<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.18.1">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 11:31 -0700, Chris Little wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
John H. wrote:
> Not breaking the law. As it has been made clear on this list, none of
> you guys are lawyers, and as a lawyer myself, I am not quite sure where
> the idea came from on here that if you download a bible it is any more
> illegal than using miro for youtube, or cbs.com. This has been a myth
> that has been perpetuated over and over until it's been accepted as fact.
Your argument is that:
a) You are a lawyer.
b) Copyright is a matter of law.
c) You must be an expert in matters of copyright.
d) It follows that you must know more about copyright than I.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<PRE>
</PRE>
Actually, that's not my argument. You are continuing to make assumptions instead of just apologizing for your blatantly unchristian behavior. You have no idea whether or not I have an electronic license for the life application bible and simply want to use it in sword... you don't know any of these things. Instead of apologizing and just admitting your behavior was both judgmental, erroneous and blatantly unchristian, you are simply perpetuating it by making more assumptions. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
But unless you're a copyright lawyer or at the very least do a fair
amount of study of the subject, point c is invalid and there is no basis
for point d. But I would guess that you are not a copyright lawyer
because you are mistaken on matters of copyright law.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
If you don't believe me, I'd encourage you to either talk to a copyright lawyer yourself and make him fully aware of the facts here(which it seems you are not aware of, but have simply assumed many things), or just use a free resource such as <A HREF="http://forum.freeadvice.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39">http://forum.freeadvice.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39</A>.<BR>
<BR>
The problem is, again, that you seem to be unfamiliar with the facts, and instead of asking have made a lot of erroneous assumptions, so you'd be unlikely to get an accurate answer, as the application of law is entirely dependent on the relevant facts.<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
The purpose of copyright is to permit a time-limited monopoly (generally
to the creator of the content) on the creation of copies of the content.
So, if I write a book, only I can print copies of that book (or license
that right to others). If you get a copy of my book, you don't have a
right to make copies (exclusive of limited fair-use rights).
Websites that offer Bibles for online reading do so under licenses from
copyright holders (Lockman, UBS, Zondervan, etc.). Those licenses permit
publication via the website itself, often with limits on how many verses
may be displayed at a particular time. The intended and licensed context
for the display of these materials is within a web browser.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<PRE>
</PRE>
Again, you are making assumptions I do not have a license for an electronic copy of this book. I never said anything of the sort, you assumed it and went off blasting at me about breaking the law.<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
What scraper scripts do is collect ALL of the data for a particular
Bible and compile it into a single document for use outside of the
browser. That constitutes a copy, made by you, in violation of the
copyright holder's rights. It is also often in violation of websites'
AUPs and certainly isn't how they intend their data to be used
(precisely because the websites' licenses from the copyright holders do
not permit them to distribute full copies for use outside of a browser).
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<PRE>
</PRE>
I really would encourage you to read this again: <A HREF="http://www.gospelcommunications.org/terms-of-use/">http://www.gospelcommunications.org/terms-of-use/</A><BR>
but given the last two emails, I sort of doubt this will happen.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
The comparison to videos on miro, YouTube, & cbs.com isn't a
particularly good one--partly because these are three extremely
different services.
Miro is a bittorrent client wrapped in a pretty UI with syndication
services. The content you can get with miro is often intended and
licensed for download, but could as easily be unlicensed material. I
don't think there's anything to prevent you from downloading and
watching the new Indiana Jones via miro.
YouTube content isn't intended for viewing outside of youtube.com. They
specifically state in their Terms of Use that "Accessing User Videos for
any purpose or in any manner other than Streaming is expressly
prohibited." So downloading and storing full videos isn't permitted.
(And in lieu of a license to copy, copying non-public domain works,
including videos posted to YouTube, is a copyright violation (excluding
fair-use). Users who submit videos to YouTube retain their copyright
(public domain works excepted).)
Videos on cbs.com are owned by CBS. They try to prevent you from
downloading those videos (I'm not sure who successfully). You have no
legal right to view them outside of the browser-embedded flash player.
It's certainly a copyright violation if you do manage to download such
videos.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<PRE>
</PRE>
So the argument now is changing not to one of law, but of preference. You have no idea about the legal rights to view things outside of the browser. You are making legal claims when you have no authority, other than that as a layman, to do so. This is nothing but the idea that repetition of a common, or uncommon belief, makes it fact. I'd also encourage you to read the requirements for watching DVDs in Linux.<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
Personal use does not equal fair use. This is just a myth that has been
perpetuated over and over until it's been accepted as fact.
> I would point out that the site also says specifically "That
> particularly means no redistribution."
That is entirely irrelevant. If I rent a movie from Blockbuster or
Netflix and copy the DVD, is it not a copyright violation if I don't
redistribute the copy?
--Chris
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<PRE>
</PRE>
I am rather surprised that you would go to such lengths to excuse your blatantly unchristian, rude and obnoxious behavior. You could have simply responded to my email with "it is not supported on this list, please do not ask anymore about it" and even now, you could have apologized for your conduct and assumptions, but that seems not to happen as you seem more concerned with being right at any cost. Fine, I won't respond any more, you can have the last word. I gave you the opportunity to apologize and you've made it clear you have no desire to do so. There's really nothing more I can say.<BR>
<BR>
To others on the list, I apologize for posting on this list about a method for obtaining sword modules that is obviously not supported by the list.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: <A HREF="mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org">sword-devel@crosswire.org</A>
<A HREF="http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel">http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</A>
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>