Video Recordings Of The 1989-1990 Elders' Meetings

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

So here is that same video (11 minutes) on another hosting platform and with a slightly different title:

Cultic Indoctrination by Gene Gruhler | K9 ANEM 02A | Nov 26, 1989
https://roxytube.com/watch/cultic-in...ezVHWhbSU.html

Feel free to share this with others. I placed some important hyperlinks in the video description. PS

NOTE: I recently learned that the hosting site for this video got contacted by a representative of LSM threatening legal action if my videos and the channel was not taken down. This was several days ago and yet the videos are still there. Looks like LSM may not be able to always force everyone to do exactly what they want by merely issuing threats? Or maybe I am supposed to delete them myself?

Other videos still there:
Cultic Indoctrination Battle Hymn - https://roxytube.com/watch/cultic-in...eiMMOegy3.html

Cultic Indoctrination of Children Part 1A - 1987 - https://roxytube.com/watch/cultic-in...ig6IIV7jD.html

P.S.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

NOTE: I recently learned that the hosting site for this video got contacted by a representative of LSM threatening legal action if my videos and the channel was not taken down.

This is ridiculous. I suppose it's viewed as "appealing to Caesar". Living Stream utilizes "appealing to Caesar" as some skewed justification of litigation. Whereas Paul's appealing to Caesar was regarding to appealing for his mortal life.

[Trapped]

Not to play devil's advocate here, but are these recordings copyrighted by LSM?

Edit to add: and by "these recordings" I don't just mean the ones related to this specific thread only, but local church audio/video in general too.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Not to play devil's advocate here, but are these recordings copyrighted by LSM?

Not at all. It’s a good question. I didn’t see a copyright notice but I didn’t watch all of it. Though I don’t think it needs to be displayed as long as there exists an original with a (C) or some such notice.

Another matter:
“How long does a copyright last?
The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors.”

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Not to play devil's advocate here, but are these recordings copyrighted by LSM?

Edit to add: and by "these recordings" I don't just mean the ones related to this specific thread only, but local church audio/video in general too.

PriestlyScribe,

I'm going to assume they are copyrighted in some way, whether somewhere on the video itself, or stamped on the cassette, or stated in the cover/fold insert, because it would be extremely unusual for an established publication company to put out material without putting the necessary language to protect their intellectual property.

Because as much as we disagree with the "intellectual" part, the "property" part is true. It is LSM's property.

So it seems to me, PriestlyScribe, is what you are doing is akin to poking holes in someone else's dam, and then complaining and name-calling when they rightfully patch up the holes in their own dam. And this is kind of counterproductive to the overall message you are probably trying to send. Because if you violate copyright law, and then use LSM's lawful exercise against your violation in order to disparage them, it ends up reflecting badly upon you, rather than upon LSM.

Right now, you create a new channel or find a new platform, post new links publicly, and then......as is going to be expected, it gets taken down because it is a violation of copyright. And then you do the same process all over again, as if a company doesn't have the right to protect their property. And so the channels you create are always going to be difficult to find because they change so frequently, and the videos are never going to be able to get established as far as search engines and algorithms are concerned, and any comments people leave will be erased when the channel is gone. It's largely an exercise in futility.

So my humble suggestion would be this - since you DO have a treasure trove of important information, and you have put in lots of your valuable time in capturing and preserving all this information already, why not spend the other part of your valuable time using it in a way that is within the bounds of copyright, rather than pushing the same unlawful boulder up the same hill over and over again? There are countless videos on YouTube where the video host "reacts" to other people's content or they "comment" or "review" information or teachings, etc... Why not take that approach?

Right now one big problem with what you are doing is you upload the entire content without much, or any, change. It's the original content. And so you have no leg to stand on, copyright-wise. Would you consider doing something like, taking a small particularly-egregious portion of a video and then providing with it a commentary or an explanation of why it's egregious or why it's a problem? This kind of thing is much more in line with "fair use" and would be a more productive use of your time and the material you have at your disposal.

I don't know what constitutes "fair use" as far as how much of someone else's content you can or can't use before you bump up against copyright, but as I said, there are TONS of reacts/comments/reviews/responds videos on YouTube you can watch to get an idea of how other people use content that is not theirs, and then react to it or provide commentary about it.

Just a suggestion.

Trapped

P.S. and if you want to reach current members in the local church, use level-headed and sober language and imagery, not weird pictures of skulls or goats or devils or whatever, or references to "goons" etc. Any hint of "an ax to grind" is an instant turn off to current members.

[Nell]

“…copyright law does establish four factors that must be considered in deciding whether a use constitutes a fair use. These factors are:

*The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
* The nature of the copyrighted work;
* The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
* The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”

Exclusivity
Exclusivity in copyrighting means that the owner of the content (and copyright) have sole rights that cannot be claimed by any other person or organization without explicit permission. This is an important component of video copyright laws.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Terry

This is ridiculous. I suppose it's viewed as "appealing to Caesar". Living Stream utilizes "appealing to Caesar" as some skewed justification of litigation. Whereas Paul's appealing to Caesar was regarding to appealing for his mortal life.

Possible legal action could be copyright infringement, as to Trapped’s question.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

This is ridiculous. I suppose it's viewed as "appealing to Caesar". Living Stream utilizes "appealing to Caesar" as some skewed justification of litigation. Whereas Paul's appealing to Caesar was regarding to appealing for his mortal life.

Paul’s was a criminal case. He was about to be lynched by radical Jews.

I Corinthians 6 refers to a civil case. Brother suing brother to recover some loss.

There’s a world of difference between the two.