Copyright Infringement!

[drbrumley]

To all TOL'ers,

The topic has come up, and rightfully so, that downloads of music via the Internet is a crime.

And by what I have read, we all are guilty of copyright infringment. And I'm not talking about music. Do not even post a Bible verse cause your breaking the law. Want proof?


New King James Bible and a host of others!
© Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Now if we are going to whine and cry about copyright infringement, I think you better look at the Bible you quote, and apply what you say about downloads to what Bible you quote here.

God Bless,
Dave

 

[frostmanj]

I think we would all agree that the original authors of the books of the Bible died many years ago. Under current law this makes the whole Bible public domain. Unfortunately this also means that it can be reinterpreted and revised by Zondervan.

FrostmanJ

 

[drbrumley]

FROST,

I think we would all agree that the original authors of the books of the Bible died many years ago.

Thats a given.

Under current law this makes the whole Bible public domain.

Really?

Unfortunately this also means that it can be reinterpreted and revised by Zondervan.

This is true. The point being made that the revision is Copyrighted and therefore cannot be reproduced without thier approval. Cause the argument is being made that Downloading (Sharing) a file is a criminal act. Under this logic, if someone wants to read my copy of a book, then Im breaking the law by sharing it with them. And that is plain stupid and wrong.

 

[frostmanj]

OK, I see your point. I think someone should scan the whole NIV, put it up for free on the Net, and let the powers that be sue them.

I can see the Headlines, "Publishing House Sues to Restrict Access to the Bible."

That ought to be great publicity.

FrostmanJ

 

[Vitamin J]

The KJV is public domain as is several other versions of the Bible.

The NKJV and the NIV and other versions are NOT public domain.

However, you would only be infringing on copyright laws if you posted the entire versions on the net.

Simply using a verse here or there is the same as allowing listeners to hear a "snippit" of a song.

 

[Crow]

Some stuff I found on the net----

New International Version (NIV)
The NIV may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio) up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without the express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for more than 25 percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted. For additional rights and permission usage on the NIV Bible please contact Zondervan.

KJV is not copyrighted, and can be quoted without restriction.
The Net Bible may be quoted without restriction

From the Amplified Bible's websiteermission to Quote the Amplified® BibleThe text of the Amplified® Bible may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio) up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for more than 25% of the total work in which they are quoted. The Lockman Foundation - Amplified Bible

 

[Hilston]

Title 17 ...

Title 17 ...

Hi drbrumley. You're quite mistaken and simply overstating the case here. You write:

And by what I have read, we all are guilty of copyright infringment. And I'm not talking about music. Do not even post a Bible verse cause your breaking the law. Want proof? New King James Bible and a host of others! © Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Just because works are copyrighted does NOT mean we are not allowed to quote them. If that were the case, nearly every research paper in the history of the world would be guilty of theft. You've somehow missed the primary point of the copyright law, which is protection of original authorship.

Title 17, Chapter, 1 Sec. 102 of the U.S. Code states:

Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device ...

According to the Fair Use laws, there are provisions made for quoting copyrighted works, both published and unpublished. See below:

Sec. 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 reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Here's the Cornell University link if you want to read the whole context.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

You can quote me.

Jim

 

[.Ant]

Crow has it right - it's okay to freely quote snippets of most translations.

 

[drbrumley]

Hilston

Thank you for your contribution. Yes, I am overstating the case, and thats done for a reason.

Now, in the case of sharing files. Funny thing is I agree with the court's decision on Napster. Napster was ok, noone bothered them UNTIL they accepted advertising dollars. They were making money off the artist's hard work. And that is wrong. And because Napster said, "screw you", thats when the big money came down on them. Now, if I was to download songs and I make my playlist entitled, "80's hits", and then burn them onto CDs and sell them, That is wrong also. I am breaking the law. Same thing goes with VCR's and tapes decks. I record a special event on TV. I turn around and make copies of the event, and sell them. Thats against the law. I am breaking the law. But if a friend asks if I can tape it for him, is that breaking the law? Not at all. The copyright act prevents me from making money on other peoples work. And that is STEALING! And also, the copyright act also says I can't say I wrote or sung a song, or wrote a paper without given the author the recogniction he DESERVES for compiling his/ her work.

I maybe wrong and will admit Im wrong if I am, but I havent seen a shred of evidence to support it is thievery. If it is theft, then my suggestion is dont loan anyone a book or a CD, cause the person who is borrowing hasnt paid his copyright licence to use the product. Sounds absurd, doesn't it.

God Bless,
Dave

 

[Hilston]

Evidence? ...

Evidence? ...

Dave,

In a rational society, we would only need one law against theft: Do not steal another person's property. But because of people like you, Dave, lawyers get rich exploiting the willful density and ignorance of people who say, "But where's a law that says I can't steal THIS?" -- as if there has to be a specific law for every particular piece of property in the universe.

Dave writes:

But if a friend asks if I can tape it for him, is that breaking the law? Not at all. The copyright act prevents me from making money on other peoples work.

Please cite the U.S. code that says this.

Dave, whether you sell copies, make a profit or not, you are depriving the copyright holders of revenue that comes from the sale of that music. By burning copies for your friends, they no longer have to go out and spend the money; you are stealing.

Dave writes:

I maybe wrong and will admit Im wrong if I am, but I havent seen a shred of evidence to support it is thievery.

You don't need evidence, Dave. All anyone needs is a mind that is rational (i.e. consistently uses logic).

Dave writes:

If it is theft, then my suggestion is dont loan anyone a book or a CD, cause the person who is borrowing hasnt paid his copyright licence to use the product. Sounds absurd, doesn't it.

It sounds absurd because you clearly are missing the point. Loaning someone an existing publication does not deprive the copyright holder of revenue. As soon as you make an illegal copy, you have made it convenient for someone else to NOT buy their own published copy. It's stealing, and you should have to make financial restitution to the copyright holders that you've stolen from.

I had a friend ask me to burn copies of a set of narrated Bible CDs. The whole set probably costs $60-$70. I told her no. Had I done her this "favor," she would not have had to go out and buy her own set, and the copyright holders for those CDs would have been deprived of the revenue that they are entitled to.

Jim

 

[drbrumley]

In a rational society, we would only need one law against theft: Do not steal another person's property.

Agreed!!!!!!!

But because of people like you, Dave, lawyers get rich exploiting the willful density and ignorance of people who say, "But where's a law that says I can't steal THIS?" -- as if there has to be a specific law for every particular piece of property in the universe.

People like me? I am not saying in any way, shape or form,"But where's a law that says I can't steal THIS?" So before you start attacking, my friend, get to know the whole story about the person you are talking with.

Dave, whether you sell copies, make a profit or not, you are depriving the copyright holders of revenue that comes from the sale of that music. By burning copies for your friends, they no longer have to go out and spend the money; you are stealing.

For starters, I don't burn CDS unless I OWN IT and then only to put my original away. I don't burn CDS for friends. I have never been asked to burn a CD for someone.

Loaning someone an existing publication does not deprive the copyright holder of revenue.

WRONG!!!!! By loaning said publication, you are depriving the copyright holder. How so, by loaning the said publication, you are taking away what profit the copyright owner is supposed to get by your friend not purchasing it.

So either way, your depriving the owner by this logic.

 

[Yorzhik]

Please note, the following is in light that a good government and good law are in place. If one wants to discuss the current state of copyright as it is in US law, that will be a discussion that flaps in the breeze because current US copyright law (the whole justice system for that matter) is as solid as a tissue in the wind.

The problem with discussing copyrights is that we first have to decide if ideas are property or not. Ideas can be considered something, but they differ from property-that-is-not-ideas (we'll call it PTINI) in some ways.

For instance, an idea can be owned by every person on the earth without the person who first thought of it losing the idea. This is contrary to PTINI in that not everyone can necessarily have a copy simply because a copy avails itself.

PTINI can be destroyed, whereas ideas can be reconstructed perfectly, even if the medium on which they may be recorded is destroyed. And the idea would still be the exact same idea as before. Even if it isn't remembered by anyone currently alive at the time the media was destroyed.

PTINI has the ability to be valued after it is known. An idea must always be valued before it is known. Because just knowing an idea before the copy restrictions are in place renders it valueless to the person with the idea.

If an idea cannot be property, then the answer is obvious: All right to make a copy of an idea that is to be made known must be individually negotiated if it is to exist. And laws specifically for copyright in the written law would be arbitrary law, bad law.

If this takes care of some of the issues, I'll jump in again (if we stay on topic) when we start discussing the nature of contracts, or if I see I didn't make something clear.

 

[Goose]

I wonder what would be the effects of not having intellectual property. It seems like it would be a more efficient system to just have manufacturers pump out tangible products that we can own.

Intellectual property is a pretty recent judicial innovation isn't it? I bet we could gain some information from learning about the beginning of the U.S. patent office or something similar.

 

[Yorzhik]

Goose, good points. Copyrights and Patents are recent constructs.

An interesting exercise is to figure out if we would even have property laws if everything physical (including space) could be copied to near or perfect perfection. Don't think to long and hard... the answer is we wouldn't have property laws of that were true.

The reason we even have property laws (and it is a natural law according to God) is because property is scarce. Ideas are not. So do ideas fit the definition of property?

It's hard to imagining treating ideas as property (or property as ideas) because it is so hard-core illogical. Everyone would have their copy of the space where they live next to the most popular people, and the popular people would have their copy of their space where they only lived next to their friends. That is the world of copyright and patent.

 

[Sozo]

Since God is creator and ultimately the source of the bible, then it is the NIV who is in copyright infringement. Everyone steals from God.

I think we would all agree that the original authors of the books of the Bible died many years ago. Under current law this makes the whole Bible public domain. Unfortunately this also means that it can be reinterpreted and revised by Zondervan.

Don't you mean "misinterpreted" and "devised"?

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by Sozo
Since God is creator and ultimately the source of the bible, then it is the NIV who is in copyright infringement.

The NIV and other copyrighted Bibles haven't stolen from God. The Bible itself cannot be copyrighted, ONLY THE TRANSLATION.

The NIV, and all other versions I have found info on can be quoted freely--the copyright protects them from being reproduced commercially.

It takes a great deal of effort and $$$$ to produce a new translation of a document as lengthy as a Bible, plus new Bibles also commonly contain cross referencing, notes, study guides, historical references, commentary, etc. , which isn't free to them. I don't begrudge someone who puts forth the $$$$ and effort to bring what may be a more readable, or a more accurate, or a better annotated Bible on the market their money. And honestly--they don't care if you quote from them--they're probably delighted, especially when you give them credit by saying "from the NIV" or "NKJV" etc., as we should. I'm sure they appreciate the word of mouth advetising.

 

[Yorzhik]

Crow, that is a the common understanding.

Consider this: I have a work in the public domain. Some Russian translates my work and copyrights it. After that, I translate it into Russian.

Now who owns the ideas as they are conceived in Russian?

And before you say both, can someone take a copyrighted work, translate it to a different language and then claim the copyright in that language? Why not?

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Crow, that is a the common understanding.

Consider this: I have a work in the public domain. Some Russian translates my work and copyrights it. After that, I translate it into Russian.

Now who owns the ideas as they are conceived in Russian?

And before you say both, can someone take a copyrighted work, translate it to a different language and then claim the copyright in that language? Why not?

Each would own the copyright to their own translation. You can have endless separate copyright translations in the same language, as long as each is a unique translation. The ideas are not subject to copyright--the original, per your statement is in common domain. Now if one Russian translation was not an independent translation, but merely a copy of the other Russian translation, then you would have copyright infringement.

 

[Yorzhik]

So you said both...

Since I already predicted your reply and responded to it... could you reply to my post?

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by Yorzhik
So you said both...

Since I already predicted your reply and responded to it... could you reply to my post?

I find these questions in your post

---Now who owns the ideas as they are conceived in Russian?

The ideas are not subject to copyright--the original, per your statement is in common domain.



---can someone take a copyrighted work, translate it to a different language and then claim the copyright in that language? Why not?

You can have endless separate copyright translations in the same language, as long as each is a unique translation.

Now, what is it that you are saying is not being answered? I think it's pretty clear that it is merely the translation that is being copyrighted, not the original work.