Official Church Logo . . .

[cdowis]

For those who are unaware== there is a difference between policy and the enforcement of that policy (e.g. ward bulletins).

The church needs to protect its intellectual property, and the only way to do that is to establish a policy so that if a "bad guy" uses the logo for his own nefarious purposes, the church can protect itself in court.

Thus, we should not use the official logo because we need to protect **our** property. The courts can use our uncensured violation of that policy to allow Mr. "bad guy" to use it as well. It weakens the ability of the church to protect itself.

I am sorry that you are offended, but that is the world we live in.

PS Some companies have a whole department devoted to the protection of their logo, e.g. Coke .

[USU78]

I think it is fair to say the USU78 does not own rights to Princess Bride, that Mordecia does not own rights to Princess Bride, that William S. does not own rights to Wizard of Oz. Secondly it does not take long to type "who owns *insert movie" in google and do some research.

Francis, lighten up. It has, moreover, been the case that when you and I start having conversations, they inevitably go downhill fast. I'm not in the mood. I'm not going to be pulled into this. The depth of your ignorance on what is and isn't a property right, and what is and isn't fair use will likely never be plumbed. You've never proven educable on any other issue. Why should this one be an exception?

Adieu.

[frankenstein]

lighten up.

the same to Scott and everyone else who essentially told LDS guy he wasn't a good Member of the Church for using the Church logo, yes, everyone lighten up, so what if the material is another's IP, lighten up, for God shall beat us with a few stripes and all is well.

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

as for your use of an image from the movie "Princess Bride", is your use "fair use" per the board guidelines even "fair use" is not permitted, because guideline is copyright not copyright except for fair use.

So according to the board guidelines there is only questions those members of the who are not using their own original work or public domain material for their avatar

That question is "Does someone else own the rights to the image". And having followed the goings on of the EFF I am quite aware of Copyright and fair use.

[Biz]

My limited understanding of copyright law is that they have to prove that you were gaining a commercial benift when using the logo, so I don't think it applies here, though I admit I am no lawyer and could very well be wrong here.

It is a violation of copyright law. However, your understanding is somewhat correct in order to collect "damages" they would look and analyze the commercial benefit. They would not need to show a commercial benefit to come to the conclusion you broke copyright law. The Church likely has asked members not to use the logo for the reasons already mentioned in this thread and as a form of self enforcement because other than getting a court order "injunctive relief" there really is no penalty for breaking the law unless there has been a commercial benefit and a commercial detriment. If the commercial benefit or harm done using the logo is not creating harm that is quantifiable there is no way to get a remedy other than injunctive relief. So asking the member or individual is easier and cheeper than the legal cost obviously.

Biz

[Thinking]

Would the Church discipline a member who was using the Church Logo as a screen saver? If so, what could be the potential penalty?

If this question has been asked and answered, I apologize. I did not read all 8 pages of posts.

[zerinus]

Would the Church discipline a member who was using the Church Logo as a screen saver? If so, what could be the potential penalty?

If this question has been asked and answered, I apologize. I did not read all 8 pages of posts.

I haven't read all the "8 pages" either; but I don't think that the Church would discipline a Church member for using the logo as a screen-saver. I don't think that they would even care. They might even be pleased about it if someone did!

My guess is that these dumb rules have been made by "Intellectual Reserve Inc.," which is the legal entity set up to own all the Church's intellectual property, and is run by a bunch of useless IP lawyers who make up these silly rules according to their own lawyers' mindset.

[Pahoran]

From post #112 Pahoran: Thank you for admitting that you don't find anti-Mormon distortions and misrepresentations offensive.

I admitted nothing. I made no statement about my own opinions; you have distorted and misrepresented my posting (along with succumbing to a logical fallacy)

That's an asssertion that is contrary to fact.

You sanctimoniously congratulated yourself for defending an anti-Mormon's "right" to say things that others find offensive. The clear implication is that you don't. If that's not what you meant to communicate, then you need to make yourself more clear; but I "distorted and misrepresented" exactly nothing.

the second distortion

Actually we're still up to the zeroth distortion.

You assert in this sentence that my actions are intended to frighten people away from the Church.

Okay, it's the first distortion: and it is your own.

I did not assert that your "actions are intended to frighten people away from the Church." I asserted that, despite his mealy-mouthed denials and obfuscations, the deceitful individual in question built a website intended to frighten people away from the Church, and that you are busily giving him aid and comfort, to the extent of pushing his "rights" to their utmost extent while downplaying the rights of his targets.

I do not protect rights "to frighten people away from the Church...", I protect rights because my rights and everyone else are inseparably connected. I have stated several times my intent.

Yes, I have seen your rationalisation several times. Clearly you don't think the Church's rights are "inseparably connected" with anyone else's; yours in particular. Clearly you think the "rights" of anti-Mormons to frighten people away from the Church, by fair means or foul, are more worthy of protection than the Church's own rights in its intellectual property.

the third distortion

Oh, what are you going to distort this time?

You distort and misrepresent my position by stating that I deny the Church has ANY right AT ALL in its IP. I have not denied "that the Church has any rights in its intellectual property at all". I have only commented on one situation regarding the Church IP.

Of course I "distort and misrepresent" nothing at all; I merely called it as I saw it.

Given your subsequent clarification: it appears to me that you regard the Church's rights in its intellectual property to be of minimal importance by contrast with the "rights" you suppose anti-Mormons have to attack the Church by any means. And if, in the process of their attacks, they happen to trample upon the Church's intellectual property rights, then you seem to regard that as an acceptable price to pay to ensure that their rights remain absolutely untrammelled.

Because their rights are clearly more important to you.

Is that a fairer description of your position?

The most "impartial" description of the dispute that I can see is this: that there is a perceived conflict between the Church's intellectual property rights, and an individual's right to "free speech," because that individual chose to exercise that right by using someone else's IP.

And while I think the Church's rights are relevant, you do not. Much like a "pro-choice" zealot, you think the "rights" of one, and only one, party are worthy of consideration.

The fact is that the Church did not attempt to close down Mr. Loomis's hate site. It did not attempt to stop him from his zealous interference with itss missionary work. It made no attempt to "silence" him in any way. It merely moved to protect its IP from his unauthorised exploitation.

The anti-Mormon clique are beside themselves with rage at that, and you seem to agree with them.

as for the statement of "its not suprising". It really is not surprising to me, and I mean no offense by that. Based on your English i.e. colour (Queens English) I presume you are in Europe, possibly NZ or Australia. Though many Western countries say there is "freedom of speech" in the respective country, that speech is very restricted, I would say that only on American soil is there the greatest freedom of speech. In the United States the holocaust can be denied with fear of arrest and imprisonment. In the United State "hate groups" can hold rallies in the public square and yell racial slurs, without fear of arrest and imprisonment. There are other issue of speech restriction in otherwise "free speech" countries, now I can understand to a degree why these countries would have so much restriction on free speech, and I can understand that someone who is raised in a restricted free speech environment would not see free speech as Americans do. Thus, being that you were not raised under free speech as is had in the United States, I understand and it is of no surprise that my support of free speech is different than yours. Additionally, equality laws in the United States mandate that every voice (very few and limited restrictions) be given the same opportunity, once I agree to trample someone else right to free speech, what ground do I have to claim free speech when someone what to silence my speech?

Your ignorance of what happens outside the United States appears to be all-encompassing.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Analytics]

It did not attempt to stop him from his zealous interference with itss[sic] missionary work. It made no attempt to "silence" him in any way. It merely moved to protect its IP from his unauthorised exploitation.

Pahoran made a typo! That happens so infrequently, it makes me wonder if it’s due to how obviously enraged he is by Loomis’s alleged “zealous interference” with the Mormon Church’s efforts to convert people away from their current religious affiliations.

“Zealous interference with itss[sic] missionary work”—that’s quite the accusation. Can you explain how a passive website entails “zealous interference”? CFR.

The fact of the matter is that lds4u.com passively encourages its readers to contact the missionaries and listen to what they have to say. It passively encourages them to study and think about it a little more deeply. It passively encourages them to have intellectual integrity with regards to the commitments they make. If you think that somehow represents interference with your church’s missionary efforts, then I’m sorry you have such a low opinion of what the missionaries are trying to accomplish.

If there was anything remotely resembling “zealous interference”, it was the Church’s decision to deploy lawyers to intimidate me into removing content from the site. It’s amusing that they felt the need to do so. I would have thought they’d send me a basket of fruit with a note thanking me for accurately representing their beliefs and referring people to the missionaries.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran made a typo! That happens so infrequently, it makes me wonder if it’s due to how obviously enraged he is by Loomis’s alleged “zealous interference” with the Mormon Church’s efforts to convert people away from their current religious affiliations.

And your pouncing upon it and milking it for all it's worth makes me wonder how hard up you are for an actual argument.

The Church has a right to control its own IP, "Analytics." Your unauthorised appropriation of the Church's copyright material was morally indefensible, and the excuses you give for it are really rather worthless.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

Pahoran made a typo! That happens so infrequently...

And your pouncing upon it and milking it for all it's worth makes me wonder how hard up you are for an actual argument.

This just in:

Moments ago, Pahoran wrote, in another thread -

"8. People who aren't trying to be deliberately disrespectful know how to capitalize "God." "

H.

[Analytics]

And your pouncing upon it and milking it for all it's worth makes me wonder how hard up you are for an actual argument.

I pointed it out because it was amusing. But really, what kind of an argument do you expect me to make on this? You think that my thoughts and motivations are one thing, I think they are something else. We’re at an impasse.

I’m still waiting on that CFR: How, precisely, does a passive website constitute “zealous interference with itss[sic] missionary work”?

[frankenstein]

That's an assertion that is contrary to fact.

You sanctimoniously congratulated yourself for defending an anti-Mormon's "right" to say things that others find offensive. The clear implication is that you don't. If that's not what you meant to communicate, then you need to make yourself more clear; but I "distorted and misrepresented" exactly nothing.

There can be little doubt in the what you intend, you are what you rail against the most. And you use a fallacy to support your position.

I did not assert that your "actions are intended to frighten people away from the Church." I asserted that, despite his mealy-mouthed denials and obfuscations, the deceitful individual in question built a website intended to frighten people away from the Church, and that you are busily giving him aid and comfort, to the extent of pushing his "rights" to their utmost extent while downplaying the rights of his targets.

"That you will assiduously protect the "rights" of deceitful men to frighten people away from the Church of Jesus Christ, while denying that the Church has any rights in its intellectual property at all, is really no surprise to me"

Then you have poor writing skills.

Clearly you don't think the Church's rights are "inseparably connected" with anyone else's; yours in particular. Clearly you think the "rights" of anti-Mormons to frighten people away from the Church, by fair means or foul, are more worthy of protection than the Church's own rights in its intellectual property.

Wrong again, the Church has rights, and those rights can only rightfully claimed within the law, though the Church has a copyright on its IP, fair use allows the use of those material in a fair or foul means.

I merely called it as I saw it.

Regards,

Pahoran

which is the common cry of those mentioned in Matthew.

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

As for my knowledge of the lack of free speech in Europe, look up David Irving, and google the "Flemish wife calls Walloon spouse "lazy," arrested"; look the up the "McLibel" trial, in that case McDonalds sued in Brittan for defamation, McDonald's would not have had a defamation case in the United States; why you ask, because free speech in American is more protective than free speech in the other Countries.

Just compare defamation (libel and slander) laws of the United States to Western Countries which claim free speech....you will discover the obvious, there is greater free speech in the United States.

[Pahoran]

There can be little doubt in the what you intend, you are what you rail against the most.

Yawn.

Wake me up when you've stopped pontificating.

And you use a fallacy to support your position.

Really? Which one?

"That you will assiduously protect the "rights" of deceitful men to frighten people away from the Church of Jesus Christ, while denying that the Church has any rights in its intellectual property at all, is really no surprise to me"

Then you have poor writing skills.

That's as may be, but it's your reading comprehension skills that have failed in this instance. The above sentence can be readily paraphrased as: I am not surprised that you think it more important to protect the "right" to frighten people away from the Church of Jesus Christ, that deceitful men claim, than it is to protect the right of the Church to protect its intellectual property.

It can not be paraphrased as: By defending the rights of scoundrels, you are trying to frighten people away from the Church. If that's what you genuinely thought it meant, you need to learn to read plain English.

Wrong again, the Church has rights, and those rights can only rightfully claimed within the law, though the Church has a copyright on its IP, fair use allows the use of those material in a fair or foul means.

I have yet to see even one "Fair use" discussion that asserts that "Fair use" means "Anyone can use as much of someone's copyright-protected IP as they please."

Snipped irrelevancies of continental scope.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Skylla]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Thread has degenerated

If you disagree to this action, please report this post, and a moderator or administrator will reconsider it.

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff