A Must Read Update on WBTS and Darkspilver from reddit

by ZindagiNaMilegiDobaara 23 Replies latest jw friends

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    Just to elaborate a bit more on copyright infringement

    Nathan made a important point ...

    Copyright infringement

    Copyright infringement (colloquially referred to as piracy) is the use of works protected by copyright law without permission, infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works. The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned. Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement.

    Copyright infringement disputes are usually resolved through direct negotiation, a notice and take down process, or litigation in civil court. Egregious or large-scale commercial infringement, especially when it involves counterfeiting, is sometimes prosecuted via the criminal justice system. Shifting public expectations, advances in digital technology, and the increasing reach of the Internet have led to such widespread, anonymous infringement that copyright-dependent industries now focus less on pursuing individuals who seek and share copyright-protected content online, and more on expanding copyright law to recognize and penalize, as indirect infringers, the service providers and software distributors who are said to facilitate and encourage individual acts of infringement by others.

  • Simon
    Simon
    Copyright infringement has very much to do with commercializing off someones else's body of work which is copyrighted.
    In legal terms there has to be an obvious intent to cultivate money by the accused.

    Completely wrong - making money is utterly irrelevant when it comes to copyright. It still applies if you give things away for free.

    All that matters is that you are distributing works that are not yours and without permission.

    Only the copyright owner or their authorized agents can distribute material they own.

    Even if the thing they distribute is not charged for, it still doesn't mean other people can distribute it as well regardless of whether they charge or not.

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    One important point that needs to be made, I think, is that after a legally-defined period of time ALL copyrights will eventually EXPIRE, and when the copyright expires, the original work is said to be "in the public domain," which means that a person can use those public domain works in any way they choose.

    An example - someone I know very well produced the "Watchtower Book Shelf" CDs and (maybe) DVDs a number of years ago. This was popularly known as "The Watchtower BS CD" for poetic reasons. It contained PUBLIC DOMAIN Watchtower publications - early books that were never properly (according to the laws then in effect) copyrighted by the WTB&TS goofballs.

    Another example is the CDs of VERY OLD Zion's Watch Tower magazines. Those original magazines are in the PUBLIC DOMAIN.

    Here's an interesting thing: The ORIGINAL works are in the PUBLIC DOMAIN, but the NEW publication of those old magazines in a NEW MEDIA is under a NEW copyright -- you cannot make copies of ZWT CDs and distribute (pirate) them. If you do, you might need to hire a lawyer to defend you!

    Someday in the future, those ZWT CDs will come into the PUBLIC DOMAIN, and then they can be burned into holographic crystals such as Superman has in his Library in The Fortress of Solitude. When that day comes, UADNA will be there!

  • LV101
    LV101

    It's a specialized law -- hope Darkspilver escapes the cult's crazy.

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    What laws are not "specialized"?

  • LV101
    LV101

    I reckon -- good point re/"specialized." Cult still has lots of chunk change (unfortunately) to throw around chasing after those telling the truth.

  • Anders Andersen
    Anders Andersen
    Whats super weird is that on Facebook they have subpoenaed one José dude who has a PRO JW site

    Nope, that's not weird, that's what Watchtower must do or all their court cases against critics will be lost. If WT ignores some copyright infringements they know about, their arguments against others would be much weaker.

    "We want people to visit JW.org"

    "So why don't you cease and desist pro-JW.net?"

    Watchtower even admitted as much in a not too old WT:

    Questions From Readers
    Why is it not permissible to post publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses on a personal website or on social media?
    Because we offer our Bible-based material without charge, some feel that copying and posting it on other websites or on social media is acceptable. However, doing so violates the Terms of Use* for our websites and has caused serious problems. As is clearly stated in those Terms, no one is permitted to “post artwork, electronic publications, trademarks, music, photos, videos, or articles from this website on the Internet (any website, file-sharing site, video-sharing site, or social network).” Why is such a restriction needed?

    All the material on our websites is copyrighted.


    Apostates and other opposers try to use our publications on their websites to lure in Jehovah’s Witnesses and others. Planted in those sites is material designed to sow doubts in readers’ minds. (Ps. 26:4; Prov. 22:5) Others have used material from our publications or our jw.org logo in advertisements, on products offered for sale, and in mobile device apps. By securing copyright and trademark protection, we have a legal basis to prevent such misuse. (Prov. 27:12) But if we knowingly allow people, even our brothers, to post our digital content on other sites or to use the jw.org trademark to sell merchandise, the courts may not support our efforts to deter opposers and commercial enterprises.

    Downloading our publications from anywhere but jw.org is potentially dangerous.


    Jehovah has entrusted the responsibility of providing spiritual food to “the faithful and discreet slave” alone. (Matt. 24:45) That “slave” uses only its official websites to publish spiritual food​—www.jw.org, tv.jw.org, and wol.jw.org. And we have only three official apps for mobile devices​—JW Language®, JW Library®, and JW Library Sign Language®. We can trust these products to be free of advertisements or contamination by Satan’s world. If the spiritual food passes through other channels, there is no guarantee that it has not been altered or contaminated.​—Ps. 18:26; 19:8.Furthermore, posting our publications on websites that allow comments provides a place for apostates and other critics to sow distrust of Jehovah’s organization. Some brothers have been drawn into online debates and thus have brought added reproach on Jehovah’s name. An online forum is not an appropriate setting for “instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed.” (2 Tim. 2:23-25; 1 Tim. 6:3-5) It has also been observed that fraudulent social media accounts and websites have been created in the name of the organization, the Governing Body, and its individual members. However, no member of the Governing Body maintains a personal Web page or a presence on any social media site.

    Directing people to jw.org helps to spread the “good news.” (Matt. 24:14) The digital tools we receive for use in our personal ministry are continually being improved. We would like everyone to benefit from them. Therefore, as the Terms of Use indicates, you may e-mail someone an electronic copy of a publication or share a link to material found on jw.org. By directing interested people to our official websites, we are connecting them with the one true source of spiritual food, “the faithful and discreet slave.

    https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2018364?q=copyright&p=par

  • neat blue dog
    neat blue dog

    Is anyone going to mention the fact that copyright doesn't apply in cases of satire, commentary and criticism? Darkspilver was obviously doing the latter.

  • Simon
    Simon

    Yes, if you don't enforce your copyright and visibly so, then your argument that violation of copyright becomes weakened.

    They can allow people to distribute it at the same time as enforcing copyright violations by others by making them authorized / licensed distributors.

    This would likely strengthen claims that they have control over publishers and congregations though which is probably why the want to retain complete control. So it doesn't matter who is violating the copyright for whatever reason, the violation is enough and is targeted.

    Is anyone going to mention the fact that copyright doesn't apply in cases of satire, commentary and criticism? Darkspilver was obviously doing the latter.

    It comes down to "fair use" argument and whether someone can make that claim and wants to spend money making that claim in court. You'd need to be able to demonstrate that there was substantial commentary and limited (just enough to be necessary) quoting and not simply re-publishing as a document dump.

  • Jehalapeno
    Jehalapeno
    It comes down to "fair use" argument and whether someone can make that claim and wants to spend money making that claim in court. You'd need to be able to demonstrate that there was substantial commentary and limited (just enough to be necessary) quoting and not simply re-publishing as a document dump.

    This is correct.

    "Fair Use" is a defense, not a license.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit