Why wasn’t O’Donnell charged with receiving stolen goods.

by joe134cd 24 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  John Redwood

  My point is Mark, would law enforcement have the same view if they were confidential FBI files. With all due respect, I think your trying to say, because no physical property was damaged or removed then this justify illegally entering someone’s premises.
  

  
  
  I can't speak for law enforcement. I'm simply pointing out that THEY viewed the documents taken in a different light than someone who could have broken in to steal an amplifier or a safe. That's all.
  
  I called the police and turned over the documents.
  
  Acts of civil disobedience occur all the time, whether it be Rosa Parks not giving up her seat, or protesters burning draft cards, and everything in between. Each person shall decide for themselves what is the right thing to do when faced with unique dilemmas such as awareness of documented crimes held in filing cabinets.
• 

  Anony Mous

  @Jeffro:

  It is true that basic information, for example a list of numbers, can’t be copyrighted, but the way facts are presented can still be subject to copyright.

  Only if the way that it is presented is in itself considerably transformative or has some creative input. That is indeed hairy to figure out, for example, a YouTube video presenting facts in an artful manner is typically copyrightable, but the facts themselves aren't, but if the judge/jury doesn't find your presentation to be sufficiently creative (eg. if anyone can make a similar looking video), then it may not be copyrightable. If it's just a print-out compilation on a piece of paper, facts and utilitarian language can't receive copyright protection.

  It is not the case that descriptions of facts can’t be copyrighted.

  Not sure what that even means in the legal context. There are facts (basically a list of things that happened) and then there is a narrative where someone gives opinion or commentary. The narrative/opinion MAY be copyrightable, the list of facts isn't.

  Documents that become public record do not automatically fall into public domain, i.e., you can’t start selling copies of someone else’s copyrighted work just because the document was used in a court case.

  Yes, you can. There are a number of cases about that. Using copyrightable material in a lawsuit is fair use. Requesting those legal documents for any reason, even if you want to sell the result, is also fair use and is required to be allowed by law. Hence why in these cases, the opposing parties typically object to publishing the entire thing into evidence (eg. a book), and the judge will typically only allow excerpts relevant to the case and seal the evidence. Unless, and this is the case where this was established, you describe a murder in a book, the judge allowed the entire book into evidence, and yes, that entire book is available.

  There is also an entire argument going on in the courts as some courts are illegally establishing copyright on case files.

  is claim about the Watch Tower Society not claiming copyright over the ‘elder’s manual’ is entirely false. Where the entire book has been copied, they have had it removed from sites. However they would have no case where a snippet of the book is used along with commentary, which is fair use. Publication information is explicitly stated in the book

  I didn't realize this. Must be new, I know many manuals, back in the day, did not have any copyright. You can't find any publisher eg in the old blood and custody booklets they produced, the old elder's manual (I think these were published in the 70s and 80s) only had a publisher and no copyright notice (this was when copyright still had to be established by sending a copy into the LOC)
• 

  joe134cd

  I certainly think, to disfellowship that individual on the grounds of theft was the right thing to do, regardless of the motives behind it. Any secular organisation would of done the same thing, perhaps more if legally able. Interestingly you stated that it was on the suspicion of theft, and not proven. If this was the case I can have a degree of sympathy for the individual, but at the end of the day wt is wt and they are a law unto themselves. But that’s my opinion.
• 

  Jeffro

  The earlier Pay Attention elders’ manual also has a publisher notice.
• 

  Jeffro

  Anony Mous:

  Using copyrightable material in a lawsuit is fair use. Requesting those legal documents for any reason, even if you want to sell the result, is also fair use and is required to be allowed by law.

  You are referring to a court using materials or a third party making derivative works from such sources. The court may have an exemption to copyright to provide the entire work (or it may be reduced or redacted). However, the sources themselves do not fall into the public domain and a third party can’t just re-publish the entire source (not a derivative work) and sell it.
• 

  Jeffro

  the old elder's manual (I think these were published in the 70s and 80s) only had a publisher and no copyright notice (this was when copyright still had to be established by sending a copy into the LOC)

  The original 1977 version gives publisher information but not a copyright notice (for the reason given), however they acknowledged that they published it. The 1991 version also includes the copyright mark.
• 

  truth_b_known

  In establishing whether or not a crime has been committed, one fact that must be obtained is "Who is the victim?"

  The crime of theft usually reads in the corresponding statute something like: "Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly taking property with the the intent to keep it without the effective consent of the owner." In such a case we must ask "Who is the owner?" because that would be your victim.

  It appears what was taken were files involving congregation disciplinary matters. It would therefor be reasonable to conclude that the owner of the files is the local congregation - a legal corporation. One would have to read the corporate by-laws filed with the State to see who is authorized by the congregation to be in possession of said files. Based on the nature of the files I would imagine there is no mention of such a thing in the corporate by-laws.

  We know that any congregation member in good standing is has voting rights. That makes any member in good standing a part of the corporation. I was never an elder, but I was a Ministerial Servant. As such, I was given a key to the Kingdom Hall and the alarm code. I had to pick up literature from the Assembly Hall and deliver it to 3 different Kingdom Halls. So, you can see this all muddies the waters when it comes to who is authorized to possess such documents.

  I didn't get the impression the person in question burglarized the Kingdom Hall. It sounds more like this person just walked in and took the documents. It doesn't sound like the local elders found the front door of the Kingdom Hall busted open and the file cabinet pried open as well. It sounds more like an elder was just going through files and noticed some missing.

  Either way, on the surface, it does sound like this person committed Theft. The crime of Receiving Stolen Property usually reads in statute that the offender possesses property he knows is stolen or would be reasonable to believe is stolen (e.g. buying a TV from a guy in the back of a van in a dark ally at a ridiculously low price). Whatever the case, it does put the Watchtower in a bind.
• 

  mickbobcat

  Not sure of the law but my guess is one reason is the cult did not want to bring too much light or publicity to this. If they did it would soon be seen that the stolen would not be the main issue and the cover up of pedophiles would be.
  
• 

  johnamos

  Yes...that would be like someone that has a laptop with child porn on it and it being stolen...I would not think the owner of the laptop would want to make such a big deal about it being stolen...
• 

  Anony Mous

  You are referring to a court using materials or a third party making derivative works from such sources.

  Both

  The court may have an exemption to copyright to provide the entire work (or it may be reduced or redacted).

  It cannot be reduced or redacted once submitted into evidence, there have been a variety of copyright lawsuits around that, and there is a fair use exemption for the portions of work that make it into a lawsuit. So you cannot sue the people submitting it or the court or the people requesting the case files. The judge typically will not allow an entire book to be submitted into evidence, only relevant portions, so it is very rare that you will find an entire copyrighted work in a case, often you'll only have pictures of it, they'll be modified or redacted before being allowed into evidence.

  However, the sources themselves do not fall into the public domain and a third party can’t just re-publish the entire source (not a derivative work) and sell it

  That's not what I said. The sources remain under the copyright of the owner, the case files fall under fair use. You can republish the entire case and derivatives of everything published in a lawsuit, that is what companies like LexisNexis do.

  You can however, probably (not sure if there is case law about this) not sell the case files as being the book itself published by the author, that would be falsifying the brand/name, but that isn't a copyright issue. You can't sell other revisions of the book if they weren't published in the case. You can publish the "author vs. state" case and include all case files, if that happens to include an entire book, then that is fair use, because the judge thought it was relevant to the case to submit it into evidence, you can't redact it after the fact, as then you could redact pretty much anything people didn't want to be public, such as e-mails, letters etc nor could people learn what the relevant factors in the case were.

  In the case of child porn for example, or the description of a murder you did yourself, those things aren't copyrightable or have any privacy attached, anything you create in the pursuit or progression of a crime is not protected by copyright or corporate secrecy or patent law or whatever else they may claim. This may be the case here, if the elders wrote down or recorded the proceedings of a meeting in which they colluded to commit and/or cover up a criminal act such as child molestation, there is no protection at all on those documents, it is in the best interest of the public for those documents to be revealed to the public.