[sword-devel] host[ing] despite legality

[refdoc]

The DMCA is of complete irrelevance to anyone outside the United States
and should be treated with utter contempt. If Crosswire is hosted in the
States than this might be a matter we should rectify ASAP as the legal
restrictions of said country are a bit hard to bear.

Leaving this aside, the hosting of a copyright restricted module is
quite unfair and should not be done.

Peter 
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 14:19 -0500, Brandon Staggs wrote:
> > From: Eicke Godehardt <eicke.godehardt at igd.fraunhofer.de>
> 
> > I don't want to circumvent rights.  That's why I'm not for sword modules
> > of copyrighted texts in any form.  But to provide a tool to build a
> > module myself for my use only should be ok, as/when private usage is
> > alowed.  I'm even willing to pay for copyrighted sword modules, but
> > there is no one available.
> > Do you think this is a wrong, dubios or questionable?  I'm realy not
> > shure about that.
> 
> A tool that is specifically designed to scrape text from a
> copyrighted, proprietary source probably violates the DMCA, and
> anyone distributing it could be accused to inducing infringement.
> The e-Sword import tool most definitely is designed to induce
> infringement, because the copyrighted texts they are designed to
> scrape are *not* licensed to be used in this manner.  Every
> modern Bible version license prohibits this kind of usage.  There
> is a reason why you have to pay to unlock the NIV in every Bible
> program you own, rather than just one time -- because that's the
> way they have licensed it, and it is definitely intentionally
> thus.
> 
> One way to tick off licensors is to provide a means of
> circumventing their license.  It would be a bad idea to do it.
> 
> As for the arguments surrounding the legitimacy of copyrighting a
> translation of the Bible, it's largely irrelevant unless someone
> here is willing to go to court over it.  Personally, I think it's
> absurd to insist that a translation of a public domain text
> constitutes a bona fide "creative work," and I think it's a
> little bit ironic that someone attempting to create an accurate
> translation would be willing to call their work a "creative act"
> in order to hold ownership of it.  If they were honest in their
> advertising and called it a new creative work, they'd lose a lot
> of business.  Also, putting a large legal notice at the beginning
> of a "Bible" warning people not to quote more than 500 verses
> without written permission is laughable -- who owns it?  God or
> the publishers?  Anyway, I digress -- until someone is willing
> to go to court over this, it's a moot point.
> 
> -Brandon Staggs
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> How to respond to a major incident - essential training for all UK doctors
> http://www.doctors.net.uk/bioterrorism
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
-- 
refdoc <refdoc at gmx.net>