Whether or not wt actually used copyrighted material without authorization in the past is not a legal defense nor a justification for KM to infringe on wt copyright. Using your standard though, everybody should be allowed to infringe on KM based on them using wt copyright and it would be a double standard in they protected their property. According to your standard, it is open game on KM.I am personally not making the claim that K&M are justified in doing what the hell they like on the basis the WT may have their own issues with copyright. This is my position.
- I do think that the WTS have a right to protect their property from unauthorised use.
- I don't think that the rights of the WTS can be freely trampled on simply by claiming some moral cause or justification.
- I do think that an organisation can and should be held up to scrutiny.
- I do think that such scrutiny does permit some kind of "fair use" of the published content of the organisation.
- I do think that the WT uses it's financial and legal muscle to suppress valid scrutiny and criticism, especially by those essentially powerless to argue their position through the courts.
- I don't think that this tactic will work in the long term, in fact I think it may even have a negative effect on the WTS.
- I don't think that there is a clear legal position on this and it's certainly dependant on local laws.
....until the content pops up elsewhere on services that the WT cannot influence....