pdf's of Raymond Franz's books

by Newly Enlightened 277 Replies latest members private

  • Simon
    Simon
    I will watch for the grand defeat of cedars and his Romanian friend in the news for copyright infringement.
    if it doesn't happen. Then I guess that means you're all wrong. If it does happen, I will post a very public apology for all my "misinformation". You have my word on that.

    Neither of those are pre-requisites for someone being right or wrong. But they do speak to your mentality.

    As I've stated in another post defending cedars isn't really my interest or my responsibility. I've stated several times the reason for my posts.

    I don't know about 'defending' but "stirring things up" seems to be your current raison d'ĂȘtre.

    You're done doing it here.

  • the girl next door
    the girl next door

    "The Fair Use Clause for Canada, as I've shown, is far more strict and does not allow for a reprint of entire works. Americas law does."

    How exactly?

    Fair use is decided by courts on a case-by-case basis after balancing the four factors listed in section 107 of the Copyright Act. Those factors are:

    The purpose and character of the use of copyrighted work

    Transformative quality - Is the new work the same as the copyrighted work, or have you transformed the original work, using it in a new and different way?

    Commercial or noncommercial - Will you make money from the new work, or is it intended for nonprofit, educational, or personal purposes? Commercial uses can still be fair uses, but courts are more likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes.

    The nature of the copyrighted work

    A particular use is more likely to be considered fair when the copied work is factual rather than creative.

    The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

    How much of the copyrighted work did you use in the new work? Copying nearly all of the original work, or copying its "heart," may weigh against fair use. But "how much is too much" depends on the purpose of the second use. Parodies, for example, may need to make extensive use of an original work to get the point across.2

    The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

    This factor applies even if the original is given away for free. If you use the copied work in a way that substitutes for the original in the market, that will weigh against fair use. Uses of copyrighted material that serve a different audience or purpose are more likely to be considered fair.

    http://www.teachingcopyright.org/handout/fair-use-faq
  • the girl next door
    the girl next door
    If copying "nearly all" of the original work weighs against fair use, certainly copying "all" the original work, including original cover jacket, would breach the context of "fair use".
  • steve2
    steve2

    This has become needlessly complicated - and I cannot help but wonder whether Jonathan has zeroed in on various aspects for the sake of arguing points and not coping well with the weight of the argument against him.

    • The "fair use" clause was never ever intended as a legal justification for another party disseminating copies of a copyrighted item without permission from the copyright owner.
    • Regardless of a copyrighted item not being (currently) available is immaterial in law. You do not lose copyright ownership because the item is withheld from distribution; it remains your property.
    • For a second unrelated party to put their logo on a copyrighted item, without the express written permission of the copyright owner is a violation of copyright law.
    • While copyright laws differ in their specifics from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from country to country, there is broad consensus internationally on what constitutes violation of copyright law. If the preceding information about Cedars is correct (i.e., he has put a logo on Ray Franz's copyrighted publication with no evidence of copyright clearance), he is violating copyright law.
  • talesin
    talesin
    Poor reading comprehension skills, and 7 pages later ......... lol


  • rip van winkle
    rip van winkle
    Steve2
    If the preceding information about Cedars is correct (i.e., he has put a logo on Ray Franz's copyrighted publication with no evidence of copyright clearance), he is violating copyright law.

    He received copies as a gift from someone who put jwsurvey and jwfacts.com on the back of the cover.

  • the girl next door
    the girl next door
    probably wishes he kept that little bit of info to himself...
  • Jonathan Drake
    Jonathan Drake

    I'm seriously done posting after this. But you're 100% right girl next door. All of that page is where i took it from. I said it "allows" but I should have been more clear, it is a case by case basis. My only point was that it is something that is not automatically disallowed? Does that say it better?

    as to the comment that it "speaks to my mentality". I have not gotten personal with anyone here. So i don't appreciate this. Also if the case did go to trial, it very much wood determine which viewpoint was correct wouldn't it? I mean that is the point of the trial to begin with. So yes. My comment stands.

  • steve2
    steve2

    He received copies as a gift from someone who put jwsurvey and jwfacts.com on the back of the cover.

    Regarding other people putting another person's details on illegally copied publications, that person needs to document they neither requested nor sanctioned nor cooperated with any distribution efforts with those illegally copyrighted publications. In law, seldom is ignorance a defense.

  • Simon
    Simon
    that person needs to document they neither requested nor sanctioned nor cooperated with any distribution efforts with those illegally copyrighted publications

    Does waving them on YouTube and grinning count as plausible deniability?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit