The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society’s Pattern of Copyright Subpoenas as a Tool to Unmask Critics

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has once again stepped forward to defend an anonymous critic of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, challenging a pattern of copyright claims used by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (WTBTS) to identify individuals expressing dissenting views. This latest intervention, announced last week, involves a DMCA subpoena issued by the WTBTS to Google and Cloudflare, seeking the identity of the operator behind the website "JWS Library." This marks another instance of the religious organization employing copyright law, a tactic that critics and legal observers argue is not aimed at genuine copyright protection but rather at suppressing free expression and identifying internal dissenters.

The Genesis of JWS Library and the WTBTS’s Response

The individual at the center of this legal action, identified only as "J. Doe," is reportedly a current member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses who embarked on a research project to examine the historical evolution of the organization’s public statements and doctrines. Doe’s objective was to analyze how pronouncements and interpretations had shifted over time. To facilitate this, Doe developed research tools to scrutinize organizational documents, ultimately creating the JWS Library website. This platform was designed to allow others to utilize these research tools and independently verify findings through an archive that included documents purportedly suppressed by the church.

According to EFF’s description of Doe’s work, the JWS Library website has shed light on significant findings, including past prophecies that did not materialize, the alleged erasure of a leader’s disfavor, and an increase in directives concerning obedience and financial contributions. Furthermore, Doe reportedly utilized machine translation to make a foreign-language document accessible to a wider audience, aiming to foster understanding of the organization’s communications to different groups and to track potential shifts in its stance on dissent. EFF characterizes this endeavor as clearly transformative and non-commercial, falling squarely within the bounds of fair use, intended for research and commentary.

However, the WTBTS’s response suggests a different priority. Instead of engaging with the substance of Doe’s research or the copyright claims themselves, the organization has focused on identifying the anonymous operator. This approach, critics contend, is a deliberate strategy to circumvent the protections afforded to anonymous speech, particularly within a community where expressing dissent can lead to severe social and familial repercussions.

A History of Alleged Abuse: The DMCA Subpoena Playbook

The WTBTS’s current action is not an isolated incident but rather a continuation of a documented pattern. This is not the first time the organization has been accused of leveraging DMCA subpoenas to unmask critics. Legal analysts and organizations like the EFF have observed and reported on this tactic multiple times in recent years, highlighting a consistent strategy by the WTBTS.

In 2022, an investigation by Paul Levy of Public Citizen’s Litigation Group revealed a striking trend: between 2017 and the time of his report, the WTBTS had issued approximately 72 copyright subpoenas. This number is significant, especially when contrasted with the outcomes of these legal actions. Levy’s research indicated that in virtually all these cases, the information obtained through these subpoenas was not used to initiate copyright infringement lawsuits. The list of Watch Tower copyright infringement lawsuits, as compiled by Levy, showed that the organization had never filed an infringement action based on information gleaned from these subpoenas, with the sole exception being a case where the enforcement of the subpoena itself was denied.

This observation leads to a critical inference: the primary purpose of these subpoenas, according to critics, is not to enforce copyright but to gather intelligence. The WTBTS allegedly uses the subpoena process as a low-cost method to obtain the identities of individuals who are publishing critical information. Once identities are revealed, the organization can then allegedly initiate internal disciplinary proceedings, such as "disfellowshipping," which can result in ostracism and the severing of familial and social ties within the Jehovah’s Witnesses community. The copyright claim, in this context, is posited as a procedural pretext—a means to access information that would otherwise remain private.

The Case of Kevin McFree: A Glimpse into the Strategy’s Flaws

A notable instance that brought this alleged strategy under judicial scrutiny involved a critic known by the pseudonym Kevin McFree. In this case, the WTBTS did file a lawsuit. However, the proceedings took a detrimental turn for the organization. When a judge began to examine the underlying motivations and the legitimacy of the copyright claims, the WTBTS abruptly withdrew the lawsuit, dismissing it with prejudice.

During this litigation, several aspects of the WTBTS’s approach were brought to light. Notably, the organization’s legal counsel attempted to argue that the WTBTS lacked the "significant funds" to pursue the litigation. This claim was met with skepticism, particularly given the WTBTS’s publicly available tax filings, which indicated assets exceeding a billion dollars. Furthermore, the lawsuit appeared to serve a dual purpose beyond copyright infringement: the WTBTS also sought to investigate how McFree had obtained leaked, unpublished videos. This aspect of the litigation suggested a motive to identify and stop internal leaks and to uncover the sources of information that could embarrass or challenge the organization’s narrative, rather than solely protecting copyrighted material.

The Irony of Dissent and First Amendment Rights

The actions of the WTBTS stand in stark contrast to the organization’s own historical role in advocating for robust First Amendment protections. For decades, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have been at the forefront of numerous landmark legal battles that have shaped and strengthened free speech rights in the United States. Beginning with cases like Lovell v. City of Griffin in 1938, the organization has consistently fought for the right to express religious and political views, often through door-to-door evangelism, and has championed the right to speak anonymously.

Indeed, Paul Polidoro, a lawyer who has served as in-house counsel for the WTBTS and is reportedly the same attorney issuing many of the current DMCA subpoenas, successfully argued before the Supreme Court for the right of Jehovah’s Witnesses to speak anonymously. This historical commitment to anonymous speech makes the current strategy of using copyright law to strip anonymity from its own members all the more striking and, to critics, deeply ironic.

The EFF argues that the First Amendment is designed to protect anonymous speakers precisely because the threat of retaliation can deter individuals from voicing their opinions. When an organization that has historically benefited from and defended these protections turns around and uses a legal mechanism to undermine them for its own members, it raises significant concerns about the integrity of its stance on free expression.

The Broader Implications of Copyright Subpoena Abuse

The DMCA subpoena process, intended to be a swift and cost-effective means to identify alleged infringers, is being exploited, according to critics, as a surveillance tool. The low barrier to entry for issuing these subpoenas makes them an attractive option for organizations seeking to identify anonymous critics without the burden of proving a strong case for copyright infringement in court. The fact that the WTBTS allegedly files numerous subpoenas without ever proceeding to litigation suggests that the goal is not judicial vindication but rather the acquisition of personal information.

The financial disparity between the WTBTS, with its substantial assets, and the likely limited resources of an individual critic like J. Doe, further exacerbates this imbalance. While the EFF and other civil liberties groups can intervene, the burden and cost of consistently fighting these legal challenges fall disproportionately on the anonymous individuals themselves.

The repeated nature of these actions—identified in 2019, again in 2022, and now in 2026—suggests a deliberate and ongoing policy. The WTBTS’s strategy leverages the expediency of the DMCA process to conduct a low-cost intelligence-gathering operation. For many individuals, the threat of legal entanglement, even if based on weak claims, coupled with the potential for severe social repercussions, can be enough to silence them.

A Call for Judicial Scrutiny

The ongoing pattern raises questions about the role of courts and service providers in ensuring that legal processes are not being abused. While organizations like the EFF and Public Citizen have played a crucial role in exposing and challenging this behavior, there is a growing sentiment that courts should be more proactive in recognizing patterns of abuse. The argument is that an organization with significant financial resources, a documented history of issuing numerous subpoenas that never lead to lawsuits, and a clear motive to suppress dissent should be subject to greater scrutiny.

The EFF’s continued defense of anonymous speakers in such cases underscores the critical need to protect the right to free expression, particularly for those who may face reprisal for their views. The current situation highlights a persistent tension between copyright law’s protective aims and its potential misuse as a weapon against free speech, especially when wielded by powerful entities against individuals who seek to hold them accountable through research and public commentary. The outcome of the J. Doe case, and the broader legal landscape surrounding DMCA subpoena abuse, will be closely watched for its implications on anonymous speech and the integrity of legal processes designed to protect it.