[sword-devel] host[ing] despite legality
refdoc at gmx.net
Tue Aug 23 13:15:13 MST 2005
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.
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 14:19 -0500, Brandon Staggs wrote:
> > From: Eicke Godehardt <eicke.godehardt at igd.fraunhofer.de>
> > 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
> 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 at crosswire.org
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
> How to respond to a major incident - essential training for all UK doctors
refdoc <refdoc at gmx.net>
More information about the sword-devel