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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > 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@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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
