Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
A Mormon Author's Perspective on Mormon Church vs. WikiLeaks
staynalive.com — As an author, and Social Media developer, and Mormon, I thought I'd pipe in on what I think of the WikiLeaks issues going on. It's as simple as if J.K. Rowling were to have her content posted and shared on WikiLeaks - she'd be doing the same thing! This is a matter of copyright, not secrecy.
uncle_jesse- 41 diggs
- digg it
- theviceroy, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6And the Church Handbook of Instructions isn't exactly spicy reading... nor is it LDS scripture, which has always been free (unless you want fancy leather editions and such).
- uncle_jesse, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3In fact, the church openly quotes from it in News articles, etc. The church wouldn't be going after this if they cared about it getting into the hands of others. The Mormon church gets the groundswell - they recognize this information isn't "secret", but rather copyrighted information that they need to defend.
- kingp, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Thank you. People need to understand that this issue is about Copyright, not secrecy.
- kingbyu, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Maybe we can get wikileaks to publish the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon (the portion of the Book of Mormon sealed by its ancient American authors).
- rathofbuns, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Hehehe...
- bizlift, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4As a non-Mormon I found this perspective helpful. The J.K. Rowling analogy is compelling.
- 89vision, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1I didn't see any of you complaining when they put up the Scientology docs.
- seangates, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2I'm sure if someone from Scientology wrote a compelling article, as Jesse did, that it could be treated as a notable response. I'm new to Digg so I'm not sure if one was ever written. I think we all agree that everyone has a right to defend their copyrights.
- PrintScrn12, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0A copyright holder protects the copyright because there is an associated loss. Be a author with a book and the loss might be less profit through loss of sale. Be a business with guidelines and the loss could be less profit through giving an advantage to competition. Coming into non-profit religious organisations and the associated loss of copyright infringements aren't as clear. There isn't a profit to protect and generally religious organisations are fairly open. The J.K Rowling analogy doesn't apply here.
The given reason here seems to be to stop misrepresentation of the texts, between policy and doctrine of the church. However on that point I don't see the stated equivalence of this guide with the Bible, the Book of Mormon or other Canonical texts. For example Wikileaks describes the text as "The handbook reveals the procedure of handling confidential matters related to tithing payment, excommunication, baptism and doctrine teaching (indoctrination).". Wikinews refers to it as a "guide". Thus that point doesn't stand.
If media did misrepresent the text chasing down the infringements hardly help. The information isn't going to get back in the bag. The infringements claims might just help fuel suspicion that there is something to hide, which there shouldn't be. Nor do I see how it would stop misrepresentations.- kingbyu, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0Just because there isn't a monetary loss doesn't mean there isn't a loss, and also doesn't meant that copyrights don't apply. How many websites contain a copyright notice, even though their content (or anything else on the website) isn't for sale? If you think that copyrights only exist to protect against loss of a sale, then you are wrong.
- PrintScrn12, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0Well I am not sure what exactly the loss here is. I don't think it is a case of misrepresentation per the article. Nor do I think if that was the problem chasing infringments is not the solution. Could you perhaps fill me in the actual losses? Ta.
Of course that doesn't mean the legal copyrights don't apply. That's a legal issue which the courts will decide, I'd guess irrespective of the LDSs' motivation.- yetAnotherCroc, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1I would say it has to do with reproduction and distribution. If the church doesn't defend their copyrights there is nothing to stop someone from producing a similar but altered version of the book and claiming that it is the official handbook. One could even make the stretch and say that by suing the church shows that this is the correct handbook and any attempt to misrepresent the church by introducing an altered version is false. I'm not saying this is the case as it is a bit of a stretch.
- PrintScrn12, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1I suppose that is one possible reason. Though in the past people could of faked the guide too. If that was a concern why keep it secret in the first place? I think it might just be a few misguided leaders and a few greedy lawyers pushing this. It wouldn't be the first organisation to bungle up in it's dealings with copyright law.
- PrintScrn12, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0Well I am not sure what exactly the loss here is. I don't think it is a case of misrepresentation per the article. Nor do I think if that was the problem chasing infringments is not the solution. Could you perhaps fill me in the actual losses? Ta.
- kingbyu, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0Just because there isn't a monetary loss doesn't mean there isn't a loss, and also doesn't meant that copyrights don't apply. How many websites contain a copyright notice, even though their content (or anything else on the website) isn't for sale? If you think that copyrights only exist to protect against loss of a sale, then you are wrong.
- macnewbold, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1FWIW, some lawyers will tell you that if you don't vigorously work to protect your rights (copyright, patent, etc.) that sometimes the courts can view that as an implied approval of what they're doing, and then you can lose your right to exercise those rights.
This example doesn't apply to copyright, but I've heard that the Church has to periodically close off access to some places they generally leave open to the public, like Salt Lake's Main Street Plaza and even parking lots at church buildings, to avoid the creation of an easement, which would remove some of their rights as property owners in the future. My understanding is that if the owner treats the land as public, eventually it becomes public in certain ways.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by