There are several examples in the Bible where God gave someone a special gift or calling and it was misused and ultimately hurt many of God's people. Hmmmm...David comes to mind.
Yes, I concur. David, I believe, repented. Funny though, that despite their screw-ups God still loved them even though He allowed to let their screw-ups be recorded.
Yes, I concur. David, I believe, repented. Funny though, that despite their screw-ups God still loved them even though He allowed to let their screw-ups be recorded.
Very true, David's misdeeds were recorded for all to see. Perhaps this is so because he repented.
Very true, David's misdeeds were recorded for all to see. Perhaps this is so because he repented.
My copy of JCOPS is dated 1982. I must have my copy of JCOP packed away. My copy of JCING is dated 1975. I believe all of my books (of that nature) were first editions.
I think you're probably right about David's repentance having something to do with it. Perhaps it has more to do with demonstrating the depths of God's love and forgiveness than David's repentance.
My copy of JCOPS is dated 1982. I must have my copy of JCOP packed away. My copy of JCING is dated 1975. I believe all of my books (of that nature) were first editions.
I think you're probably right about David's repentance having something to do with it. Perhaps it has more to do with demonstrating the depths of God's love and forgiveness than David's repentance.
P.S. Ok I found JCOP. It's dated 1980
Mine are still considered first edition just not first impression, point is they should all (yours and mine) have the same exact material in them.
As far as David goes perhaps it is a bit of both and maybe more. But God's forgiveness, even in the OT was dependant upon asking forgiveness. So to recieve His forgiveness David had to repent. Repenting meant that David was willing to return to God's favor and to do God's will. This would perhaps cause God to find that David's story was worth recording so that many generations could learn from David's mistakes and triumphs but mostly of his meekness and God's willingness to forgive even the worst of crimes if a person were to make themselves humble before Him.
VPW made the choice to read others ideas and opinions about spritual matters.
VPW made the choice to accept some of those ideas and opinions as true
VPW made the choice to write his own books etc incorporating those ideas
VPW made the chioce NOT to cite the persons and sources from where he obtained those ideas and opinions thus committing plagiarism.
Does the act of plagiarism invalidate the ideas and opinions? NO
Does the act of plagiarism by persons other than VPW make VPW not guilty of plagiarism? NO
Plagiarism was committed, whether the outcome of the resulting printed materials was that those ideas and opinions were shared with people who might have never heard them otherwise is irrelevant to the question of whether plagiarism was commited.
Whether those ideas and opinions helped people who read VPW's works is irrelevant to whether plagiarism was commmited.
I have never understood why it is so difficult for many to understand this.
Mine are still considered first edition just not first impression, point is they should all (yours and mine) have the same exact material in them.
You are exactly correct Eyesopen. In my hardcopy I have the section you quoted from. Why I might not have typed in the Acknowledgment section of JCOP on my electronic version (haven't checked the others yet) possibly was due to the fact that I probably didn't considered it important. There was enuf for me type without including that section.
As far as David goes perhaps it is a bit of both and maybe more. But God's forgiveness, even in the OT was dependant upon asking forgiveness. So to recieve His forgiveness David had to repent. Repenting meant that David was willing to return to God's favor and to do God's will. This would perhaps cause God to find that David's story was worth recording so that many generations could learn from David's mistakes and triumphs but mostly of his meekness and God's willingness to forgive even the worst of crimes if a person were to make themselves humble before Him.
VPW made the choice to read others ideas and opinions about spritual matters.
VPW made the choice to accept some of those ideas and opinions as true
VPW made the choice to write his own books etc incorporating those ideas
VPW made the chioce NOT to cite the persons and sources from where he obtained those ideas and opinions thus committing plagiarism.
Does the act of plagiarism invalidate the ideas and opinions? NO
Does the act of plagiarism by persons other than VPW make VPW not guilty of plagiarism? NO
Plagiarism was committed, whether the outcome of the resulting printed materials was that those ideas and opinions were shared with people who might have never heard them otherwise is irrelevant to the question of whether plagiarism was commited.
Whether those ideas and opinions helped people who read VPW's works is irrelevant to whether plagiarism was commmited.
I have never understood why it is so difficult for many to understand this.
templelady, you make some valid points. I believe this touches upon the concept of "Does the end justify the means?" and on that point I would have to say you would have to ask those who profited from the knowledge obtained from the books. Personally, I never did care whose name was credited with the contents of the books. That might be difficult for some people to understand and probably why I seldom shared my thoughts on the matter earlier in my involvement with TWI.
but having assessed the cost.. to myself, but especially to those less fortunate than myself..
for me, personally, I threw it all down the crapper.
If God wants me to have it, he'll find a different way to get it to me.
With all due respect Mr. Hammeroni, I find it difficult to imagine that the fact that VP's books were largely plagiarized had the greatest impact on the personal cost your association with TWI had in your life. What would have a greater impact would be believing the contents were true only to discover later it was all a lie. Who tells the lie doesn't matter. Believing the lie itself does. Or vice versa.
With all due respect Mr. Hammeroni, I find it difficult to imagine that the fact that VP's books were largely plagiarized had the greatest impact on the personal cost your association with TWI had in your life. What would have a greater impact would be believing the contents were true only to discover later it was all a lie. Who tells the lie doesn't matter. Believing the lie itself does. Or vice versa.
But that vpw came up with material, or that he was directed by the Almighty, is a lie, ain't it?
But that vpw came up with material, or that he was directed by the Almighty, is a lie, ain't it?
Can you say with any authority that God never had a hand on VP's life? I don't believe VP came up with much that was original. As has already been demonstrated, even VP credited the work of others for the books (under the current discussion) credited to his name.
Can you say with any authority that God never had a hand on VP's life? I don't believe VP came up with much that was original. As has already been demonstrated, even VP credited the work of others for the books (under the current discussion) credited to his name.
Can you say with authority God never had a hand on Hitler's life? I don't believe Hitler came up with much that was original. . .
VPW made the choice to read others ideas and opinions about spritual matters.
VPW made the choice to accept some of those ideas and opinions as true
VPW made the choice to write his own books etc incorporating those ideas
VPW made the chioce NOT to cite the persons and sources from where he obtained those ideas and opinions thus committing plagiarism.
Does the act of plagiarism invalidate the ideas and opinions? NO
Does the act of plagiarism by persons other than VPW make VPW not guilty of plagiarism? NO
Plagiarism was committed, whether the outcome of the resulting printed materials was that those ideas and opinions were shared with people who might have never heard them otherwise is irrelevant to the question of whether plagiarism was commited.
Whether those ideas and opinions helped people who read VPW's works is irrelevant to whether plagiarism was commmited.
I have never understood why it is so difficult for many to understand this.
Templelady,
A little lost on your point here. (forgive me if I don't understand what your saying)
The Man of God whom God said He would teach the Word to like it wasn't known since the First Century, plagiarized.
Meaning,
he was not the Man of God
he was not taught by God
twi is not God's Will
the teachings of vpw are not "like hasn't been know since the first century"
we are free from the teachings of wierwille and twi.
This comment is on the topic of plagiarism, which may actually be a side-saddle condiment to the ongoing discussion, but here goes:
(intent to derail is deliberate, if that's the case)
Anyway, the word for word comparisons of some of VPW's writing shows he pulled language directly from other writers.
By the academic standards that were in place throughout VPW's lifespan, he would have been expected, if not required, to cite sources, use footnotes, etc. Despite some disagreement on the effect that would have on the readability of the writing itself, the use of small font 1's and 2's on a page and referencing notes at the end of a chapter or the bookwould impose a minimal amount of intrusion on the flow. Now, we can define all of those terms but I can easily say that everyone I know reads books and manuals laid out like this and manages to not go crazy or fall asleep. In fact, such citations are used to benefit. That's my "average man or woman" defense on readability, take it or leave it.
So as to the practical effect of inline citations, I would fall to the "do it" side of the discussion, with a dose of "where there's a will there's a way". In other words, if the desire is to provide clear honest credit and information that way, a way can be found to do that if you want. 1.
All I can say is that being approximately at the same age that VPW was when he was publishing the first versions of PFAL and RTHST, that's what I'd do. If I felt that Raf had best expressed an idea in an earlier writing, I'd let that be known. More specifically if I used his exact language in my own writing, I'd credit that, somehow or some way.
Why? Again, "the average man or woman" would probably realize that while they were copying words from someone else's writing and including it in theirs as the best expression of an idea (say) that it would be the correct thing to do, since they hadn't written it and liked what was written by someone else and used it.
"As Raf said earlier, yada yada yada. ".
But just as easy to do that would be to not do that. I could argue against the need to do it, but that wouldn't change that Raf wrote it first, I didn't, and I used it.
One reason VPW didn't do it I can think of is because he probably wanted to hide the fact that it had been written by someone else.
But, but I can't prove that,...!
Well, that's another discussion, but it's plain that by NOT making the appropriate citations he left himself open to that accusation and put the integrity of his work at risk. Why do that when it's so easy to avoid it? It's almost as easy to cite, than to not cite. It's even easy to include a clear statement as to what's going on, if that's the course chosen.
But doing so would mean I'd - well, the average man or woman might - feel compelled to let the original writer know I was using their stuff. If they said no, I'd be SOL. Or would just go ahead and do it anyway, screw 'em. But if they said no, the cat would be out of the bag. I'd have to proceed in the light of day with what I was doing
It's not just the ol' bad negative unbelievers who just want to tear down what the man of God is teaching, but anyone who would see this happening in the books. Seeing it requires an explanation, as the mind will recognize it when it sees it. Whatever the mind assumes or uses to explain it, if the brain is working the similarity will be recognized.
IMO saying "Raf did a lot of work in this field and I've read all of his work on the topic" doesn't mean I've credited him correctly for taking specific paragraphs nearly word for word from his writing and using it.
By the academic standards that were in place throughout VPW's lifespan, he would have been expected, if not required, to cite sources, use footnotes, etc.
Maybe expected, by academia, but we editied TWI pubs to a Jr High reading level and extensive footnotes, etc., are generally a higher reading level than we wrote to.
And.
Legally. You cannot copyright an idea.
The works the lifted material came from certainly qualify as materials that were copyright works.
However:
"Copyright law covers only the form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work."
And.
Copyright legal issues come into play when a person would reasonable determine that the work in question closely resembles the "original" and its proven that the questionable work was created after the other. The LEGAL issue is not the copying of the copyrighted work but the damage the copier inflicts on the original author by PROFITING from the USE of the copy.
Besides.
There is a "Fair Use" provision under copyright law that allows that any copyrighted work can be used for educational purposes.
Plus.
The "form of material expression" covers the book itself, not necessarily an idea contained in the book.
For example:
Disney's Mickey mouse itself is the copyrighted work, not the IDEA of a cartoon mouse. It is not plagurism or a legally enforcible violation of copyright when another creates a cartoon mouse who has a mouse girlfriend and a goofy dog friend and has another friend who is a jealous, irritating duck. Even if the second set of cartoon friends goes on a remarkably similar set of adventures as does Micky, Minnie, Goofy & Donald.
IF the new group of cartoon friends were named, Michael, Mina, Silly & Donnie, and they looked similar and appeared in cartoon short films and the second artist PROFITED financially enough so as to reach felony levels; the original artist, Walt Disney, and ONLY the original creator of the work would have experienced compensatory damages specific to the monitary amounts garnered by the USE of the violating works. The violating artist would face the appropriate legal penalties for violating the copy rights of the original author.
ONLY if the original author, himself, brought action against the copier. Further copyrights are for a limited time and after said period has passed ALL copyrighted work goes into public domain.
In short. ALL of the stuff you guys point out that VPW lifted were ideas contained in books. The books themselves were copyright protected the instant the author declared them finished, regardless of whether they were registered or had a copyright notice printed in them.
It is not illegal to take an idea from another book and include it in your own book. It would be illegal if you copied the whole book, or if you copied the design of the book, or its cover, etc. One could make a case if one reworded the entire basic content of a book and published it as your own work. Owning copyrighted material and using it are two totally separate legal issues.
The fact that VPW included the ideas of other artists and compiled them together in separate works under separate cover, & title, etc., does, in fact make PFAL (and other stuff) his original, copyrighted work.
We question the ethics of lifting somebody else's ideas and publishing them as if they were your own. However, it could be argued (although not by me in this post) that when one directly quotes the original author, that act is in itself a tribute to the original.
Hasn't it been said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?
I've said this before & I'll say it again. VPW didn't edit his books. He had a specific editor who was not on staff @ HQ, and every word TWI published was reviewed and had to pass stringent legal scrutiny before it was published. We, In TWI's publications dept. did not exclusively handle the content of VP's earlier books and we have no idea what permissions legal did or didn't get. Only we knew that the manuscripts came back from the legal dept. stamped, "ready for print."
PLUS. With all of the intense scrutiny TWI underwent in the 70's & early 80's, I don't remember hearing ONE word about plagurism. That would have been an EASY target but it was just a non-issue.
And. TWI is non-profit. Therefore it was impossible for any damage from any copyright violation, if there were any AND, VPW's books were published as educational materials.
We hate VP for the damage he did & inspired to the ministry and the people he hurt. Fine. Fact remains that his books were covered from legal violations. And, were it not for his incessant speaking of the people he learned stuff from, how would anyone have ever read the "source materials" to find the "plagurism?"
This whole issue sounds like "piling on" to me. Just because he may have been a jerk overall one cannot criminalize EVERYTHING he did.
In the music industry, you change one note in a riff & its not a violation. When an artist uses another's work we call it sampling. I know the problem pointed out with VPW is "permissions" and the lack of citing his sources, and his apparent saying that the "lifted" ideas were his. How many published books in the category of spiritual self-help contain 100% original ideas?
The facts remain, though, that the compilation of the material in his books was, in fact, his idea and the books are, in fact, HIS work. The legal truth is that some of his legally authored works CONTAIN specific ideas that were he did not originate. The wording and phraseology of said ideas was not his either. He broke no law publishing those books.
I don't like a LOT of what was VPW.
I'm not blind, just pointing out some legalities I'm familiar with from being an artist AND having worked in the publications dept., @ TWI where we were conscious of copyright infringement, ad nauseum. Every ad, every photo, every word of every publication was scrutinized by legal. They had ULTIMATE power to hold up publication deadlines regardless of what VPW said or wanted. They actually changed wording in VP's books, the PFAL class, etc. to avoid copyright issues.
Why do you think there were different editions of the books?
In fact, it MAY have been the legal dept that made the lifted material match the original so closely. I wasn't a part of that process only saw the results of it. I remember some talk about that stuff but not a whole lot of details.
I do remember though, that we went through the whole "Sing Along the Way" songbook and had to attempt to contact the author of every song in the book or have legal determine whether it was public domain or not. We got permissions from some, refused to pay exhorbitant fees for others & redid the songbook accordingly. I redesigned the cover to make it different from the original & a mandate went out to destroy the old blue song books.
VPW was well aware of this whole issue & took steps to be sure that his books were legal.
Maybe expected, by academia, but we editied TWI pubs to a Jr High reading level and extensive footnotes, etc., are generally a higher reading level than we wrote to.
... this practice coming from a research and teaching organization??? And a biblical one at that??? :o I'm sorry, but something just doesn't sit quite right here. :unsure: Talk about a poor excuse!
VPW was well aware of this whole issue & took steps to be sure that his books were legal.
I notice that you keep focusing on the word 'legal' a lot in your post. Well, there is a difference between being 'legal', and being original. One can be j-u-s-t this side of the law, technically speaking, and yet still be as dishonest and slippery as hell. ... "D-a-a-s right, keeds."
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. You "can't copyright an idea", yadayadayada. ... Is that theme the best you can do to defend what VPW did? Keep in mind that I used to be in the "VPW didn't really commit plagarism 'cuz he mentioned all the people he learned from" camp. Until Raf (who knows quite a bit about what copyrights and plagarism is) 'fully instructed' me otherwise.
The man (VPW) kept watch on making sure his tracks were on the legal side (see my differentiation between legal and original above) cuz he didn't want to get nailed, NOT because he was so focused on the integrity of his ((cough)) 'research'. Sorry to splash the cold water of reality on ya, chief, but when you read his works, and they look like a bad cut-n-paste job done on an out-of-date Xerox machine, from works authored from Bullinger, Leonard, and other authors, there is no WAY you can even possibly convince anybody with a serious mind that that was bonafide and heart-felt research, ... in academia OR out.
Piling on? Uhh, ... well yeah, sure. Particularly since there are those (drug induced) in-DUH-viduals posting here who still believe that he put in good research and didn't steal a thing in his life. You do that in _this_ forum, then you'd better put on the asbestos , ... or go somewhere else!
...The "form of material expression" covers the book itself, not necessarily an idea contained in the book.
For example:
Disney's Mickey mouse itself is the copyrighted work, not the IDEA of a cartoon mouse. It is not plagurism or a legally enforcible violation of copyright when another creates a cartoon mouse who has a mouse girlfriend and a goofy dog friend and has another friend who is a jealous, irritating duck. Even if the second set of cartoon friends goes on a remarkably similar set of adventures as does Micky, Minnie, Goofy & Donald.
IF the new group of cartoon friends were named, Michael, Mina, Silly & Donnie, and they looked similar and appeared in cartoon short films and the second artist PROFITED financially enough so as to reach felony levels; the original artist, Walt Disney, and ONLY the original creator of the work would have experienced compensatory damages specific to the monitary amounts garnered by the USE of the violating works. The violating artist would face the appropriate legal penalties for violating the copy rights of the original author.
ONLY if the original author, himself, brought action against the copier. Further copyrights are for a limited time and after said period has passed ALL copyrighted work goes into public domain.
In short. ALL of the stuff you guys point out that VPW lifted were ideas contained in books. The books themselves were copyright protected the instant the author declared them finished, regardless of whether they were registered or had a copyright notice printed in them.
It is not illegal to take an idea from another book and include it in your own book...
You have a point there – TWI is a Mickey Mouse operation. Laying the plagiarism issue aside for the moment there's another matter that is very bothersome as well. VPW led everyone to believe many of these "ideas" presented in his works were actually from God teaching him the Word like it hasn't been known for centuries. Sure, that's a convenient way for folks enamored with his persona to skirt around VPW stealing other people's ideas – but the fact remains he was also a bigLIAR…uhm…unless you fell for that God's audible voice/snow on the gas pumps business.
When I took the Univ. of Life Ephesians class, vp made a big deal about living on only grapes for a week to write the RHST book. He lied outright to all the wc on telephone hookup, the live wc (is that opposed to dead?) and to everyone who took that class. (It only took a week?).
Stealing someone else’s work is bad enough. Lying about it to so many for so many years is even worse.
In case you didn’t know, he wasn’t a man of God. He was a man of grapes…it’s important to be right about the details.
Fine. Then why don't you just keep your trap shut and afford him that opportunity. Dude you're wearing my patience out.
Be nice, Larry.
I found the reference. It was in JCOP, acknowledgments (p. xiii-xv, first edition, seventh printing).
Wierwille says he did a bunch of research over the years into the subject of JCOP, but had not organized it. He gave the task to Walter Cummins in the 70s to check Wierwille's research "thoroughly and critically." After Cummins had done a bunch of work on it, Wierwille laid it all out to the research team in 1974. "From this seminar a working manuscript was developed, the embryo of this book." Note that he uses the passive voice, "a manuscript was developed," and not the active "I developed a manuscript," indicating a collaborative effort.
In 1978, there's another seminar "to again study and refine previous research." The wording there again indicates collaborative effort (Wierwille does not need to hold a seminar for other people if he's the only one who's going to be studying and refining the research). Then he goes into specific people and contributions made, and concludes with this paragraph:
"As is evident, this book is truly the result of a large team effort with years of research, study, checking, and rechecking. Others besides those named above have been consulted and have assisted in the production of this work. To all who have contributed to Jesus Christ Our Passover out of their love for God and for the accuracy of His Word, I am most thankful and grateful. Of course, the final contents are my responsibility."
So what do we make of this? Well, WordWolf's post on the subject, in my opinion, almost certainly understates Wierwille's participation in this process. WordWolf writes:
The SECOND type-which came later-were written by committee, and the
research staff wrote 100% of the contents except the introduction/preface. That's books like "Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed" and "Jesus Christ Our Passover." vpw himself otherwise provided zero percent of the contents.
Zero percent? WordWolf, you're either exaggerating or wrong. Let's look at it logically: The research team isn't going to embark on this project without Wierwille's prior teachings as some kind of framework. Looking at the acknowledgments of JCOP, we can explore two conflicting presumptions. First, Wierwille is being open and forthcoming. Second, Wierwille is lying.
Let's first take the view that he's telling the truth: He did teach more than once on various aspects of the last week of Jesus' life. He goes to Cummins and says "organize all this stuff, please." Cummins does it and gives it back to Wierwille. Wierwille then presents it to the research team with orders to develop a manuscript. The team gets a bunch of stuff done and Wierwille either is or is not an active part of the process of developing the manuscript (his account is unclear on the nature of his involvement). A second weeklong seminar is held, either bringing in more members of the research team or giving the "big picture" to the same members of the team, many of whom presumably workd on part of the project but few of whom had worked on "all" of it. Now we're going to have reassignments and people checking each other based on the big picture. Research meetings are held sporadically from 1978 to 1980, now with people having developed specialties in their areas of study and hammering out the book into its final or near final form. Even by Wierwille's account, his active participation appears to have diminished by this point. He doesn't even credit himself with primary responsibility of editing the manuscript (his daughter gets that credit). His closing line, however (the final contents are my responsibility) indicates strongly that he was not absent from the process, as he's not going to accept "responsibility" for the final product without reading, providing feedback and giving his final stamp of approval to the contents.
Now let's assume he's lying.
It wasn't Wierwille's idea. It was Cummins's idea. And Wierwille liked it. So Cummins puts a bunch of work together, careful to take Wierwille's previous teachings into account and explaining any disagreements, and teaches Wierwille, who studies it enough to make a presentation in 1974 to the research staff. The staff, without further input from Wierwille, sets about creating the manuscript, and they hold seminars in 1978, 1979 and 1980: the seminars are primarily for each other, with Wierwille present. During this process, Wierwille gives his feedback, but is otherwise sitting back having a drambuie and seducing the wives of the researchers. At the end of the process, Wierwille reads it, likes it, and puts his name on it.
With either interpretation, you have Wierwille's prior "research" and presentations as the framework. The research staff fleshes it out, develops and refines the manuscript. Wierwille is in on the process but is neither writing nor directly leading it (that responsibility goes to Cummins).
Big collaborative effort, not matter how you slice it. Wierwille's level of involvement is arguable, but what's clear either way is that he is not the primary collector of the information, nor is he the primary writer. He may or may not have played a strong active role in developing the big picture.
The acknowledgments of JCOPS indicates a similar process, except in that case Wierwille did not say anything about the final contents being his responsibility (which I don't read anything into).
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
25
27
59
Popular Days
Jun 8
60
Jun 7
55
Jun 10
38
Jan 4
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 26 posts
WordWolf 25 posts
Ham 27 posts
Larry N Moore 59 posts
Popular Days
Jun 8 2007
60 posts
Jun 7 2007
55 posts
Jun 10 2007
38 posts
Jan 4 2007
18 posts
Larry N Moore
Yes, I concur. David, I believe, repented. Funny though, that despite their screw-ups God still loved them even though He allowed to let their screw-ups be recorded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Curiosity...what dates are on your books?
Very true, David's misdeeds were recorded for all to see. Perhaps this is so because he repented.
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
My copy of JCOPS is dated 1982. I must have my copy of JCOP packed away. My copy of JCING is dated 1975. I believe all of my books (of that nature) were first editions.
I think you're probably right about David's repentance having something to do with it. Perhaps it has more to do with demonstrating the depths of God's love and forgiveness than David's repentance.
P.S. Ok I found JCOP. It's dated 1980
Edited by Larry N MooreLink to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Mine are still considered first edition just not first impression, point is they should all (yours and mine) have the same exact material in them.
As far as David goes perhaps it is a bit of both and maybe more. But God's forgiveness, even in the OT was dependant upon asking forgiveness. So to recieve His forgiveness David had to repent. Repenting meant that David was willing to return to God's favor and to do God's will. This would perhaps cause God to find that David's story was worth recording so that many generations could learn from David's mistakes and triumphs but mostly of his meekness and God's willingness to forgive even the worst of crimes if a person were to make themselves humble before Him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
VPW made the choice to read others ideas and opinions about spritual matters.
VPW made the choice to accept some of those ideas and opinions as true
VPW made the choice to write his own books etc incorporating those ideas
VPW made the chioce NOT to cite the persons and sources from where he obtained those ideas and opinions thus committing plagiarism.
Does the act of plagiarism invalidate the ideas and opinions? NO
Does the act of plagiarism by persons other than VPW make VPW not guilty of plagiarism? NO
Plagiarism was committed, whether the outcome of the resulting printed materials was that those ideas and opinions were shared with people who might have never heard them otherwise is irrelevant to the question of whether plagiarism was commited.
Whether those ideas and opinions helped people who read VPW's works is irrelevant to whether plagiarism was commmited.
I have never understood why it is so difficult for many to understand this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
That makes sense to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
templelady, you make some valid points. I believe this touches upon the concept of "Does the end justify the means?" and on that point I would have to say you would have to ask those who profited from the knowledge obtained from the books. Personally, I never did care whose name was credited with the contents of the books. That might be difficult for some people to understand and probably why I seldom shared my thoughts on the matter earlier in my involvement with TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
What good came of it..
I don't know.
but having assessed the cost.. to myself, but especially to those less fortunate than myself..
for me, personally, I threw it all down the crapper.
If God wants me to have it, he'll find a different way to get it to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
With all due respect Mr. Hammeroni, I find it difficult to imagine that the fact that VP's books were largely plagiarized had the greatest impact on the personal cost your association with TWI had in your life. What would have a greater impact would be believing the contents were true only to discover later it was all a lie. Who tells the lie doesn't matter. Believing the lie itself does. Or vice versa.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
But that vpw came up with material, or that he was directed by the Almighty, is a lie, ain't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Can you say with any authority that God never had a hand on VP's life? I don't believe VP came up with much that was original. As has already been demonstrated, even VP credited the work of others for the books (under the current discussion) credited to his name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Can you say with authority God never had a hand on Hitler's life? I don't believe Hitler came up with much that was original. . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Templelady,
A little lost on your point here. (forgive me if I don't understand what your saying)
The Man of God whom God said He would teach the Word to like it wasn't known since the First Century, plagiarized.
Meaning,
he was not the Man of God
he was not taught by God
twi is not God's Will
the teachings of vpw are not "like hasn't been know since the first century"
we are free from the teachings of wierwille and twi.
indeed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
No, I can't. Although, I probably could cite (perhaps inappropriately) Matthew 22:14 and say there has been no one untouched by God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
yes inappropriately, "many", is not "all".
I only know twi version of this verse. meaning they are called to be "leaders".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
This comment is on the topic of plagiarism, which may actually be a side-saddle condiment to the ongoing discussion, but here goes:
(intent to derail is deliberate, if that's the case)
Anyway, the word for word comparisons of some of VPW's writing shows he pulled language directly from other writers.
By the academic standards that were in place throughout VPW's lifespan, he would have been expected, if not required, to cite sources, use footnotes, etc. Despite some disagreement on the effect that would have on the readability of the writing itself, the use of small font 1's and 2's on a page and referencing notes at the end of a chapter or the bookwould impose a minimal amount of intrusion on the flow. Now, we can define all of those terms but I can easily say that everyone I know reads books and manuals laid out like this and manages to not go crazy or fall asleep. In fact, such citations are used to benefit. That's my "average man or woman" defense on readability, take it or leave it.
So as to the practical effect of inline citations, I would fall to the "do it" side of the discussion, with a dose of "where there's a will there's a way". In other words, if the desire is to provide clear honest credit and information that way, a way can be found to do that if you want. 1.
All I can say is that being approximately at the same age that VPW was when he was publishing the first versions of PFAL and RTHST, that's what I'd do. If I felt that Raf had best expressed an idea in an earlier writing, I'd let that be known. More specifically if I used his exact language in my own writing, I'd credit that, somehow or some way.
Why? Again, "the average man or woman" would probably realize that while they were copying words from someone else's writing and including it in theirs as the best expression of an idea (say) that it would be the correct thing to do, since they hadn't written it and liked what was written by someone else and used it.
"As Raf said earlier, yada yada yada. ".
But just as easy to do that would be to not do that. I could argue against the need to do it, but that wouldn't change that Raf wrote it first, I didn't, and I used it.
One reason VPW didn't do it I can think of is because he probably wanted to hide the fact that it had been written by someone else.
But, but I can't prove that,...!
Well, that's another discussion, but it's plain that by NOT making the appropriate citations he left himself open to that accusation and put the integrity of his work at risk. Why do that when it's so easy to avoid it? It's almost as easy to cite, than to not cite. It's even easy to include a clear statement as to what's going on, if that's the course chosen.
But doing so would mean I'd - well, the average man or woman might - feel compelled to let the original writer know I was using their stuff. If they said no, I'd be SOL. Or would just go ahead and do it anyway, screw 'em. But if they said no, the cat would be out of the bag. I'd have to proceed in the light of day with what I was doing
It's not just the ol' bad negative unbelievers who just want to tear down what the man of God is teaching, but anyone who would see this happening in the books. Seeing it requires an explanation, as the mind will recognize it when it sees it. Whatever the mind assumes or uses to explain it, if the brain is working the similarity will be recognized.
IMO saying "Raf did a lot of work in this field and I've read all of his work on the topic" doesn't mean I've credited him correctly for taking specific paragraphs nearly word for word from his writing and using it.
1. See? :)
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Maybe expected, by academia, but we editied TWI pubs to a Jr High reading level and extensive footnotes, etc., are generally a higher reading level than we wrote to.
And.
Legally. You cannot copyright an idea.
The works the lifted material came from certainly qualify as materials that were copyright works.
However:
"Copyright law covers only the form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work."
And.
Copyright legal issues come into play when a person would reasonable determine that the work in question closely resembles the "original" and its proven that the questionable work was created after the other. The LEGAL issue is not the copying of the copyrighted work but the damage the copier inflicts on the original author by PROFITING from the USE of the copy.
Besides.
There is a "Fair Use" provision under copyright law that allows that any copyrighted work can be used for educational purposes.
Plus.
The "form of material expression" covers the book itself, not necessarily an idea contained in the book.
For example:
Disney's Mickey mouse itself is the copyrighted work, not the IDEA of a cartoon mouse. It is not plagurism or a legally enforcible violation of copyright when another creates a cartoon mouse who has a mouse girlfriend and a goofy dog friend and has another friend who is a jealous, irritating duck. Even if the second set of cartoon friends goes on a remarkably similar set of adventures as does Micky, Minnie, Goofy & Donald.
IF the new group of cartoon friends were named, Michael, Mina, Silly & Donnie, and they looked similar and appeared in cartoon short films and the second artist PROFITED financially enough so as to reach felony levels; the original artist, Walt Disney, and ONLY the original creator of the work would have experienced compensatory damages specific to the monitary amounts garnered by the USE of the violating works. The violating artist would face the appropriate legal penalties for violating the copy rights of the original author.
ONLY if the original author, himself, brought action against the copier. Further copyrights are for a limited time and after said period has passed ALL copyrighted work goes into public domain.
In short. ALL of the stuff you guys point out that VPW lifted were ideas contained in books. The books themselves were copyright protected the instant the author declared them finished, regardless of whether they were registered or had a copyright notice printed in them.
It is not illegal to take an idea from another book and include it in your own book. It would be illegal if you copied the whole book, or if you copied the design of the book, or its cover, etc. One could make a case if one reworded the entire basic content of a book and published it as your own work. Owning copyrighted material and using it are two totally separate legal issues.
The fact that VPW included the ideas of other artists and compiled them together in separate works under separate cover, & title, etc., does, in fact make PFAL (and other stuff) his original, copyrighted work.
We question the ethics of lifting somebody else's ideas and publishing them as if they were your own. However, it could be argued (although not by me in this post) that when one directly quotes the original author, that act is in itself a tribute to the original.
Hasn't it been said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?
I've said this before & I'll say it again. VPW didn't edit his books. He had a specific editor who was not on staff @ HQ, and every word TWI published was reviewed and had to pass stringent legal scrutiny before it was published. We, In TWI's publications dept. did not exclusively handle the content of VP's earlier books and we have no idea what permissions legal did or didn't get. Only we knew that the manuscripts came back from the legal dept. stamped, "ready for print."
PLUS. With all of the intense scrutiny TWI underwent in the 70's & early 80's, I don't remember hearing ONE word about plagurism. That would have been an EASY target but it was just a non-issue.
And. TWI is non-profit. Therefore it was impossible for any damage from any copyright violation, if there were any AND, VPW's books were published as educational materials.
We hate VP for the damage he did & inspired to the ministry and the people he hurt. Fine. Fact remains that his books were covered from legal violations. And, were it not for his incessant speaking of the people he learned stuff from, how would anyone have ever read the "source materials" to find the "plagurism?"
This whole issue sounds like "piling on" to me. Just because he may have been a jerk overall one cannot criminalize EVERYTHING he did.
In the music industry, you change one note in a riff & its not a violation. When an artist uses another's work we call it sampling. I know the problem pointed out with VPW is "permissions" and the lack of citing his sources, and his apparent saying that the "lifted" ideas were his. How many published books in the category of spiritual self-help contain 100% original ideas?
The facts remain, though, that the compilation of the material in his books was, in fact, his idea and the books are, in fact, HIS work. The legal truth is that some of his legally authored works CONTAIN specific ideas that were he did not originate. The wording and phraseology of said ideas was not his either. He broke no law publishing those books.
I don't like a LOT of what was VPW.
I'm not blind, just pointing out some legalities I'm familiar with from being an artist AND having worked in the publications dept., @ TWI where we were conscious of copyright infringement, ad nauseum. Every ad, every photo, every word of every publication was scrutinized by legal. They had ULTIMATE power to hold up publication deadlines regardless of what VPW said or wanted. They actually changed wording in VP's books, the PFAL class, etc. to avoid copyright issues.
Why do you think there were different editions of the books?
In fact, it MAY have been the legal dept that made the lifted material match the original so closely. I wasn't a part of that process only saw the results of it. I remember some talk about that stuff but not a whole lot of details.
I do remember though, that we went through the whole "Sing Along the Way" songbook and had to attempt to contact the author of every song in the book or have legal determine whether it was public domain or not. We got permissions from some, refused to pay exhorbitant fees for others & redid the songbook accordingly. I redesigned the cover to make it different from the original & a mandate went out to destroy the old blue song books.
VPW was well aware of this whole issue & took steps to be sure that his books were legal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I notice that you keep focusing on the word 'legal' a lot in your post. Well, there is a difference between being 'legal', and being original. One can be j-u-s-t this side of the law, technically speaking, and yet still be as dishonest and slippery as hell. ... "D-a-a-s right, keeds."
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. You "can't copyright an idea", yadayadayada. ... Is that theme the best you can do to defend what VPW did? Keep in mind that I used to be in the "VPW didn't really commit plagarism 'cuz he mentioned all the people he learned from" camp. Until Raf (who knows quite a bit about what copyrights and plagarism is) 'fully instructed' me otherwise.
The man (VPW) kept watch on making sure his tracks were on the legal side (see my differentiation between legal and original above) cuz he didn't want to get nailed, NOT because he was so focused on the integrity of his ((cough)) 'research'. Sorry to splash the cold water of reality on ya, chief, but when you read his works, and they look like a bad cut-n-paste job done on an out-of-date Xerox machine, from works authored from Bullinger, Leonard, and other authors, there is no WAY you can even possibly convince anybody with a serious mind that that was bonafide and heart-felt research, ... in academia OR out.
Piling on? Uhh, ... well yeah, sure. Particularly since there are those (drug induced) in-DUH-viduals posting here who still believe that he put in good research and didn't steal a thing in his life. You do that in _this_ forum, then you'd better put on the asbestos
, ... or go somewhere else!
© 2007, by someone who, even tho' he never majored in English in college, took journalism classes, nor wrote any books, has enough command of the English grammar and language to be the full author of his writings. ... Hell, VPW couldn't even do *that* in his PFAL material! ((snort)) <_<
Surely you can make a better argument than that, Howard.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Well,now, let's see here.
God told VP that He,God, would teach him stuff nobody had seen for 1,000s of years.
Just to be on the safe side, though, maybe we better have the legal dept. check to make sure he didn't make this same promise to someone else. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You have a point there – TWI is a Mickey Mouse operation. Laying the plagiarism issue aside for the moment there's another matter that is very bothersome as well. VPW led everyone to believe many of these "ideas" presented in his works were actually from God teaching him the Word like it hasn't been known for centuries. Sure, that's a convenient way for folks enamored with his persona to skirt around VPW stealing other people's ideas – but the fact remains he was also a big LIAR…uhm…unless you fell for that God's audible voice/snow on the gas pumps business.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
When I took the Univ. of Life Ephesians class, vp made a big deal about living on only grapes for a week to write the RHST book. He lied outright to all the wc on telephone hookup, the live wc (is that opposed to dead?) and to everyone who took that class. (It only took a week?).
Stealing someone else’s work is bad enough. Lying about it to so many for so many years is even worse.
In case you didn’t know, he wasn’t a man of God. He was a man of grapes…it’s important to be right about the details.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Hahahahaha..Awwwhahahahahahaha
Awwwhahahaha..snort, snort ahahahahahaha...quite it you guys I'm gonna pee my pants! Hahahahaha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I wonder if they were fermented..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Be nice, Larry.
I found the reference. It was in JCOP, acknowledgments (p. xiii-xv, first edition, seventh printing).
Wierwille says he did a bunch of research over the years into the subject of JCOP, but had not organized it. He gave the task to Walter Cummins in the 70s to check Wierwille's research "thoroughly and critically." After Cummins had done a bunch of work on it, Wierwille laid it all out to the research team in 1974. "From this seminar a working manuscript was developed, the embryo of this book." Note that he uses the passive voice, "a manuscript was developed," and not the active "I developed a manuscript," indicating a collaborative effort.
In 1978, there's another seminar "to again study and refine previous research." The wording there again indicates collaborative effort (Wierwille does not need to hold a seminar for other people if he's the only one who's going to be studying and refining the research). Then he goes into specific people and contributions made, and concludes with this paragraph:
"As is evident, this book is truly the result of a large team effort with years of research, study, checking, and rechecking. Others besides those named above have been consulted and have assisted in the production of this work. To all who have contributed to Jesus Christ Our Passover out of their love for God and for the accuracy of His Word, I am most thankful and grateful. Of course, the final contents are my responsibility."
So what do we make of this? Well, WordWolf's post on the subject, in my opinion, almost certainly understates Wierwille's participation in this process. WordWolf writes:
Zero percent? WordWolf, you're either exaggerating or wrong. Let's look at it logically: The research team isn't going to embark on this project without Wierwille's prior teachings as some kind of framework. Looking at the acknowledgments of JCOP, we can explore two conflicting presumptions. First, Wierwille is being open and forthcoming. Second, Wierwille is lying.
Let's first take the view that he's telling the truth: He did teach more than once on various aspects of the last week of Jesus' life. He goes to Cummins and says "organize all this stuff, please." Cummins does it and gives it back to Wierwille. Wierwille then presents it to the research team with orders to develop a manuscript. The team gets a bunch of stuff done and Wierwille either is or is not an active part of the process of developing the manuscript (his account is unclear on the nature of his involvement). A second weeklong seminar is held, either bringing in more members of the research team or giving the "big picture" to the same members of the team, many of whom presumably workd on part of the project but few of whom had worked on "all" of it. Now we're going to have reassignments and people checking each other based on the big picture. Research meetings are held sporadically from 1978 to 1980, now with people having developed specialties in their areas of study and hammering out the book into its final or near final form. Even by Wierwille's account, his active participation appears to have diminished by this point. He doesn't even credit himself with primary responsibility of editing the manuscript (his daughter gets that credit). His closing line, however (the final contents are my responsibility) indicates strongly that he was not absent from the process, as he's not going to accept "responsibility" for the final product without reading, providing feedback and giving his final stamp of approval to the contents.
Now let's assume he's lying.
It wasn't Wierwille's idea. It was Cummins's idea. And Wierwille liked it. So Cummins puts a bunch of work together, careful to take Wierwille's previous teachings into account and explaining any disagreements, and teaches Wierwille, who studies it enough to make a presentation in 1974 to the research staff. The staff, without further input from Wierwille, sets about creating the manuscript, and they hold seminars in 1978, 1979 and 1980: the seminars are primarily for each other, with Wierwille present. During this process, Wierwille gives his feedback, but is otherwise sitting back having a drambuie and seducing the wives of the researchers. At the end of the process, Wierwille reads it, likes it, and puts his name on it.
With either interpretation, you have Wierwille's prior "research" and presentations as the framework. The research staff fleshes it out, develops and refines the manuscript. Wierwille is in on the process but is neither writing nor directly leading it (that responsibility goes to Cummins).
Big collaborative effort, not matter how you slice it. Wierwille's level of involvement is arguable, but what's clear either way is that he is not the primary collector of the information, nor is he the primary writer. He may or may not have played a strong active role in developing the big picture.
The acknowledgments of JCOPS indicates a similar process, except in that case Wierwille did not say anything about the final contents being his responsibility (which I don't read anything into).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.