Jehovah’s Witnesses Sue FaithLeaks Owners Over Convention Videos

[Space Merchant]

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

@Space Merchant Like I've said before you will always disagree with me just for the sake of trying to look superior.

The irony of it all, it was your sources that let me to the articles. If you haven't noticed, anything related to Wikipedia, at the very bottom there are citations and notes, when you search for said citations, it takes you to a number of books and or articles.

Therefore, I was agreeing with the cited sources of which you proved, it was not by my own hand. If it was not for your Wikipedia quotes, I may not have been able to find more information, such as The Jubilee Year.

I don't appear to be superior, not at all. That is why it can be said, when I told you to prove it, you failed a number of times. Someone doing research and finding the truth of the matter does not mean they are superior, it means they put in the time to do the work.

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

And if I write that the CCJW / GB say that a person 'must be a baptised Jehovah's Witness to gain salvation', will you disagree with this too ? 

This was discussed at least 4-5 times on prior, with JWInsider, Anna, and a number of others, including me weighing in on this. All of us, have pointed out what the Jehovah's Witnesses stated, moreover, what the meaning of Salvation is. Therefore, all that would need to be done is link the thread in question to prove said point.

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

And are you saying that any Non Trinitarian Christian can gain salvation no matter what religion they are, or even if they have no denomination ?

No. If I recall, I haven't uttered salvation at all on this thread in particular. I have elsewhere, and also stressed elsewhere that Salvation can be lost and or gained (regained).

Clearly, you do not understand what was conveyed. Of course, Non-Trinitarians understand what it means to gain/lose salvation, you are responding to one - @Space Merchant. Other denominations, however, who most are not Anti-Trinitarian, state otherwise, for if one is saved, they can never lose salvation, which, if we go to the Bible, does not make sense, not to mention the verse we see in Jude.

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Now that would be in disagreement with the JW GB.

How so?

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Quote "Also your claims from before, you can at least attempt to prove them instead of shying away from them, I see you laughed, but cannot bite, as usual "

Made made claims which you cannot be proven, I even invited you to prove them, which you had failed. Regarding a Prophet Inspired and Not Inspired, the Bible itself offers more proven than you assuming. You even alluded to my point, which thus makes it correct.

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

When I show you truth you are too blind to see it so there is no point.

If you go back to your comment, you made 2 claims regarding me, not the JWs. I told you to prove it, you haven't, this was the same end result as our first discussion.

If the Bible speaks truth on what an inspired/no inspired prophet is, why do you say it is wrong? If I agree with the Bible, and you disagree, where does that leave you?

I agree with the following verses, therefore, because of this, and your claim, it shows you are in error [Matthew 24:14, Luke 4:18, Acts 2:18, 19 and Romans 12:6-8] - you have a Bible, do you not? Read these verses, or simply read my refute response to Witness, of which I quoted a few comments up.

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

I was right about the Governing Body exalting themselves above their 'Fellow Slaves' as in the parable.

Do you even understand the Parable of the Faithful Servant? As anyone can see, you've added your own assertions, every notion I pointed out in regards to this Parable is correct, especially when it comes to the flock and spiritual food.

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

But you won't agree with me.

It is not that I agree with you, it is the fact you are going upon your own understanding, and not actually looking into Scripture to convey the truth of the matter. If I had not mentioned the Parable, you'd include something vastly different regarding what A Faithful Servant is.

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

For that GB to suddenly decide only they, those 8 men, are the Faithful slave and for them to assume the others of the Anointed are NOT the Faithful Salve, shows the GB up to be the wicked slave. 

I suggest you re-read the below. The Bible holds more truth vs. mere assumption and or understanding.

Again, MAN cannot assume such. When it comes to Chosen Ones, those that are chosen is between God and that individual. To make such a statement there is hell to pay in regards to the White Throne. Reasons why a majority of us Christians are neutral when it comes to this is for not wanting to beget a costly mistake.

That being said, be it that they are or not, if I recall, among their community, it is said they have a number of chosen ones among them, it is not soley 8 religous leaders.

On 5/19/2020 at 11:25 AM, Space Merchant said:

The term, “faithful and discreet slave”, is used by them to describe the group's body of religious leaders in its role professing teachings. The term also refers to “faithful and wise servant”, by others, individualized and or by other groups, even by modern day Bible Students, as for Unitarian denominations, we use the other rendering. Now a faithful servant, they profess said teachings of pertaining to articles of faith. This term heavily correlated with the interpretation this Parable – “The Faithful Servant” found in the following verses (Matthew 24:45–47, Mark 13:34-37 and Luke 12:35-48) and it is said the fulfilled began on Pentecost 33 C.E. (Acts 2). This role, for pretty much most Christian groups, especially if organized, act as the example found in said Parable, as a faithful servant (or slave), when it comes to arriving at decisions on regarding teachings and or other things, this information, once finalized, is presented. Again, I bring up Apostle Paul regarding Dietary Laws and Circumcision.

The faithful and wise servant is in connection with a small and or little flock of servants who are faithfully carrying out vows within the body of Christ, moreover, the whole body individually and or collectively, giving the food (Spiritual Food/Milk of which the Bible speaks heavily about) by a due season to the household of faith, which are the believers, Christians, who are given said food. A faithful servant, when it comes to teachings, application and discussions being made, under both God and Christ, are deemed responsible whereas the master of these slaves is the Christ, Jesus, hence The Parable. Despite all this, regardless of faith, no man is inspired, well, you have some Trinitarian scholars and Christians out there who claimed this, i.e. stating they can speak to the dead or see them, or entered briefly some form of afterlife (which all connects to Spiritism and not Christianity).

 

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

However like I say, you wish to convey yourself as knowing more than others, so there is little point in talking directly to you.

Because I do research it irks you this much? If you did not know something and I pointed it out, you consider this being all knowing and superior? A mere rendering buttered your biscuit in this regard and if I point that out being knowledgeable is deemed a threat to you? You are beginning to remind me of Srecko now with the Donkey, Abraham and Glasgow discussions of the past (and it is for good reason I bring up reminders of old discussions, should specific points be made again).

Also, if I recall, you were the one who brought all this put, as I tell many here, a do a response to a response, nothing more.

That being said, you ignore what is true to fit the information you wish to convey, likewise with the Bible, you have little to no understanding of what a prophet inspired is and or not inspired, thinking that someone who is not inspired cannot grasp the holy spirit, when the Bible says otherwise. You cannot fool anyone, and it is no surprise you walked right into it by making these claims, not to mention you were the one to link the Wikipedia, somehow you do not agree with the very source which you linked. Perhaps next time remember this: If you are going to use a wiki, make sure the citations are NOT against your claims, otherwise, it can only prove to engineer your own err at the end of the day, i.e. said claim of yours stated that they said Armageddon would happen on 1975, but there was no claim made by them to suggest such, anywhere.

Other than that, regardless, as for the topic at hand, although there is some level ground, however when this go beyong that, it is their information, they can do as they please with said information, for it originated from them and is provided by them, produced by them and shared by them, in terms of law and the like, it is for them, even outside of that, this goes for ALL entities, institutions, and the like. 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

 @Space Merchant

i.e. said claim of yours stated that they said Armageddon would happen on 1975, but there was no claim made by them to suggest such, anywhere.

 

could see was a short time ahead in which to finish the work assigned to them." 

Watchtower 1968 Aug 15 p.494 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?

[Space Merchant]

@4Jah2me And So I saith to thee, Give me a direct """"quote""""" of them stating Armageddon will happen in 1975?

Example: Frosted Flakes, random I know, but proving a point. The slogan of this cereal brand is "They're Great!" and their mascot is an anthropomorphic humanoid tiger named Tony. Who said the quote directly as stated? Tony the Tiger.

Now, all you did was post a picture of an article (haven't you read it), of which was posted several times over on this forum, and debunked. For further detail, to make a claim that they said 1975 was indeed God's Day was to occur, I do not see what is stopping you from quoting said claim, in this case, the name of the person who said it and where it took place.

I got another example for you "Beauty is in the Eyes of the Beholder" who said it? Margaret Wolfe Hungerford.

Other than that, the way I see it, a strong sermon often tends to make people speculate, and jump to conclusions, as noted last time. I think someone stated something before as projected, but the claims out there that say otherwise does not hold enough water.

I will note your response because I do not want another Glasgow (Srecko knows, and he was sorry for it) to happen:

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

@Space Merchant

i.e. said claim of yours stated that they said Armageddon would happen on 1975, but there was no claim made by them to suggest such, anywhere.

 

could see was a short time ahead in which to finish the work assigned to them." 

Watchtower 1968 Aug 15 p.494 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?

 

That being said, relating to the topic at hand, as we speak, if something of someone is in use, especially without permission and or improperly, they have the right to take action.

 

EDIT: Thank you for proving me point, again. Now - Your claim would be a strong one, if they had indeed made the claim. The only thing in that article of yours that I am somewhat not easy with is the King James Version of the Bible, nothing more.

As I pointed out, before your arrival, we had spoken about this before, that is why I mentioned Rook, JWInsider and the others, regarding the subject, this is one of several threads for 1975.

 

[Space Merchant]

@César Chávez Despite such, the origin of material is of the original source regardless, as mentioned before, such is the same with all institutions. We should not also forget of how the law works too, something of which people got confused with and assumed things with other things, for instance the whole situation about ARC concerning the JW faith.

That being said, us Unitarians know of the owner as well, despite the fact all of us, regardless of faith, suffer from the actions of a few men and women with brazen ideas, this is to be expected. But  at the end of the day, material under such notion always belongs to whom it originated from, especially if said material was used in a way that differs from origin and or the like.

As I mention to Rook, outside of the religious space and into cooperate, it is FAR worse if the institution roles were in reverse, in a sense, such would kill you without you being deceased, but still alive, or in an understandable form - cancel culture in a permanent form.

[Srecko Sostar]

On 5/1/2020 at 4:49 AM, Isabella said:

copyrights

I wonder this:

If all WT publications from past to the future is/are intellectual and material possession of The Company ... and each person who was, is and will be JW member need to have "Bible Study" BASED on WT publications, and to continue in this way ... WHO is owner of Member's  Faith and Beliefs .... BECAUSE he/she came to this Unique Faith and Beliefs ONLY because of studying and accepting Published Materials ??!! :))) 

[Space Merchant]

9 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I wonder this:

If all WT publications from past to the future is/are intellectual and material possession of The Company ... and each person who was, is and will be JW member need to have "Bible Study" BASED on WT publications, and to continue in this way ... WHO is owner of Member's  Faith and Beliefs .... BECAUSE he/she came to this Unique Faith and Beliefs ONLY because of studying and accepting Published Materials ??!! :))) 

It's the material. The material is free to use, however, in some instances, if there is other material that is not public and or made private and soon to be public, then you have a problem, mainly if said information is sensitive and can jeopardize not just the entity, but specific persons, I remember giving you a real in life bloody example that took place in one country.

Said published material is indeed free of charge and use, so that statement of yours is a bit off. The article points out something a tad bit different, Srecko.

[Space Merchant]

It would seem as though the church mouse can no longer speak of said claim - which is understandable because the engineering of their own demise was the root of said downfall, thus backfiring. Long story short - The image/article provided in the last response does not, and has never stated 1975 was indeed God's Day. The irony of it all is elsewhere the notion of "deceit and lies" was professed, but here we see a different story.

To quote myself: A bit hypocritical, don’t you think?

That being said, as for the topic, the way I see it is that

I want to note the following from some of the articles I've read thus far: The Witnesses say they created 74 “original motion pictures” and have copyrights on them. But those movies were obtained and uploaded to FaithLeaks.org, a place where whistleblowers can anonymously submit material. The Truth and Transparency Foundation — run by the same people — then took that material, researched it, and published an investigative piece on the matter.

Somewhat related, but I also like to point out that: Most institutions, even religious groups, do not want specific meetings recorded for various reasons, i.e. said meeting information will go forth to another group and into another language, etc, however, would later release said meeting and or produce the same meeting elsewhere in another language. This is not too far off from The Media’s Embargo regarding books, video games and or video game companies (I'm looking at you - Nintendo), movies, comics, and more. For at times breaking said Embargoes there are consequences, likewise if anyone is playing around with copyrighted material.

If the material, in this case being media such as videos are registered copyright and or some office, then the Jehovah’s Witnesses can sue the uploader, in this regard, being the website and or owner(s) of Faith Leaks, and they can sue for damages on a statutory level, meaning, should they see fit, video(s) individually (each one), not to mention the fees for lawyers in some degree. Now, if they don’t have this material registered, then it would be limited to the latter option, in addition, they would they have to commit to having proof, which if this was the alternative, it would be very difficult on the Jehovah's Witnesses' end.

Regardless if it is material from the Jehovah's Witnesses, a YouTuber, Musician, Artist, etc. If the material is also close to the original in all sense, even if used in commentary, criticism, parody, etc. You’d have to fall into the fair use category to evade such things, but not all the time an opportunity is an easy one to gain, and one should expect what is to happen.

That being said, as a point I’ve made, if the material is indeed copyrighted, then posting it entirely, 100% is a breach and to some extent, some might see it as piracy. So in this situation, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have a point in relation to this situation.

Not knowing the basics of copyright would have people jump to conclusions, as is seen here, so much to the point, there are those who are either religious and or not religious making this point.

That being said, if these are copyrighted materials, then posting them in their entirety is piracy in some degree. So the JWs have a point in that case. Moreover, some are stating this to be stolen content, which is another can of worms of it’s own, hence to profess fair use regarding stolen content only spells T.R.O.U.B.L.E. you stole.

Under US Law, from what I have been looking into regarding copyright, is that whether the non-copyright-holder makes money off the copyrighted material, in addition to that, the legitimate holder of said copyright has 100% control and exclusive rights to said material, and they themselves can decide and determine how the material is used. Therefore, the latter really does not have the ball in their court regarding the legality of things, likewise to that of a Comic Book Junkie who made an attempt to record, perhaps the Batman movie using nothing more than his or her cellphone within, in turn, to produce it has their own. Or for our parting friend, JTR aka The Rook, if he created a magnificent movie and I was the cellphone guy and produce said material elsewhere somewhat as my own, I'd have hell to pay for my actions and the consequences of my actions would follow suit.

Although I am still looking into copyright things myself, I do not see what is stopping you, and or said collective. Well, said collective failed regarding Trust Funds and the like, Non-Profits, tax-exempt under section 501(c)s, Benefactors, Copyright, Concordances, NGOs/UNs registrations and resolutions, tenets, and the list continues.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

I'll just repeat this as Space Merchant is going on so much. 

Matthew 5 v 38 through 42

 “You heard that it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ 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. 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.

The GB and their Lawyers do not understand the spiritual things from God. 

It also seems they are ashamed of their own videos. 

And it seems that a lot of people here do not understand the spiritual things from God or Bible principles. 

But of course the GB need the money now, donations are probably going down and court case costs are probably going up. 

[Space Merchant]

@4Jah2me That just shows you do not know US and or international law regarding copyright (I also like to point out that even the non religious who pinned this story know more as well regarding said law). If the material is actually for them, and they can distribute as they see fit, why say otherwise? Therefore using this verse in regards to this shows you have no idea what you are going about, therefore using the verse and or passage out of context. We can also see you are in motion with your own notion and feelings vs. actual fact.

That being said, I am still awaiting for the evidence from your last statement which you claim. Mind you, elsewhere you spoke of deceit and lies, I would quote you too if need be. So if the later claim was indeed a lie, how speak of it as a truth? To use that verse in this regard, was not your deed a wicked one?

Therefore, my statement concerning you is fact and true:

On 5/15/2020 at 11:42 AM, Space Merchant said:

you shy'd away.

You can hate them til death, but to go about something that is false is, to quote you, deceitful and a lie. At least be honest about something, hence, if the copyright laws said, as seen in this situation, why speak otherwise? The only way one can actually put the faith group to the test if they haven't registered said material, in this case, that would be a win for faith leaks because for the JWs it would be difficult, but the reality is, the content is registered.

Second, most of us know Bible Principles very well, but, not many not the context of said Bible Principles and or Biblical fact, often times, the collective would use THEIR exegesis and emotions in the face of something factual in Scripture, which shows the clear separation between the True and the Mainstream.

It is not the need of money regarding faith leaks, as of how everyone is seeing it, it is regarding material produced by them that is taken, and, some even attested to the idea that said material was stolen.

 

But yes, no different from an Embargo.

[Arauna]

5 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

It also seems they are ashamed of their own videos. 

??   

5 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Do not understand the spiritual things of God

Your personal opinion only......... and while you are allowed to have a personal opinion , it does not mean it is absolutely correct.  Satan and his demons are also allowed by God to have a personal opinion..... 

[Srecko Sostar]

I am of the opinion that no non-JW or ex-JW, intends to use and presents WT published materials as their own. That is a ridiculous and impossible assumption. For everything that is used (in whole or in part) serves for a religious debate in which some advocate one opinion and others refute or ridicule it.

For the purpose of argumentation only: What reasonable person of the ranks of ex-JW would like to advocate the idea of FDS and GB since 1919 as his own? Intellectual property :)) and copyright. 

What ex-JW have intention to COPY / DUPLICATE such intellect? 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

One thing i do find very funny on here and in the CCJW is this. 

Everyone seems to say 'Read the Bible' 'Study God's Word' 'Pray for Holy Spirit'

BUT when a person does those things and comes to an understanding of scripture, oh dear, they must be wrong because they don't agree with YOU !  

@Arauna I agree with your latest comment. One reason being that I truly believe the Greek Scriptures are meant for the true Anointed to understand, not the 'domestic' Earthly class. 

Just look on this forum how many different opinions there are. My opinion is no better or worse that any other. 

One man on here says he 'studies religions', but is that what God really requires of us ?  How long would it take us to study all religions ? 

Just one little point. The GB 'inspired' Elders have regularly told congregants to 'Leave it with Jehovah' when congregants have been wronged, even to the point of CSA. 

But when the GB / CCJW / W/t are wronged they get their Lawyers to fight it all the way. 

So why can't they just 'Leave it with Jehovah' ?  Is it all about the money ? 

Well this example of the GB and their lawyers will probably 'inspire' more CSA victims to fight it all the way. After all it seems that the GB and you people are only interested in people's 'rights according to law'.