Is it time for this forum to close its doors?

[JW Insider]

1 minute ago, Melinda Mills said:

How do you keep the 2006 one from updating?

The 2006 Watchtower Library CD does not have the ability to update. It was not part of the program code.

[Ann O'Maly]

Referring to the Rama Singh 'Quotegate' incident wasn't meant to start a debate on whether or not it was a misused quote. That topic has been discussed before elsewhere. Singh thought it was; I and others have read his entire article, compared his quoted comment with how the Awake! writer apparently intended to use them, and come to our own conclusions. But my aim was purely to show that the QFR article's implication that guaranteed-non-altered 'spiritual food' can only be found on the jw. org site isn't really true.

[Noble Berean]

17 hours ago, Anna said:

No it's not lost, but I'm afraid you have misunderstood. The article is mainly concerned about websites and apps posing as genuine official JW websites or apps.  Posting links to JW.org on a website such as this is fine. There is absolutely no reason to shut this or any other website such as this down. It's obvious it's not posing as an official JW website, lol. 

But obviously what you have done (or someone else) with overwriting worldnewsmedia.org over a copyrighted WT picture is misleading therefor a misuse of copyright. 

The article does not mince words when it says JWs who engage in online debate are besmirching God's name.

[Noble Berean]

17 hours ago, Anna said:

Well duh!

Can't you see the double standard?

[Ann O'Maly]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

And if you have read enough of our publications you know that whenever a possible expert is only given a first name, or given just a generic title without a name, that he is probably a Witness, and we don't want that fact made too obvious, out of fear that it makes the argument seem weaker.

His full name was given in some non-English editions of the Awake! Below is information from a cached webpage.

Quote

Gerard Hertel PhD'75 retired in January 2001 after thirty-five years with the USDA Forest Service, but he's certainly been busy since then. Hertel writes that he "now spends his time teaching the Bible as one of Jehovah's Witnesses; getting to know his wife of thirty-three years, Bobbie, a little better; and serving as an adjunct professor in the Department of Biology at West Chester [Pennsylvania] University," in his home community.

[Noble Berean]

15 hours ago, The Librarian said:

I won't speak for the @admin since he is probably not even aware of this "controversy" right now....

BUT....

I just can't imagine Jesus Christ creating JesusChrist.org to publish his words... and then tell everyone that nobody has the legal right to copy his words.

If anything EVERY KING of Israel was to MAKE A COPY of the scrolls.... to what purpose? TO SHARE THEM.

The Watchtower Lawyers are thinking of JW.org as a money making for profit corporation instead of the charity and group of like minded bible students that it should be and was at one time..

 

When the apostles were angered that others were preaching the gospel of Jesus what did he tell them? 

"Round up the Christian Lawyers" ... NO!!! 

 

Advertise, Advertise , Advertise the King and His Kingdom......hmmm...... 

 

 My thoughts exactly @The Librarian

So many concerning takeaways from this article.

1. It's a-okay for the org to completely restrict an entire area of preaching (social media). Social media is a huge part of human interaction nowadays, but they're telling people they can't share JW.org content on their pages or in a discussion? Huh?

2. The emphasis on copyright. Since JWs feel that their "spiritual food" comes exclusively from JW.org and the approved apps, the org has essentially claimed legal ownership of all Biblical discussion. Think about that. They're restricting JWs on where they can speak about the good news! And to suggest that JW literature based on God's word and given freely by God can be claimed by the org. 

3. Many JWs sell JW.org buttons or post covers of Kingdom melodies on the Internet. The JW buttons have been used as a method of preaching, because they invite a discussion (another method of preaching that will be negatively affected). This article states that using trademark materials is flat-out wrong and their will certainly be an army of JWs who attack these ones (even though their intentions were pure).

4. They clearly state that they are fighting "opposers" who reference JW content on their sites. That's the main point of this article. They are trying to use copyright laws as a way to suppress free discussion of the org. If the truth is truth, shouldn't it be able to stand up to criticism? Fighting criticism with threats of lawsuits is a cheap attempt to roll back the tide.

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I think it is no more than going the extra mile

hehehe, if WT are so polite, humble, obedient and modest to go extra mile, ...... than why WT Company not produce all documents of paedophilia when Court request it and ordered to do so ??

Hypocrite behaviour. They will do it only if something is for their, WT Company, benefit, and to look holy. :)))   

By using such "legal" bureaucracy paragraphs to ban other people for free and open reveal of WT Company deeds, they, WT, prove how bad they are! 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

They clearly state that they are fighting "opposers" who reference JW content on their sites

As a purely practical matter, since said opposers drag them into courts and have succeeded in extracting some money, suing such opposers who reproduce their copyrighted material so as to malign it will soon make them richer than Apple, Google and Amazon combined.

Deprived of their sustenance, some of such opposers will be screaming louder than Demetrius.

[TrueTomHarley]

15 hours ago, admin said:

Geez.... You guys are a piece of work.

Admin so desperately wants to take his place among the Cooks, Schmids, and Bezos's. He strolls into the dining area at the Conference of Internet Magnificents and orders a scotch - stirred, not shaken. He casually mentions to the tuxedoed waiter the latest Alexa website traffic stats. "Fairly impressive, wouldn't you say?" rolls off his tongue. 

The waiter laughs at him. "Offscouring of the earth! Religious crackpots, every one of them! Come back when you have someone that knows how to tie his shoe! Have a Diet Pepsi."

 

[TrueTomHarley]

19 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

They clearly state that they are fighting "opposers" who reference JW content on their sites.

No. They are fighting ones who reproduce it. 

You can reference it all you want. You can quote their writings. It is in accord with "fair use" doctrine. Whether they like it or not is immaterial. It is not illegal and you can do it. But to reproduce it is illegal and you cannot do it. @admin in my eyes has elevated his stature to that of Solomon with his wise observation: "Geez, you guys are a piece of work."

Several verses speak against the futility of debates. Several verses say stay away from that. By allowing their copyrighted material to be reproduced by people who want to do just that, it gives the appearance than they themselves don't put stock in those verses. 

19 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

This article states that using trademark materials is flat-out wrong and their will certainly be an army of JWs who attack these ones (even though their intentions were pure).

They did say the first. They did not say the second. That is your own projection speaking. You qualify it by saying "even if their intentions were pure." Is there one person on this forum who would say his/her own intentions are not?

This is very close to the old churchy slogan that says "it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere."

Admin takes first place for being a modern-day Solomon. My dad takes second place for his wise counsel when he was driving the family car on those seemingly endless trips of my childhood: "If you kids don't stop crying back there, I'll give you something to cry about!"

 

[Noble Berean]

38 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

No. They are fighting ones who reproduce it. 

You can reference it all you want. You can quote their writings. It is in accord with "fair use" doctrine. Whether they like it or not is immaterial. It is not illegal and you can do it. But to reproduce it is illegal and you cannot do it. @admin in my eyes has elevated his stature to that of Solomon with his wise observation: "Geez, you guys are a piece of work."

Several verses speak against the futility of debates. Several verses say stay away from that. By allowing their copyrighted material to be reproduced by people who want to do just that, it gives the appearance than they themselves don't put stock in those verses. 

They did say the first. They did not say the second. That is your own projection speaking. You qualify it by saying "even if their intentions were pure." Is there one person on this forum who would say his/her own intentions are not?

This is very close to the old churchy slogan that says "it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere."

Admin takes first place for being a modern-day Solomon. My dad takes second place for his wise counsel when he was driving the family car on those seemingly endless trips of my childhood: "If you kids don't stop crying back there, I'll give you something to cry about!"

 

I get what you're saying, but that nuance is not included in the article. I think many would take away that they shouldn't share JW content at all...even quoting it. Apostate websites "use our publications" in what way? Usually, they're quoting and crediting the WT. To dismiss the credibility of any websites that isn't approved...that's a control measure in the uncontrollable world of the internet. 

And this additional point 'Furthermore, posting our publications on websites that allow comments provides a place for apostates and other critics to sow distrust of Jehovah’s organization. Some brothers have been drawn into online debates and thus have brought added reproach on Jehovah’s name. An online forum is not an appropriate setting for “instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed.”' Sounds like another control grab. They don't want people having online discussions independent of the org, and that's sad. 

[Noble Berean]

This most significant, concerning point for me from this article is the emphasis on copyright. Yes, the org has the right to claim legal ownership over its literature, but all JW literature is supposed to be Bible-based. The Bible was given freely to mankind and no one can say "I own it, so don't use it in a way I don't like." For nonJWs, the org's stance makes sense from a secular standpoint--guarding your properties. But as an active JW, I understand that the org teaches the only sources of spiritual food are in approved literature and websites. People won't look to other sources. So, basically, the organization has claimed legal ownership of all Bible discussion and Bible interpretation. That's very concerning to me. Copyright is a man-made law, and when the org emphasizes it it makes the JW org feel like a company rather than a religion.