[sword-devel] DSS (Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls based upon DJD translations)

Peter von Kaehne refdoc at gmx.net
Sat Nov 10 15:54:05 MST 2012

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.


-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:55:17 -0700
> Von: jhphx <jhphx at cox.net>
> An: SWORD Developers\' Collaboration Forum <sword-devel at 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 <jhphx at cox.net 
> > <mailto:jhphx at 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 at crosswire.org
> >     <mailto:sword-devel at 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 at crosswire.org
> > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page

More information about the sword-devel mailing list