a question about questions

[his-servant-too]

In the topic Monotheism vs Polytheism the question arrises. Just because someone cuts & pastes from another site does that make the questions less valid?

We all do the same thing when we read from other sources and translate that into our own words. If a cut & paste piece makes sense to the provider and says it in a better way than the person posting could then does that make it any less relevant? Look at all the scriptures that are cut & pasted and used as sound proof of this and that? If we use the same rule to judge them would we view them in the same way?

I broke something today, and I realized I should break something once a week...to remind me how fragile life is.

Andy Warhol

US artist (1928 - 1987)

Edited July 27, 2005 by his-servant-too

[Ovedya]

Wrong.

Copyright infringment is the taking of another person's intellectual property and claiming ownership for it, by stating or implying that you are the originator.

Please read the following article. It was written in the context of Usenet. However, Usenet operates much like a forum, so it applies here as well: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Also try: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copyright.html

There is a vast difference between reading an article and discussing the merits of the subject matter, and claiming authorship for the original material. If you wish to cite other's works, you must provide proper identification of the original author, and a link to the article/work, if it's on the internet. Actually, technically, you have to get the author's permission before even cutting and pasting, unless the copyright statement following the article grants free use.

Edited July 27, 2005 by Ovedya

[Remnantrob]

Great website Ovedya

[serotta]

his-servant-too,

I definitely agree with Ovedya here, and think your initial post in this thread is a little misleading. Evechot presumably cut and pasted several paragraphs of material, not just "a question". And yes, when one does that kind of copy and paste, one should give credit to the original author. A simple "I got this from www.questionsRus.com, what are your thoughts?" would be sufficient. To post the material with no reference, and thereby inferring that it is one's own thoughts, is inappropriate and wrong.

[his-servant-too]

his-servant-too,

I definitely agree with Ovedya here, and think your initial post in this thread is a little misleading. Evechot presumably cut and pasted several paragraphs of material, not just "a question". And yes, when one does that kind of copy and paste, one should give credit to the original author. A simple "I got this from www.questionsRus.com, what are your thoughts?" would be sufficient. To post the material with no reference, and thereby inferring that it is one's own thoughts, is inappropriate and wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But the questions that arose are /were still relevant. It is not about assigning authorship but to the the thought behind what was said. Sure a little something like "I read this in such and such article" would have been better.

I see you said "Evechot presumably cut and pasted several paragraphs of material, not just "a question"" Did you read the posts?

After the first post it seemed that he was expressing his own opinions. and the responses were legitimate.

It also looks that this type of reproduction falls under the The Fair-Use Statute. as provided by Ovedya in the link http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

I don't think anyone here is using this material in anyway that would diminish the value of the work or their intellectual creation

Everybody gets so much information all day long that they lose their common sense.

Gertrude Stein

US author in France (1874 - 1946)

[Ovedya]

his-servant-too,

I definitely agree with Ovedya here, and think your initial post in this thread is a little misleading. Evechot presumably cut and pasted several paragraphs of material, not just "a question". And yes, when one does that kind of copy and paste, one should give credit to the original author. A simple "I got this from www.questionsRus.com, what are your thoughts?" would be sufficient. To post the material with no reference, and thereby inferring that it is one's own thoughts, is inappropriate and wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But the questions that arose are /were still relevant. It is not about assigning authorship but to the the thought behind what was said. Sure a little something like "I read this in such and such article" would have been better.

I see you said "Evechot presumably cut and pasted several paragraphs of material, not just "a question"" Did you read the posts?

After the first post it seemed that he was expressing his own opinions. and the responses were legitimate.

It also looks that this type of reproduction falls under the The Fair-Use Statute. as provided by Ovedya in the link http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

I don't think anyone here is using this material in anyway that would diminish the value of the work or their intellectual creation

Everybody gets so much information all day long that they lose their common sense.

Gertrude Stein

US author in France (1874 - 1946)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The subsequent posts do not matter. The original post contained copyrighted material. And this material was even slightly re-worded to give the reader the impression that he was the author.

It's not covered under free use.

[his-servant-too]

The original post contained copyrighted material

And you know this how?

Those who become enamored of practices without science are like sailors who go aboard ship without a rudder and compass, for they are never certain where they will land.

Leonardo da Vinci, The Wisdom of Leonardo da Vinci

Italian engineer, painter, & sculptor (1452 - 1519)

[Ovedya]

First: http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_05.htm

Cited: http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Paine.htm

Copied elsewhere:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:aNNrbWM...being.%22&hl=en

and: http://www.apologetics.org/cslewis/viewtop...ec3dad04123f80d

Need more?

[Ovedya]

Now let's compare.

Evechot's post here in Apologetics:

If people were to read the Bible from cover to cover without any perconceived ideas of what it says, would they arrive at such concepts that are taught by religious leaders?

The Bible teaching that God is "one" is called "Monotheism". Ecclesiastical history, indicates that monotheism in its purest form does not allow for a God of three persons. The Old Testement is strictly "monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that God is three persons is to be found there.....is utterly without foundation.

Was there any change from monotheism after Jesus came to the earth? On this point there is no break between the Old Testement and New Testement. The monotheistic traditio9n is continued. Jesus was a Jew, trained by Jewish parents in the Old Testement scriptures. Jesus teachings was Jewish to the core; a new gospel indeed, but not a new theology. And Jesus accepted as his own belief the Great Text of Jewish monotheism: Deteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is "one" God". Those words are found at; Deteronomy 5:7; Isaiah 42:8; Zecariah 14:9; 1 Timothy 2:5; Mark 12:29; Matthew 23:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6

Trinity means not persons but Gods. So those who argue that this word implies one make themselves "Polytheist, worshipers of more than one God. Why? Because it would mean that there were three gods in the Trinity. But nearly all Trinity supporters reject the view that the Trinity is made up of three separate gods.

From the Watchtower.org website (evechot's additions/ edits in blue):

Paragraph 1: "IF PEOPLE were to read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of a Trinity, would they arrive at such a concept concepts that are taught by religious leaders?

Paragraph 3: "THE Bible teaching that God is one is called monotheism. edited out: [And L. L. Paine, professor of ]ecclesiastical history, indicates that monotheism in its purest form does not allow for a God of three persons. The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there . . . is utterly without foundation."

Paragraph 4: "Was there any change from monotheism after Jesus came to the earth? edited out [Paine answers: "]On this point there is no break between the Old Testament and the New. The monotheistic tradition is continued. Jesus was a Jew, trained by Jewish parents in the Old Testament scriptures. Jesus teaching was Jewish to the core; a new gospel indeed, but not a new theology. . . . And Jesus accepted as his own belief the great text of Jewish monotheism: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God.'" Those words are found at; Deteronomy 5:7; Isaiah 42:8; Zecariah 14:9; 1 Timothy 2:5; Mark 12:29; Matthew 23:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6

Paragraph 13: Trinity means, not "persons," but "gods." So those who argue that this word implies a Trinity make themselves polytheists, worshipers of more than one God. Why? Because it would mean that there were three gods in the Trinity. But nearly all Trinity supporters reject the view that the Trinity is made up of three separate gods."

This is what those in the academic field refer to as "blatant plagiarism." I used to plagiarise the encyclopedia like this when I was in 4th grade!

[his-servant-too]

First: http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_05.htm

Cited: http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Paine.htm

Copied elsewhere:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:aNNrbWM...being.%22&hl=en

and: http://www.apologetics.org/cslewis/viewtop...ec3dad04123f80d

Need more?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No that's plenty. However it appears that you have proven your self wrong. as it stands and noting the examples you provided this would seem to fall in the fair use area of the copyright law.

Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. 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 in 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 --

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

the nature of the copyrighted work;

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

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. (Emphasis added)

The example below is not the exact condition we have here but comparisons can be made.

In 1973, the plaintiff wrote a book based on interviews with women about their own pregnancies and abortions. The defendant wrote his own book on the same subject and sought permission to use lengthy excerpts from the plaintiff's work. The plaintiff refused permission, and the defendant proceeded to publish his work with the unpermitted excerpts.

Purpose: Although defendant's book was published by a commercial press with the possibility of monetary success, the main purpose of the book was to educate the public about abortion and about the author's views.

Nature: The interviews were largely factual.

Amount: Quoting 4.3 percent of the plaintiff's work was not excessive, and the verbatim passages were not necessarily central to the plaintiff's market.

Effect: The court noted that the plaintiff's work was out of print and not likely to appeal to the same readers. This case affirms that quotations in a subsequent work are permissible, sometimes even when they are lengthy. Implicit throughout the case is the fact that the plaintiff was unwilling to allow limited quotations in a book that argued an opposing view of abortion; thus, fair use became the only effective means for the second author to meaningfully build on the scholarly works of others.

I look at this forum as basic education and a place to discuss issues.

The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping the old ones, which ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds.

John Maynard Keynes

English economist (1883 - 1946)