<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Andrew,</div><div><br></div><div>I'm not concerned with all the details that everyone has put forward. (I'm kinda strange like that.)</div><div><br></div><div>However, if you're not prepared to put your money where your mouth is and contact the publishers and go above and beyond in order to make sure you/we are above reproach and there is no hint of any wrongdoing, you're right in that there's no point in this thread continuing.</div><div><br></div><div>Please contact them, let us know that permission is given or they say it's not needed and we'll all be excited about this new module rather than getting bogged down in (for me!) boring legalities... (Yes, I know these details aren't boring for other ppl, but I'm purely a programmer and primary/elementary school teacher and enjoy other things!)</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks, ybic</div><div>Nic... :)</div><div><br></div><div>ps: for those still reading along, today is my 2nd last day of work for my current employer & so I get to actually do some programming for CrossWire again soon! :) expect a release soon for everyone's favourite iOS app that supports the SWORD format ;)<br><br>On 14/11/2012, at 5:40, Andrew Thule <<a href="mailto:thulester@gmail.com">thulester@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>With the possible exception of calling people trolls, I agree, this is how we are to conduct ourselves in public. Even Christian folks, sometimes disagree. Reasoning things out, using civility, logic, evidence, tolerance for difference of opinion, are all hallmarks of responsible people working through difficult things. This is how differences are settled in a principled, civil way. With respect to apologizing, I think its premature for offering or expecting one (unless someone's feelings have been injured).<br>
<br>Recall, this was all initiated by a simple request for assistance QAing a module. An unjustified claimed was made that somehow this breached Copyright law; even though Copyright law is restricted in certain cases, this being one, and copyright law allows for derivative work, this being one. Even though I made it clear early on, I had no interest in arguing this (I do know Copyright Law!), I've nevertheless defend this module on 2 grounds (and been called a troll for doing so):<br>
<div><br></div><div></div><div>1. This module falls within the provisions of section 107 of the Copyright Act, and therefore constitutes 'fair use'</div>
2. Independent, and in addition to this, the use of Copyrighted work in the case of derivative works is permitted.<br><div><br></div><div>There was some haggling over this, but eventually those engaged in the debate have begrudgingly recognized that "Copyrights" are not monolithic, defacto, exclusive rights, but ones with reasonable limits and 'fair use' (In fact 1/3 of the act is about placing limits on these exclusive rights). Furthermore, we've managed to sort out that there is a difference between protections on cultural works (often produced for commercial advantage) and scholarly work, produced to expand knowledge. Our civil discussion has in fact made progress, as some of the harder incorrect positions have since softened. I don't expect an apology from those who have 'softened' their position.<br>
<br></div>
It's been hinted that because I stand alone in my defence, against so many, clearly I must be wrong. This, of course, is the fallacy argumentum ad populum. The number of people who believe something to be true, has no bearing on the truth of the belief. In human history, there was a time when only a single person believed the world was round rather than flat. There was also a time when only a single person believed the messiah (though King) would be killed and rise on the third day. Sometimes it takes a single dissenting voice, to correct popular misconceptions however bleak the odds.<br>
<div>
<br></div><div>Dogmatically the argument has now shifted from saying material CANNOT be copied under any circumstance, to saying it CAN be but not in THESE circumstances. That is an entirely different argument, and one that quietly recognizes the merit to my defence. <span></span>Let's look at those claims then. I was presented 3 links.<br>
<br>The first link is Wikipedia:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content#Academia" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content#Academia</a><br><br>The Wikipedia link is not a summary of case law. It is no kind of authoritative source or summary interpretation of precident (save perhaps for the
army of Wikipedia volunteers who engineer Wikipedia articles). However two other cases were presented being 'Princeton University Press v. Michigan Doc' and ' Basic
Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corporation'. Very good. Case law makes us look at the issues I've been raising in defence.<br><br><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/99_F3d_1381.htm" target="_blank">http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/99_F3d_1381.htm</a><br>
<a href="http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_materials/cases/c758FSupp1522.html" target="_blank">http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_materials/cases/c758FSupp1522.html</a><br><br>Before these two cases were presented, I made the point that derivative use cases of Copyright work (outlined in ) says basically (in section § 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use) that in considering 'adapted works' as derived works, courts use some litmus tests. I kind of get the feeling no one accusing me of law-breaking has bothered to read this section. In both of the cases above, the defendants were engaged in 'Commercial Activity' reproducing exact copies of Copyrighted material for COMMERCIAL advantage. <br>
<br>Had anyone bothered to read section § 107 they'd see that both defendants were
engaged in commercial activity, both were reproducing exact copies of
copyright work, both were selling the results for commercial advantage, clearly failing the first litmus test. Neither of those cases apply here.<br><br>That said, I really didn't need to point out the litmus test since the Copyright act itself says (in section § 101 . Definitions ) "A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations,
elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original
work of authorship, is a “derivative work” which is clearly the case here. This module contains annotations, elaborations, and other modifications and is clearly not the same as Oxford University Press' 39 volume published works "Discoveries in the Judean Desert" so automatically qualifies as derivative work by definition. However, people would rather argue than read law and case law.<br>
<br>Finally the Georgia State University Opinion was offered as evidence of wrong doing. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what this was presented as it strengthens my case more than weakens it.<br><a href="http://laboratorium.net/archive/2012/05/13/inside_the_georgia_state_opinion" target="_blank">http://laboratorium.net/archive/2012/05/13/inside_the_georgia_state_opinion</a>.<br>
<br>Of the DSS translations in the Discoveries in the Judean Desert (DJD)
series, biblical DSS translations constitute far less than 10% of the
entire material found in the 39 volumes. These translations clearly contain annotations, elaborations, and other modifications qualifying by definition as derivative work. The case is considered a win for Georgia State and a loss for the publishers and are the same issues we debate here. You don't need to read too far to see that the 'Georgia State University' case was DROPPED!<br>
<br>The
publishers were unable to prove to the court’s satisfaction that fair
use did NOT apply in large portions brought forward in their case, and
the court was ultimately unsympathetic. That link you produced itself
says so. Citing this case kind of proves my point!<br><br>I don't know what this thread continues on. I speculate perhaps some of you work for the publishing industry. At the end of the day case-law and the law itself provides provisions that restrict exclusive rights in Copyright cases, limitations I'm clearly well within legally in this case. I'm a bit surprised that anyone (in this list) would want to restrict (re)transmission of Dead Sea Scrolls biblical material, our oldest fragments of biblical text in most cases. But then again, perhaps that's the whole point. Perhaps this isn't about preserving someone's exclusive right (a right that does not in fact exist) to an academic translation of ancient text, but about restricting (re)transmission of biblical texts.<br>
<br>In His service.<br><br>~A<br><div><div><div><div><div><br><br>On Monday, November 12, 2012, Peter von Kaehne wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">This is a good summary of how we conduct ourselves in general and how we want to conduct ourselves.<br>
<br>
Thanks Nic.<br>
<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
On 11/11/12 23:13, niccarter 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>
Disclaimer: I am not an expert in US law to any degree. I just want to pick up on one thing Greg mentioned:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Those works ARE subject to Copyright<br>
unless their authors or publishers have explicitly released them from<br>
Copyright.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The way to make sure that everything is above board and that we are beyond reproach and honouring Christ is to go the extra mile and ask the authors/publishers for explicit permission to distribute (either personally, as Andrew appears to desire, or corporately, as I gather CrossWire would be interested in) their works.<br>
<br>
There are two purposes:<br>
<br>
1) If the publishers are intending for anyone and everyone to freely copy their works with attribution, perhaps along the lines of CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 (defined at <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/" target="_blank">http://creativecommons.org/<u></u>licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/</a> ), then they will appreciate the goodwill and the relationship would be beneficial in glorifying God. AND they will freely and quickly grant access. :)<br>
<br>
2) If the publishers are more restrictive, according to what others are stating copyright law entitles, we can pray that they are happy for their works to be distributed in a non-profit way with their blessings/permission. :)<br>
<br>
Looking at both sides of the fence, I believe it won't hurt to ask. Who is "right" is irrelevant in this outlined proposal.<br>
<br>
For His Glory, ybic<br>
nic... :)<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
sword-devel mailing list: <a>sword-devel@crosswire.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel" target="_blank">http://www.crosswire.org/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</a><br>
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
sword-devel mailing list: <a>sword-devel@crosswire.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel" target="_blank">http://www.crosswire.org/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</a><br>
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page<br>
</blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>sword-devel mailing list: <a href="mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org">sword-devel@crosswire.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel">http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</a></span><br><span>Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page</span></div></blockquote></body></html>