JW's mistaken claim...

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Let me give you a good example .... the law allows you to parody someone elses work, and use it in ITS ENTIRETY.

Remember Michael Jackson's mega hit "Beat It"? Good ... because I remember hearing ABOUT it ... after Weird Al Yankovich took his entire sound track, and made a parody called "Eat it".

Completely legal.

 

 

[Space Merchant]

3 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Under the law, ignorance is no excuse or substitute to make a defense. First, you would start, by not justifying the abuse, and then, ask yourself, which laws you think can be broken to satisfy defamation.

 

 

God starts with your heart, where, does those calling themselves witnesses, START!!

 

 

Then anyone can use you published work without your permission, just because you think “fair use” is “fair game”. That's amusing coming from you.

 

 

Hmmm, so you're one of those people who consider that God/God's Kingdom is in your heart? Ok.

Anyways, as for using people's work and all, it depends on the group and person. The creator of said content, if he, she or they wanted, they can go after someone who is copying their work. Examples being, like taking someone's book, re-writing everything in said book on another book or something like that, then that isn't fair use right there, that is not just copying, but plagiarizing someone's work. This goes for other constant such as art, music, etc. Dunno if you are a fan of Nintendo, but they will go after you not only for copying their work, but for using their characters, other organizations and companies will do the same thing and at times it would be the victim, user of the content, in some deep trouble, at times, financial-wise.

[DefenderOTT]

Hmm!!!

Would this thought include, taking someone else’s work, completely out of context and displaying copyrighted material, for the purpose of distorting facts? Isn’t that a REWRITE?

JTR. You fall short on your facts.

The first time I met him in person was long after I had gotten permission to do "Eat It" back in 1984.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/michael-jackson-remembered-weird-al-yankovic-on-imitation-as-flattery-20090709

http://mentalfloss.com/article/75056/9-musicians-who-refused-let-weird-al-yankovic-parody-their-songs

But I can understand why you would want to defend enablers and abusers of copyright.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

JTR. You fall short on your facts.

The first time I met him in person was long after I had gotten permission to do "Eat It" back in 1984.

A lot of people think that Weird Al went too far in asking or permission before making his parodies. The law would likely have been on his side if he had not requested permission, but that doesn't mean he wanted the legal hassles. The best treatment I found regarding the copyright issues with respect to the Weird Al parodies is here:

http://thelearnedfangirl.com/2014/07/the-continuing-influence-of-weird-al-on-law-especially-copyright-law/

I'll quote two entire paragraphs below to present the context of the sentence I have highlighted :

• Weird Al or his works have been cited by a large number of legal scholars in almost seventy-five law review articles over the years, including in at least six articles by at least three of the top 30 IP scholars — Mark Lemley (Mark Lemley & Stacey Dogan, Parody as Brand, 47 U.C.D. L. Rev. 473, 503 (2013); Mark Lemley, Should a Licensing Market Require Licensing, 70 Law & Contemp. Probs. 185, 191 (2007)); Jonathan Zittrain (Jonathan Zittrain, Privacy 2.0, 2008 U. Chi. Legal F. 65, 83 (2008)) and Rebecca Tushnet (Rebecca Tushnet, Payment in Credit: Copyright Law and Subcultural Creativity, 70 Law & Contemp. Probs. 135, 161 (2007); Rebecca Tushnet, My Fair Ladies: Sex, Gender, and Fair Use in Copyright,  15 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 273, 297 (2007); Bruce P. Keller & Rebecca Tushnet, Even More Parodic than the Real Thing: Parody Lawsuits Revisited, 94 Trademark Rep. 979, 985, 996, 997 (2004)) and many others, including Kembrew McLeod & Peter DiCola, Non-Infringing Uses in Digital Sampling: The Role of Fair Use and the De Minimis Threshold in Sample Clearance Reform, 17 Deakin L. Rev. 321, 329 (2012).
• But his influence isn’t just in rocking the possibly non-existent borderline between parody and satire – let alone tribute, takeoff, and more, but has been cited in law reviews to talk about topic from racial profiling (Nancy Leong, The Open Road and the Traffic Stop: Narratives and Counter-Narratives of the American Dream, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 305 (2012)) to the RIAA (Vincent J. Galluzzo, When Now Known or Later Developed Fails Its Purpose: How P2P Litigation Has Turned the Distribution Right Upside-Down,  61 Fla. L. Rev. 1165 (2009)) to defining what goes into Spam – the meat product (Pamela C. Chalk, A Pig by Any Other Name Would Smell as Sweet, 12 J. Contemp. Legal Issues 340 (2001)).

[JW Insider]

19 hours ago, Foreigner said:

So, this infamous ideology that JWI keeps suggesting, what is “fair use” will be a thing of the past. So, gear up folks, Web sites are included in this battle. Yes, that also applies to archives of published works without the expressed permission or consent of the owner.

"This infamous ideology that JWI keeps suggesting . . . "

LOL. I think that you have made such a habit of looking to find fault with so many things I have said, that you probably don't realize that, up until your most recent comments here, I have generally agreed with everything you said about copyright law. The only problem is that you have likely obscured what I have said, either on purpose, wishful thinking, misunderstanding, misquoting, or false assumptions.

To repeat, my position is still as I have stated previously : that there have been many instances on this site of people breaking copyright law, and breaking the "Fair Use" guidelines of copyright law. There are hundreds of sites discussing JW teachings from JWs, non-JWs and ex-JWs that break the copyright laws. At the end of this post I'll point to the previous things I have said about copyright law and fair use law. If you know of other things I have said, please point them out, especially as you seem to think that I have said something about this site being exempt because it is an academic site.

You should know that I have never made such a claim, and even if I had, this wouldn't change a thing about "Fair Use" guidelines. The point I recall making was that in places where subjects are discussed for academic purposes (and that includes criticism) you will often find that a corporation or publishing company will allow more leeway because it is easy to create a measure of "bad will" instead of "good will" when fighting for legal rights. It will end up highlighting the fact that the publishing company is afraid of criticism. Scientology created a lot of bad will for itself many years ago when it bought up an entire large site where religion was discussed just so it could crush the site. Scientology discussion was only a small part of the site, but it crushed the entire site. After that BeliefNet became much bigger, but they were hassled by religions and corporations over copyright issues, too.

Fair Use guidelines of the copyright law will not change; they don't have to. They have always been vague enough, and many years of precedent in prosecuting these laws has not resulted in specific definitions. Here is a quote about them from a typical site where people try to make sense of it for practical purposes:

http://www.booksandsuch.com/blog/fair-use-and-asking-permission/

-------------------

• Fair Use  The U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Guidelines, Section 107, lists six purposes for using a particular work that are considered fair: For “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.”  It goes on to list four factors you need to consider in deciding whether your intended use can be considered fair:

1. “The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.”

.     The Section goes on to state that the boundary between fair use and infringement is unclear.

• “There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission”

-----------------------

The problem is that the lack of a specific number of words or lines "that may be safely taken without permission" will cut both ways. If a publisher is strict they can come after you for very little, if a publisher is not strict, or even perhaps "happy" about the quotes, they would be happy if even more had been quoted. (This has actually happened in context-related issues, where the publisher claims that MORE context should have been quoted to avoid misleading the reader.)

These issues are very relevant to the WTS-owned content. It's easy to take something out of context. Also, the WTS always prefers that a school, for example, take 200 copies of the entire Awake! magazine, rather than just a reprint of an article. The reason is probably obvious.

In areas where our work is banned, brothers and sisters have been encouraged to copy entire magazines by hand.

Entire magazines are often given away not just to interested persons, but (especially-pre jw.org) have even been left in the door of a 'not at home' or mailed to an address where prospects of interest were high. Entire magazines have been left in beauty shops, "laundry mats," and elsewhere with no instructions as to who can share the publication.

The WTS would not want to be considered hypocritical for wanting the books and magazines (or at least entire articles) copied in areas where the distribution was banned, but then turn around and cry when the WTS itself tries to ban the distribution of its own publications through unauthorized channels. If it's obvious that the unauthorized channel is not presenting itself as the proper channel from which to receive the original and/or current information, then it is probably obvious that the unauthorized channel is presenting the material in order to teach, promote, or criticize the material. Fair Use requires that only excerpts be used for this purpose. But how long can those excerpts be?

Some precedent has indicated this for example: " In all the editorial sources I have researched, the consensus is that 275–300 words can be extracted from a book-length work without seeking permission. . . " (taken from the site just quoted above.)

But is a quote from one article a quote from a book-length work? Not normally. But what if the publication of a bound volume is considered to be the work of one author (WTS) for that year, or what if an entire indexed CD-ROM or DVD or archive on wol.jw.org full of publications that are all presented as the current "single" body of work from the same "author"? What is the number of words or lines or percentage that could be appropriate. Would the publisher be happier if more or less was quoted to avoid items being taken out of context? Is there any indication that the publisher merely wishes for nothing to be quoted unless it is fully supportive? 

*** w18 April p. 30 par. 2 Questions From Readers ***

• 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.

It appears that deterring opposition is high on the list. Will the WTS decide to ban its own literature from all places they oppose? Will this be considered a type of persecution? Those are the questions that are going to be asked. That's why I think that the WTS will be hesitant to go after those who break copyright law when it comes to mere criticism. They don't want to position themselves as not being able to stand up to criticism, as this is a sign of fear that they will be exposed for weaknesses.

---------------------------

For some reason, someone moved a post on mine on this subject to a new topic, making it look like I started a new thread on the topic here, which might be a fair place to move this current discussion.

I believe those comments must have been moved from another topic, probably this one:

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/50868-is-it-time-for-this-forum-to-close-its-doors/?page=5

[TrueTomHarley]

56 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

They don't want to position themselves as not being able to stand up to criticism, as this is a sign of fear that they will be exposed for weaknesses.

As much as I could emphasize with the teacher brother on the current monthly program whose fellow teacher 'came after him' with virulent criticism, the criticism leveled was probably not that which is most commonly leveled these days. The more realistic and timely criticism is that which appears here.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Is that the same George Kennedy that was Paul Newman's sidekick in the movie "Cool Hand Luke?

 

[DefenderOTT]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

A lot of people think that Weird Al went too far in asking or permission before making his parodies. The law would likely have been on his side if he had not requested permission, but that doesn't mean he wanted the legal hassles. The best treatment I found regarding the copyright issues with respect to the Weird Al parodies is here:

I’m glad there are people like you that are advocates for breaking the law. Remind me of your Christian status? What does that have to do with the fact that this artist did ask for permission from Michael Jackson, and JTR misrepresented that fact, that you are poorly attempting to defend for him, now? Is this an author thing? Defend each other’s mistakes?

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, DefenderOTT said:

I’m glad there are people like you that are advocates for breaking the law.

I figured that your moniker meant that you wanted to represent yourself as a "defender of the truth." If that misrepresentation was on purpose, I guess it stands for something else.

1 hour ago, DefenderOTT said:

What does that have to do with the fact that this artist did ask for permission from Michael Jackson, and JTR misrepresented that fact, that you are poorly attempting to defend for him, now?

I think you can see that it is perfectly relevant to the point that JTR was making, even though JTR used a fat bad example. He will have to eat Humble Pie. (Humble Pie also had a song called "Eat it!" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eat_It_(Humble_Pie_album) )

1 hour ago, DefenderOTT said:

Is this an author thing? Defend each other’s mistakes?

I have defended your mistakes, too. I'm not an author, however, and have not tried to be one. I have worked as a researcher for authors.

[JW Insider]

On 2/5/2018 at 12:04 PM, Foreigner said:

Since this forum is hypothetically anything but an academic forum, Copyright rules apply.

This makes no sense. If this forum were hypothetically an academic forum, copyright rules would still apply. And I suspect they would also be adhered to more closely.

[DefenderOTT]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I figured that your moniker meant that you wanted to represent yourself as a "defender of the truth." If that misrepresentation was on purpose, I guess it stands for something else.

I figured, with your moniker, it implies you are a Witness. What’s this frivolous point about monikers, since under your own understanding, it means something else?

We have erred in both instances under your understanding. I, however, don’t make it a habit of advocating someone abuse copyright material, which under Christian life is against bible law, Exodus 20:15 and Caesar’s law. Perhaps, you see a “little white lie” acceptable, but it shouldn't be, to a Christian. What part of “misrepresentation of facts” is tripping you that you find it hard to accept, JTR simply made an error?

That in itself makes no sense, especially if you are referring to this site as, academic. What are you TEACHING then?

[JW Insider]

7 minutes ago, DefenderOTT said:

We have erred in both instances under your understanding. I, however, don’t make it a habit of advocating someone abuse copyright material, which under Christian life is against bible law, Exodus 20:15 and Caesar’s law.

Then you and I agree completely. I don't think anyone should make a habit of advocating that someone abuse copyright material. And I agree that many people abuse "fair use" guidelines, or don't understand them. It's fairly easy to comply, although it requires a bit more work than a lot of people want to put into their posts. It's easy to get lazy or in a hurry, and I've done this too. I've seen whole articles posted many times. A good rule of thumb is to keep quotes under 3 lines at a time from any article, and keep excerpts down to less than a paragraph or two from longer works. If anyone thinks I have advocated for abuse of the law, they are mistaken either about what I said, or about the law.

8 minutes ago, DefenderOTT said:

Perhaps, you see a “little white lie” acceptable, but it shouldn't be, to a Christian. What part of “misrepresentation of facts” is tripping you that you find it hard to accept, JTR simply made an error?

You are misrepresenting me again. I agree that JTR made an error. I almost pointed it out before you did, but had to go somewhere and didn't see any notifications from the forum pop up for a couple hours. 

27 minutes ago, DefenderOTT said:

That in itself makes no sense, especially if you are referring to this site as, academic. What are you TEACHING then?

The rules should be kept MORE strictly if this were an academic site. This is NOT an academic site. But there are parts of the site that tend toward being academic in the sense that they are about religious doctrine and they discuss and quote from the academic or scholarly research of others. They are often discussions and critique of doctrine. Doctrine means teaching. Discussions about teachings and critique of teachings is essentially going to categorized as "academic." When you quote from sources to open up a discussion or refute another persons opinion about copyright law, you are teaching something about copyright law. The person presenting material need not be correct in all aspects, but that's the nature of a forum. It's a mix of teaching and questioning and learning and discussion and controversy and disagreement and social banter and parody and jokes and entertainment. But we should still be able to LEARN from anyone who offers a point of view.