JulieM Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) Announced today on their website: "On March 1, 2017 MormonLeaks received the following notice ordering us to take down the PowerPoint presentation that was leaked yesterday. The LDS Church was also successful in getting docdroid.net to take down the document independent of any action on the part of MormonLeaks. MormonLeaks is committed to making this and all other documents we receive available to the public. We are currently working with our attorneys to find a solution that will allow us to make this document available again and avoid interruptions in the future." Letter here Some are stating this is a foolish move by the leaders (legitimizing the leaks) as many were questioning if the Power Point really came from the 12. I think this PP must have hit a nerve and they're sending MormonLeaks a message (warning). Of course the slides are already posted in quite a few places online and many have copies now so this probably won't stop it from being circulated. Edited March 2, 2017 by JulieM 3
Calm Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 They may have been waiting until there was something current enough it could not be claimed to have been found in the garbage. Just speculating, I have no legal expertise. 2
Duncan Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 well now I wonder who tipped off the Church about this?
sjdawg Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 No surprise there. I was curious how long it would take. 1
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted March 2, 2017 Popular Post Posted March 2, 2017 3 hours ago, JulieM said: Announced today on their website: "On March 1, 2017 MormonLeaks received the following notice ordering us to take down the PowerPoint presentation that was leaked yesterday. The LDS Church was also successful in getting docdroid.net to take down the document independent of any action on the part of MormonLeaks. MormonLeaks is committed to making this and all other documents we receive available to the public. We are currently working with our attorneys to find a solution that will allow us to make this document available again and avoid interruptions in the future." Letter here Some are stating this is a foolish move by the leaders (legitimizing the leaks) as many were questioning if the Power Point really came from the 12. I think this PP must have hit a nerve and they're sending MormonLeaks a message (warning). Of course the slides are already posted in quite a few places online and many have copies now so this probably won't stop it from being circulated. This is standard procedure for companies or organizations which clearly have rights not to have their intellectual property and copyrights violated. The entertainment industry uses this approach all the time (not always very successfully) to prevent distribution of their work-product. I don't see that the Power Point you refer to is especially problematic. Seems sort of ho-hum to me, but it may indeed be a warning of things to come, such as lawsuits and injunctions. The Church (any organization) does have legal recourse. 5
HappyJackWagon Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 It will be interesting to watch how aggressively the church goes after Mormon Leaks. The church has the resources to bury mormonleaks and the founder in legal expenses if it chooses to yet I don't think that would be a good PR move. It would look like another example of a corporate giant crushing a little guy. And for what? A power point presentation? 3
Popular Post stemelbow Posted March 2, 2017 Popular Post Posted March 2, 2017 uh oh....it looks like Mormonleaks is going to find itself as a bubble on the next slide deck. Seriously, I don't get what the Church is thinking on this. Who cares? I mean it's an embarrassing slide deck if you ask me. It tells me the church is looking in the wrong places, fighting against windmills. Other than that, I don't see anything in it that could possibly be considered "stuff we don't want others to see". 6
rongo Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: It will be interesting to watch how aggressively the church goes after Mormon Leaks. The church has the resources to bury mormonleaks and the founder in legal expenses if it chooses to yet I don't think that would be a good PR move. It would look like another example of a corporate giant crushing a little guy. And for what? A power point presentation? They have to weight the PR optics of crushing the little guy with the need to assert legal rights. If you don't defend your legal rights for long enough, that can lead to other problems down the road. Elder Oaks has said many times that the worst settlement out of court is almost always better than the best settlement in court. This is true most of the time (stay out of court, at all costs!), but the Church may want to weather the PR hit of crushing the little guy in this case. I still find the presence of moles with access to things like this to be fascinating. I remember when WikiLeaks had a copy of the 2010 handbook updates the second they were released online to global Church leaders. There is more than one mole willing to get MormonLeaks whatever it can. Fascinating. Again, if I were the Church, I would make it crystal clear that illegal distribution of its secrets, however mundane, will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted. Even at the PR cost of appearing to be defensive about it. 2
Buckeye Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 7 hours ago, Calm said: They may have been waiting until there was something current enough it could not be claimed to have been found in the garbage. Just speculating, I have no legal expertise. If the basis for the take-down notice is copyright, then the time difference between the ppt and, say, Elder Eyring's paystub would be immaterial. IMO, the explanation is either (i) the church cares a lot more about this leak than prior ones or (ii) the church waited on prior leaks hoping the issue would die down, but now that its not they're choosing to act to try to stop the whole thing. As with any large bureaucracy, it can take some time to get momentum going. 1
rongo Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, Buckeye said: If the basis for the take-down notice is copyright, then the time difference between the ppt and, say, Elder Eyring's paystub would be immaterial. IMO, the explanation is either (i) the church cares a lot more about this leak than prior ones or (ii) the church waited on prior leaks hoping the issue would die down, but now that its not they're choosing to act to try to stop the whole thing. As with any large bureaucracy, it can take some time to get momentum going. I think the paystub leaks were more upsetting than the PowerPoint slide. I think that it was your option (ii) that came into play --- the Church waited and finally moved on this one. Not because this, finally, was beyond the pale, but because enough was enough.
stemelbow Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 6 minutes ago, rongo said: They have to weight the PR optics of crushing the little guy with the need to assert legal rights. If you don't defend your legal rights for long enough, that can lead to other problems down the road. Elder Oaks has said many times that the worst settlement out of court is almost always better than the best settlement in court. This is true most of the time (stay out of court, at all costs!), but the Church may want to weather the PR hit of crushing the little guy in this case. I still find the presence of moles with access to things like this to be fascinating. I remember when WikiLeaks had a copy of the 2010 handbook updates the second they were released online to global Church leaders. There is more than one mole willing to get MormonLeaks whatever it can. Fascinating. Again, if I were the Church, I would make it crystal clear that illegal distribution of its secrets, however mundane, will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted. Even at the PR cost of appearing to be defensive about it. I think calling it illegal distribution will be the Church's biggest obstacle. Why the Church is bothering with this tells us a couple of things 1. The Church really worries about this mundane stuff getting out there. 2. In trump-esque fashion it really can't stand taking swipes from the little guy. 3
stemelbow Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: This is standard procedure for companies or organizations which clearly have rights not to have their intellectual property and copyrights violated. The entertainment industry uses this approach all the time (not always very successfully) to prevent distribution of their work-product. I don't see that the Power Point you refer to is especially problematic. Seems sort of ho-hum to me, but it may indeed be a warning of things to come, such as lawsuits and injunctions. The Church (any organization) does have legal recourse. Indeed. I'm sure this has more to do with what might potentially get leaked rather than this particular slide deck. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 21 minutes ago, rongo said: They have to weight the PR optics of crushing the little guy with the need to assert legal rights. If you don't defend your legal rights for long enough, that can lead to other problems down the road. Elder Oaks has said many times that the worst settlement out of court is almost always better than the best settlement in court. This is true most of the time (stay out of court, at all costs!), but the Church may want to weather the PR hit of crushing the little guy in this case. I still find the presence of moles with access to things like this to be fascinating. I remember when WikiLeaks had a copy of the 2010 handbook updates the second they were released online to global Church leaders. There is more than one mole willing to get MormonLeaks whatever it can. Fascinating. Again, if I were the Church, I would make it crystal clear that illegal distribution of its secrets, however mundane, will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted. Even at the PR cost of appearing to be defensive about it. I have no doubt the church can win legal battles against the little guy. But are you familiar with the term pyrrhic victory? They could lose more than they win making their victory meaningless...or worse. It would be foolish to self-inflict damage to yourself simply to win a minor reward from a little guy like Mormonleaks. 1
rongo Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: I have no doubt the church can win legal battles against the little guy. But are you familiar with the term pyrrhic victory? They could lose more than they win making their victory meaningless...or worse. It would be foolish to self-inflict damage to yourself simply to win a minor reward from a little guy like Mormonleaks. It could be a pyrrhic victory (that's a good spelling bee word . . . ). That enters into the calculus, the cost/benefit analysis. I think it actually is better to suffer a PR hit ("The Church is scared to have what it's hiding come to light!") to stop the leaks. Even though most of the leaks are no big deal and are from long ago. I'll tell you what, though. The Church is nothing if not "rabbit-eared" about PR. If this becomes a PR nightmare for it, it will pull out of the dive in a second. 1
stemelbow Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 Just now, HappyJackWagon said: I have no doubt the church can win legal battles against the little guy. But are you familiar with the term pyrrhic victory? They could lose more than they win making their victory meaningless...or worse. It would be foolish to self-inflict damage to yourself simply to win a minor reward from a little guy like Mormonleaks. I don't know, HappyJack. If Trump has taught us anything it is petulantly battling on the tiniest of molehills doesn't really bring death but a new fresh avenue of power and respect (at least in some quarters). Perhaps on this, the Church is more clued in than I would have thought.
Popular Post Rain Posted March 2, 2017 Popular Post Posted March 2, 2017 4 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I think calling it illegal distribution will be the Church's biggest obstacle. Why the Church is bothering with this tells us a couple of things 1. The Church really worries about this mundane stuff getting out there. 2. In trump-esque fashion it really can't stand taking swipes from the little guy. Why would you assume these things? Just thinking about myself and family, I wouldn't want my husband's paychecks stubs, videos of our family councils, video creations my son has created posted for all the world to see without our knowledge and consent. Why should the church have to deal with the same mundane items put out there without their consent? And if they don't do something we have seen it is not going to stop. Why does this make the church the big bad guy? Why aren't the bad guys the ones posting mundane things without permission? 6
HappyJackWagon Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 8 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I don't know, HappyJack. If Trump has taught us anything it is petulantly battling on the tiniest of molehills doesn't really bring death but a new fresh avenue of power and respect (at least in some quarters). Perhaps on this, the Church is more clued in than I would have thought. Maybe... But the image the church is trying to maintain is far different than Trump's Thank goodness. Quote Rongo- I think it actually is better to suffer a PR hit ("The Church is scared to have what it's hiding come to light!") to stop the leaks. Even though most of the leaks are no big deal and are from long ago. Perhaps... But what is the PR hit? Is it merely a short-lived damage to reputation for a news cycle? Or is it potentially bigger than that? Is it possible that a PR hit results in losing people from the church? If that's the case, I hope they don't take that prospect lightly.
rongo Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: Perhaps... But what is the PR hit? Is it merely a short-lived damage to reputation for a news cycle? Or is it potentially bigger than that? Is it possible that a PR hit results in losing people from the church? If that's the case, I hope they don't take that prospect lightly. I'm sure they don't take the prospect lightly, even as generals and field commanders don't take anticipated casualties lightly --- yet, you can't win battles and wars with no casualties. The PR "narrative" is going to be pretty much the same whether the Church does nothing or something, IMO. By not allowing "uncontested slam dunks" any more with the leaks, the leakers and their fellow travelers will continue to bang the "the Church hides embarrassing stuff, and there is embarrassing stuff in its inner workings" drum. But, they'll bang that drum even if the Church does nothing. Insisting that its legal property remain legally protected won't hurt the Church more in the "court of public opinion" more than it already is --- among people already inclined to be suspicious of it, anyway. 1
stemelbow Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 11 minutes ago, Rain said: Why would you assume these things? Just thinking about myself and family, I wouldn't want my husband's paychecks stubs, videos of our family councils, video creations my son has created posted for all the world to see without our knowledge and consent. Why should the church have to deal with the same mundane items put out there without their consent? And if they don't do something we have seen it is not going to stop. Why does this make the church the big bad guy? Why aren't the bad guys the ones posting mundane things without permission? I'm not saying mormonleaks is in the right, nor that the Church is the bad guy. I'm certain the Church wants a stop put to this because of things that might potentially come out. They probably don't know what might come. But as of now, it seems to me the Church is wanting to put a stop to a little guy whose exposure is probably next to nothing, but will likely grow thanks to the Church's threat. Tons of people who work for government or quasi government agencies have their pay posted online. most people don't care to look. http://www.utahsright.com/h_salaries.php
JulieM Posted March 2, 2017 Author Posted March 2, 2017 53 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I think calling it illegal distribution will be the Church's biggest obstacle. Someone posted elsewhere that the didn't see that it was copyrighted (on the slides). Does it need to be stated? They were going to check with the copyright office to see if IRI formally copyrighted this power point. If not, it may go right back online? Maybe an attorney can weigh in here who knows.
HappyJackWagon Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 12 minutes ago, rongo said: I'm sure they don't take the prospect lightly, even as generals and field commanders don't take anticipated casualties lightly --- yet, you can't win battles and wars with no casualties. The PR "narrative" is going to be pretty much the same whether the Church does nothing or something, IMO. By not allowing "uncontested slam dunks" any more with the leaks, the leakers and their fellow travelers will continue to bang the "the Church hides embarrassing stuff, and there is embarrassing stuff in its inner workings" drum. But, they'll bang that drum even if the Church does nothing. Insisting that its legal property remain legally protected won't hurt the Church more in the "court of public opinion" more than it already is --- among people already inclined to be suspicious of it, anyway. This past Sunday all of our Sacrament Meeting music evoked war imagery and was very militaristic. Your post just reminded me how little I like the war metaphor and my reaction to the music last Sunday. I used to love it. I was great at building on that metaphor using Alma 50 but it no longer works for me. It's callous and cold. Any talk of "acceptable losses" definitely loses me. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 1 minute ago, JulieM said: Someone posted elsewhere that the didn't see that it was copyrighted (on the slides). Does it need to be stated? They were going to check with the copyright office to see if IRI formally copyrighted this power point. If not, it may go right back online? Maybe an attorney can weigh in here who knows. I don't think so. I'm not a copyright attorney but I have published a few works. If someone were to publish my work, without my consent, I could have recourse even before I filed for a copyright. All I would need to do is prove that it is my work. A simple word doc with time stamp can work pretty well for that.
JulieM Posted March 2, 2017 Author Posted March 2, 2017 3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I don't think so. I'm not a copyright attorney but I have published a few works. If someone were to publish my work, without my consent, I could have recourse even before I filed for a copyright. All I would need to do is prove that it is my work. A simple word doc with time stamp can work pretty well for that. They also stated that without a copyright, they can DMCA here but can't go to Federal Court to enforce anything. They also can't get an attorney fee award from any court where they prevail. It would be interesting to hear input from an attorney here! How far would the church go I wonder and also how much would Mormon Leaks put into fighting?
Jeanne Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 8 minutes ago, JulieM said: They also stated that without a copyright, they can DMCA here but can't go to Federal Court to enforce anything. They also can't get an attorney fee award from any court where they prevail. It would be interesting to hear input from an attorney here! How far would the church go I wonder and also how much would Mormon Leaks put into fighting? This is where I miss Consig. I is an attorney and would be able to clarify a few things.
rongo Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: This past Sunday all of our Sacrament Meeting music evoked war imagery and was very militaristic. Your post just reminded me how little I like the war metaphor and my reaction to the music last Sunday. I used to love it. I was great at building on that metaphor using Alma 50 but it no longer works for me. It's callous and cold. Any talk of "acceptable losses" definitely loses me. Well, it's just an analogy, but an analogy that applies to the situation as well --- and not in a "it's a war out there" way. People could lose faith in the Church whether the Church does nothing or something about the leaks, so it needs to decide what the best thing to do is. Probably a factor would be what would probably result in the fewest possible incidents of faith-loss. That this is taken into consideration isn't callous or cold, nor is it callous or cold that the Church doesn't try to do the impossible: prevent all incidents of faith-loss from ever happening. Nothing it could possibly do would do that. The analogy bleeds over into non-war areas, like cooking (you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs). I think overall the idea is much less one of war, and much more one that expresses that nothing in life is completely risk-free.
Recommended Posts