Stanford University has a good explanation on fair use. Again this is one of the most complex areas of law that is out there, but it is a good start.
John Davis
JoinedPosts by John Davis
-
161
Help! Mike & Kim videos all being deleted by Youtube
by mrmagic indue to watchtower flagging the mike & kim videos on youtube for copyright, youtube is giving them 6 days before they are shutting down their entire youtube channel.
can you help with a mass downloading program and then reuploading them on a mirror ?
would hate to lose all those good videos!
-
-
-
161
Help! Mike & Kim videos all being deleted by Youtube
by mrmagic indue to watchtower flagging the mike & kim videos on youtube for copyright, youtube is giving them 6 days before they are shutting down their entire youtube channel.
can you help with a mass downloading program and then reuploading them on a mirror ?
would hate to lose all those good videos!
-
-
John Davis
It is not always the amount of content but it is also how recognizable the content is. you might not have a problem showing 4 minutes of Star Wars desert and forest scenes and have no problem, but maybe 10 seconds of Darth Vador may nab you for a copyright violation. The difference is that the desert and forest scenes are not as recognizable as Darth Vador is.
-
161
Help! Mike & Kim videos all being deleted by Youtube
by mrmagic indue to watchtower flagging the mike & kim videos on youtube for copyright, youtube is giving them 6 days before they are shutting down their entire youtube channel.
can you help with a mass downloading program and then reuploading them on a mirror ?
would hate to lose all those good videos!
-
-
John Davis
Fair use of copyrighted material is an extremely complex situation and is often dependent on how a particular court will view it as. It is more than just giving credit to someone else for their own copyrighted material, it is that the material cannot be distributed without the permission of the copyright owner. If you rebroadcast an NFL game, no one is thinking that you have created the content but that doesn't mean that you're not violating copyright material.
Generally, to not infringe on someone else's copyright you cannot use large amounts of the original material or you have to change it in some significant way. Some examples you can see on the internet is the videos Everything Wrong With..., where they will show clips of a movie and then mock it. They generally don't play the audio along with the video, this does two things it allows them to mock the movie but it also allows them to change the original content to help them get by copyright laws. That doesn't always work and many movie studios have gotten YouTube to take down their copyrighted material. They also will take a 90-minute movie and only show a fraction of the content down to like 15 minutes or less, again not showing the whole content but only a relatively small portion.
If you want to say a letter came out and it discusses xyz and then speaks about it that is certainly freedom of speech, but you cannot read the whole letter out and then say, well I interjected criticism, therefore, it is fair use. You could do that to any copyrighted work and then there would be no protection for anyone.
Same thing goes to playing an entire convention recording and saying because I stop it regularly to interject my comments, therefore, it is fair use under the criticism doctrine may or may not hold water. You have to be prepared to defend your reasons behind it.
And then there are some Ex-JW activists that don't just do it with Watchtower copyrighted material but also to the commercial copyrighted material. Six Screens uses music that is copyrighted by artists and even by NBC. So it may not just be watchtower that sends these out against EX JWs but it could be commercial ventures that own copyrighted material otherwise.
Again copyright law is extremely complex that is why there aren't a lot of IP attorney's out there, and the ones that are out there will tell you that it is rarely ever cut and dry.
As a side note, Cedars has been going on with his twitter account about how he isn't getting paid for some of his videos. When people do stuff like that, they become even more susceptible to copyright violation notices because it is proof that you are making money off of it and not just doing it for nonmonetary reasons.
-
11
Are JWs the most corporate religion?
by cookiemaster ini find it pretty shocking how corporate the jw religion is.
i never saw it this way when i was in but now that i look at it from a different perspective, it seems quite clear.
much of the terminology used by jws is corporate inspired.
-
-
John Davis
JWLeaks yes 1 corporation for every 90 publishers. That would be a corporation for the kingdom hall. A corporation has to hold the title of the real property.
-
24
The Governing Body's Public Denial Of Being Easy On Childmolesters Will Hurt Them Big Time In Court
by Brokeback Watchtower inlett made a complete public denial of any wrong doing on the part of those directing watchtower policies i think his statement as well as splane's statements of denial to the portugal indoctrinated members certainly shows the evil information he is willing to spill out to keep these matters of serious concern away from their believing public there in portugal.. i feel these videos if they can be used in court cases of child molestation will swing the jury toward megabuck$$$ based on the denial expressed to make these denying ass holes wake up and shrivel up their real estate assets quicker.
these videos make it very plane that these guys are evil and deserve to be given the maximum fine that the jury can award to the victims.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2gqnwvvwtk.
-
-
John Davis
I think that any firm that uses the Watchtower over this should dot all their I's and cross all their T's. I wouldn't say that all of them do but certainly, most do. I think a pragmatic law firm will only take on the cases that they think is the most likely to have success, but does that mean that they think that all of the cases they take on will go to trial and a verdict? I don't think so. I think that some of those cases lawyers take on hoping to get a settlement and get out along with their cut. Remember a settlement requires both parties to accept the terms of the agreement. An attorney is obligated to present every offer to their client, but it is also up to the attorney of the plaintiff to make a recommendation. I do think that in a number of cases the attorney knew that they may have won at the trial court because they could win the sympathy, and rightly they should receive that sympathy, of the jury but I think they knew that they would lose on appeal when the Court solely looks at the letter of the law.
And actually, Watchtower has turned over the subpoena list of documents they did so in the Lopez case following the appeal and the issuance of the protective order by the superior court. The issue in the Padron case is how much can be redacted. In the Lopez case, the court found that all third party information can and should be redacted and in the Padron case that court went the opposite direction. So the appeal is mostly to resolve this question, at least in my opinion, of how to interpret the Appeals Court Decision in the Lopez case. In the Appeal's court decision it was ruled that Zalkin can go on a fishing expedition, but that they are not entitled to 3rd party information. So the question is what is third party information, is it the accused information, witnesses information or the victim's information, is it just one of those categories or is it a combination or an all of them.
I think that even in the ARC case Watchtower handed over their database, so it does indicate that Watchtower is willing to turn it over at least in certain circumstances.
Again I look at this from a pragmatic stance. Is what Watchtower has done is dispicable? I absolutely think so. But what I think and what the law says is two different things. I think that everyone thought that the number of cases following the initial Conti case was going to explode to hundreds if not thousands, but it hasn't, in reality, it has been dozens. And a lot of those have been issued with summary judgments in favor of Watchtower. I know that for a lot of people they were hoping that this would be causing the end of the Watchtower but I really doubt that. I
I know that for a lot of people they were hoping that this would be causing the end of the Watchtower but I really doubt that. I really doubt that the use of the courts is really going to break Watchtower or to stop shunning or a policy on Blood Transfusions. Again I am looking at this from a pragmatic stand point. Either people are going to leave the religion or they aren't, the goverment ain't going to shut them down or tell them what to do.
-
24
The Governing Body's Public Denial Of Being Easy On Childmolesters Will Hurt Them Big Time In Court
by Brokeback Watchtower inlett made a complete public denial of any wrong doing on the part of those directing watchtower policies i think his statement as well as splane's statements of denial to the portugal indoctrinated members certainly shows the evil information he is willing to spill out to keep these matters of serious concern away from their believing public there in portugal.. i feel these videos if they can be used in court cases of child molestation will swing the jury toward megabuck$$$ based on the denial expressed to make these denying ass holes wake up and shrivel up their real estate assets quicker.
these videos make it very plane that these guys are evil and deserve to be given the maximum fine that the jury can award to the victims.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2gqnwvvwtk.
-
-
John Davis
As most courts have found that Watchtower doesn't have a fiduciary responsibility i think it is mute point.
Do they have a moral obligation certainly but legal and moral isn't the same thing.
-
24
The Governing Body's Public Denial Of Being Easy On Childmolesters Will Hurt Them Big Time In Court
by Brokeback Watchtower inlett made a complete public denial of any wrong doing on the part of those directing watchtower policies i think his statement as well as splane's statements of denial to the portugal indoctrinated members certainly shows the evil information he is willing to spill out to keep these matters of serious concern away from their believing public there in portugal.. i feel these videos if they can be used in court cases of child molestation will swing the jury toward megabuck$$$ based on the denial expressed to make these denying ass holes wake up and shrivel up their real estate assets quicker.
these videos make it very plane that these guys are evil and deserve to be given the maximum fine that the jury can award to the victims.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2gqnwvvwtk.
-
-
John Davis
yup i heard of him. but the reason why he was able to sue watchtower was because the Betheliete was doing his job at the time. I don't know any elder whose job it is to hurt children. Again is it right, that is up to each person. But this is the law.
-
24
The Governing Body's Public Denial Of Being Easy On Childmolesters Will Hurt Them Big Time In Court
by Brokeback Watchtower inlett made a complete public denial of any wrong doing on the part of those directing watchtower policies i think his statement as well as splane's statements of denial to the portugal indoctrinated members certainly shows the evil information he is willing to spill out to keep these matters of serious concern away from their believing public there in portugal.. i feel these videos if they can be used in court cases of child molestation will swing the jury toward megabuck$$$ based on the denial expressed to make these denying ass holes wake up and shrivel up their real estate assets quicker.
these videos make it very plane that these guys are evil and deserve to be given the maximum fine that the jury can award to the victims.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2gqnwvvwtk.
-
-
John Davis
Brokeback:
But such as in the Conti case the appeals court ruled that Watchtower has no duty to warn nor a duty to protect. Most courts that have ruled on this have said that Watchtower has no fiduciary responsibility to it's members or to children.
There is a case in California that a pioneer hit someone with their car while the person was leaving service. The court ruled that because the agent was not servicing in a capacity of the master the master cannot be held liable for the agent's action.
-
24
The Governing Body's Public Denial Of Being Easy On Childmolesters Will Hurt Them Big Time In Court
by Brokeback Watchtower inlett made a complete public denial of any wrong doing on the part of those directing watchtower policies i think his statement as well as splane's statements of denial to the portugal indoctrinated members certainly shows the evil information he is willing to spill out to keep these matters of serious concern away from their believing public there in portugal.. i feel these videos if they can be used in court cases of child molestation will swing the jury toward megabuck$$$ based on the denial expressed to make these denying ass holes wake up and shrivel up their real estate assets quicker.
these videos make it very plane that these guys are evil and deserve to be given the maximum fine that the jury can award to the victims.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2gqnwvvwtk.
-
-
John Davis
Brokeback:
completely agree. And just like Mr. Simons has said previously the Conti case was very unique because the abuse took place during a congregation sponsored activity.
Other states along with California talk about how the employer must have approved the action of the employee for it to rise to a punitive damage. How many cases is it that the abuse took place during congregation activity.
Is it right or not? that is up to each person, but this is reality.
-
24
The Governing Body's Public Denial Of Being Easy On Childmolesters Will Hurt Them Big Time In Court
by Brokeback Watchtower inlett made a complete public denial of any wrong doing on the part of those directing watchtower policies i think his statement as well as splane's statements of denial to the portugal indoctrinated members certainly shows the evil information he is willing to spill out to keep these matters of serious concern away from their believing public there in portugal.. i feel these videos if they can be used in court cases of child molestation will swing the jury toward megabuck$$$ based on the denial expressed to make these denying ass holes wake up and shrivel up their real estate assets quicker.
these videos make it very plane that these guys are evil and deserve to be given the maximum fine that the jury can award to the victims.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2gqnwvvwtk.
-
-
John Davis
Brokeback Watchtower:
Of course a really good lawyer can argue to get those tapes in but it is not a guarantee and would be a huge uphill battle. Look at what civil rights lawyers are fighting for to get coments made by President Trump prior to his assuming office, for those comments to be entered into evidence as to his true intentions. I tis not easy.
In Lewis V Watchtower the court ruled:
"In Vermont, the culpability required to support an award of punitive damages based on reckless misconduct requires “evidence that the defendant acted, or failed to act, in conscious and deliberate disregard of a known, substantial, and intolerable risk of harm to the plaintiff, with the knowledge that the acts or omissions were substantially certain to result in the threatened harm.”"
Also the case in Louisana recently was dismissed due to failure to make a claim.
In the Conti case the Appeals court ruled
Because breach of the alleged duty to warn was the sole basis for imposition of punitive damages on Watchtower, we reverse that portion of the judgment, with directions to enter judgment for Watchtower on the punitive damage claim. The compensatory damage award is affirmed.
It does appear that the appeals court would require an overt action by a member of those contrcolled by the master in order to attribute punitive damanges.
Just for example bellow is the law on
Civil Code section 3294 provides, in part:
(a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.
(b) An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.
(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) "Malice" means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.
(2) "Oppression" means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.
(3) "Fraud" means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.
"[E]vidence of ratification of [agent's] actions by Hamilton, and any other findings made under Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b), must be made by clear and convincing evidence." (Barton v. Alexander Hamilton Life Ins. Co. of America (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1640, 1644 [3 Cal.Rptr.3d 258].)
"Subdivision (b) is not a model of clarity, but in light of California's history of employer liability for punitive damages and of the Legislature's reasons for enacting subdivision (b), we have no doubt that it does no more than codify and refine existing law. Subdivision (b) thus authorizes the imposition of punitive damages on an employer in three situations: (1) when an employee was guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, and the employer with advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others, (2) when an employee was guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, and the employer authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct, or (3) when the employer was itself guilty of the oppression, fraud or malice." (Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1151 [74 Cal.Rptr.2d 510].)
" 'California has traditionally allowed punitive damages to be assessed against an employer (or principal) for the acts of an employee (or agent) only where the circumstances indicate that the employer himself was guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice. Thus, even before section 3294, subdivision (b) was added to the Civil Code in 1980, the courts required evidence that the employer authorized or ratified a malicious act, personally committed such an act, or wrongfully hired or retained an unfit employee.' The 'additional' burden on a plaintiff seeking punitive damages from an employer is to show not only that an employee acted with oppression, fraud or malice, but that the employer engaged in conduct defined in subdivision (b)." (Weeks, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1154, internal citation omitted.)
"Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b) does not authorize an award of punitive damages against an employer for the employee's wrongful conduct. It authorizes an award of punitive damages against an employer for the employer's own wrongful conduct. Liability under subdivision (b) is vicarious only to the extent that the employer is liable for the actions of its officer, director or managing agent in hiring or controlling the offending employee, in ratifying the offense or in acting with oppression, fraud or malice. It is not vicarious in the sense that the employer is liable for the wrongful conduct of the offending employee." (Weeks, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1154-1155.)
"We have instructed courts to determine the reprehensibility of a defendant by considering whether: the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; the target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident. The existence of any one of these factors weighing in favor of a plaintiff may not be sufficient to sustain a punitive damages award; and the absence of all of them renders any award suspect." (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., supra, 538 U.S. at p. 419, internal citation omitted.)
"An award of punitive damages is not supported by a verdict based on breach of contract, even where the defendant's conduct in breaching the contract was wilful, fraudulent, or malicious. Even in those cases in which a separate tort action is alleged, if there is 'but one verdict based upon contract' a punitive damage award is improper." (Myers Building Industries, Ltd. v. Interface Technology, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 [17 Cal.Rptr.2d 242], internal citations omitted.)
"[P]unitive damages are not assessed against employers on a pure respondeat superior basis. Some evidence of fault by the employer itself is also required." (College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 724, fn. 11 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 898, 882 P.2d 894].)
"Subdivision (b) . . . governs awards of punitive damages against employers, and permits an award for the conduct described there without an additional finding that the employer engaged in oppression, fraud or malice." (Weeks, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1137.)
"Section 3294 is no longer silent on who may be responsible for imputing punitive damages to a corporate employer. For corporate punitive damages liability, section 3294, subdivision (b), requires that the wrongful act giving rise to the exemplary damages be committed by an 'officer, director, or managing agent.' " (White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 572 [88 Cal.Rptr.2d 19, 981 P.2d 944].)
"[I]n performing, ratifying, or approving the malicious conduct, the agent must be acting as the organization's representative, not in some other capacity." (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 723.)
"[T]he concept [of managing agent] assumes that such individual was acting in a corporate or employment capacity when the conduct giving rise to the punitive damages claim against the employer occurred." (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 723.)
"No purpose would be served by punishing the employer for an employee's conduct that is wholly unrelated to its business or to the employee's duties therein." (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 723-724.)
" 'The determination whether employees act in a managerial capacity [i.e., are managing agents] does not necessarily hinge on their "level" in the corporate hierarchy. Rather, the critical inquiry is the degree of discretion the employees possess in making decisions that will ultimately determine corporate policy.' " (Kelly-Zurian v. Wohl Shoe Co., Inc. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 397, 421 [27 Cal.Rptr.2d 457], internal citation omitted.)
"[W]e conclude the Legislature intended the term 'managing agent' to include only those corporate employees who exercise substantial independent authority and judgment in their corporate decisionmaking so that their decisions ultimately determine corporate policy. The scope of a corporate employee's discretion and authority under our test is therefore a question of fact for decision on a case-by-case basis." (White, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 566-567.)
"In order to demonstrate that an employee is a true managing agent under section 3294, subdivision (b), a plaintiff seeking punitive damages would have to show that the employee exercised substantial discretionary authority over significant aspects of a corporation's business." (White, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 577.)
" '[C]orporate policy' is the general principles which guide a corporation, or rules intended to be followed consistently over time in corporate operations. A 'managing agent' is one with substantial authority over decisions that set these general principles and rules." (Cruz v. Homebase (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 160, 167-168 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 435].)
" '[R]atification' is the '[c]onfirmation and acceptance of a previous act.' A corporation cannot confirm and accept that which it does not actually know about." (Cruz, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 168.)
"For purposes of determining an employer's liability for punitive damages, ratification generally occurs where, under the particular circumstances, the employer demonstrates an intent to adopt or approve oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious behavior by an employee in the performance of his job duties." (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 726.)
"Corporate ratification in the punitive damages context requires actual knowledge of the conduct and its outrageous nature." (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 726.)