I would suggest that any other post than "I am sorry, you are right and I was wrong. I have taken the site down" will be incontrovertible proof that the OP is a troll.
Peter -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:55:17 -0700 > Von: jhphx <jh...@cox.net> > An: SWORD Developers\' Collaboration Forum <sword-devel@crosswire.org> > Betreff: Re: [sword-devel] DSS (Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls based upon DJD > translations) > Andrew, I don't wish to sound mean but I don't know how to soften this. > I can only hope that some day you appreciate the guidance people here, > are giving you. > > On 11/9/2012 9:37 PM, Andrew Thule wrote: > > Jerry, what the Law actually says trumps what the copyright office says. > > What you are implying here is that the quotes I posted from Cir 21 do > not reflect what the actual intent of the law is. You may be surprised > to know that the Copyright Office is not the source of those quotes from > Cir 21. In fact the source is the 1976 report of the House of > Representatives Judiciary Committee on the House amendments to the bill > that became the Copyright Act of 1976 (H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, 94th > Cong., 2d Sess., September 3, 1976). If those quotes don't reflect what > the law actually is then the House report does not reflect what the > House passed into law. There was an earlier Senate report which differs > on some points but in the case of these quotes the House report should > reflect changes in the proposed law after the Senate report and should > reflect the will of not just the House but also the Senate. > > > > > I quoted the law itself which outlines restrictions on Copyright for > > fair use. > > And it was addressed and also your interpretation. > > > I also quoted the Law which justifies 'derivative works' even where > > Copyright applies. > > Where you quote you also misinterpret. > > > If copyright doesn't apply to certain types of work - you need to show > > that the source material I've used is NOT THAT TYPE OF MATERIAL. (I'm > > not making use of someone's novel. I'm making use of their research.) > > You contrast novel with research. That shows a fundamental flaw in your > logic. Novels and research publications are equally entitled to > copyright. Perhaps the bases for your misunderstanding is a common one, > that copyright does not protect facts and research is about facts so not > protected. The facts from research are not protected (not by copyright > but other laws may apply) as also any fact discussed in novels are not > protected either, but while the facts, ideas and information in works > are not protected by copyright the ways they are expressed are, even in > research publications as much as in novels. > > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 > 17 U.S.C. § 101 - Definitions > '"Literary works" are works, other than audiovisual works, expressed in > words, numbers, or other verbal or numerical symbols or indicia, > regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as books, > periodicals, manuscripts, phonorecords, film, tapes, disks, or cards, in > which they are embodied. ' > > Novels and research publications are equally "literary works" under this > definition. > > > > > If derivative work is permitted - you need to show I've not met the > > conditions of derivative work. > > A derivative work can not be published without the permission of the > copyright holder of the original work, because that copyright holder has > the copyright to the original and any material from that original in > any derivatives of it. > > 17 USC § 103 - Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative > works > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/103 > '(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 > includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work > employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not > extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used > unlawfully. > (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to > the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished > from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply > any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such > work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, > duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the > preexisting material.' > > According to (a) above your rights to produce copies of a derivative of > your own making, do not, extend to any part of it that was used > unlawfully (being without proper permission or exception). > > 17 U.S.C. § 101 - Definitions > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 > 'A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, > such as a translation, ...' > > The DSS texts, because of age, are PD, but modern translations are > derivatives protected by copyright being the unique expressions of the > translators. The ideas expressed we hope are true to the original PD DSS > texts but each translation has it own way of expressing the ideas which > is the bases for copyright. Using these modern expressions without > permission or license is a violation of copyright unless the the use > falls under an exception in the law. Educational, scholarly, research, > personal, translation or derivative use do not simply qualify as an > exception. Fair use is an exception, but just being such things as > educational or personal do not guarantee that a use is fair use, as I > have already pointed out and as others have pointed out. > > Jerry > > > > > The source material I've used is both exempt (according to the law) > > and the derivative work in accordance with the law even if it weren't > > exempt. > > > > ~A > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:39 PM, jhphx <jh...@cox.net > > <mailto:jh...@cox.net>> wrote: > > > > On 11/8/2012 9:26 AM, Andrew wrote: > >> > >> The US definition of 'Fair Use': > >> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 > >> > >> > >> § 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use > >> > >> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106a, the fair > >> use of a copyrighted work, including such use by ... is not an > >> infringement of copyright. > >> > > > > It should be noted that the doctrine of fair use existed before > > this section of law was coded. This section does not define the > > doctrine but only gives guidance for applying the doctrine. > > > > If there was a section of law that said something like: > > "Notwithstanding the provisions concerning the guilt of killers, a > > deadly act of insanity involving shooting, stabbing, poisoning, > > or strangling is not an act of guilt," it would NOT mean that any > > act of shooting, stabbing, poisoning, or strangling was an insane > > act. It would not be defining insanity. Likewise, 107 is not > > defining fair use. Thinking it does is a common mistake. > > > > The fallowing quotes are from: > > The US Copyright Office > > Cir21 > > Reproduction of Copyrighted Works > > by Educators and Librarians > > http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf > > > > 'Although the courts have considered and ruled upon the > > fair use doctrine over and over again, no real definition of > > the concept has ever emerged. Indeed, since the doctrine is > > an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable definition > > is possible, and each case raising the question must be > > decided on its own facts. On the other hand, the courts have > > evolved a set of criteria which, though in no case definitive > > or determinative, provide some gauge for balancing > > the equities. These criteria have been stated in various ways, > > but essentially they can all be reduced to the four standards > > which have been adopted in section 107:' > > > > 'For example, > > the reference to fair use "by reproduction in copies or > > phonorecords or by any other means" is mainly intended > > to make clear that the doctrine has as much application to > > photocopying and taping as to older forms of use; it is not > > intended to give these kinds of reproduction any special > > status under the fair use provision or to sanction any reproduction > > beyond the normal and reasonable limits of fair use. > > Similarly, the newly-added reference to "multiple copies for > > classroom use" is a recognition that, under the proper circumstances > > of fairness, the doctrine can be applied to reproductions > > of multiple copies for the members of a class. > > The Committee has amended the first of the criteria to > > be considered---"the purpose and character of the use"--- > > to state explicitly that this factor includes a consideration > > of "whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for > > non-profit educational purposes." This amendment is not > > intended to be interpreted as any sort of not-for-profit > > limitation on educational uses of copyrighted works. It is > > an express recognition that, as under the present law, the > > commercial or non-profit character of an activity, while > > not conclusive with respect to fair use, can and should be > > weighed along with other factors in fair use decisions.' > > > > If one understands that last sentence then one understands that > > non-profit and educational do not guarantee a fair use claim. > > > > Jerry > > > > _______________________________________________ > > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org > > <mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org> > > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
