On 11/08/2012 10:20 AM, Andrew Thule wrote:
*DM*, I suspect you've hit upon the heart of the difference of opinion.
I'm not asking Crosswire to host any module. I suspect that assumption
is at the heart of passion in the debate. I have both a private and a
public repository and am capable of hosting the module myself. Rather,
I offered it up for others to look at as many eyes are more likely to
spot errors than fewer.
Whether folks do or not take a look at it, and comment, it will continue
to be advanced as there is great utility and benefit in comparing modern
versions of the bible against the oldest fragments we have of the same text.
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.
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.
With respect to your comments about how Crosswire safeguards it's
efforts through careful scrutiny of Copyright, I fully support that with
one prefix - You can see from some of the comments here that there are
some who have a false understanding of how copyright works especially
with respect to scholarship, and what exemptions are permissible. If we
as a group, had to choose an approach it's better to err on the side of
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.)
*Greg*, when an academic publishes research built upon someone else's
results, is he/she prohibited from publishing because that breaches your
concept of 'personal use'. No. You fail to appreciate that 1. I am
producing a derivative work under copyright law (according to the legal
definition) and 2. That because the source which I have derived the
module from is published academic work I am exempt by implicit fair use
from copyright considerations.
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.
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.
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).
You assume 'personal use' means exactly one person's use. This is
incorrect both in the US and Canada:
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1007051/supreme-court-ruling-on-copyright-a-victory-for-students
Briefly, in Canada one of the issues in the "Access Copyright" Supreme
Court challenge was whether 'personal use' meant one person, or an
aggregate. Both in Canada (recently) and in the US 'personal use,
research, etc' has been shown to be not restricted to the person!
The above does not pertain to personal use but to academic fair use.
Personal use does mean extremely limited use by one or very few persons.
It certainly does not extend to publication on a website and
announcement to hundreds of individuals you've never met (which is
exactly what you have done).
I don't understand the pertinence of discussing 'personal use' since it
doesn't relate to fair use. 'Personal use' isn't a concept of copyright
law until you try to argue it before a court.
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.
--Chris
_______________________________________________
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
