<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 9/26/2011 11:46 AM, David Haslam wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1317052008030-3844267.post@n4.nabble.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Setting aside all other matters for the moment....
Did you acquire a printed copy of either edition of The Riverside NT to
check the authenticity of any digitized text?
</pre>
</blockquote>
I have access to the first edition via facsimile on the Internet
Archive at <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.archive.org/details/riversidenewtest027415mbp">http://www.archive.org/details/riversidenewtest027415mbp</a><br>
<br>
These are basically photographs of the pages, and I have no reason
to suspect that someone has interfered with the scanning process of
the work. To me, this is as good or better than having a printed
copy in my hands, since it is more likely that someone would sell me
a fake 1st edition copy than the Archive somehow pulled a fake copy
out of a library. Is there a reason I need to go find a physical
copy? Should I suspect the authenticity of the archive copy, when
it is photographic and in a funded collection? I do not trust "open
source" collections on the Archive (they have a copy of "The Bible
2.0"), but this one is a funded collection where books were sent to
a country with less restrictive copyright law (India?) to allow them
to be scanned by the archive into 'a universal library.' More
recent developments (google books and the resulting lawsuit) have
changed the project's goals, but the existence of the work above
created was under this method.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.archive.org/details/universallibrary">http://www.archive.org/details/universallibrary</a><br>
<br>
<small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small>--_____________________________--</small></small></small></small></small></small></small></small></small></small></small></small></small><br>
<br>
However, you've raised several points I'm working out at the moment.
<br>
<br>
1. contacting the copyright owner. Google copyright database lists
the copyright renewal to Ballentine and heirs so my math has been on
personal copyright law-- Life + 70 years. I can't find where I
recorded the original copyright info from, or how I recorded
Macmillan as the original publisher. The link above states Houghton
Mifflin is the publisher and copyright owner. I have requested a
confirmation of this from Houghton Mifflin and rights to freely
publish if they do own the work. <br>
<br>
2. The existence of a 2nd edition. I have no idea which edition I'm
working on, or how to tell the difference. <br>
<br>
3. The lack of any versification in the facsimile first edition.
(inline, marginal or otherwise). The version I started with is
versified (HUGE RED FLAG if I have to remove the verses, I may as
well be starting from the UL copy above.)<br>
____________<br>
<br>
The task at hand last week causing this thread was the versification
of the (yet another bible) HNC, which created similar multi-line
multi-verse verses that I've seen before. I haven't worked on
Riverside NT for about a year +/- 6 months, I just remember seeing
the same issues at the same point while trying to fix quotes that
don't display properly. <br>
<br>
It turns out that the original problem is my specific click pattern
on importing my work in progress into Open office. David Haslam
provided a summary and verified there were hidden characters at the
point the problem was occuring. <br>
<br>
</body>
</html>