"Watch Tower's Misuse of Copyright to Suppress Criticism"

A very interesting post by Paul Alan Levy (Public Citizen); here's the opening paragraph:

This is a sad tale of hypocrisy on the part of a group whose litigation over the past eighty-five years has set many of our most important First Amendment precedents. But over the past four to five years, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, popularly known as the Jehovah's Witnesses, has been abusing judicial process to suppress criticism by obtaining subpoenas under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to out its critics by invoking claims of questionable merit. These are typical SLAPP suits, but under the copyright laws. In almost all of these cases, the victims could not find counsel to fight back, and had to censor themselves.

Read the whole post for more. I'd love to post a response from Watch Tower, if one is available; I tried to reach out to them myself through one of their lawyers, but haven't heard back yet.

Comments

[Illocust]

Yeah, copyright laws need some pretty major reform, but I'm not sure how to do it in a way that doesn't result in large corporations being given the right to use other people's intellectual property for free.

If five people come together to make a video game, there isn't one creator who's life the copyright can be tied to easily and fairly, so it needs to be able to be held by legal fictions, but it's not fair to those creators to limit their ownership in such a way that within their lifespan EA could just decide to make a remake of their game without paying them a dime.

[Rossami]

Why not? What makes "lifespan" automatically the right period during which you should be granted a monopoly in exchange for your creativity? If you haven't made enough money off your golden prose in 25 years, maybe it's time to go create something else. If you're really that good, doesn't the 'social contract theory' suggest that we should be incenting you to keep creating more stuff rather than sitting on your laurels?

[Kevin Smith]

Exactly, we expire patents after 20 years, and arguably its more difficult to invent something patentable than to create something copyrightable.

Also there is a difference between copyrights and trademarks. For example the copyright on the old Mickey Mouse cartoons might expire, allowing anyone to copy and sell the cartoons without paying Disney, but the trademarks can be renewed indefinitely, meaning you can't put Mickey Mouse in any new cartoon without Disney's consent

[Bored Lawyer]

Copyright and trademarks are two different rights with different legal standards. Your statement that "you can't put Mickey Mouse in any new cartoon without Disney's consent" is not accurate. To show trademark infringement, you have to show likelihood of confusion as to source or sponsorship. There are many ways to put Mickey in a cartoon without creating a likelihood of confusion.

[Bored Lawyer]

Copyright was at one point 14 years, renewable for another 14. Then it was extended to 28 plus 28.

Then it was extended to life of the author plus 75 years, and retroactively. That was pure rent seeking by Disney and others. SCOTUS upheld that in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003), a horrible opinion by Ginsburg, joined in by 6 of her colleagues.

28 years, IMO, is more than enough. And I am an IP attorney.

[KHP54]

Let's improve our understanding of the situation first, by replacing the misleading term "intellectual property" with the more accurate phrase "intellectual monopoly". I.e. the concept is every bit as much a legal fiction as is the idea of the corporation.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I've always despised copyrights and their near-infinite protection; I like that term. Thanks.

[Krayt]

Do you seek to use the word "monopoly" to derogate it? Or are you trying to salvage "monopoly" as a good thing in this context?

[Rossami]

I wondered that, too. But on further reflection, I'm inclined to agree that it's a better description regardless of the implied connotations.

"Property" is generally something that only one person can own or use at a time. I can own table and let you use it (or not). I can even own my copy of a book and lend it to you. But an almost infinite number of us can read the words of the book simultaneously so calling the words "property" is confusing. But saying that you have a monopoly on those words is a much clearer and more intuitive description of the rights you actually have.

I don't know that we'll be able to change the terminology at this point in the game but if we had the ability to do it over, that might have been better terminology.

[Krayt]

But it isn't a monopoly on words. It's a monopoly on the copying of words.

You can get them by paying for it.

[KHP54]

The only disparagement there is the inherent, deserved disparagement of using properties of the metaphor to try to apply to the subject when they don't.

That's my real concern, that by calling these rights a form of "property" we make it harder to think clearly about them.

I am all in favor of patents and copyrights, especially in their original constitutional guise, but do not like the perpetual copyright-extension regimen that we seem to be living under.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Interesting link. One of the comments says

I would like to see the law firm Zalkin, who are representing so many ex-JW sexual abuse survivors, and who are familiar with this cult's practices, structure and tactics, start a branch office just for ex-JW legal issues. They are already winning many multi-million dollar suits for victims.

I had no idea; I had thought this was mostly the Catholic Church, stemming in large part from the requirement for celibate priests. I also never would have thought of the Jehovah's Witnesses as having enough money to pay multi-million dollar losses. Maybe this is related to the linked article saying most of their defendants are too poor to hire a lawyer to fight the subpoenas.

[RhymesWithRight]

Southern Baptists have a problem with sexual abuse as well.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Thanks. The Boy Scouts did too. It would be interesting to see some kind of statistical breakdown by organizations.

[KHP54]

Obvious troll is obvious.