and one they do not. Seems clear to me. I am surprised by the obfuscation of so many participating.
It is without a doubt inconsistent. And illegal.
But the instant we start using terms like "Hypocrisy" and "Moral compass" then we are making an ethical comparison inasmuch as ethics is the formal language of morality.
-
Mephis
Orphan Crow wrote: 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.I'm sort of minded towards the comment of one judge, and how one then applies it. Very conscious from my NUJ card carrying days, and also my own work, of the importance of copyright in ensuring people get what is rightfully their's. But anyways, the comment which I think is a useful test and places a responsibility to ensure that no direct financial loss is caused, or, if it is, adequate restitution is made:
If a newspaper considers it necessary to copy the exact words created by another, we can see no reason in principle why the newspaper should not indemnify the author for any loss caused to him, or alternately account to him for any profit made as a result of copying his work. Freedom of expression should not normally carry with it the right to make free use of another's work - Lord Philips in Ashdown v. Telegraph
-
the girl next door
But the instant we start using terms like "Hypocrisy" and "Moral compass" then we are making an ethical comparison inasmuch as ethics is the formal language of morality.
I knew you would catch me out on that. Well done.
Just tell me you understand what I mean and that everything will be ok.
-
Max Divergent
May I just note that, whatever the rights and wrongs of this or that, that the level of debate has risen from name calling and cheerleading for/against to expositing some fundamentals.
For me, I think the fundamental of most import here is consistency.
-
Marvin Shilmer
the girl next door writes:
What I am arguing for is the negligence in identifying the hypocrisy of a community that has shared illegal copies of CoC and WT copyrighted material for decades, now suddenly finding their moral compass and justifying a separation of compliance to law between two entities, one they support and one they do not. Seems clear to me. I am surprised by the obfuscation of so many participating.
There is no obfuscating for me. When a baby-killer is on the loose I have no qualm whatsoever about whether I've infringed on some copyright they may or may not hold. If divulging whatever is true does in anyway whatsoever reduce the deaths I'll gladly do my part.
Oh, and I don't see any hypocrisy in my action. I'll act the same way no matter who the baby-killer happens to be.
Now, if you want to talk about a copyright owner who's not killing babies, that's another thing.
-
Oubliette
Mephis: Lion Laboratories v Evans
If you're going to cite a legal precedent you must provide a link and an explication, preferably one by a recognized jurist and perhaps a summary of your own.
-
Oubliette
TGND: What I am arguing for is the negligence in identifying the hypocrisy of a community that has shared illegal copies of CoC and WT copyrighted material for decades
What is this community of which you speak?
Can you identify it in specific terms? Who are its members? Where do they live?