Chris, thank you for taking time to lay out your position. (Comments inline)<br><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Chris Little <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chrislit@crosswire.org" target="_blank">chrislit@crosswire.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
The problem here is that you are employing CrossWire's mailing list to publicize the dissemination of a copyright-violating work. You are breaking the law and you are implicating CrossWire in your crime.<br>
<br>
If you refuse to accept what you have repeatedly been told here, I would ask that you at least cease from using CrossWire to publicize your illegal activities. If you refuse, I will pursue your removal.<div><br>
</div></blockquote><div><br>Chris, simply asserting that copyright has been violated does not make it so. I've presented a defence which you and others have ignored. I did this so folks who read this list can judge for themselves and I've posted links to the law itself and quoted the relevant sections.<br>
<br>I understand you disagree, but don't simply accuse me of something without dealing with the defence. HOW HAVE I BROKEN THE LAW?<br><br>DSS Translations produced as the result of research/academics are either exempt from copyright or not.<br>
<br>I've posted links to both US and Canadian the law which exempts academic work as 'fair use' (once scholarly work is published consent is automatically implied).<br><br>For me to have broken the law it needs to be shown how the academic provision stated clearly in the law doesn't apply to translations published in scholarly journals. Academic work is except from copyright once it is published!<br>
<br>But let's suppose that weren't true. Even Copyright work can be reproduced as a derivative work so long as the the original work is sufficiently transformed and serves some purpose. I've not only cited how book authors using the DSS have used translations not their own for commercial purposes, but disclaimed I have any such designs and I openly acknowledge the original translators.<br>
<br>Even if we assumed falsely that published academic work could be protected copyright, for my actions to have illegal the module would have to be NOT a derivative work!<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br></div>
The crux is that you are the one who does not understand copyright law. No one other than you has said anything incorrect or false with regards to copyright and fair use. (Greg did misidentify copyright violation (a legal matter) as plagiarism (an academic honesty matter) but aside from incorrect terminology nothing he said was wrong.)<br>
</blockquote><div><br>I've posted both Canadian and American copyright law in previous posts. Both Canadian and American copyright law provide for derivative work and copyright exemptions because the source is published scholarship. Use of 'translations' produced as a result of academic/scholastic research is NOT the same as simply PLAGIARISING someone else's (commercial) bible IF academic/scholastic research IS exempt from copyright - which it is.<br>
<br></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
A derivative work may not legally be produced without valid license to do so. The author of a work upon which a derivative work is based still owns copyright on the derivative work.<br></blockquote><div><br>Correct. What constitutes 'valid license' according to US law?<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work</a><br><br>Two things:<br>1. Transformativeness: Notice "The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a
different manner or for a different purpose from the original. ...[If]
the secondary use adds value to the original--if the quoted matter is
used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information,
new aesthetics, new insights and understandings--this is the very type
of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the
enrichment of society."<br>
<br>2. Copyright protection: By crediting the original translators, their original copyright is being honoured but the changes must serve some purpose (preferably not a commercial one).<br><br>Both hold true here.<br><br>
I agree with your point, but you seem be denying one or both of the above principles are true in this case.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
There are absolutely no special rules pertaining to academic work. If a work is copyrighted, it is copyrighted. It is equally protected if it is produced in an academic setting or for an academic audience or if it is a new Harry Potter novel. The law sees no difference.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Except that materials PUBLISHED in academic, scientific, or research publications implicitly contain permission to re-use. 'Discoveries in the Judean Desert' is an academic publication used to convey the results of DSS research. Therefore once a text is published, implicit consent is established by law to allow further use of the text, and thus permission does not
need to be obtained to use the text further, nor is there need to engage
copyright. The purpose of the law it to protect the creation of culture, not to establish the ownership of facts. Translating ancient text as an act of scholarship is NOT the creation of culture!<br><br>The US Law that imposes these natural limitations on copyright (called fair use) also outline the four criteria here:<br>
<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a><br><br><span class="">1)</span>
<span class="">the purpose and character of the use,
including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes;<br><br>Is the production of this module going to detract from the competitive advantage of the translators to do research or the publishers of DJD to sell DJD volumes?<br>NO!<br><br></span>
<div class="">
<a name="2"></a>
<span class="">(2)</span>
<span class="">the nature of the copyrighted work;<br><br>IS THE RESULT OF SCHOLARSHIP!<br><br></span>
</div>
<div class="">
<a name="3"></a>
<span class="">(3)</span>
<span class="">the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and<br><br>Since only the a tiny portion of the DJD translations have been used (namely only the biblical ones) the amount or portion that have been used in minor.<br>
<br>
</span>
</div>
<div class="">
<a name="4"></a>
<span class="">(4)</span>
<span class="">the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.<br>IS Negligible.<br><br>Your example of using a Harry Potter novel which is a commercial endeavour and not published scholarship shows you don't understand the legal principles of fair use! Harry Potter is culture creation, the invention of some ones creativity for commercial gain. The translation of ancient texts and publication in academics sources is NOT.<br>
</span>
</div><br>For my position to be wrong there would need to be the expectation that DJD was not produced for the purposes of research.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Furthermore, you are in no way entitled to pretend that you are producing work for educational purposes. You are not producing work for an academic institution. You are not producing work for classroom instruction. No court in any country anywhere would deem your actions to fall under academic fair use. Those uses are themselves extremely limited. I could not, for example, photocopy a textbook (or extensive portions of a textbook) to disseminate to a whole class of students. Under fair use, I generally DO scan and post the first week or two of readings for my students since they're still awaiting the arrival of their textbooks. And under fair use, I sometimes distribute copies of short texts or songs that are part of a larger work to my students. But those are excerpts (they make up a small portion of my course and what I copy is a small portion of the whole book/album that I copy from) and that is in an academic setting (your posting is not).<div>
<br></div></blockquote><div>I'm not. You misunderstand.<br><br>Copyright law is about protecting the source! The sources have been produced as a result of scholarship, and published in a scholarly journal.<br><br>The only thing I've said about my goals was that it was not commercial which speaks to the motivation of producing a derivative work. I'm not selling this module - so clearly it's not commercial, but whether or not that's true, the source, the thing we're arguing about IS the result of scholarship.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
If I photocopy the entirety of The Hobbit or copy a DVD of Citizen Kane or bring a video camera into a theater to record the latest James Bond movie, I'm committing copyright infringement. I would be breaking the law in all of those cases because I do not have the RIGHT to COPY. Whether I do the copying for my own personal use is irrelevant. It's illegal.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></blockquote><div><br>Well .. again The Hobbit is not scholarly work, published to advanced knowledge. Rather it's the cultural contribution of an author seeking commercial benefit. Because the intent here is to advanced culture and not knowledge, the rights of the author are protected. However, scholars are not denied the right to use the work of other scholars for the sake of advancing knowledge. Copyright is not designed to restrict the advancement of knowledge.<br>
<br>God's peace.<br><br>~A<br></div></div></div>