How much are Watchtower Lawyers paid?

[Pudgy]

You know, that those who understand clowns real people, just with costumes and make-up, watching the antics of clowns is funny…… Depending on whether or not your taste runs to slapstick humor. The Three Stooges made a living off of slapstick humor, and many became great fans.

But for many children, they do not understand what a clown is, and the value in society of having clowns, and so they are deathly afraid of clowns. Clowns scare them. A lot!

In a circus, one of the common acts is for a Volkswagen full of clowns to drive into the center ring, and the clowns start piling out of the car. And the clowns come, and the clowns come and the clowns come… And sometimes 25 or 30 clowns will come out of the Volkswagen. For a long time I never gave it any thought at all, but then it occurred to me, that is just not enough space in the car for that many clowns!

Later on I discovered that the way they do it is they have a trap door in the floor of the center ring and the clowns are under the stage, and the Volkswagen drives over the trap door And the clowns come up under the bottom of the car and out the door.

I don’t know but it probably looks good on a résumé.

With the title of this topic in mind, and the above preface, I submit for your approval, or comment, or for Dmitar’s agenda driven down vote, the following:

 

[Anna]

I don't think they get paid for this, I think they do it for free....just like everyone else who does any work for the org. if they're a JW.

[Srecko Sostar]

4 hours ago, Anna said:

I don't think they get paid for this, I think they do it for free....just like everyone else who does any work for the org. if they're a JW.

Yes, as for the lawyers who decided to volunteer for WTJWorg. I think there were law firms that were hired outside of WTJWorg. Maybe some JW brother / elder who has his own law firm or a “secular” law firm.

[Arauna]

As a singer, I wrote several songs in  my salad days.  I also sang other peoples songs.  I had one song in particular that would become a best seller.  I only sang it for friends because I respected the original composers time and effort. I is theft to take another's intellectual property - period.  It is worse when they take that property to degrade you and mock you.  So I think it is not ok to do this - it is theft of the ugliest order.

This is why people are speaking out against the New world order hacking our brains with the technology they already have available ..... WEF see us as hackable animals.  This is where the world is going in future.  Would you like anyone to hack your brains, your health, your songs, your DNA, your videos to damage you? 

This is not just a moral question with moral repercussions - it is also a legal one.  Has permission been given to use/ or hack it?

With technology today they can take your picture and make a deep fake video which speaks like you, looks like you, walks like you - such as they have done with several celebrities.  Would you like it if someone used your intellectual property to make a deep fake video of you participating in pornography or an illegal act against the government?  Or to parody you in a untruthful way - picture you as a transgender?  

 

[Space Merchant]

There is a fine line in regards to Fair Use, and the like of DMCAs, so it isn't too surprising something like this can happen, hence Copyright Laws in the United States is somewhat strict, by the books, EU also, but not as strict. Even in reverse, some companies have been known to infringe and or steal/rip-off material, regardless, both of which can go beyond the notation of fire use under Copyright Laws, even when it comes to institutions, will still sting, even worse if someone is selling said content outside of a license - be it market or institution.

https://www.whitcomblawpc.com/additional-blogs-of-interest/parody-protection

The pantiles vary depending on the situation - https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1852-copyright-infringement-penalties-17-usc-506a-and-18-usc-2319

That being said, the guy is lucky it isn't Nintendo, for in example - not only they will sue, but they'll make sure pay the ultimate price, they'll do it in a way to sue you into the nothingness of oblivion or they put it where it hurts outside of your wallet, years off your life.

In short if a company, institution, Music, product, etc. has copyright tied to it, you have to move carefully around said copyright or else.

NOTE: The first copyright law was enacted in 1709 and from there is got more strict. This was discussed on CSE a while back too - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3069/is-there-any-biblical-support-for-copyright-law

 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

I had all that info' come through on an email as I'm on the mailing list.  

Jesus made it very clear that true Christians should turn the other cheek, give the inner/outer garmnet also, walk the extra mile................ 

The GB are just greedy selfish non-Christian men that love power and attention.  And of course they are guilty of ruining people's lives and they don't want JW's or outsiders to know the truth about how they work. 

Fancy being happy that you drive people to suicide. Split up families. Hide pedophiles in their organisation. Disfellowship victims of CSA just to get them out of the way. And then cry like babies when the truth is revealed about them. 

The GB are wicked money grabbing selfish hypocrits. But their time of judgement will come.

Remember Luke 17 : 1&2 

Berean Study Bible
Jesus said to His disciples, “It is inevitable that stumbling blocks will come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.

No Dimmy, I am not one of the fake 'christians' that love everyone. I hate the things that YHWH hates. 
 

[Dmitar]

Wow! Former Jehovah's Witnesses celebrating a judicial challenge made by the Watchtower. The foolishness comes from thinking that somehow this is a "big" win for former witnesses.

The Watchtower challenge was to have the court expose the ex-witness that made the video, so the Watchtower can sue the individual instead of YouTube. Under the clause of YouTube policy, they are not obligated to release such information unless there is a judicial challenge. The Judge didn't seem to think, there was enough merit for the court to deem it necessary for YouTube to release such information.

That doesn't mean, the Watchtower cannot reapply for that release with better evidence or by serving a better argument for the reason how that woeful fool is infringing on the Watchtower. The name alone without permission for promotion is an infringement. It's called DISTRIBUTION.

Therefore, the Watchtower has NOT lost anything significant. Legal eagles here need to understand secular law a lot better.

Then you have the next step. To appeal, the judge's decision. Personally, I don't think that's necessary. A better argument is needed. There is enough there, there, to sue the pants off that individual.

Although it's hilarious🤣 how former Jehovah's Witnesses coined this statement, "This Lego Movie Destroyed the Watchtower!" 🤣🤣

[Dmitar]

The only reason the Watchtower couldn't sue YouTube directly was for this reason. The Watchtower needed to prove YouTube entered into a contract with the violator.

In 2012, a court of appeals clarified one aspect of the DMCA for ISPs—that “awareness” of infringement was not the same as a “duty to police.” Viacom sued YouTube claiming that YouTube failed to police its content even though the company had followed the DMCA procedures of implementing a procedure to respond to takedown notices from copyright owners and removing infringing content of which it was aware. The Second Circuit held that a general awareness of infringement did not trigger a duty to police postings under the DMCA. The Second Circuit held that YouTube was responsible only if it knew of specific infringements or deliberately insulated itself from knowledge of such infringement by its users. (Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012).)

However, ACCESS can still be argued along with many other citations.

[Srecko Sostar]

I can understand WTJWorg's commitment to sending its lawyers to Russia and then suing Russia in international bodies because they are banned from operating and because the Russian authorities are imprisoning their members.
But that WTJWorg is going to deal with satirical videos that mock JW doctrines? How did some members of Islam react when they saw satire at the expense of their religion in French newspapers? Instead of bloodshed, they were to look to JW lawyers and seek compensation in the form of money and imprisonment for individuals.

[Dmitar]

11 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I can understand WTJWorg's commitment to sending its lawyers to Russia and then suing Russia in international bodies because they are banned from operating and because the Russian authorities are imprisoning their members.

This wouldn't be realistic. The Watchtower doesn't have the power to change the mindset of a government. Only God does.

13 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

But that WTJWorg is going to deal with satirical videos that mock JW doctrines?

For over a hundred years, people have been mocking the Watchtower. In this case, it's not about mocking, it's about copyright. 

15 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

How did some members of Islam react when they saw satire at the expense of their religion in French newspapers?

Can you give me an example when the Watchtower advocated violence?

16 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Instead of bloodshed, they were to look to JW lawyers and seek compensation in the form of money and imprisonment for individuals.

Once again, When it comes to the Watchtower, what bloodshed are you referring? Is there some kind of news you are aware of for such slanderous remarks?

[Srecko Sostar]

37 minutes ago, Dmitar said:

Can you give me an example when the Watchtower advocated violence?

Why are you asking me that. I cited a situation where members of Islam were violent, not JW. SM's mentality infected you? He have habit to construct other people comments.

[Dmitar]

34 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Why are you asking me that. I cited a situation where members of Islam were violent, not JW. SM's mentality infected you? He have habit to construct other people comments.

I understand you have a problem with words. It has nothing to do with one's mental state, it has to do with perception. Since you clarified what you meant, that Islam is violent, even though people will disagree with you, since Islam believes terrorist high jacked their religion, just as much as the Vatican was with the crusades, and other Christian religions don't have an issue with their members killing in war, just be specific when it comes to the Watchtower and its members. They don't advocate violence or harm to another human being, as expressed by our lord and savior.

When it comes to the Watchtower, there's NO comparison.