Noble Berean

Legally, the WT has a basis to protect their literature from the few embittered ones who manipulate it to mislead others. But most anti-JW websites I see are pretty focused on referencing WT literature exactly as it is...they have no desire to twist it. They completely disagree with the core views of JWs, so cheap tactics like manipulation/photoshoppery aren't necessary. And to falsify content would discredit their own cause.
I'm not arguing against the validity of copyright law, but copyright doesn't come from the Bible. It's a man-made law. The Bible doesn't come with copyrights. It was offered free to all by God, and no one can say "I own this book so don't use it in a way I don't like."
The org has made 2 statements that when combined are concerning:
1. It is the exclusive source of true spiritual food. 
2. Its content is copyrighted.
If the org truly believes both of these things, then they must believe they legally own true Bible discussion and interpretation. But they're actually blending the Bible and man-made laws to achieve this control. It feels icky. And they also feel they can police organic discussions on the internet. I'm sorry, but I can't help but see that as a control grab.

“you wanna go out there…it’s at your spiritual risk”.  Sounds like fear-mongering. 
What spiritual risk.  Being disfellowshipped for uncovering a lie, or two or three…and not keeping quiet about it.   
“If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.”   Albert Einstein
 

"Stick with what we have authorized. You'll be safe." The article just underlines AMIII's admonishment and warning that 'unauthorized' internet activity exposes JWs to "spiritual danger."
Is this forum and those like it GB authorized and approved? Of course not. 
And remember the Question Box from the km 9/07?
"Stick with what we have authorized."
There will always be those who love to research and openly discuss their views online, and thereby have to rationalize away the GB's clear counsel. I say GOOD! because this new article is another attempt at information control.
 

This most significant, concerning point for me from this article is the emphasis on copyright. Yes, the org has the right to claim legal ownership over its literature, but all JW literature is supposed to be Bible-based. The Bible was given freely to mankind and no one can say "I own it, so don't use it in a way I don't like." For nonJWs, the org's stance makes sense from a secular standpoint--guarding your properties. But as an active JW, I understand that the org teaches the only sources of spiritual food are in approved literature and websites. People won't look to other sources. So, basically, the organization has claimed legal ownership of all Bible discussion and Bible interpretation. That's very concerning to me. Copyright is a man-made law, and when the org emphasizes it it makes the JW org feel like a company rather than a religion.

This is the real reason the 2nd Mid-week meeting, usually in someone's home ... commonly known as the "Tuesday Night Book Study" was eliminated, years ago.  It in reality had NOTHING to do with saving gasoline, which was the lame excuse for it's being cancelled globally, among other lame excuses.
People were having "Goodie Nights" about once a month with cakes and pie, and other goodies, afterwards ... AND DISCUSSING THINGS AMONG THEMSELVES, after the  Book Study.
Malignant, evil things, like "That paragraph six made no sense to me... did it make any sense to you?"
I particularly remember the "Commentary on the Book of James" ... longer by far than the actual Bible Book of James ... that made no sense to me ... but I thought at the time  it was my spiritual state being so poor EVERYBODY was "getting it" ..... except me.
I am sure JW Insider has more details than I about who wrote it, and why .... but many years later I found out that the book we studied globally, once a week, was written by a group of Brothers as an inside joke to see what they could get away with ... and the entire writing committee was several years DF'd later for apostasy. 
This explanation may or may not be true ... I wasn't there ... but THIS explanation made perfect sense to me.
I do know that I have brought up the "Commentary" several times with Elders who were there at the time, merely stating it was longer than the Bible Book ... and they did not want to talk about it.
Perhaps I should have offered then a piece of pie.
... for MANY reasons ... it  goes well beyond sad ....
 

This most significant, concerning point for me from this article is the emphasis on copyright. Yes, the org has the right to claim legal ownership over its literature, but all JW literature is supposed to be Bible-based. The Bible was given freely to mankind and no one can say "I own it, so don't use it in a way I don't like." For nonJWs, the org's stance makes sense from a secular standpoint--guarding your properties. But as an active JW, I understand that the org teaches the only sources of spiritual food are in approved literature and websites. People won't look to other sources. So, basically, the organization has claimed legal ownership of all Bible discussion and Bible interpretation. That's very concerning to me. Copyright is a man-made law, and when the org emphasizes it it makes the JW org feel like a company rather than a religion.

I get what you're saying, but that nuance is not included in the article. I think many would take away that they shouldn't share JW content at all...even quoting it. Apostate websites "use our publications" in what way? Usually, they're quoting and crediting the WT. To dismiss the credibility of any websites that isn't approved...that's a control measure in the uncontrollable world of the internet. 
And this additional point 'Furthermore, posting our publications on websites that allow comments provides a place for apostates and other critics to sow distrust of Jehovah’s organization. Some brothers have been drawn into online debates and thus have brought added reproach on Jehovah’s name. An online forum is not an appropriate setting for “instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed.”' Sounds like another control grab. They don't want people having online discussions independent of the org, and that's sad. 

My thoughts exactly @The Librarian
So many concerning takeaways from this article.
1. It's a-okay for the org to completely restrict an entire area of preaching (social media). Social media is a huge part of human interaction nowadays, but they're telling people they can't share JW.org content on their pages or in a discussion? Huh?
2. The emphasis on copyright. Since JWs feel that their "spiritual food" comes exclusively from JW.org and the approved apps, the org has essentially claimed legal ownership of all Biblical discussion. Think about that. They're restricting JWs on where they can speak about the good news! And to suggest that JW literature based on God's word and given freely by God can be claimed by the org. 
3. Many JWs sell JW.org buttons or post covers of Kingdom melodies on the Internet. The JW buttons have been used as a method of preaching, because they invite a discussion (another method of preaching that will be negatively affected). This article states that using trademark materials is flat-out wrong and their will certainly be an army of JWs who attack these ones (even though their intentions were pure).
4. They clearly state that they are fighting "opposers" who reference JW content on their sites. That's the main point of this article. They are trying to use copyright laws as a way to suppress free discussion of the org. If the truth is truth, shouldn't it be able to stand up to criticism? Fighting criticism with threats of lawsuits is a cheap attempt to roll back the tide.

Exactly.
http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/01/darwins-eye.html
Actually, the fact that the Watchtower went the extra mile with this fellow undermines almost everything @Ann O'Maly says about them. She devotes a huge portion of her life painting them as villains. She throws it all away in a single post demonstrating that they are noble.

My thoughts exactly @The Librarian
So many concerning takeaways from this article.
1. It's a-okay for the org to completely restrict an entire area of preaching (social media). Social media is a huge part of human interaction nowadays, but they're telling people they can't share JW.org content on their pages or in a discussion? Huh?
2. The emphasis on copyright. Since JWs feel that their "spiritual food" comes exclusively from JW.org and the approved apps, the org has essentially claimed legal ownership of all Biblical discussion. Think about that. They're restricting JWs on where they can speak about the good news! And to suggest that JW literature based on God's word and given freely by God can be claimed by the org. 
3. Many JWs sell JW.org buttons or post covers of Kingdom melodies on the Internet. The JW buttons have been used as a method of preaching, because they invite a discussion (another method of preaching that will be negatively affected). This article states that using trademark materials is flat-out wrong and their will certainly be an army of JWs who attack these ones (even though their intentions were pure).
4. They clearly state that they are fighting "opposers" who reference JW content on their sites. That's the main point of this article. They are trying to use copyright laws as a way to suppress free discussion of the org. If the truth is truth, shouldn't it be able to stand up to criticism? Fighting criticism with threats of lawsuits is a cheap attempt to roll back the tide.

It's interesting that the org uses man-made laws when it supports their control, but when those same laws hurt them it's either Satanic or the work of opposers.

My thoughts exactly @The Librarian
So many concerning takeaways from this article.
1. It's a-okay for the org to completely restrict an entire area of preaching (social media). Social media is a huge part of human interaction nowadays, but they're telling people they can't share JW.org content on their pages or in a discussion? Huh?
2. The emphasis on copyright. Since JWs feel that their "spiritual food" comes exclusively from JW.org and the approved apps, the org has essentially claimed legal ownership of all Biblical discussion. Think about that. They're restricting JWs on where they can speak about the good news! And to suggest that JW literature based on God's word and given freely by God can be claimed by the org. 
3. Many JWs sell JW.org buttons or post covers of Kingdom melodies on the Internet. The JW buttons have been used as a method of preaching, because they invite a discussion (another method of preaching that will be negatively affected). This article states that using trademark materials is flat-out wrong and their will certainly be an army of JWs who attack these ones (even though their intentions were pure).
4. They clearly state that they are fighting "opposers" who reference JW content on their sites. That's the main point of this article. They are trying to use copyright laws as a way to suppress free discussion of the org. If the truth is truth, shouldn't it be able to stand up to criticism? Fighting criticism with threats of lawsuits is a cheap attempt to roll back the tide.

My thoughts exactly @The Librarian
So many concerning takeaways from this article.
1. It's a-okay for the org to completely restrict an entire area of preaching (social media). Social media is a huge part of human interaction nowadays, but they're telling people they can't share JW.org content on their pages or in a discussion? Huh?
2. The emphasis on copyright. Since JWs feel that their "spiritual food" comes exclusively from JW.org and the approved apps, the org has essentially claimed legal ownership of all Biblical discussion. Think about that. They're restricting JWs on where they can speak about the good news! And to suggest that JW literature based on God's word and given freely by God can be claimed by the org. 
3. Many JWs sell JW.org buttons or post covers of Kingdom melodies on the Internet. The JW buttons have been used as a method of preaching, because they invite a discussion (another method of preaching that will be negatively affected). This article states that using trademark materials is flat-out wrong and their will certainly be an army of JWs who attack these ones (even though their intentions were pure).
4. They clearly state that they are fighting "opposers" who reference JW content on their sites. That's the main point of this article. They are trying to use copyright laws as a way to suppress free discussion of the org. If the truth is truth, shouldn't it be able to stand up to criticism? Fighting criticism with threats of lawsuits is a cheap attempt to roll back the tide.

This forum is so full of apostates that it should be closed down
 

I won't speak for the @admin since he is probably not even aware of this "controversy" right now....
BUT....
I just can't imagine Jesus Christ creating JesusChrist.org to publish his words... and then tell everyone that nobody has the legal right to copy his words.
If anything EVERY KING of Israel was to MAKE A COPY of the scrolls.... to what purpose? TO SHARE THEM.
The Watchtower Lawyers are thinking of JW.org as a money making for profit corporation instead of the charity and group of like minded bible students that it should be and was at one time..
 
When the apostles were angered that others were preaching the gospel of Jesus what did he tell them? 
"Round up the Christian Lawyers" ... NO!!! 
 
Advertise, Advertise , Advertise the King and His Kingdom......hmmm...... 
 

Well duh!

From the April 2018 Watchtower, p. 30-31. This is a bona fide, unadulterated copy (honest). 

What are your thoughts on this article?
Btw, I hope the irony of posting this here is not lost on you guys, lol.

The cool things about recruiting Jehovah's Witnesses is that they work free.
You gotta admit, there is a parallel.
The movie was on pause when I posted last, so my wife could make popcorn which we will throw my daughter's dog a few kernels.
You would like it even without knowing about the game

Sorry for the delay in response.
You're using the actions of millions to give evidence to the divine support of a small group of men. Do they deserve that credit? Couldn't it be easily argued that Jehovah God is blessing the entire group's actions? The worldwide preaching work, the racial unity, the technological advancement--is that all the product of the GB? In fact, the GB committees are made of many JW "helpers" that produce content--the GB puts a stamp of approval and may offer revisions or additional input. For human purposes, a centralized GB is advantageous, but from a spiritual perspective Jehovah God can impart his spirit to whoever he pleases (and he certainly does).
As I've said before a GB makes sense from a human perspective, but where is the scriptural basis for unquestioned authority? The type-antitype thinking has been thrown out the window in recent years, so why hasn't the FDS parable also been thrown out as non-prophetic? Are we not supposed to notice that a parable that remains prophetic deals with the GB/FDS?
Does the GB even believe it is the FDS? Think about it! Have they are come out and said it? They imply it, but they never state it outright. If the GB themselves can't say outright that they are FDS, then why should all JWs believe they are? And their public relations/legalese speak with governments and courts--doesn't it sound dishonest? When you hear the org say that JWs are never forced to refuse blood and that it would be presumptuous of the GB to claim to be sole representatives of God...these statements just don't ring true! Imagine saying these things at a KH or assembly! You would have a stern talking-to by the elders. Why can't the GB just be upfront with the media/governments/courts on the organization they lead? Is it because they are ashamed or feel they have something to hide?
If Jehovah God the Almighty is using the GB to achieve his purpose, why do they need to constantly rely on plausible deniability and general shadiness? When the GB is under fire, why they are so quick to remove accountability from themselves? Look at how they deal with the sex abuse. That's suddenly not on the elders or the org, but it's on the parents. The GB can't claim credit for all the good things and remove credit from all the bad! You can only pick one. That's a kind of self-preserving, shady attitude that I don't like. It's not Christian--it's businesslike.

Wish I knew of this mild organization that doesn't pressure anyone to reject a transfusion. I'd like to join it. Why not just come out and say the truth if you stand behind it? Why the legal safe-speak? It seems two-faced. The org detests blood transfusions and will totally shun an adherent who breaks from this direction. This comes in addition to the threat of extermination at Armageddon and eternal death. That's the truth. 

I saw a cloud the other day that looked like Jesus

Get some help with writing the headings - most of them are not making sense in English.
Kind regards
M.

No, they really mean 2018. January. Don't forget as well the Americans write their dates in the month/day/year format. It's under "scheduled actions" and it's due 30 days from when it is issued. So I said it wrong. It was evidently issued 8th December 2017 and is due 8th January 2018
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/scheduledActions.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=2150357&doc_no=D070723&request_token=NiIwLSInLkg9WzApSSFNXE1IQEw6UkxbJCJeWzhTQCAgCg%3D%3D

I don't think we are in disagreement that the murmuring and revolting of the Hebrews was ridiculous. But you seem to indicate in your post that the murmuring could have been the result of God's wonders being questioned as valid. That's preposterous. The Hebrews had unquestionable, miraculous evidence that supported Moses' divine backing. To compare their murmuring to questioning today is a stretch, because it's not nearly as black-and-white. 

@Gone Fishing   According to the link for the appellate court case information Srecko provided, a remittitur has been issued on 01/08/2018 which means it has been handed back down to the lower court. I am no lawyer so I don't know what this means for WT, whether it will be appealed again, or whether the lower court will close the case.....or what...one would need to ask someone who knows what they are talking about.