[sword-devel] Checking on "Fair Use" by individuals ofproprietary
l_d_allan at adelphia.net
Fri Jul 2 12:43:37 MST 2004
Hi Jerry et'al,
Thanks for the feedback ... sounds reasonable
I've got purchased hard-copy and/or paid-for digital versions of:
NIV (hard copy and also via Bible Explorer 2.0 @ $100 ... ouch)
LB (Living Bible via Bible Explorer 2.0)
NET (New English Translation via Bible Explorer 2.0)
NLT (via Bible Explorer 2.0)
NIrV hardcopy (Reader's version ... grade school level ... imho excellent)
TEV hardcopy ($1 at a library book sale?)
>From what you describe, it appears that I'd probably be ethically/legally ok
with converting NIV, LB, NET, and NLT for personal use, but iffy for NKJV,
NASB, NIrV, TNIV, and TEV.
I Am Not A Lawyer + ??????
Curious what the NDIPOOTV stands for???
Nor Do I Pretend + OOTV???
Nor do I play one on TV?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hastings" <hastings at dancris.com>
To: "SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum" <sword-devel at crosswire.org>
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Checking on "Fair Use" by individuals
ofproprietary Bible texts
> At 09:23 AM 7/2/2004, Lynn Allan wrote:
> > let's say I somehow have access to the texts of
> >the NIV, NKJV, and/or ESV. This might be through the Internet, Bible
> >Explorer, e-Sword, etc.
> To vague. If you are making a copy of a copyrighted text from a source you
> don't own it is very unlikely it is fair use. Think of it like this, you
> never own the text, unless you are the copyright holder, but you may own
> the book or cd it is on. Even if you own the source it is on making a
> still depends on other things to be fair use. Making a backup may be fair
> >to prepare these texts into
> >the 31,102 KJV versification format and then, for strictly personal use,
> >incorporate for usage with something like LcdBible/BerBible or BibleCs?
> These are the kind of things judges decide and fair use becomes whatever a
> judge says it is. Realistically, no one is going to care what you do that
> is private to you. That means no one else is involved. If it takes one
> other party it is not private.
> >I've not proposing distribution to anyone, but strictly for personal use
> >my own computer.
> Personal/private use is not a guarantee of fair use. If you download a
> movie or song for your personal use you could be in big trouble. Texts are
> no different.
> >the above fall within the understood doctrine(s) of "Fair Use" of
> >copyrighted material by individuals for personal use?
> >If so, how about the "next step": to provide detailed information about
> >to accomplish the above?
> >If so, how about the "next step": to provide utility software to
> >the above?
> Providing information and software could fall under current vicarious and
> contributory infringement doctrines. There is also a new bill that has
> introduced, the INDUCE Act, short for the Inducement Devolves Into
> Child Exploitation Act of 2004. If passed it would make it illegal to aid,
> abet, induce or procure illegal copies. If your information or software
> "induces" an illegal act of copying this could be trouble, even if there
> are other cases where the copying was legal. Think of 123 software. It has
> legal uses but is seen by some as inducing violations. Hopefully this law
> will not pass, at least not as it is.
> If you are going to provide information or software that helps others make
> copies of copyrighted works you should stay on top of what the law is, as
> it changes. Also, the laws are different in other countries, so give some
> thought to keeping people in other countries out of trouble too.
> sword-devel mailing list
> sword-devel at crosswire.org
More information about the sword-devel