Reddit Will Not Have to Hand Over Identity of Former Jehovah's Witness

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

A federal judge in San Francisco ruled a Redditor’s posts citing Watch Tower’s copyrighted works were fair use but that online free speech “is a developing area where the standards are far from settled.”

Reddit will not have to turn over the identity of a user to the organizational body of the Jehovah’s Witness faith after a judge ruled Monday in a copyright dispute with major potential implications for online free speech.

In a 16-page order, U.S. District Judge James Donato of the Northern District of California found that a Reddit contributor’s posts critiquing the church and its administrative body, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, were a non-infringing fair use of the group’s copyrighted works.

Rejecting a magistrate judge’s prior recommendation, Donato granted a motion to quash a subpoena from Watch Tower seeking identifying information of a Redditor known as Darkspilver. The subpoena, issued to Reddit last January, sought Darkspilver’s subscriber information, name, telephone number, address, email and IP addresses, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Reddit declined to respond to the subpoena, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation intervened on behalf of the anonymous user.

“The only authorized purpose for the subpoena under the DMCA was to discover his identity as an alleged copyright infringer to protect Watch Tower’s copyrights,” Donato said. “If Darkspilver establishes that he made fair use of the copyrighted works, no claim of copyright infringement could plausibly be alleged against him, and the subpoena would not be authorized under the DMCA.”

Last May, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim of the Northern District of California ruled that Reddit must reveal the identity of the user, but only to attorneys involved in the case. Donato said Kim’s approach of applying the First Amendment to anonymous online speech was problematic. “It is a developing area where the standards are far from settled,” he wrote.

Donato also said that Kim’s invocation of the two-part test for anonymous speech the Northern District of California developed in 2005 in Highfields Capital Management v. Doe did not involve the key elements of copyright or the DMCA. “Highfields, the source of the test, involved claims sounding in trademark and unfair competition, but not copyright law or fair use,” he said.

When it came to the fair use arguments, the judge said that Watch Tower failed to challenge any of the evidence.

“Instead, it offers the general challenge that the inquiry is ‘woefully premature’ because

fair use is an affirmative defense that can’t be considered unless and until a complaint is on file,” according to the opinion. “This is a surprising proposition given that Watch Tower was required to evaluate fair use before sending its take-down notice to Reddit, and that Watch Tower and its attorney represented they had done that. They are not well situated to say now that the inquiry should wait.”

Reddit and Alex Moss of the Electronic Frontier Foundation did not respond to a request for comment Monday evening.

Watch Tower’s counsel, Paul D. Polidoro, an in-house lawyer for Watch Tower in Warwick, New York, and Anthony Smith of the Law Office of Anthony V. Smith in San Mateo, California, also did not respond to a message requesting comment late Monday.

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

I seriously cannot under why the GB / Watchtower are spending Congregant's money on such court cases. 

Matthew 5 v 38 through 42 states quite clearly 

“You heard that it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’a ³⁹  However, I say to you: Do not resist the one who is wicked, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him.b ⁴⁰  And if a person wants to take you to court and get possession of your inner garment, let him also have your outer garment;c ⁴¹  and if someone in authority compels you into service for a mile, go with him two miles. ⁴²  Give to the one asking you, and do not turn away from one who wants to borrow from you.d

The GB and their Lawyers obviously do not live by this scripture. 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

 

 

Everything we say, write, or do, should be completely transparent ... and further WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF EVERYTHING WE SAY, WRITE OR DO !

If not ... reparations and profound real heart felt apologies .... and public changes are in order.

I don't know about you .... but I have never heard the Society apologize about ANYTHING !!!

 EVER!!

 

 

[Leander H. McNelly]

Unfortunately JTR, Copyright material is endorsed by global governments. However, It appears John Butler doesn't understand American Laws no more than he understands British laws.

A Magistrate "believe" there was no infringement on the Watchtower copyright material. For a long time, Allen Smith argued the misuse of that "fair use" clause here and everywhere Watchtower material is posted. The above PDF is Reddit asking a high court to squash a writ by the Watchtower to provide the information from Reddit, not the individual that posted the material.

The same "due process" is afforded to all that enter into a legal challenge. Therefore, what's good for opposers is also good for the Watchtower. There is no double standard unless the courts are overstepping their boundaries. In this case, Reddit thinks the court hearing the argument is overstepping its jurisdiction.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

The same "due process" is afforded to all that enter into a legal challenge. Therefore, what's good for opposers is also good for the Watchtower. 

BUT JESUS SAID 

Do not resist the one who is wicked, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him.b ⁴⁰  And if a person wants to take you to court and get possession of your inner garment, let him also have your outer garment;c ⁴¹  and if someone in authority compels you into service for a mile, go with him two miles. ⁴²  Give to the one asking you..

What part of that do you not understand ? 

[Leander H. McNelly]

Since when has secular law considered bible principles? You are distorting the two by mixing them together. For one, understand the difference between a magistrate and a judge. A magistrate is a lower end judge. Some jurisdictions, a magistrate has limited powers. That Goes for City, State and Federal in the USA.

You also need to understand the "fair use" standard. It's not a law that anyone can cling to, to make a judicial case. What ex-witnesses are doing by posting complete "copyright" material from the Watchtower is NOT considered fair use. People that make a citation to make a point, need to do so under a very limited way. Posting like what "witness" and JWinsider" do all the time is NOT fair use. A line or two is fair use. If further arguments need to be made, post the article information only, not paragraphs upon paragraphs. Someday, the same will happen here. The owners have already been advised. What is title 107?

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use⁴⁰

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantially of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Here, JWinsider, JTR and TTH have considered their post as academia. It's not!

Then what is Title 106

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

You misrepresent me:

I will copy anybodys' work under what I consider is "fair use", for non-commercial purposes.

Fair use means they do not shoot at me.

If they do, just to be fair, I shoot back.

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, Leander H. McNelly said:

Since when has secular law considered bible principles?

For example, God's commands such: "Do not ...do this or that" are part of, i think, all and every secular law from past until today. Well, in fundamental things secular laws lean on God's law and principles in that law. :))

If i say on this Forum that you talking nonsense, but you not allow me to use your quotes and topics you published in public, that means HERE, (articles and books in other places if you published, too)  where you posted your nonsense in printing or video and voice form, but you say how i break your "intellectual property and rights", than it is really NONSENSE. :)))

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If i say on this Forum that you talking nonsense, but you not allow me to use your quotes and topics you published in public, that means HERE, (articles and books in other places if you published, too)  where you posted your nonsense in printing or video and voice form, but you say how i break your "intellectual property and rights", than it is really NONSENSE. :)))

Considering the fact that all Jehovah's Witnesses materials are "free" to the end user, the correct logic of your statement is inescapable.

EVERYTHING we say ... in print, video, and from the platform ..... we SHOULD want repeated as much as possible, by ANYBODY who will "spread the good news".

I believe there is a scripture that says exactly that ...that the Apostles complained to Jesus about someone else using their "material", and Jesus said it was OK. (paraphrased).

jw.org evidence for gods kingdom not based on faith but scientific evidence.mp4

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

It's obvious that Billy the Kid / Allen / Mc Nelly, does not want to live by God's standards, and does not want the GB and CCJW to live by God's standards either. 

No point in repeating scripture as he doesn't have faith or belief in it. 

[Leander H. McNelly]

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Considering the fact that all Jehovah's Witnesses materials are "free" to the end user, the correct logic of your statement is inescapable.

Once again, the Watchtower is playing by the governing rules of man. Whatever the government deems as copyright material regardless if its freely distributed continues to be copyright material. Educate yourself on the laws of the land instead of trying to explain, you're in agreement with your fellow ex-witnesses.

Jesus also said, obey "those" in authority, Romans 13 which secular government is part of.

[Leander H. McNelly]

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

It's obvious that Billy the Kid / Allen / Mc Nelly, does not want to live by God's standards, and does not want the GB and CCJW to live by God's standards either. 

No point in repeating scripture as he doesn't have faith or belief in it. 

You're preaching to the choir, John Butler and whatever else account you have here. Don't be too quick to fall for "witness" denseness of whom that person thinks someone is.

It is not I that has "rejected" scripture, it is you that has done so, and for what, to find an excuse to further your personal cause. A cause riddled in ignorance.

[Leander H. McNelly]

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If i say on this Forum that you talking nonsense, but you not allow me to use your quotes and topics you published in public, that means HERE, (articles and books in other places if you published, too)

In this forum that supports ex-witnesses and goes after those that defend the truth, its obvious you can say whatever you want without consequences.

If you read the USA law correctly, as I stated, you can use one or two sentences under "fair use" to give out your opinion regardless on how distorted that opinion is. However, here, you have people "blocking" a rebuttal response.

Thus, nullifying any fair use standard. That is not your fault, but instead directed to the owners. Why? Because they decided to "hate" someone that challenges the morals, integrity and distortion of individuals calling themselves a witness? In the above posting, Reddit does the same thing. Then you have people here posting paragraphs upon paragraphs of copyright material instead of just a line or two, instead of just posting, the information can be found in the Watchtower 2013 article page so forth and so on. That is what people do with books. Citations, look it up! Anything before 1923 can be cited at length. However, there are still some provisions that companies can use to make a case. To be safe, I would stick with anything before 1921 is fair game.