J.E. Stiles The Gift of the Holy Spirit book

[potato]

Then again we still have this definition on the table also.

public domain (PD) The total absence of copyright protection. If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the exclusive rights which apply to a copyright work.

The phrase "public domain" is often used incorrectly to refer to freeware or shareware (software which is copyrighted but is distributed without (advance) payment). Public domain means no copyright -- no exclusive rights.

exactly, no exclusive rights. which vpw violated by putting a copyright notice on plagiarized work... but aside from that, where did this definition come from? some sources are better quality than others, so please cite your source.

[potato]

you know, WD, having found your source I'm not sure it's appropriate since it is in the context of computing, which the Copyright Act had whole sections added to cover.

Free On-line Dictionary of Computing

public domain (PD) The total absence of copyright protection. If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the exclusive rights which apply to a copyright work.

The phrase "public domain" is often used incorrectly to refer to freeware or shareware (software which is copyrighted but is distributed without (advance) payment). Public domain means no copyright -- no exclusive rights. In fact the phrase "public domain" has no legal status at all in the UK.

Here are some others... I'd tend to gravitate to the more established and scholarly works on usage:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

1. the status of a literary work or an invention whose copyright or patent has expired or that never had such protection.

2. land owned by the government.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

1. Land owned and controlled by the state or federal government.

2. The status of publications, products, and processes that are not protected under patent or copyright.

WordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University

property rights that are held by the public at large

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

1. land owned directly by the government

2. the realm or status of property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to appropriation by anyone

now... lest anyone jump on "appropriation" as permission to claim ownership, please go look the word up. appropriation is using something for a specific purpose, as granted by authority, so in this case, anyone can use public domain material as they see fit as long as they don't pretend to own it.

Edited January 7, 2007 by potato

[Belle]

as long as they don't pretend to own it.

And therein lies the problem with the defense mounted by WD and OM.

[Raf]

The more I think about it, the more I think my explanation makes sense.

He knew what he was doing. Probably knew it was wrong, too. Simply didn't care. The question for the individual is whether he should have cared. If you're inclined to thnk of him as a teacher who wanted to get the word out, it doesn't bother you that he didn't care. If you're inclined to think of him as a manipulative predator who used God's people toward his own selfish ends, this is just another piece of evidence on top of a mountain of misdeeds that proves his fundamental dishonesty.

Edited January 7, 2007 by Raf

[dmiller]

Hey there WhiteDove (and all). :)

Public Domain --- something that is crumbling (these days).

Even things that are in PD, are now *owned* by someone else,

who have the money to buy it.

I know this because quite a few fiddle tunes (from the 1800's and such),

that USED to be PD -- are no longer so. What's my point??

I doubt if docvic bought any of the PD rights (from whomever), to legally put his name on them.

I'll grant you that he and Stiles might've had an agreement (unlikely -- but a maybe).

I'll grant you that Stiles may have deliberately NOT copyrighted his work,

so that others could use it *freely*, to the benefit of other parishioners elsewhere.

Now -- what I don't agree with is his (docvic's) putting HIS name on another's work.

Even IF IT WAS PD -- he had NO right to do so.

I'll give a simple illustration here.

I've written a fistful of fiddle tunes. Most are decent, and some are quite good.

I've been approached by various groups, wanting to record the tunes I've written.

None of my tunes are copyrighted. Therefore -- they are PD.

But the groups that wanted to use them on their CD's, got hold of me for permission.

Now -- had they just taken one of my tunes, put it on their CD, and made money off of it,

AND attached their name to it (instead of mine) -- I'd be p!$$ed.

The ONLY thing I ever asked, was that they recognize me as the composer,

and that they would do the tune *justice*

I have NEVER received a dime for them, NOR did I ask for money.

It was my pleasure to have the tunes out there for folks to hear.

So maybe *Fiddle-istics* doesn't match up to *Religiosity*, but the basic premise is the same.

This makes sense to me. Perhaps it will to you too.

[potato]

I know this because quite a few fiddle tunes (from the 1800's and such),

that USED to be PD -- are no longer so.

I know this is a bit off topic... but how can this, a legal impossibility, happen? I want details. something once in the public domain cannot be removed, unless by law change granting such rights made the rights retroactive, which as far as I know has only happened in a limited application regarding some foreign copyrights.

[WhiteDove]

Before anyone gets too happy about as long as they don't pretend to own it . I might add I missed that in the definitions

now... lest anyone jump on "appropriation" as permission to claim ownership, please go look the word up. appropriation is using something for a specific purpose, as granted by authority, so in this case, anyone can use public domain material as they see fit as long as they don't pretend to own it.

Thanks I did from the sources you prefer. it appears the opposite not granted authority ,but without authority

appropriate (appropriate for achieving a particular end; implies a lack of concern for fairness)

WordNet

2) appropriate. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

...take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission: Lee appropriated my unread newspaper and never returned it. Middle English appropriat,...

Merriam-Webster

3 : to take or make use of without authority or right

So your Webster definition on public domain reads

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

1. land owned directly by the government

2. the realm or status of property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to "appropriation" (to make use of without authority or right), often without permission by anyone.

It would appear that is what VP did, appropriated public domain property and made use of it either (with) or without permission. which is what public domain property is for by definition..

This seems to support Linda's view

Regardless of the legality/illegality of lifting someone else's writing verbatim without citing the source of that specific writing, it is WRONG. It's unethical. Period. It is, at the very least, sloppy workmanship and, at the worst, dishonest

.

So call it somewhere in between unfair, dishonest, and sloppy workmanship. Not admirable qualities maybe , a moral issue, but as I said not criminal either which was the point.

Well that might be part of the issue but the other part is was it legal to use the work?

This comes into play when accusing someone of theft., which is as you pointed out a different issue than a moral one.

The more I think about it, the more I think my explanation makes sense.

He knew what he was doing. Probably knew it was wrong, too. Simply didn't care. The question for the individual is whether he should have cared. If you're inclined to think of him as a teacher who wanted to get the word out, it doesn't bother you that he didn't care. If you're inclined to think of him as a manipulative predator who used God's people toward his own selfish ends, this is just another piece of evidence on top of a mountain of misdeeds that proves his fundamental dishonesty.

Raf it makes sense to me too..... and in this case, No I don't care for the record, he was using public property and used it (appropriated it) as such. And If as I suspect he had permission, and granted it may be a big if ,then all the better I see no moral problem.

edited for typo's

Edited January 7, 2007 by WhiteDove

[dmiller]

(dmiller @ Jan 6 2007, 11:32 PM) *

I know this because quite a few fiddle tunes (from the 1800's and such),

that USED to be PD -- are no longer so.

I know this is a bit off topic... but how can this, a legal impossibility, happen? I want details. something once in the public domain cannot be removed, unless by law change granting such rights made the rights retroactive, which as far as I know has only happened in a limited application regarding some foreign copyrights.

Potato -- I don't know. But here is what I do know.

Myself and some friends played reguarly on Tuesday evenings, at a local coffee-house.

We weren't paid for it (other than free coffe), and we did tunes like these.

The owner of the coffee-house was approached by ASCAP, saying that royalties need to be paid for.

Chip (the owner) asked why??, and was told that the songs being played weren't PD anymore.

I won't bore you with the names of the tunes we did --- but suffice it to say,

most were written in the previous century, and have been PD for quite some time.

But not anymore -- according to ASCAP, and Chip was being called on the carpet,

for NOT paying *royalties due to the owners*.

The upshot of it is -- we were forced to shut down our innocent jam session,

that catered to the local folks who came out in droves to hear us having fun,

because of some jerk from ASCAP demanding royalties for tunes,

that were written 100 or so years ago.

Like I said -- I don't know the legality about it.

I just know that it has happened.

Edited January 7, 2007 by dmiller

[potato]

I encountered strong-arm tactics like this from a company that tried to apply their trademark to a similar name (one that could not trademarked) that I was using.

sounds completely illegal. public domain music is owned by everyone, and no one can take it from the public domain once it's there.

[dmiller]

Potato -- this is long and dry (to me),

but here is THE STORY OF ASCAP AND BMI.

I tried to read it -- but got lost after several paragraphs.

Hope it makes sense to you, and answers your question.

Sorry for the

[potato]

f'ing nazis!!! I see the point of protection but omg this is rediculous. they aren't protecting the pd version, they're out to protect someone else's version of it (artistic expression is a valid right to protect) and the problem lies with your lack of registering YOUR version with them... which to me spells extortion on so many levels.

[WordWolf]

WhiteDove,

doesn't it strike you as fundamentally dishonest to keep doing this?

You argued loudly that books in the public domain can legally be plagiarized,

based on an awkward phrasing of one online dictionary that was specifically

describing PUBLIC DOMAIN AND COMPUTER PROGRAMS.

Now you're mixing-and-matching between disparate definitions from

different dictionaries, all trying to get them to say what's already been

disproven. (You've quoting PART of definitions from THREE different

sources, all to make up one sentence.)

A book in the public domain can be used PROPERLY in whole or in part by

any person in any circumstance- but note that PROPER use REQUIRES

CITATION of the source. CITATION has NOTHING to do with copyright.

Further,

Linda never addressed the letter of the law on this-she said that whether

or NOT it was legal to not cite sources, it is still IMMORAL.

I imagine that-now that we've seen documentation that it IS illegal,

Linda might be more specific concerning the illegality of it.

When vpw read books in the public domain, he was exercising his legal rights.

When vpw used books in the public domain, he was exercising his legal rights.

When vpw quoted books in the public domain, he was exercising his legal rights.

When vpw left off citation and attribution of the books in the public domain,

he broke the law.

[WordWolf]

Seems someone's forgetting the contents of other threads as soon as they leave them.

Here's something from the Plagiarism 101 thread specifically concerning

Public Domain and citation.

=============

Now then,

Some people are under the impression that there is an exemption to

plagiarism- that you can freely plagiarize works that are not protected by

copyright.

This is untrue, and either reflects an inadequate education on the subject

of plagiarism, copyright, or on PUBLIC DOMAIN, which is the term for

works not protected by copyright.

I quote again...

http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_faqs.html

"Works that are no longer protected by copyright, or never have been, are considered "public domain." This means that you may freely borrow material from these works without fear of plagiarism,

provided you make proper attributions."

Emphasis mine.

(same source)

"When do I need to cite?

Whenever you borrow words or ideas, you need to acknowledge their source."

Seems to be misunderstanding what Public Domain means.

http://www.kyvl.org/html/tutorial/research/glossary.shtml

"Public Domain

Works in the public domain may be copied, distributed, or sold without restriction or prior permission."

http://www.lib.jmu.edu/gold/mod7ethics.htm

"Whether an information source is copyrighted or in the public domain, you should cite it if you quote or paraphrase it in your paper or speech."

(That's from James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Va.)

Something being unprotected by copyright does not mean the sources should not be cited.

Sources should ALWAYS be cited, and one should not need the force of law

(which DOES enforce this) to see that this should be so.

That's not what copyright was designed for.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

"It must be remembered that copyright has two main purposes, namely

the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used."

Neither of those means citations are required BECAUSE OF COPYRIGHT.

Copyright affects how much of the original source can be used,

and the author's ability to recover damages legally if the law is broken.

So,

how does one plagiarize something in the open domain?

Well,

it does not have protections against how much can be used.

It does not have the power for the author to recover monetary damages.

HOWEVER,

that does not mean the source is not LEGALLY REQUIRED to be cited.

That's a crime against society, and the government can sue on behalf

of the public, either as a misdemeanor or a FRAUD

(if the publication earned more than $2,500), and FRAUD IS A FELONY.

For those of you who will insist that there has to be an injured SPECIFIC

person for there to be a crime, I'd like to point out that the law does not

see it that way.

If a single man who makes lots of money hires a high-class prostitute

(call-girl) in the State of New York, he and she have committed a crime.

Society is deemed to be the victim, regardless of the consent of all parties.

(Don't like that? Write your congressman.)

[WhiteDove]

WhiteDove,

doesn't it strike you as fundamentally dishonest to keep doing this?

You argued loudly that books in the public domain can legally be plagiarized,

based on an awkward phrasing of one online dictionary that was specifically

describing PUBLIC DOMAIN AND COMPUTER PROGRAMS.

Now you're mixing-and-matching between disparate definitions from

different dictionaries, all trying to get them to say what's already been

disproven. (You've quoting PART of definitions from THREE different

sources, all to make up one sentence.)

A book in the public domain can be used PROPERLY in whole or in part by

any person in any circumstance- but note that PROPER use REQUIRES

CITATION of the source. CITATION has NOTHING to do with copyright.

Further,

Linda never addressed the letter of the law on this-she said that whether

or NOT it was legal to not cite sources, it is still IMMORAL.

I imagine that-now that we've seen documentation that it IS illegal,

Linda might be more specific concerning the illegality of it.

When vpw read books in the public domain, he was exercising his legal rights.

When vpw used books in the public domain, he was exercising his legal rights.

When vpw quoted books in the public domain, he was exercising his legal rights.

When vpw left off citation and attribution of the books in the public domain,

he broke the law.

No I listed three definitions for appropriate

I noted and agreed that due to the definitions it appears to agree with what Linda and I believe also you have said.

*to take or make use of without authority or right

*implies a lack of concern for fairness

*to take or make use of without authority or right take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission

Linda said Regardless of the legality/illegality of lifting someone else's writing verbatim without citing the source of that specific writing, it is WRONG. It's unethical. Period. It is, at the very least, sloppy workmanship and, at the worst, dishonest

I believe that you said dishonest also .

I never said she addressed the letter of the law only that the definitions* lack of concern for fairness, *to take or make use of without authority or right or*to take or make use of without authority or right take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission seem to support and agree with your and Linda's view. Another words they are saying the same thing with different words.

Linda

it is WRONG. It's unethical. Period. It is, at the very least, sloppy workmanship and, at the worst, dishonest

This addresses the moral, or ethical issue I have no disagreement there. The legal side is another issue and one I'm not convinced of at this point, that's not to say you are wrong or right but as of this point I am not convinced.

I did notice that I misplaced my ( ) on one line

the realm or status of property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to "appropriation" (to make use of without authority or right), often without permission by anyone.

It should have read

the realm or status of property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to "appropriation" (to make use of without authority or right, often without permission) by anyone.

I was attempting to reflect the definitions I added in parenthesis for "appropriation" into the definition. not combine them together. Sorry if it appeared that way What I meant to imply was take your pick of any of the three it makes no difference which or all for that matter that you use it still comes out the same conclusion which is that it agrees with your and Linda's view of moral and ethic wrong. Which I agreed with.

Thanks I'll consider the info you have provided and let you know when I am convinced about the legal side of the issue. Well I have to go now my shift is almost up and my other personality has the weekday gig Oldiesman. ;)

[Belle]

Before the shift change...

Basically what it boils down to is that you (and your alter ego OM ) just don't care because you got yours. For all you care vee pee could have killed, maimed and ruined people, but because you have PFAL and vic's precious books, it doesn't matter how he came up with them. Legal or not - plagiarized or not - it doesn't matter to you, nor does it change your position of support and reverence for the man?

[WhiteDove]

Oh and one more thing before I go. I thought I'd just as well make this point before someone else does.

In relation to the issue above I am well aware that VPW published a booklet on The Life-style of A Believer A prolegomenon on Christian Ethics and I would also agree that he was last person on earth that should have done so.

One does wonder how he wrote such lines such as these:

To suggest that a sexual pervert is more to be pitied than blamed, and that, by nature,he has a right to live his own life by his own natural instincts,is in itself a perversion. Perhaps it would be wise to treat him as insane, as we would treat a homicidal maniac or kleptomanic.

With support like this for my God who needs enemies right Danny?

[WhiteDove]

Before the shift change...

Basically what it boils down to is that you (and your alter ego OM ) just don't care because you got yours. For all you care vee pee could have killed, maimed and ruined people, but because you have PFAL and vic's precious books, it doesn't matter how he came up with them. Legal or not - plagiarized or not - it doesn't matter to you, nor does it change your position of support and reverence for the man?

Ok two more things Not Exactly Belle but it was a nice guess. Sorry you only get to pick from the booby prize's would you like the finger pull or the flying disk? I know you had your heart set on the Big Teddy but better luck next time Step right up three balls for a quarter hit the dove win a prize

[potato]

Thanks I did from the sources you prefer. it appears the opposite not granted authority ,but without authority

appropriate (appropriate for achieving a particular end; implies a lack of concern for fairness)

WordNet

2) appropriate. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

...take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission: Lee appropriated my unread newspaper and never returned it. Middle English appropriat,...

Merriam-Webster

3 : to take or make use of without authority or right

So your Webster definition on public domain reads

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

1. land owned directly by the government

2. the realm or status of property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to "appropriation" (to make use of without authority or right), often without permission by anyone.

you're welcome. I see you picked through to get the meanings that support your view. now, in the interest of objectivity, I'll post the definitions in whole so that an overall feeling of application within contexts can be gained by the less obsessive among us.

appropriate:

American Heritage Dictionary

1. To set apart for a specific use: appropriating funds for education.

2. To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission: Lee appropriated my unread newspaper and never returned it.

vWordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University

1. give or assign a resource to a particular person or cause; "I will earmark this money for your research"; "She sets aside time for meditation every day" [syn: allow]

2. take possession of by force, as after an invasion; "the invaders seized the land and property of the inhabitants"; "The army seized the town"; "The militia captured the castle"

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

1 : to set apart for or assign to a particular recipient, purpose, or use <the legislature appropriating funds for the program>

2 : to take or make use of without authority or right —ap·pro·pri·a·tion

and about appropriation:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

1. the act of appropriating.

2. anything appropriated for a special purpose, esp. money.

3. an act of a legislature authorizing money to be paid from the treasury for a specified use.

4. the money thus authorized: a large appropriation for aid to libraries.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

1. The act of appropriating.

2.1. Something appropriated, especially public funds set aside for a specific purpose.

2. A legislative act authorizing the expenditure of a designated amount of public funds for a specific purpose.

WordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University

1. money set aside (as by a legislature) for a specific purpose

2. incorporation by joining or uniting [syn: annexation]

3. a deliberate act of acquisition

so really, I think the literal translation according to usage for public domain would more appropriately be:

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

the realm or status of property rights that belong to the community at large (here's the ownership part... the materials are placed in the care of the public at large for their benefit), are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to appropriation by anyone (the materials are for use within the context of publicly owned knowledge with no exclusivity of use implied, no rights assigned to the user, and no transfer of ownership).

Edited January 7, 2007 by potato

[WhiteDove]

I omitted the ones that had nothing to do with the subject at hand like the ones that deal with land, money, the army ,invaders and so on ect. so as not to further clould the issue. and actually they seem to support your view as well as others. I did note of course that nowhere was the section found about "as long as they don't pretend to own it" that you added to your version of the definitionn.

[potato]

I did note of course that nowhere was the section found about "as long as they don't pretend to own it" that you added to your version of the definitionn.

I never said that was part of a dictionary definition. I was discussing use of public domain material, citing dictionary entries to help answer the apparently mystical question of "what is the public domain", and my statement "as long as they don't pretend to own it" a natural conclusion based on required disclosure of public domain material by the copyright office when registering comilations and derivative work, and the Copyright Act, section 506 ( c ), which says that putting a fake copyright on a work is a crime:

Fraudulent Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

again: if the public owns it, you can't, and therefore you may not copyright it. if you do, you are committing a crime.

again: now... lest anyone jump on "appropriation" as permission to claim ownership, please go look the word up. appropriation is using something for a specific purpose, as granted by authority, so in this case, anyone can use public domain material as they see fit as long as they don't pretend to own it.

[potato]

I omitted the ones that had nothing to do with the subject at hand like the ones that deal with land, money, the army ,invaders and so on ect. so as not to further clould the issue.

they don't cloud the issue. giving an overview of all usage of a word doesn't make it less understandable.

and you're looking for a specific application for intellectual property where one doesn't exist. the common thread in the definitions is that where there is a resource to be used, there is a context for using it. the context is established in the Copyright Act and other legal resources, as property rights are a legal matter. that context has been discussed abundantly in this thread.

Edited January 7, 2007 by potato

[Belle]

WD, would you support and defend musicians who recorded DMiller's non-copyrighted music and didn't give him proper credit, but rather put their own name on it?

[potato]

Belle, WD will have to defend them to be consistent.

hey dmiller, I want copies of your non-copyrighted songs so I can reprint them with "by potato" on them. after all, they're public domain, right? I want something to inflate my ego and stroke my vanity, that seems like an easy way to do it... then I can distribute the printed music to a bunch of musicians and get a name for myself as a composer, and it will be OK because it's not a crime.

right WD?

[Belle]

Potato, remember to then copyright YOUR work.

[potato]

oh of course, Belle! I don't want anyone taking credit for something I worked so hard to copy and distribute. I need to protect myself from thieves, dontcha know.