[sword-devel] modules upload etc - suggestion
jonathon.blake at gmail.com
Wed Jan 16 14:14:43 MST 2008
On Jan 16, 2008 10:30 AM, Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
>I meant that the illegal copyrighted text sharing has not stopped
other projects offering that possibility.
a) A distinction needs to be made between the gratis, and non-gratis
Bible Study Programs here.
b) One also has to look at how the different organizations "restrict"
c) A significant percentage of material that is not in the public
domain, but was until the DMCA was passed, owes its origins to a site
that shut down in early 2000. That material is still being
distributed for some Bible Study programs.
> if a company wants to gain success by offering a feature which will be used for piracy, they are morally in a very strange position if they at the same time don't take any responsibility of the resource sharing AND require that people honor their intellectual property.
What happens is that the user uploads the material to esnips, or
similar site. Since the Bible Study program is not the copyright
owner of the material, it can't issue a DMCA take down notice. If
the copyright owner refuses to admit that the material is available in
that format, and is being distributed in violation of copyright, there
is not much that the Bible Study Program Creators can do.
The utility program for creating resources may have a EULA, but how is
it going to be enforced if the person who violates it lives outside of
the jurisdiction of the creator of that tool? Or if the person lives
in a country that does not honour either copyrights or EULAs.
>There is no such thing as intellectual property. There are copyrights
and a few more - quite separate - concepts like patents and trademarks.
The Jehovah's Witness CD is protected by:
* Trade secret;
* Copyright law;
* End User Licence Agreement;
Logos resources are covered by EULAs, and Trade Secrets. Most of them
are also covered by copyright.
It is much easier to use the phrase "Intellectual Property Rights",
than copyright, patents, trade secrets, EULAs, etc, as applicable to
the specific resource.
>Wrt copyrights - these are different from country to country. What is
perfectly legal in Germany might be forbidden in the UK or in the USA
Crosswire is based out of the US, and hence falls under US law.
Hence material it releases has to be legal under US Law. It helps if
it is also legal under the laws of other countries.
>As long as we do not offer copyrighted modules or offer the unchecked
ability to upload copyrighted stuff onto the actual site, there is
little we should worry about this matter.
That is more or less what Rick Meyers thought, when he released the
specifications for some e-Sword module types. A cottage industry
arose, with users creating and distribution resources that the
publisher never authorized distribution of. That did blacken the
reputation of e-Sword in publishing circles. It literally has only
been in the last eighteen months, and the changes in specific programs
for creating e-Sword resources, that that situation has changed.
> if their primary reason of existence is something unequivocally legal
and good (production of new free modules).
I've had that debate before. The individual that lived in the US
realized the error of their ways, when they discovered that there was
a very good chance that they would spend 20 years in a federal
institution. The individual in Scandinavia did not change their ways,
because the law there does not recognize enforcement any intellectual
> The (ab)user has full responsibility here.
And what does one do when there is nothing that can be legally done to
the abuser? Especially if their work is destroying all of the good
will that the program has obtained.
More information about the sword-devel