Re: Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief

[Rich]

Oh, the H O R R O R!
<G> Just kidding.

"I'll leave letters for the future"

Cool, thx JR

` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"JR" <JohnR...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149889967.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
provided by fidomaster (scroll down)
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1393237&lastnode_id=1258885

So I write these cliché lyrics
for a stolen melody
Every artist is a cannibal,
every poet is a thief

I think myself a backyard Shakespeare
I'm just one more bard next door
And I sit here and I'm thinking
about the ones who came before

I admit I stole from Cummings
but you know he stole from Emerson
who stole from Wordsworth, stole from Shakespeare
stole from Chaucer, from Milton

who stole from Homer, stole from Plato
All those guys from Ancient Greece
It's all been stolen, taken, borrowed
right on through antiquity

Until we reach the beginning
It's the caveman's reverie
And he had no one to steal from
so he crafted melody

Symbolic representation
That's all the scholars say
But it's so much more than that I know
Poetry's from our DNA

All the anger, all the sorrow
All the loss and all the love
It's been felt by man forever
The words are written in our blood

So I'll keep drinking from that river
The common crimson memory
And I will pull out tired phrases
Embrace my mediocrity

And I'll leave letters for the future
The youthful poets of the day
And I'll leave my mark on this world
In my plagiaristic way

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=933810

[tianyue]

It is fine to steal, some would say,
The fruits and labors of others.
The stealing and robbing of others works
Proves that we all are brothers.

Take from here, from there, from everywhere
Like a child in a candy store.
If it ever seems you are running low,
Don't worry, there's always more.

So let us rejoice in thievery,
Let's plunder and ravage with love.
To indulge in wholesale plagiary
Is approved in the heaven's above.

If you are lacking in talent or skill,
Or simply short on time,
In the name of God's greater need,
Just steal another line.

-Tianyue

[Rich]

It appears that you wrote this believing that some Eckists here might
think the opposite and this would discredit Eckankar. Whatever your
motivation, they don't, so your portrayal is a mute one.

Your dis-functional perception and behavior has reared it's ugly head
again. It's also of note that you introduced love, heaven and God into
your bogus scenario.

It seems you cling desperately to confusing theft with plagiarism in your
mind. Even the next level up, which is copyright violation, is not theft,
it is not a crime.

With all the data, laws and facts of the history of plagiarism that has
been discussed here thoroughly so many times, and the very obvious point
of the poem you responded to showing the thread of plagiarism through so
many great writers in history, it's downright sick to allow your emotions
to contend that theft is related financially, legally or morally.
Plagiarism does not remove any material 'fruits or labor' from the
original creator. End of the issue for anyone with a bit of objectivity
and reason.

As a preemptive measure, knowing your history here, even if my response is
not perfect, attacking me does not change the basic facts.

` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1150081984.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

[tianyue]

Rich wrote:
> It appears that you wrote this believing that some Eckists here might
> think the opposite and this would discredit Eckankar.

Eckists might think the opposite? This sentence is unclear. The
opposite of what? Please be specific.

> Whatever your
> motivation, they don't, so your portrayal is a mute one.
>

"They don't" think what? This isn't very clearly stated. Also, you seem
to be presuming to be speaking for all eckists, in stating on "their"
behalf what "they" think. Do you suppose "they" all agree with you
because "they" are eckists?

> Your dis-functional perception and behavior has reared it's ugly head
> again. It's also of note that you introduced love, heaven and God into
> your bogus scenario.

My perception and behavior is "dis-functional"? And you know it is
dysfunctional because you have some sort of expertise in diagnosing
medical illnesses? Ayayay...here we go again with your internet
psychological assessments of people who merely disagree with you.

>
> It seems you cling desperately to confusing theft with plagiarism in your
> mind. Even the next level up, which is copyright violation, is not theft,
> it is not a crime.
>

Plagiarism is by definition known to be literary theft. Thus, it seems
that it is not desperation on my part to redefine the word, but
instead, it is your own desperation to come up with a new definition of
the meaning of plagiarism. Copyright violation includes certain types
of literary theft with certain rules applied to determine the cases to
which the laws apply, as well as other types of intellectual property
rights. It is more of a precise legal term. We've been through all this
before. Shall we do it again for old times sake?

As to whether copyright violation is a criminal offense or a civil
offense, I'd say this is a strawman argument which as you know is an
example of a logical fallacy. I never argued that plagiarism or
copyright violation was CRIMINAL. Civil offenses, in which people are
held liable for their actions with judgements that require monetary
penalties, or that require certain actions (such as performance of a
contract obligation), may not be criminal, but they can be devasting to
both the party who was unfairly treated, and the party who is held
accountable by the courts. Copyright violation is a CIVIL offense. More
on this below in another paragraph.

> With all the data, laws and facts of the history of plagiarism that has
> been discussed here thoroughly so many times, and the very obvious point
> of the poem you responded to showing the thread of plagiarism through so
> many great writers in history, it's downright sick to allow your emotions
> to contend that theft is related financially, legally or morally.
> Plagiarism does not remove any material 'fruits or labor' from the
> original creator. End of the issue for anyone with a bit of objectivity
> and reason.
>

Great writers in history are not necessarily held to the same ethical
standard that Masters of the Universe are expected to exhibit. Writers
in history can be rogues, can be unethical, can be tyrants and thieves,
and yet still be great writers. Godmen, on the other hand, reveal their
understanding, or the lack thereof, by the way they treat others. That
is the issue, not legal technicalities. People don't follow masters
because they are great writiers, they follow them because they are
thought to be fountains of wisdom and understanding. Literary theft
(plagarism) is not the best way to demonstrate a high state of
consciousness.

All this aside, it is clear to me that PT was both a plagarist and a
copyright violator. Since he plagiarized some writers whose works were
still within the period covered by the statutes of limitation, is is
obviously both plagarism and copyright violations in many instances.
Yes, I know he wasn't taken to court by people such as Alan Watts, from
whom he stole almost verbatim many paragraphs, but it is a no-brainer
that Watts could have pressed a legal action if he had been aware of
the theft. I'd imagine people like Watts would not want to waste their
time trying to sue a relatively unknown writer like PT.

By the way, as to your legal hairsplitting about what is plagiarism,
and what is copyright violation, keep in mind that OJ Simpson
technically did not commit homicide according to criminal courts, yet
the civil courts found him financially liable for the murders. I don't
care about the technicalities, it is what the behavior reveals that is
important.

OJ was a murderer. PT was a plagairist. That's all that matters. I
woundn't trust OJ to babysit my kids, and I definitely would not trust
PT (or his defenders and successors) to read an unpublished manuscript
I might be writing, lest I see a few months later my manuscript with
someone else's name on it on the bookstore shelves.

As to your opinion that my posting a mere little poem is "downright
sick," this is another example of the extreme hyperbole that abounds in
your posts when you encounter something you don't agree with. Just
because Rich Smith says someone is sick, dysfunctional, and emotional
doesn't make it so. Unless, of course, there are people who believe
that being a "High Initiate" in Eckankar gives one a divine right to
make internet pronouncements about the character of others without any
need to back the statements with substantiation. That, of course, would
be a silly belief that no rational person would ascribe to.

Tianyue

>
> As a preemptive measure, knowing your history here, even if my response is
> not perfect, attacking me does not change the basic facts.

>> Rich>

[Oogie]

Rich wrote:

> It appears that you wrote this believing that some Eckists here might
> think the opposite and this would discredit Eckankar. Whatever your
> motivation, they don't, so your portrayal is a mute one.

That would be moot Richy Boy.

>
> Your dis-functional perception and behavior has reared it's ugly head
> again. It's also of note that you introduced love, heaven and God into
> your bogus scenario.

That would be dysfunctional, Richy Boy.

>
> It seems you cling desperately to confusing theft with plagiarism in your
> mind. Even the next level up, which is copyright violation, is not theft,
> it is not a crime.

Maybe not a crime, but it's certainly exposes the soft white underbelly
of a man, namely Twitchell, who couldn't think on his feet. If you don't
see the wholesale theft AND plagiarism in Twitch's works, then you are a
blind cultist in full denial.
Theft and plagiarism are the same thing. Besides, Eckankar was never
potent enough for anyone to take note and challenge the redacting of
fictitious masters with the masters used in mainstream religions.
It's all in black and white Hawaii boy and you cannot refute it with any
mental or spiritual toolbox you may think you have available to you.
Eckankar is the placenta of several more enlightening paths.

>
> With all the data, laws and facts of the history of plagiarism that has
> been discussed here thoroughly so many times, and the very obvious point
> of the poem you responded to showing the thread of plagiarism through so
> many great writers in history, it's downright sick to allow your emotions
> to contend that theft is related financially, legally or morally.
> Plagiarism does not remove any material 'fruits or labor' from the
> original creator. End of the issue for anyone with a bit of objectivity
> and reason.

Pagiarism has never been discussed by Eckists with data, laws and facts
you moron. You are so deluded by the farce, you cannot introduce logic
into the equation ex post facto when Twitchell screwed himself by
stealing words form others nad creating written works that indict hin as
a conniving, worthless, self appointed God Salesman. . It is really very
simple Rich. It's not rocket science to understand that

>
>
> As a preemptive measure, knowing your history here, even if my response is
> not perfect, attacking me does not change the basic facts.

The basic fact is that you support Twitchell's lying and thieving
shenanigans when the Internet wasn't a valuable repository to put his
kind away for good. Unfortunately, the light went on and Eckankar,
instead of owning up to its feeble beginnings, ran like a cockroach into
the walls, mutated, and re-emerged with a new story. I think you call it
an "evolving religion"?
That's a cop out to cover up the genesis of your pathetic "liar
extraordinaire" Mr. Paul Twitchell.
Eckankar needs dismantling for the sake of gullible God seekers.

Oogie

BTW Rich, I got caller ID. Some asshole from Hawaii tried to call me. I
called the number back and it was disconnected. Didn't you pay your bill
this month? You're the only person I know from that island of yours.
Anyway, I look forward to hearing from you again, snake. And this time,
You will be recorded and it will be published.
So that should put an end to your sneakyshit tactics.

[tianyue]

JR wrote:
> Academes and pedants steal from students all the time. Plagiarism is an
> old dog that cannot hunt, so its claims make it safe for professors and
> teachers to protect their vanity in the belief they really had
> something original or worthwhile to say. If anything, you would be wise
> to encourage and teach young children how to copywright everything they
> say and write.

According to copyright laws, any literary work (as well as other
creative works) is automatically copyrighted the moment it is written.
There is a statute of limitation that expires about 70 years after the
death of the author, as I recall. Therefore, there is nothing to teach
about how to copyright a work, other than to add additional
protections, such as making clear the INTENT to copyright with specific
language, such as the date the work was originally copyrighted and who
the author is. But technically, according to the law the lack of such
language does not invalidate claims to copyrights.

I wouldn't personally do business of any kind with a person who
believes it is ethical to steal others' intellectual works.

Tianyue

(BTW, you are being watched by monkey people--most of
> them not yet come of age, so don't be surprised if a little dung flies
> your way. Did you hear that?)
>
> JR

>
>
> tianyue wrote:
> > It is fine to steal, some would say,
> > The fruits and labors of others.
>
> > >

> > > http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=933810

[Rich]

Why is that you always ask/require to be spoon fed?

"tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote

Rich wrote:
> It appears that you wrote this believing that some Eckists here might
> think the opposite and this would discredit Eckankar.

Eckists might think the opposite? This sentence is unclear. The
opposite of what? Please be specific.

## My bad. Sorry if it was beyond your capacity to figure out my meaning.
Say ahhh... nummy nummy...
The opposite of what you where prosing against, the implication that,
open wide... Eckists believe that 'It is fine to steal', that
'wholesale plagiary' is OK, ect. That was your intention, yes?
You certainly aren't saying _you_ believed what you wrote, right?

> Whatever your
> motivation, they don't, so your portrayal is a mute one.

"They don't" think what? This isn't very clearly stated.

## See above.

Also, you seem
to be presuming to be speaking for all eckists, in stating on "their"
behalf what "they" think. Do you suppose "they" all agree with you
because "they" are eckists?

## Open wide... I wrote "some" not all. Most do. Swallow now.

> Your dis-functional perception and behavior has reared it's ugly head
> again. It's also of note that you introduced love, heaven and God into
> your bogus scenario.

My perception and behavior is "dis-functional"? And you know it is
dysfunctional because you have some sort of expertise in diagnosing
medical illnesses?

## Nope, simple observation of overwhelming blind eye, logical fallacies
and hyperbolic behavior on your part for many years. If you could
accept expertise, get a psychiatrist and have him write me for
documentation of how you have behaved here over the years. Scared to?

Ayayay...here we go again with your internet
psychological assessments of people who merely disagree with you.

## Wrong again. This is another example of your blind eye. My
assessment is based on your behavior, not because I disagree with you.

> It seems you cling desperately to confusing theft with plagiarism in
> your
> mind. Even the next level up, which is copyright violation, is not
> theft, it is not a crime.

Plagiarism is by definition known to be literary theft.

## Cling to that misnomer if you must, but in the real world,
it is not theft. It is not a crime. It is not even a copyright
violation. While some trumpet it for its great emotive value
plagiarism does not even appear in state or federal statutes.

Plagiarism is presenting others writings as being your own work.
Often, as has been documented here ad nauseam, others words have been
used unintentionally. Often it is an insignificant amount.(.007)
What crosses that line for me, and could be considered an offense,
is wholesale intentional plagiarism, which then could become a
copyright violation. And that is still not a real theft since there
is no punishment imposed by law for doing so.

Let that dribble out of your mouth onto your bib all you need to,
but that will not change these facts.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V2081204D

Thus, it seems
that it is not desperation on my part to redefine the word, but
instead, it is your own desperation to come up with a new definition of
the meaning of plagiarism. Copyright violation includes certain types
of literary theft with certain rules applied to determine the cases to
which the laws apply, as well as other types of intellectual property
rights. It is more of a precise legal term.

## Say ahhh big man. Open wide.. Theft _is_ a legal term that does *not*
apply to plagiarism or copyright violation. Swallow now...

We've been through all this
before. Shall we do it again for old times sake?

As to whether copyright violation is a criminal offense or a civil
offense, I'd say this is a strawman argument

## No, it's the *law*, or in the case of plagiarism, an absents of it.
Swallow now... Does that taste bitter? Poor baby.

which as you know is an
example of a logical fallacy. I never argued that plagiarism or
copyright violation was CRIMINAL.

## Calling it stealing and theft is a clear but false and straw man
implication of what Paul Twitchell did.
You insist on doing so? Fine. Keep your eye shut.

<SNIP>

> With all the data, laws and facts of the history of plagiarism that has
> been discussed here thoroughly so many times, and the very obvious point
> of the poem you responded to showing the thread of plagiarism through so
> many great writers in history, it's downright sick to allow your
> emotions
> to contend that theft is related financially, legally or morally.
> Plagiarism does not remove any material 'fruits or labor' from the
> original creator. End of the issue for anyone with a bit of objectivity
> and reason.

<SNIP the "not necessarily", "can be", it's clear to Kent, and OJ nonsense
which completely ignored the point of "does not remove any material">

As to your opinion that my posting a mere little poem is "downright
sick," this is another example of the extreme hyperbole that abounds in
your posts when you encounter something you don't agree with.

## Open wide.. Stop spitting it out...
It's not the poem, it's never what I disagree with, it's your
unwavering
blind eye behavior. This last paragraph is just another example.
During just about every exchange we have you repeat this false
allegation instead of facing your own compulsive behavior.

[cher]

tianyue wrote:
> It is fine to steal, some would say,
> The fruits and labors of others.

Don't pay homage to the greater ones
who came before your steps
Don't tip your hat to those before
or help those coming next.

> The stealing and robbing of others works
> Proves that we all are brothers.

It's the greed and selfishness that counts
where creativity is used.
Tell the world you are original
and watch them become confused.

> Take from here, from there, from everywhere
> Like a child in a candy store.

Because in millions of years of history,
It's all been said before!

> If it ever seems you are running low,
> Don't worry, there's always more.

There's love and hate and seas and shores and
death and fear galore!
The subjects have all been defined,
pick a word or phrase and add intent
and find the writers core.

>
> So let us rejoice in thievery,
> Let's plunder and ravage with love.

And leave immaturity behind.
It's a foregone conclusion that you don't have an original mind.
You're thoughts and hopes have all been said
throughout posterity

> To indulge in wholesale plagiary
> Is approved in the heaven's above.

At least those heavens that concern such things thereof,
for the rest of us, whose God's don't care about triviality
in the name of something loosely called righteous morality.

>
> If you are lacking in talent or skill,
> Or simply short on time,

Try a host of rants and then complaints to cover your lame rhymes.

> In the name of God's greater need,
> Just steal another line.

Cause to make God small is all it takes when you limit such things to
the mind.

>
> -Tianyue

[tianyue]

JR wrote:
> You're a woman aren't you? Your passive, sensitive nature shows through
> your crusty facade you use to hide your jackrabbit attention span.

Gawd, this is stupid. Am I supposed to be insulted by this? Are we now
supposed to go out, get drunk, and exchange blows to prove manhood?
Maybe see who can piss the farthest? Have a dual at dawn? Get some
macho tattoos that say 'Mama'? Or perhaps deep down, you're homophobic,
and fear your real yearnings? How pubescent.

In any case, by the tone of your post, you seem to think calling me a
woman is an insult. In so doing, you insult 50% of all humans. So, by
this you reveal a misogynistic streak.

And yet here you are, making posts to defend eckankar, which is
supposedly a path to enlightenment. Is your attitude an example of what
people can expect to achieve in eckankar?

> You
> remind me of another on here (Simon?) who never backed up his
> blathering criticism.

Can you back up this statement? <G>

The fact is, I posted some things on a.r.e. about copyrights long ago.
If asked, I usually will do my best to back up my statements, though I
will say few others here (the usual eckists) ever back up statements
very well. Maybe your posts should be monitored for awhile to see if
you back up anything. We'll see, eh?

So, for starters, can you back up with evidence Rebazar Tarz's
existence? Can you back up the existence of the Order of the Varaigi?
Can you prove anything about Eckankar?

Okay, so perhaps there is a wee bit of a double standard at play in
your comments, eh?

>The Web site below is what you could have
> provided to show you were not guessing or on a moral high horse
> parading to impress the pigeons. http://www.copyright.gov/

Well, thank you for proving I was right about copyrights. 'Wu wei'
is the principle in Taoism that means 'no effort' or
non-resistance. It is always easier to let others exhaust their own
energy, in such instances when one is being attacked, if at all
possible <heh, heh>. You must have been a bit motivated to find out if
my comments were correct, eh? So you did a search.

Read this excerpt from the site you provided:

"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in
fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes
the property of the author who created the work."

Also, read this from the site:

"HOW TO SECURE A COPYRIGHT
Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently
misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the
Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note.)
There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See
"Copyright Registration."
Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work
is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first
time."

In other words, I was right that literary works are copyrighted the
moment they are written. Did you notice the words "secured
automatically when the work is created"? Maybe you skimmed this too
quickly in your reading of it.

Also, read this from the site:

"In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to
make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright.
However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection."

There now, do you see that I was correct?

> So tell me, phuckwad, what the $45 fee is for.

The fee is for registration of the work, which as I already pointed
out, is not required in order to copyright a work, which, under current
US law, is automatically copyrighted from the moment it is written.
Registration offers some additional protections, but is not required.

By the way, your calling me "phuckwad" is quite a loaded word for
someone who is writing in defense of a supposedly high spiritual path.
Nice example, dude.

Did Harold Klemp teach you that?

Wow... You're so incredibly enlightened. Do you teach a class as
well? Maybe I'll give you a secret word to chant from the initiator
book in some future post. I was an initiator once. Just chant a bit,
and relax, my friend. Huuuuu......Wah Zzzzz (A.R.E. is definitely
entertaining....thanks, all.)

Tianyue

> Nothing fuzzy here:
> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc
> WHO CAN CLAIM COPYRIGHT
> Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in
> FIXED form.
>
> > JR wrote:
> > > Academes and pedants steal from students all the time......

>
> tianyue wrote:
> > According to copyright laws, any literary work (as well as other
> > creative works) is automatically copyrighted the moment it is written.
>

[Rich]

What is Copyright?

"The most serious threat to the Internet commons (and to those like
distance educators who use it) is the assault on copyright. This attack
comes from the copyright controllers. They are taking a concept that was
originally intended to establish a balance promoting the spread of
knowledge by providing advantages to both creators and consumers. The
Owners are now attempting to reshape it into what Surowiecki (2002) calls
“property-rights fundamentalism” – copyright as a mechanism for the
protection of “property.” By calling their intellectual creations
“property,” the copyright controllers have to “plant in the public mind
the idea that cultural products (movies, recorded music, books) are
‘property' in the same sense that your house and its contents constitute
property” (Naughton, 2003). Bollier (2003) claims that the controllers are
campaigning to “morph copyright into a content protection system” (p.
121).

Unfortunately, for the proponents of IP, historically, copyright did not
emerge as a property right. Copyright was explicitly instituted to
“encourage learning” in Great Britain (House of Commons, 1709) and
developed from this concept to “promote the progress of science and the
useful arts” in the U.S. Constitution U.S. Constitutional Convention,
1787). Copyright was not enacted for the purpose of protecting the rights
of the author. Such an interpretation has been identified by Jaszi (2001)
as the recasting of copyright as “para-copyright” or “pseudo-copyright.”
Barlow (1996) argues that old laws like copyright cannot be made to work
by “grotesque expansion or by force” (p. 10). In much of Europe, countries
use the Napoleonic code and base their copyright laws on “le droit
d'auteur” (author's right), but this is alien to the British common law
tradition on which Commonwealth and U.S. laws are based.

Copyright in the common law is based on the premise that no one owns ideas
and that creative works belong to everyone. Copyright protects only the
expression of ideas and not the ideas themselves. Copyright holders
possess a simple “copy” right that gives them an exclusive right to
exclude others and otherwise control the expression of their ideas for a
limited time."

History

"Ancient scribes (the earliest copiers) in writing the classics and sacred
books of different religions were quite comfortable in excluding,
substituting, amending, expanding, and abridging their materials. In the
fourth century BC, Aristotle wrote: “Imitation is natural to man from
childhood [and] the first things that he learns come to him through
imitation” (Aristotle, 2004). The ancients had no proscriptions against
copying or even plagiarism. Our ancestors' understanding of the world was
housed in stories – not dogma. Story tellers had no “moral” right to
protect their tales. No one questioned the right of anyone to copy these
and other works. “The concept of copyright was utterly foreign to the
ancient mind” (Harpur, 2004, p. 141)."

"This first copyright law had the purpose of breaking the Stationers'
monopoly and so, it was not a mechanism for protecting copyright
controller's rights as it is often portrayed nowadays. Copyright law was
expressly introduced to limit their rights."

Infringement – Not Stealing

Copyright controllers distort the meaning of the words “stealing” and
“theft” for their own purposes. Naughton (2003) contends that the use of
such language “would make an excellent Orwellian case study.” “Stealing”
and “theft” have emotive value because they are considered to be evil acts
by most people. They are proscribed activities in the Judaeo-Christian Ten
Commandments, and in the sacred books of other religions. The copyright
controllers use these words to strengthen their case for extending the
meaning of copyright.

According to the Oxford English dictionary, however, “to steal” is defined
as: “To take away dishonestly (portable property, cattle, etc., belonging
to another) (Oxford University Press, 1989). As copying takes nothing away
from anyone (the owners still possess their copy) and as intellectual
content is not property, then copying content is not stealing. In the
U.S., this interpretation was strengthened by a Supreme Court decision
that:
infringement is not theft [as the infringer] did not assume physical
control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use . . .
infringement does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. . .
The Copyright Act employs a separate term to define one who
misappropriates: infringer (Dowling v. United States, 1985).

Given these facts, it is incorrect, and perhaps even dishonest, for the
copyright controllers to use the term “stealing” in reference to copying
materials. Nothing is taken “away” from anyone. The owner still has it.
Jefferson (1813) put it this way: “He who receives an idea from me,
receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his
taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.” When you copy without
damaging or use someone's creative work and take ideas or impressions or
methodologies or whatever from a creative work, or simply take enjoyment
from it, you are NOT stealing, not from any religious, ethical, or legal
point of view.

The so-called owners possess the copy right for the creation, not a
property right. As Madison noted (see above) copyright is specifically not
a property right. Stealing and theft as confirmed by both the Oxford and
Merriam Webster (Merriam-Webster, 2004) dictionaries involves the taking
of “property” belonging to another. Since, there is no property, it cannot
be stealing.

The problem for copyright controllers is that they cannot find religious
texts condemning “infringement” and so it is difficult for them to get
public support using this legalistic terminology. The ancient religious
writers, as we mentioned previously, were quite adept at copying and
adapting the works of others and would doubtless have not found copying to
be immoral. Without extensive copying in a manner that might today be
considered to be infringement or even plagiarism, there would be no
religious texts, nor classical literature. It is difficult for the
copyright controllers to build a moral case against copying when the
ancients actively encouraged it.

Rev. Frame (2002) notes that if it were a moral issue, then copyrights
should never expire. “If it is morally wrong to copy a piece of music in
June of 1989, it is also morally wrong to copy that same piece of music in
June of 1991. (Moral principles, by their very nature, are eternal, as God
is eternal).” As all human progress is based on copying, any society that
adopted and followed this as a moral principle would not have progressed
and would have stagnated. All human knowledge is based on copying. Can you
imagine how well a prehistoric tribe would have survived if it had felt
that copying spears or bows and arrows used by other tribes, was immoral?
We have such a situation today where poverty-stricken countries are not
permitted to copy the content and software applications created by the
rich countries. They are being told that it is “stealing” if they deign to
copy software, scholarly articles, and texts that might educate their
people.

Assault on Copyright

So, infringement is not stealing, but that has not stopped the big
companies from mounting an outright assault on the copy rights of
consumers. Nadin (1997) noted that governments are quick to give up ideals
like human rights, but they “raise a big fuss when it comes to copyright
infringement” (p.36). As previously mentioned, the content companies are
so powerful that IP laws asserting their interests were among the very
first passed by the new Iraqi government (Associated Press, 2004).

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/205/287

[tianyue]

You know, I just have to chuckle to myself in reading this post. As
usual, an internet article was found in a search and indiscriminately
posted, without considering the source of the article and the
motivations for writing it. The originator of the article is operating
what appears to be an internet trade journal for internet businesses
that profit from distance learning, which involves distributing
information over the internet to their customers. Instead of completely
relying on actual textbooks in every case, they aparently lift the
writing from such books and sell it over the internet. The authors and
publishers of the texts and other instructional material (cd's,
dvd's, etc) become concerned that others are profiting from their
works, and want a cut in the action, or want to prevent the action. The
distance learning companies want to profit from others works without
reimbursing them. It all comes down to profit. They could write or
produce their own works for distribution, but that takes effort and
time. It is far easier to use the works of others (i.e., let others do
the work for them), so they are upset about copyright laws. In short,
they are much like Twitchell and the Eckists, in that they want to do
things the easy way by taking others verbatim works, without the hassle
of crediting or reimbursing others, it seems to me. One must learn to
read through the lines when doing online searches.

But even the author of this article admits there should be a balance
between rights of authors and consumers. Read the conclusion and
summary at the end of the article, and notice this:

"Conclusion and Implications for Open and Distance Learning--This
paper argues for a restoration of the traditional balance between the
rights of the creators, the rights of the users, and the special rights
of educators, which were implicit in the original copyright acts."

Here they explicitly argue for BALANCE, not outright abolishment of the
rights of creators. Balance would seem to be a fair approach, so long
as true balance and fairness is desired. This view is made even more
explicitly and even a bit ironically in the inclusion of THEIR OWN
COPYRIGHTS of their own article AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ARTICLE, as
follows:

"THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY
USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR
COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED."

The entire text of the copyright is included below as an appendage.

So, once again, the facts have been manipulated. It takes work to
reveal the manipulations, but it is worth it, from time to time. I
would caution readers to remember how easily facts can be twisted and
distorted in attempts to make things appear differently than they
really are.

Tianyue

Copyright text of the article arguing against excessive copyrights:

CREATIVE COMMONS CORPORATION IS NOT A LAW FIRM AND DOES NOT PROVIDE
LEGAL SERVICES. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS LICENSE DOES NOT CREATE AN
ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. CREATIVE COMMONS PROVIDES THIS
INFORMATION ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS. CREATIVE COMMONS MAKES NO WARRANTIES
REGARDING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, AND DISCLAIMS LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES
RESULTING FROM ITS USE.
License

THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS
CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS
PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK
OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS
PROHIBITED.

BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND
AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU
THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH
TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

1. Definitions

"Collective Work" means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology
or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form,
along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and
independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.
A work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a
Derivative Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
"Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and
other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound
recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other
form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except
that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a
Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of
doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the
synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image
("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of
this License.
"Licensor" means the individual or entity that offers the Work under
the terms of this License.
"Original Author" means the individual or entity who created the Work.
"Work" means the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the
terms of this License.
"You" means an individual or entity exercising rights under this
License who has not previously violated the terms of this License with
respect to the Work, or who has received express permission from the
Licensor to exercise rights under this License despite a previous
violation.
2. Fair Use Rights. Nothing in this license is intended to reduce,
limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or
other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under
copyright law or other applicable laws.

3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License,
Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to
exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:

to reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more
Collective Works, and to reproduce the Work as incorporated in the
Collective Works;
to distribute copies or phonorecords of, display publicly, perform
publicly, and perform publicly by means of a digital audio transmission
the Work including as incorporated in Collective Works;
The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now
known or hereafter devised. The above rights include the right to make
such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights
in other media and formats, but otherwise you have no rights to make
Derivative Works. All rights not expressly granted by Licensor are
hereby reserved, including but not limited to the rights set forth in
Sections 4(d) and 4(e).

4. Restrictions.The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly
made subject to and limited by the following restrictions:

You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this License, and
You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for,
this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute,
publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. You
may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict
the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights
granted hereunder. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep
intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of
warranties. You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform,
or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures
that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with
the terms of this License Agreement. The above applies to the Work as
incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the
Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the
terms of this License. If You create a Collective Work, upon notice
from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the
Collective Work any credit as required by clause 4(c), as requested.
You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3
above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward
commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of
the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing
or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed
toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided
there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the
exchange of copyrighted works.
If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform the Work, You must keep intact all copyright notices
for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are
utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if
applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or
Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute,
publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor's copyright
notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such
party or parties; the title of the Work if supplied; and to the extent
reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that
Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does
not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the
Work. Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner;
provided, however, that in the case of a Collective Work, at a minimum
such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit
appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable
authorship credit.
For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition:

Performance Royalties Under Blanket Licenses. Licensor reserves the
exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a performance
rights society (e.g. ASCAP, BMI, SESAC), royalties for the public
performance or public digital performance (e.g. webcast) of the Work if
that performance is primarily intended for or directed toward
commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.
Mechanical Rights and Statutory Royalties. Licensor reserves the
exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a music rights
agency or designated agent (e.g. Harry Fox Agency), royalties for any
phonorecord You create from the Work ("cover version") and distribute,
subject to the compulsory license created by 17 USC Section 115 of the
US Copyright Act (or the equivalent in other jurisdictions), if Your
distribution of such cover version is primarily intended for or
directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.
Webcasting Rights and Statutory Royalties. For the avoidance of doubt,
where the Work is a sound recording, Licensor reserves the exclusive
right to collect, whether individually or via a performance-rights
society (e.g. SoundExchange), royalties for the public digital
performance (e.g. webcast) of the Work, subject to the compulsory
license created by 17 USC Section 114 of the US Copyright Act (or the
equivalent in other jurisdictions), if Your public digital performance
is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or
private monetary compensation.
5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer

UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING, LICENSOR
OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY
KIND CONCERNING THE WORK, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE,
INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTIBILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF
LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF
ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW
THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO
YOU.

6. Limitation on Liability. EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE
LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY FOR
ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
ARISING OUT OF THIS LICENSE OR THE USE OF THE WORK, EVEN IF LICENSOR
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

7. Termination

This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate
automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License.
Individuals or entities who have received Collective Works from You
under this License, however, will not have their licenses terminated
provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with
those licenses. Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will survive any
termination of this License.
Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is
perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work).
Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the
Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at
any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to
withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is
required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this
License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as
stated above.
8. Miscellaneous

Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform the Work or a
Collective Work, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the
Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You
under this License.
If any provision of this License is invalid or unenforceable under
applicable law, it shall not affect the validity or enforceability of
the remainder of the terms of this License, and without further action
by the parties to this agreement, such provision shall be reformed to
the minimum extent necessary to make such provision valid and
enforceable.
No term or provision of this License shall be deemed waived and no
breach consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing
and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent.
This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with
respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings,
agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified
here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may
appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified
without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You.
Creative Commons is not a party to this License, and makes no warranty
whatsoever in connection with the Work. Creative Commons will not be
liable to You or any party on any legal theory for any damages
whatsoever, including without limitation any general, special,
incidental or consequential damages arising in connection to this
license. Notwithstanding the foregoing two (2) sentences, if Creative
Commons has expressly identified itself as the Licensor hereunder, it
shall have all rights and obligations of Licensor.

Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the
Work is licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the trademark
"Creative Commons" or any related trademark or logo of Creative Commons
without the prior written consent of Creative Commons. Any permitted
use will be in compliance with Creative Commons' then-current trademark
usage guidelines, as may be published on its website or otherwise made
available upon request from time to time.

Creative Commons may be contacted at http://creativecommons.org/.

Rich wrote:
> What is Copyright?
>
> "The most serious threat to the Internet commons (and to those like
> distance educators who use it) is the assault on copyright. This attack
> comes from the copyright controllers. They are taking a concept that was
> originally intended to establish a balance promoting the spread of
> knowledge by providing advantages to both creators and consumers. The
> Owners are now attempting to reshape it into what Surowiecki (2002) calls

> "property-rights fundamentalism" - copyright as a mechanism for the

> housed in stories - not dogma. Story tellers had no "moral" right to

> protect their tales. No one questioned the right of anyone to copy these
> and other works. "The concept of copyright was utterly foreign to the
> ancient mind" (Harpur, 2004, p. 141)."
>
>
>
> "This first copyright law had the purpose of breaking the Stationers'
> monopoly and so, it was not a mechanism for protecting copyright
> controller's rights as it is often portrayed nowadays. Copyright law was
> expressly introduced to limit their rights."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Infringement - Not Stealing

[cher]

tianyue wrote:
> You know, I just have to chuckle to myself in reading this post. As

<snip>

> So, once again, the facts have been manipulated. It takes work to
> reveal the manipulations, but it is worth it, from time to time. I
> would caution readers to remember how easily facts can be twisted and
> distorted in attempts to make things appear differently than they
> really are.
>
> Tianyue
>

<snip>

Oh for crying out loud, kent! How on earth can you be a subject matter
expert on every topic addressed here? It can't be based on your
intellect, because frankly that's nothing but a vaccuous liberal echo.
<smile> I am surprised that for all your bluster, you haven't once
addressed the history of copyright law or the changes brought about by
the digital age and international influences.What we end up with from
you, is an ardent belief in david lane's contentions without merit, and
a parroting of this strict belief based on nothing more than support of
this misguided lament about one author. <sigh> That's just
intellectually pathetic. Please, before your brain completely shrivels
up into a walnut sized rock, attempt to expand your thinking and see if
you can understand the magnitude of a topic for a change!

[tianyue]

To add another note to my previous post, I've gone to the Eckankar
internet sites and found eckankar's own copyright:

Copyright © 1995-2006, ECKANKAR. All rights reserved. This copyright
notice applies to this home page and all other pages of this Web site.
The terms ECKANKAR, ECK, EK, MAHANTA, SOUL TRAVEL, and VAIRAGI, among
others, are trademarks of ECKANKAR, PO Box 2000, Chanhassen, MN
55317-2000 USA.
Last modified January 25, 2006 051029a

So, it appears the concern over copyrights among some eckists posting
here is disengenuous. Their own teaching copyrights its material. I
remember all the guidlines eckankar puts out about copyrights, and how
strictly they are enforced with the membership. Well, go figure...

Leaf

[cher]

Yeah, kent walks away mumbling to himself, and returns to add an
addendum to his previous post as if no one notices that he's obsessing
over another topic on a.r.e.! <sigh> He sets up his strawman argument
in a polarized extreme of an issue, pretends he's a subject matter
expert and then obsesses over his false premise for the next several
days as if he's come up with something brilliant to add. And so it
goes.... year after year with kent, he sets up the lie and attacks it,
and pretends no one realizes the damage he can't inflict on windmills.
Oh well...... poor old kent....... <shrug> Keep mumbling kent! At least
we know you're coming before you get here! <chuckle>

[Oogie]

Rich wrote:
> What is Copyright?
>
> "The most serious threat to the Internet commons (and to those like
> distance educators who use it) is the assault on copyright. This attack
> comes from the copyright controllers. They are taking a concept that was
> originally intended to establish a balance promoting the spread of

> knowledge by providing advantages .................SSSLLAAAPPP!

Stop trying to justify Twitchell's plagiarism. He was bereft of true
enlightenment and simply stole entire passages from other peoples' works
by copying word for word their paragraphs and to bootm, adding insult
to injury by redacting the characters to suit his unquenchable thirst
for supreme power as a godman on Earth. It's been discussed by both
Eckists and non-Eckist on this newsgroup but unfortunately the Eckist lost.
This is nothing new. Mohammed did it........Joseph Smith did
it.............L Ron Hubub did it.........and the list goes on.
The only guys that really pulled it off successfully were Mohammed and
Smith, creating very powerful religious practices. Eckankar and
Scientology were a piss in the bucket.

Oog

[Rich]

Kent chuckles and congratulates himself about yet another demonstration of
what appears to me to be an engram mandating condescending responses based
on completley ignoring the point of research/facts presented, attacking
and misrepresenting the messenger.

He has the blind audacity to broadstroke this messenger,

a *university sponsored* journal, a "refereed, open access e-journal
that aims to disseminate research, theory, and best practice"
"to scholars and practitioners of open and distance learning worldwide",

as those that manipulate the facts, are upset about copyright laws because
they want to rip off others for profit?!

All that distortion grows out of and proves the point:
Despite the history, the actual law, and a U.S. Supreme Court decision
that even "infringement is not theft", Kent is mentally blocked and will
continue presenting plagiarism as theft and stealing, and something that
Eckists and Eckankar supports when it suits them.

This journal actually covers the whole spectrum of pro's and cons on
distance learning. The current issue's first paper is about 'detection and
remediation of plagiarism'... How could that be allowed, how well does
that jive with Kent's assertion that this journal is produced by those
that want to "lift the writing from such books and sell it over the
internet"?

In reality being published in this journal is based on peer review from a
list of international scholars:

Alfred Rovai, Regent University, USA ~ Regional Editor for North America
Rashid Aderinoye, University of Ibadan, Nigeria ~ Regional Editor for
Africa
Cengiz Hakan Aydin, Anadolu University, Turkey ~ Regional Editor for the
Middle East
Patrick Alan Danaher, University of Southern Queensland, Australia ~
Regional Editor for Oceana Pacific, Australia
Insung Jung, International Christian University, Japan ~ Regional Editor
for Asia Major
Fredric Michael Litto, University of São Paulo, Brazil ~ Regional Editor
for Central and South America
Morten Flate Paulsen, Norgesuniversitetet, Norway ~ Regional Editor for
Northern Europe
Sanjaya Mishra, Indira Gandhi National Open University ~ Regional Editor
for Asia Minor
Gbolagade Adekanmbi, University of Botswana
Bill Anderson, Massey University, New Zealand
Jason D Baker, Regent University, USA
Tony Bates, Open University of Catalonia, Spain
Ulrich Bernath, Universität Oldenburg, Germany
Mark Bullen, British Columbia Institute of Technology, Canada
Jose Bidarra, Universidade Aberta, Portugal
Liz Burge, University of New Brunswick, Canada
Miguel Casas Armengol, Consultant, Educación Abierta (CEAB), Venezuela
Carmencita Layug Castolo, Open University, Polytechnic University of the
Philippines
Fabio Chacon, Empire State College, USA
Jon Baggaley, Athabasca University, Canada
Byron B. Burnham, Utah State University, USA
Jane Chen, National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan
Peter J Dirr, Crestwood Associates, USA
Marta Mena, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Karen L. Murphy, Western New Mexico University, USA
Don Olcott, Jr., Western Oregon University, USA
Santosh Panda, Indira Gandhi National Open University, India
B.K. Passi, UNESCO and University of Kmutt, Thailand
David L Passmore, The Pennsylvania State University, USA
Daniel Peraya, Universitè de Genevè, Switzerland
Alejandro Pisanty, UNAM (Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico)
Jost Reischmann, Bamberg University, Germany
Torstein Rekkedal, NKI, Norway
Dan Eastmond, Western Governors University, USA
Chris Evans, Brunel University, UK
Lorenzo Garcia Aretio, UNESCO Chair in Distance Education, Spain
Luis Galarza, DePaul University, USA
D. Randy Garrison, University of Calgary
Yolanda Gayol, Fielding Graduate Institute, USA
Chere Campbell Gibson, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Charlotte (Lani) Gunawardena, University of New Mexico, USA
Sarah Guri-Rosenblit, open university of israel
Keith William Harry, Council for Education in the Commonwealth, UK
Margaret Haughey, University of Alberta, Canada
Rozhan M. Irdus, Universiti Saints Malaysia
Muain Jamlan, University of Bahrain
Olugbemiro Jegede, The Open University of Hong Kong
Cecilia Junio-Sabio, Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Erin Keough, Open Learning & Information Network(OLIN), Canada
Paul Kirshner, Paul Kirschner, Open University, Netherlands
Murugan ( Krishna) Krishnapillai, Tamil Nadu Open University, India
Therese Lamy, Systems Education at a Distance, Canada
Antonis Lionarakis, Hellenic Open University, Greece
Judy Roberts, Judy Roberts & Associates/Associes Inc.
Liam Rourke, Learning Sciences Lab, Singapore
Takashi Sakamoto, National Institute of Multimedia Education, Japan
Farhad Saba, San Diego State University, USA
Albert Sangra, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain
Ramesh Chander Sharma, Indira Gandhi National Open University
Namin Shin, Open University Hong Kong
Bohdan Shunevych, Open University, Ukraine
Richard Siaciwena, Strategic Advisor, International Extension College,
Mozambique
Barbara Spronk, Senior Consultant, International Extension College, UK
Elizabeth Anne Stacey, Deakin University
Paul Johannes Nicolaas Steyn, Midrand University, South Africa
James C Taylor, University of Southern Queensland, Australia
Alan Tait, Open University, UK
Philip M. Uys, University of Botswana
Wim Van Petegem, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Wil Verreck, Open University, Netherlands
Christine von Prümmer, Fernuniversität, Germany
Runfeng Wei, Jiangsu Radio & Television University, China
Steve Wheeler, University of Plymouth
Wei Yuan Zhang, The University Hong Kong

What's it take to get published?

"Peer reviewers are chosen based upon their research of the submission's
subject matter and expertise in the research method. All peer reviewers
hold PhDs. In special instances wherein a peer reviewer does not hold a
PhD, the paper will be subject to three peer reviews, two of which will be
judged by PhD-prepared academics.

Criteria by which Peer Reviewers will be ask to evaluate and judge all
Main Section submissions are:

1. Complete, clear and well organized presentation;
2. Significance of the problem;
3. Applicability and interest to the field (relevance beyond case
presented);
4. Original contribution to open and distance learning;
5. Description of the problem within a theoretical framework (where
appropriate);
6. Literature review demonstrates a clear relationship between problem and
ODL and other relevant literature;
7. Appropriateness of research design and method;
8. Accurate and useful interpretation;
9. Sound argument and analysis;
10.Conclusion describes implications for distance education theory,
research and/or practice.

The specific paper I quoted had extensive research citations:

Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 112 2860 105-304 (1998). Retrieved
September 24, 2004 from: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf
Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, S505 (1998). Retrieved August 21,
2004 from: http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/s505.pdf
Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act, 107(2) (2002). Retrieved August 7,
2004 from: http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/BOUCHE_025.pdf
Technology Education and Copyright Harmonization (TEACH) Act, 107-687 S487
(2002). Retrieved September 2, 2004 from: http://thomas.loc.gov/
Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations
(BALANCE ) Act, H. R. 1066 Cong. Rec. (2003). Retrieved September 13, 2004
from: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.1066:Public Domain
Enhancement Act (2003). Retrieved September 12, 2004 from:
http://www.eldred.cc/eablog/TheBill.pdf
Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation (PIRATE)
Act, S2237 (2004). Retrieved September 2, 2004 from:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/
Scientific Publications: Free for all? House of Commons (UK), 2003-2004,
Sess. HC 399-I (2004). Retrieved July 20, 2004 from:
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/3rd Ear Music. (n.d.).
Where does the lion sleep tonight? Retrieved September 1, 2004 from:
http://www.3rdearmusic.com/forum/mbube2.html
Adler, A. (2001, June 27). Statement of Allan R. Adler vice president for
legal and governmental affairs Association of American Publishers before
the Subcommittee on courts, the Internet and intellectual property House
Judiciary Committee concerning S.487 "The Technology, Education And
Copyright Harmonization Act Of 2001." Retrieved September 20, 2004 from:
http://www.publishers.org/home/congrpt/h487testimony.htm
Albini, S. (1998, February 6). The problem with music. Retrieved October
31, 2002 from: http://mitvma.mit.edu/~mhb/ALBINI.HTML
Anonymous Coward. (2004, August 15). I confess. I'm a software pirate.
Retrieved September 3, 2004 from:
http://www.peerfear.org/rss/permalink/2004/08/15/IConfessIMASoftwarePirate/Aristotle.
(2004, April). The Poetics. Retrieved September 9, 2004 from:
http://www.authorama.com/the-poetics-5.html
Associated Press. (2004, June 28). Sovereign Iraqi government sworn into
power [Electronic version]. Globe and Mail. Retrieved June 28, 2004 from:
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/
Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (2004).
Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement: Intellectual property.
Retrieved September 11, 2004 from: http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/
Avalon, M. (2003, May 1). Major labels caught stealing $100m a year:
Record clubs get a smack upside the head by federal judge. Retrieved May
11, 2003 from: http://musicdish.com/mag/?id=8048
Barlow, J. P. (1994, March). The economy of ideas [Electronic version].
Wired, 2(03). Retrieved September 10, 2004 from:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.03/economy.ieda.html
Barlow, J. P. (1996). Selling wine without bottles: The economy of mind on
the global net. In High noon on the electronic frontier: conceptual issues
in cyberspace (pp. 9 - 34). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Barlow, J. P. (2002). Intellectual property, information age. In A.
Thierer and C. W. Crews, Jr. (Eds.), Copyfights: The future of
intellectual property in the information age (pp. 37 - 41). Washington,
D.C.: Cato Institute.
Bell, T. W. (2002). Indelicate imbalancing in copyright and patent law. In
A. Thierer and C. W. Crews, Jr. (Eds.), Copyfights: The future of
intellectual property in the information age (pp. 1 - 16). Washington,
D.C.: Cato Institute.
Billboard.biz. (2004). Document room. Retrieved September 20, 2004 from:
http://www.billboard.com/bb/biz/research/document_room/index.jsp
Black, J. (2002, September 27). A case to define the digital age. Business
Week Online. Retrieved August 22, 2004 from:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2002/tc20020927_7367.htm
Bloom, J. (2002, November 22). Right and wrong: The copy-right
infringement [Electronic version]. National Review Online. Retrieved
December 3, 2002 from:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-bloom112202.asp
Bollier, D. (2003). Silent theft: The private plunder of our common
wealth. New York: Routledge.
Borland, J. (2004, January 14). Rights issue dogs CD protection
[Electronic version]. Globe and Mail. Retrieved January 16, 2004 from:
http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/
Bricklin, D. (2002). Copy protection robs the future. Retrieved September
25, 2002 from: http://www.bricklin.com/robfuture.htm
Bulte, S. D. (2004, May). Interim Report on Copyright Reform: Report of
the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Retrieved September 1, 2004
from: http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfocomDoc/Documents/
Cahill, T. (1995). How the Irish saved civilization: The untold story of
Ireland's heroic role from the fall of Rome to the rise of medieval Europe
(Vol. I). New York: Doubleday.
Cairncross, F. (1997). The death of distance: how the communications
revolution will change our lives.London: Orion Publishing Group Ltd.
Card, O. S. (2003, September 7). Art watch. The Ornery American. Retrieved
December 29, 2003 from:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1.html
Carlson, S. (2003a, April 2). Penn State Provost warns students that they
could go to prison for illegal file sharing [Electronic version].
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved April 4, 2003 from:
http://chronicle.com/free/2003/04/2003040201t.htm
Carlson, S. (2003b, May 23). A president tries to settle the controversy
over file sharing: Penn State's Graham Spanier wants to make a deal with
the music industry [Electronic version]. Chronicle of Higher Education,
49(37), A27. Retrieved May 18, 2003 from:
http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i37/37a02701.htm
Casey, J. (2004, July). Intellectual property rights (IPR) in networked
e-learning: A beginners guide for content developers. JISC Legal
Information Service. Retrieved October 4, 2004 from:
http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/publications/johncasey_1.htm
Chartrand, H. H. (2000, Fall). Copyright C.P.U.: Creators, proprietors and
users [Electronic version]. Journal of Arts Management, Law & Society,
30(3). Retrieved September 7, 2004 from:
http://www.culturaleconomics.atfreeweb.com/cpu.htm
Cisneros, O. S. (1999, July 27). Universal: Don't link to us. Wired News.
Retrieved August 19, 2004 from:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,20948,00.html
Concannon, K. (2004, July 1). St. Columcille: Ireland's first 'White
Martyr' [Electronic version]. Catholic Herald. Retrieved August 20, 2004
from: http://www.catholicherald.com/articles/04articles/columcille.htm
Craver, S. A., McGregor, J. P., Wu, M., Liu, B., Stubblefield, A.,
Swartzlander, B., et al. (2001, July). Reading between the lines: Lessons
from: the SDMI Challenge [Electronic version]. Wired, 9(07), 61 - 63.
Retrieved September 10, 2004 from: http://cryptome.org/sdmi-attack
Creative Commons. (2004). Creative Commons home page. Retrieved September
6, 2004 from: http://creativecommons.org/learn/
Davis, J. (2004, May 2). Arizona open range laws & cattle theft? Retrieved
September 1, 2004 from: http://www.azod.com/SpeakingOut/2004/Q2/
Department of Justice (Canada). (1985, August 31, 2002). Copyright Act
(R.S. 1985, c. C-42). Retrieved March 20, 2003 from:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/
Downes, S. (2003a, April). Copyright, ethics and theft [Electronic
version]. Journal of the United States Distance Learning Association,
17(2). Retrieved May 13, 2003 from:
http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/ED_APR03.pdf
Downes, S. (2003b, December 30). The turning point: Attacking open
content. Retrieved January 4, 2004 from: http://www.downes.ca/
Ebbinghouse, C. (2002, Nov/Dec 2002). Just can't hardly give it away:
Generosity versus copyright [Electronic version]. Searcher, 10(10).
Retrieved November 15, 2002 from:
http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/nov02/ebbinghouse2.htm
Editors. (2004, August). Stationers Company. Literary Encyclopedia.
Retrieved September 7, 2004 from:
http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=1309
Electronic Frontier Foundation. (n.d.). Universities should resist network
monitoring demands. Retrieved September 10, 2004 from:
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/university-monitoring.pdf
English Nature. (2004). Sheep and Wildlife Enhancement Scheme - sustaining
wildlife and sheep farming Information Note 1 - The National Picture,
2004. Retrieved September 1, 2004 from:
http://www.english-nature.org.uk/pubs/publication/PDF/swesinfo1.pdf
European Union. (2003, January 30). Proposed directive on enforcement of
intellectual property rights: frequently asked questions. Retrived
September 18, 2003 from: http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/
Forté, B. (2000, June 15). The Statute of Queen Anne. Retrieved September
1, 2004 from: http://betweenborders.com/queenanne/
Frame, J. M. (2002, April 17). A distinguished theologian looks at
copyright ethics and the fair use of technology: The other shoe: Copyright
and the reasonable use of technology. Retrieved July 6, 2003 from:
http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2002/04/20020417131622.shtml
Geist, M. (2004, September 17). A balanced approach to reforming copyright
law [Electronic version]. University Affairs. Retrieved October 4, 2004
from:
http://www.universityaffairs.ca/issues/2004/october/copyright_law_01.html
Gittins, R. (2004, August 11). Just what are we giving away? [Electronic
version]. The Age. Retrieved September 21, 2004 from:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/10/1092102446841.html?oneclick=true
Greenspan, A. (2004, February 27). Intellectual property rights: Remarks
at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Economic Summit.
Retrieved September 1, 2004 from: http://www.federalreserve.gov/
Hardin, G. (1968, December 13). The tragedy of the commons [Electronic
version]. Science, 162, 1243 - 1248. Retrieved August 20, 2004 from:
http://dieoff.org/page95.htm
Harpur, T. (2004). The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light.Toronto:
Thomas Allen.
Horn, P., Maxwell, E., and Crawford, S. (2004). Promoting Innovation and
Economic Growth: The Special Problem of Digital Intellectual Property.
Retrieved September 1, 2004 from:
http://www.ced.org/docs/report/report_dcc_v2.pdf
House of Commons. (1709). An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by
Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Author's or Purchasers of Such
Copies. Retrieved October 28, 2003 from:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s2.html
Howard, R. M. (1988). Review of Mallon, Thomas. Stolen Words: Forays into
the origins and ravages of plagiarism. New York: Ticknor and Fields, 1989.
Retrieved September 9, 2004 from:
http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/3.1/reviews/howard/mallon.html
Indiana University. (2004, September 10). Digital Library of the Commons.
Retrieved September 6, 2004 from: http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/
Industry Canada. (2004a, January 1). Assessing the economic impact of
copyright reform in the area of technology-enhanced learning. Retrieved
September 25, 2004 from:
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/Internet/inippd-dppi.nsf/en/ip01104e.html
Industry Canada. (2004b, February 17). Presentations on the Canadian
intellectual property regime. Retrieved September 6, 2004 from:
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/Internet/inippd-dppi.nsf/en/ip01080e.html
Infoweblinks.com. (n. d.). Copyright and piracy. Retrieved October 4, 2004
from: http://www.infoweblinks.com/content/copyright-piracy.htm
International Data Corporation. (2004, July 4). Global software piracy
study. Retrieved September 3, 2004 from: http://www.bsa.org/globalstudy/
Isa, M. (2004, July 2). A flap over "The Lion Sleeps Tonight." Reuters.
Retrieved July 12, 2004 from: http://www.reuters.com/
Jardin, X. (2004, March 26). Congress moves to criminalize P2P. Wired
News. Retrieved March 27, 2004 from:
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,62830,00.html
Jaszi, P. (2001, May 29). Intellectual property legislative
update:Copyright, paracopyright, and pseudo-Copyright. Retrieved May 20,
2003 from: http://www.arl.org/arl/proceedings/132/luncheon/jaszi.html
Jefferson, T. (1813, August 13). Thomas Jefferson letter to Isaac
McPherson 13:333--34 [Electronic version]. Foundation Constitution,
16(25). Retrieved August 21, 2004 from:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s25.html
Jesdanun, A. (2001, August 9). Freedom to link: A fundamental premise of
the Web is challenged [Electronic version]. Detroit News. Retrieved August
19, 2004 from:
http://www.detnews.com/2002/technology/0206/11/technology-510823.htm
Kapica, J. (2002, August 13). MP3s not source of music industry woes:
Study [Electronic version]. Globe and Mail. Retrieved September 25, 2004
from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Karjala, D. S. (2003, January 31). Some famous works and year of first
publication (subverted public domain list). Retrieved August 8, 2003 from:
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/
Katyal, S. K. (2004, April). The New Surveillance [Electronic version].
Case Western Law Review, 54(297). Retrieved April 30, 2004 from:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=527003
Khan, B. Z. (2004, February). Does copyright piracy pay? The Effects of
U.S. International Copyright Laws on the Market for Books, 1790-1920: NBER
Working Paper No. w10271. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved
October 4, 2004 from: http://www.nber.org/papers/W10271
Langlois, M., Heller, R. F., Edwards, R., Lyratzopoulos, G., and Sandars,
J. (2004, April 7). Restrictions impeding web-based courses: a survey of
publisher's variation in authorising access to high quality on-line
literature [Electronic version]. BMC Medical Education, 4(7). Retrieved
April 15, 2004 from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/4/7/
Levy, S. (2002, September 25). Lawrence Lessig's supreme showdown
[Electronic version]. Wired, 10(10). Retrieved October 3, 2002 from:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.10/lessig.html
Liebowitz, S. J. (2004, June 8). Copyright issues, copying and MP3
downloading. Retrieved October 4, 2004 from:
http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/intprop/main.htm
Lipinski, T. A. (2003). Legal issues in the development and use of
copyrighted material in web-based education. In M. G. Moore & W. G.
Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 481 - 503). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Litman, J. (2002). Revising copyright law for the information age. In A.
Thierer & C. W. Crews, Jr. (Eds.), Copyfights: The future of intellectual
property in the information age (pp. 125 - 145). Washington, D.C.: Cato
Institute.
Locke, J. (1692, January 2). A letter to Clarke. Retrieved September 6,
2004 from: http://orion.mt.tama.hosei.ac.jp/hideaki/twocopy.htm
Ludlow, P. (Ed.). (1996). High noon on the electronic frontier: Conceptual
issues in cyberspace.Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Lutzker, A. P. (1999, March 8). Primer on the Digital Millenium: What the
Digital Millenium Copyright Act and the Copyright Extension Act mean for
the library community. Retrieved September 10, 2003 from:
http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/primer.html
Lyman, P., and Varian, H. R. (2003). How much information? Retrieved
September 6, 2004 from: http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/
Lynch, C. (2001, May 28). The battle to determine the future of the book
in the digital world. First Monday, 6 (6), 66. Retrieved September 30,
2004 from: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_6/lynch/index.html
Macavinta, C. (1997, May 19). Sidewalk sidesteps Ticketmaster. CNET
News.com. Retrieved August 19, 2004 from:
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-279913.html?tag=rn
Makin, K. (2004, March 5). Ruling rejects licensing fees:Those making
single copies of judgments for research purposes will not have to pay.
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/
McDonald, I. (1997). Copyright and intellectual property concerns of
Australia's indigenous people. Retrieved September 6, 2004 from:
http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/Articles/A97n12.pdf
Merriam-Webster. (2004). Merriam Webster Online: steal. Retrieved
September 3, 2004 from: http://dictionary.oed.com/
Morgan, F. (2003, December 3). Copywrong: Copyright laws are stifling art,
but the public domain can save us [Electronic version]. Independent.
Retrieved December 5, 2003 from:
http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2003-12-03/cover.html
Nadin, M. (1997). The civilization of illiteracy. Retrieved September 3,
2004 from: http://digital.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=2481
Naughton, J. (2003, February 9). Intellectual property is theft. Ideas are
for sharing [Electronic version]. The Observer. Retrieved February 25,
2003 from: http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,891687,00.html
Open Knowledge Initiative. (2004). OKI home page. Retrieved September 26,
2004 from: http://www.okiproject.org/
Oram, A. (Ed.). (2001). Peer to peer: Harnessing the power of disruptive
technologies. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly and Associates.
Oxford University Press. (1989). Oxford English Dictionary: steal.
Retrieved September 1, 2004 from: http://dictionary.oed.com/
Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Oxford English Dictionary: plagiarize.
Retrieved September 9, 2004 from:
http://0-dictionary.oed.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/cgi/entry/00180580
Paine, A. B. (Ed.). (1917). Mark Twain's letters.New York: Harper and
Brothers.
Project Gutenberg. (2003, May 3). What is project Gutenberg? Retrieved
June 25, 2004 from: http://promo.net/pg/
Reporter. (2002, November 22). Efforts to stop music piracy 'pointless'
[Electronic version]. BBC News. Retrieved November 23, 2002 from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2502399.stm
Reuters. (2004, June 11). RIAA seeks digital radio copying limits. CNET
News.com. Retrieved June 12, 2004 from:
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5232048.html
Recording Industry Association of America RIAA. (2003). What the RIAA Is
doing about piracy. Retrieved September 1, 2004 from:
http://www.riaa.com/issues/piracy/riaa.asp
Rothman, D. (2004, October 10). The Microsoft Reader crack: The lowdown
from 'Winston Smith,' Convert Lit coder. Retrieved September 1, 2004 from:
http://www.teleread.org/blog/2003_10_05_archive.html
Rupley, S. (2004, March 3). The nuclear weapon of digital rights law:
Europe set to establish restrictive copyright legislation [Electronic
version]. PC Magazine. Retrieved March 14, 2004 from:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/ZDM/EU_digital_rights_pcmag_040302.html
Scientific Information Exchange. (2004, March 30). ScIX Project Home Page.
Retrieved September 6, 2004 from: http://www.scix.net/
SearchSecurity.com. (2004, August 14). Walled garden. Retrieved September
1, 2004 from:
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,sid14_gci554703,00.html
Self, K. M. (2004, April 11). On software "piracy", lies, BSA, Microsoft,
rocks, and hard penguins. Retrieved September 3, 2004 from:
http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Rants/piracy.html
Sherwin, A. (2003, March 28). Universities to be sued over music downloads
[Electronic version]. Times Online. Retrieved March 28, 2003 from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,2-625793,00.html
Shirata, H. (1992). The origin of two American copyright theories: A case
of the reception of English law. Retrieved September 6, 2004 from:
http://orion.mt.tama.hosei.ac.jp/hideaki/twocopy.htm
SPARC-OA Forum. (2004, August 30). An open letter to the U.S. Congress
signed by 25 Nobel Prize winners. Retrieved September 10, 2004 from:
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/991.html
Stallman, R. M. (1997, February). The right to read [Electronic version].
Communications of the ACM, 40(2). Retrieved March 14, 2004 from:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Suber, P. (2003, no date). Sabo bill sparks copyright controversy.
Retrieved September 1, 2004 from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/
Supreme Court of Canada. (2004, March 4). CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society
of Upper Canada. Retrieved September 2, 2004 from:
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/
Surowiecki, J. (2002, January 21). Righting copy wrongs [Electronic
version]. New Yorker. Retrieved September 25, 2004 from:
http://www.newyorker.com/
Thomas, J. B. (2004). St. Columba [Electronic version]. The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Volume IV. Retrieved March 25, 2004 from:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04136a.htm
Trosow, S. E. (2003, September 7). Copyright protection for federally
funded research: Necessary incentive or double subsidy? Retrieved
September 1, 2004 from: http://publish.uwo.ca/~strosow/Sabo_Bill_Paper.pdf
U.S. Congress. (1998, October 7). Mrs. Bono's address to the House
[Electronic version]. Congressional Record House, 144(H9952). Retrieved
August 22, 2004 from: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
U.S. Constitutional Convention. (1787). Constitution of the United States.
Retrieved September 1, 2004 from:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2004, June 4). Business guide for Iraq.
Retrieved September 11, 2004 from:
http://www.export.gov/iraq/bus_climate/businessguide_current.html
U.S. Department of State. (2004, May 3). U.S. releases 2004 report on
intellectual property protection. Retrieved September 11, 2004 from:
http://usinfo.state.gov/ei/Archive/2004/May/03-429506.html
Dowling v. United States, No. 84-589. 473 U.S. 207 U.S. Supreme Court
(1985). Retrieved August 14, 2004 from:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/
New York Times Co. Inc. et al v. Tasini et al. certiori, No. 00-201 United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (2001). Retrieved August
21, 2004 from: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-201.ZS.html
United Nations. (n.d.). World Intellectual Property Organization.
Retrieved September 20, 2004 from: http://www.wipo.int/
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2001). Copyrights and copywrongs: the rise of
intellectual property and how it threatens creativity. New York: New York
University Press.
Vaknin, S. (2004, January 7). Project Gutenberg's anabasis. Retrieved
January 12, 2004 from:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040106-041656-1684r
Valenti, J. (1983, April 12). Home Recordings of Copyrighted Works
Hearings [Electronic version]. The Subcommittee on Courts, Civil
Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee of the
Judiciary. Retrieved July 12, 2003 from: http://cryptome.org/.
Vanderzee, K. (2003, June 26). Public Library of Science acts to increase
public access to scientific research; New Bill will ensure public access
to federally funded research results. Retrieved September 1, 2004 from:
http://www.plos.org/news/announce_wings.html
Washington, G. (1790, July 17). The First U.S. Copyright Law [Electronic
version]. Columbian Centinel. Retrieved August 21, 2004 from:
http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/copyright/
Wilder, C. (2000, August 21). The Wilder side: Music industry's long,
strange trip [Electronic version]. Information Week. Retrieved August 20,
2004 from: http://www.informationweek.com/800/00uwcw.htm
WIPO. (2004, October 4). Geneva Declaration on the future of the World
Intellectual Property Organization. Retrieved October 10, 2004 from:
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/genevadeclaration.html
Won, S. (2004, March 8). Court's copyright ruling in spotlight:
Implications likely include business related to Internet [Electronic
version]. Globe and Mail. Retrieved March 9, 2004 from:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/
WritingWorld.com. (2004). Rights, contracts and copyright. Retrieved
October 4, 2004 from: http://www.writing-world.com/rights/index.shtml
Zittrain, J. (2002, November 24). Calling off the copyright war: In battle
of property vs. free speech, no one wins [Electronic version]. Boston
Globe, D12. Retrieved December 2, 2002 from:
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/

All that's still not enough to stop Kent from dismissing the issue out of
hand or even peeking through his engrams.

Plagiarism is not what "theft" implies, and neither is copyright
infringement.

"if it were a moral issue, then copyrights should never expire"

` o

|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote

[tianyue]

And yet, this journal copyrights its own work. This is the essence of
hypocrisy. As well as does eckankar. Kind of says it all....

Leaf

[Rich]

"tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:1150310801.0...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

To add another note to my previous post, I've gone to the Eckankar
internet sites and found eckankar's own copyright:

Copyright © 1995-2006, ECKANKAR. All rights reserved. This copyright
notice applies to this home page and all other pages of this Web site.
The terms ECKANKAR, ECK, EK, MAHANTA, SOUL TRAVEL, and VAIRAGI, among
others, are trademarks of ECKANKAR, PO Box 2000, Chanhassen, MN
55317-2000 USA.
Last modified January 25, 2006 051029a

So, it appears the concern over copyrights among some eckists posting
here is disengenuous. Their own teaching copyrights its material. I
remember all the guidlines eckankar puts out about copyrights, and how
strictly they are enforced with the membership. Well, go figure...

## Kent's figuring dead ends at false attribution about Eckists
and Eckankar.

What most Eckists here are somewhat concerned with is such
misrepresentation of their beliefs, experiences, the law,
and the actual facts of issues. In this case an objective
overview of the truth about plagiarism and copyright that
Kent keeps demonstrating is block by his scope of perception.

` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Rich]

'Kent obsesses over his false premises' pretty much sums up most of his
activity here. Whatever the cause, watching him chew on himself like he
does, all the time thinking he's fighting us, isn't pleasant. He's so
full of himself already that it doesn't appear he'll ever get over it.

Spiritual lessons... we're all looking in the mirror.

` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"cher" <Gruen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150321716....@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

[tianyue]

Rich, try to read this statement by the editors at the online journal
that you provided if you are at all able. Notice that their own OPEN
ACCESS policy applies three restrictions that Paul Twitchell did not
comply with in his own clearly made copyright violations. Even with
this journal's open policy, they still enforce basic protections for
authors:

Following is a verbatim excerpt of the policy, with the full text
below:

"The Creative Commons licensed chosen provides access to everyone
with the following restrictions:

Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the
author or licensor.

Non-commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

No Derivative Works: You may not alter, transform, or build upon this
work."
----------------------
So, as anyone with a brain can see, your own source you've provided
has a view much closer to my own than to your view. The policy is not
at all reflective of the extreme position that you have taken. The
policy is, in fact, actually much more reasonable and balanced than
anything you have claimed. In fact, the policy is so reasonable that I
might be in agreement with it myself, more or less. I'd first have to
give it some careful, detailed study. Remember that the article you
posted may not be reflective of all those who constitute editorial
positions on the editorial staff. Nor does the list of contributing
editors imply that all these editors agree completely with the writer
of one published article in the journal. Also, as I already pointed
out, the author of the article you posted concludes that balance is
desired, not complete disrespect of other author's works and rights.
You misunderstood this and misconstrued the intent of the author. Even
the author admits that most universities don't ascribe to the views
of the author, in that they are generally supportive of contemporary
copyright laws just as they are, without modification. And finally, the
journal itself copyrights its own publications, which as I have stated
previously, tends to speak volumes.

In anycase, Twitchell did not attribute any works he plagiarized,
Twitchell charged for the writings he plagiarized, Twitchell altered,
transformed, and built upon the works he plagiarized, which puts
Twitchell in violation of the journal's very basic and liberal Open
Access Policy. So even with such an open concept as this journal has
toward creative works, Twitchell was still outside the broad parameters
and restrictions.

Here's the full text of the policy:

Open Access Policy

In the spirit of openness and removing restriction on access, the
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL)
is committed to making the full and complete content of its published
works freely available to anyone via the open Internet. Authors are
required to transfer the copyright of their work to Athabasca
University, the publisher of IRRODL, and until 2006 all rights were
reserved by the University. We have now moved to a more liberal policy
whereby all content published in IRRODL is licensed under a Creative
Commons License. The Creative Commons licensed chosen provides access
to everyone with the following restrictions:

Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the
author or licensor.

Non-commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

No Derivative Works: You may not alter, transform, or build upon this
work.

The language of the derivative works clause may be confusing in that it
is meant in a literal sense of not being able to add features to the
text directly, thereby creating a new jointly authored text. This type
of 'building upon' is common in Open Source software products, but
not common in the publication of academic journal articles. Of course,
we want scholars and practitioners to 'build upon' the work
published in IRRODL, but they do so by quoting, referencing, and
through limited excerpts as is common in scholarly publication.

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/about/editorialPolicies#openAccessPolicy

[Rich]

Habitually ignoring the facts and attacking the messenger like is a
defense mechanism that is out of control.

"tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote

> And yet, this journal copyrights its own work. This is the essence of
> hypocrisy.

Nope, it's a reality that you repeatedly demonstrate you are incapable of
accepting. Along with Eckankar, the journal is not what your aberrated
imagination dictates it is to you.

Again, plagiarism is not what "theft" implies, and neither is copyright
infringement. Eckists, the journal nor Eckankar is against copyrights. The
way in which your mind manages to believe otherwise indicates a need for
some professional help.

[cher]

Rich wrote:
> Habitually ignoring the facts and attacking the messenger like is a
> defense mechanism that is out of control.
>
> "tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> > And yet, this journal copyrights its own work. This is the essence of
> > hypocrisy.
>
>
> Nope, it's a reality that you repeatedly demonstrate you are incapable of
> accepting. Along with Eckankar, the journal is not what your aberrated
> imagination dictates it is to you.
>
> Again, plagiarism is not what "theft" implies, and neither is copyright
> infringement. Eckists, the journal nor Eckankar is against copyrights. The
> way in which your mind manages to believe otherwise indicates a need for
> some professional help.

kent has to spin this topic to serve his superficial prejudice. It's
that simple, Rich! Much like Ann Coulter in her latest hatemongering
tour, the principle is to keep the avenue of discussion closed for the
sake of preaching to the choir. The "dead giveaway" to what's happening
is the personal attacks aspect that attempts to sully the other people
in the debate with conflicting viewpoints morally rather than address
the issues. I take heart in this regard, as it basically means that
there are no new converts in consideration when this tactic is used. It
doesn't matter that the entire world is discussing this issue
intelligently, kent has the only perspective anyone should listen
according to him. If you don't believe me, just ask him. <sigh>
His choir, as limited as his narrow mind and his world view. At least
they entertain one another. <wink>

[tianyue]

Rich wrote:
> Habitually ignoring the facts and attacking the messenger like is a
> defense mechanism that is out of control.
>

I have not ignored any facts, Rich. The facts are clearly on my side.
So far you've not answered the other detailed post I made. Cat got your
tongue?

> "tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> > And yet, this journal copyrights its own work. This is the essence of
> > hypocrisy.
>
>
> Nope, it's a reality that you repeatedly demonstrate you are incapable of
> accepting. Along with Eckankar, the journal is not what your aberrated
> imagination dictates it is to you.
>
> Again, plagiarism is not what "theft" implies, and neither is copyright
> infringement. Eckists, the journal nor Eckankar is against copyrights. The
> way in which your mind manages to believe otherwise indicates a need for
> some professional help.

> Rich

[cher]

tianyue wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > Habitually ignoring the facts and attacking the messenger like is a
> > defense mechanism that is out of control.
> >
>
>
> I have not ignored any facts, Rich. The facts are clearly on my side.
> So far you've not answered the other detailed post I made. Cat got your
> tongue?

Rich has answered you repeatedly, at which time you generally turn the
discussion towards personal insults and attacks. It's all in the
archives, kent..... <sigh> And no, the facts are not clearly on your
side, because you've taken a very narrow position establishing only the
merit of the academic argument, but foregoing any awareness of the
professional side, much less the differences in the various forms of
arts. In fact, all you have going for you is your personal investment
in david lane's childhood thesis. <sigh> Do you realize that since lane
made up those silly stories, we've had several changes to copyright law
which he and his followers such as yourself, have completel ignored?
Yep... no interest in the subject whatsoever, apparently.

By the way, whatever happened with that copyright infringement suit
lane promised would be brought against Eckankar? All that bluster, but
not a word back on the progress. :-/

[tianyue]

cher wrote:
> tianyue wrote:
> > Rich wrote:
> > > Habitually ignoring the facts and attacking the messenger like is a
> > > defense mechanism that is out of control.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I have not ignored any facts, Rich. The facts are clearly on my side.
> > So far you've not answered the other detailed post I made. Cat got your
> > tongue?
>
> Rich has answered you repeatedly, at which time you generally turn the
> discussion towards personal insults and attacks.

Its clear for anyone with a modicum of objectivity that I have been
fairly civil in my responses, despite numerous personal attacks by
Rich, you, as well as JR.

Tianyue

[cher]

tianyue wrote:
> cher wrote:
> > tianyue wrote:
> > > Rich wrote:
> > > > Habitually ignoring the facts and attacking the messenger like is a
> > > > defense mechanism that is out of control.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have not ignored any facts, Rich. The facts are clearly on my side.
> > > So far you've not answered the other detailed post I made. Cat got your
> > > tongue?
> >
> > Rich has answered you repeatedly, at which time you generally turn the
> > discussion towards personal insults and attacks.
>
>
> Its clear for anyone with a modicum of objectivity that I have been
> fairly civil in my responses, despite numerous personal attacks by
> Rich, you, as well as JR.

LOL..... Yeah, it's really handy to claim the high ground while in the
same sentence suggesting Rich, JR and I personally attack you! You do
seem very quick to slur others while you place yourself on that
pedestal once again. I should be accustomed to your conceit by now, but
it still surprises me all the same. Oh well...... <smile> such is life
on usenet. :-)

[Rich]

## Still blind to the point that plagiarism and copyright infringement are
not theft; unable to refute the history, law, research and facts
presented; Kent has move from first attacking and misrepresenting the peer
review Journal, to the individual who wrote the paper, and now to what was
probably his actual underlying intent, attacking Paul Twitchell.

"tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote

Rich, try to read this statement by the editors at the online journal
that you provided if you are at all able.

## Not only am I able, but unlike Kent I can view it objectively.

Notice that their own OPEN
ACCESS policy applies three restrictions that Paul Twitchell did not
comply with in his own clearly made copyright violations. Even with
this journal's open policy, they still enforce basic protections for
authors:

Following is a verbatim excerpt of the policy, with the full text
below:

"The Creative Commons licensed chosen provides access to everyone
with the following restrictions:

Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the
author or licensor.

## Not one author or licensor specified any thing to Paul.

Non-commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

## Paul did not use the bits that were the same for commercial purpose.

No Derivative Works: You may not alter, transform, or build upon this
work."

## Except Fair Use:

"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case
is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

## (Purpose- Spiritual teaching, Nonprofit, Yes)

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

## (Universal spiritual truths, Yes)

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

## (Small amounts, Yes)

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

## (No effect, Yes)

But, yes, Paul did alter, transform, and build upon scattered truths
incorporating them with his own experiences into one new teaching. And
thousands are grateful for the way he was able to bring them together
because it lead them to a greater spiritual awareness.

Point of order:
The copyright laws in effect in Paul's time were written in 1909.
What Paul did was commonly accepted practice in his day.
Both have change dramatically and continue to change.

<SNIP Kent making false attributions about my view, what I claimed
and backpedaling on his original attacks on the Journal and author>

[Rich]

"tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote

Rich wrote:
> Habitually ignoring the facts and attacking the messenger like is a
> defense mechanism that is out of control.
>

I have not ignored any facts, Rich.

## Oh... You've gone off on so many tangents, attacking everyone, and
introducing new issues that I must have missed it where you specifically
acknowledged _the original point of contention_, the fact that plagiarism
and copyright infringement are not theft.

Copy and paste your quote here for us, or provide a link to the post.

While your at it, provide where you specifically acknowledged the fact
that contrary to you assertion, plagiarism does not remove any material

'fruits or labor' from the original creator.

How about where you specifically acknowledged the fact that contrary to
your assertion, Eckists do not believe that 'It is fine to steal', that

'wholesale plagiary' is OK, ect.

Actually, those were tongue in cheek requests because I know you haven't
done these things, so you can't provide quotes where you did.

Since it's your SOP to not admit even blatantly false statements like this
one, what will it be this time? Will you deny it, spin it, or ignore it?

[tianyue]

Rich wrote:
> "tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> Rich wrote:
> > Habitually ignoring the facts and attacking the messenger like is a
> > defense mechanism that is out of control.
> >
>
>
> I have not ignored any facts, Rich.
>
> ## Oh... You've gone off on so many tangents, attacking everyone, and
> introducing new issues that I must have missed it where you specifically
> acknowledged _the original point of contention_, the fact that plagiarism
> and copyright infringement are not theft.
>

They are theft. While a minority of people may think they are not, it
is clearly the prevailing view that plagiarism and copyright vioalation
is a form of theft. In fact, in some instances copyright violation is
criminal. Why would it be prosecutable if it isn't theft? You're in
denial, Rich. Your world is the world created by Rich.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

> Copy and paste your quote here for us, or provide a link to the post.
>
> While your at it, provide where you specifically acknowledged the fact
> that contrary to you assertion, plagiarism does not remove any material
> 'fruits or labor' from the original creator.
>

Plagiarism uses others labors and creative effort without crediting the
source, and without reimbursement, and without permission. Hence, it is
taking something of value from another. The value could be professional
recognition (important in literary carreers), it could be financial
(why buy the original piece if it is stolen and mass produced by
another?), and it could even destroy livelyhoods (maybe the plagiarizer
gets the credit, and the originator is forgotten). You can't be so
dense as to not see this easy point.

> How about where you specifically acknowledged the fact that contrary to
> your assertion, Eckists do not believe that 'It is fine to steal', that
> 'wholesale plagiary' is OK, ect.

Your denials of PT's extensive plagiarism and attempts to minimize it
and sweep it under the rug as a mere triviality indicates you have
little concern about plagiarism. In this way, you trivialize literary
stealing. You can't even acknowledge it is stealing. This is why I say
you think its fine to steal.

>
> Actually, those were tongue in cheek requests because I know you haven't
> done these things, so you can't provide quotes where you did.
>

I don't need quotes, I can provide fresh material. This argument for
quotes is a strawman argument. Who said this was about quotes? You made
this up, as you make up nearly everything you say. You're among the
most dishonest people I've ever corresponded with. And that's the
truth, dude.

> Since it's your SOP to not admit even blatantly false statements like this
> one, what will it be this time? Will you deny it, spin it, or ignore it?

I think you're describing yourself quite accurately.

Take care, R
ich

Tianyue.

>Rich

[Rich]

"tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote

Rich wrote:
> "tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote
> Rich wrote:
> > Habitually ignoring the facts and attacking the messenger like is a
> > defense mechanism that is out of control.
> >
>
>
> I have not ignored any facts, Rich.
>
> ## Oh... You've gone off on so many tangents, attacking everyone, and
> introducing new issues that I must have missed it where you specifically
> acknowledged _the original point of contention_, the fact that
> plagiarism
> and copyright infringement are not theft.

They are theft.

## !! Now you believe that your opinion overrules the US Supreme Court.
Your getting worse Kent. Get professional help.

While a minority of people may think they are not, it

is clearly the prevailing view that plagiarism and copyright violation

is a form of theft. In fact, in some instances copyright violation is
criminal. Why would it be prosecutable if it isn't theft? You're in
denial, Rich. Your world is the world created by Rich.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

> Copy and paste your quote here for us, or provide a link to the post.
>
> While your at it, provide where you specifically acknowledged the fact
> that contrary to you assertion, plagiarism does not remove any material
> 'fruits or labor' from the original creator.
>

Plagiarism uses others labors and creative effort without crediting the
source, and without reimbursement, and without permission. Hence, it is
taking something of value from another.

## Take it to the Supreme Court and see if you can get them to reverse
their 2004 ruling, and then get back to us.
You'd accomplish more by seeing a shrink though...

The value could be professional
recognition (important in literary carreers), it could be financial
(why buy the original piece if it is stolen and mass produced by
another?), and it could even destroy livelyhoods (maybe the plagiarizer
gets the credit, and the originator is forgotten). You can't be so
dense as to not see this easy point.

> How about where you specifically acknowledged the fact that contrary to
> your assertion, Eckists do not believe that 'It is fine to steal', that
> 'wholesale plagiary' is OK, ect.

Your denials of PT's extensive plagiarism and attempts to minimize it
and sweep it under the rug as a mere triviality indicates you have
little concern about plagiarism.

## Lying to yourself about what I believe hasn't ever worked for you here.
What was it that Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over
again and expecting different results?

In this way, you trivialize literary
stealing. You can't even acknowledge it is stealing. This is why I say
you think its fine to steal.

> Actually, those were tongue in cheek requests because I know you haven't
> done these things, so you can't provide quotes where you did.
>

I don't need quotes,

## Because as I said, you never acknowledged these facts you ignored. But
apparently I was wrong and again underestimate the seriousness of your
engram. It is so bad that it wasn't ignoring them. Blind eyed suppression
never let the Supreme Count ruling(which was cited a few times) even get
to your conscious mind. You just carry on blithely in your fantasy world.

I can provide fresh material. This argument for
quotes is a strawman argument. Who said this was about quotes? You made
this up, as you make up nearly everything you say. You're among the
most dishonest people I've ever corresponded with. And that's the
truth, dude.

## Your problem is that you believe how you imagine I am and attack that,
instead of perceiving what I actually write. This is serious Kent.
You've done the same thing with every Eckists here for years. Every one
has pointed it out to you and you simple mindedly carry on doing it. I'd
bet there are way more documented instances of you putting words in others
mouths and other false attributions that can be found in the archives,
than there are documented plagiarized paragraphs of Paul's. Recall how
feel about the number of paragraphs, and then look in the mirror.

> Since it's your SOP to not admit even blatantly false statements like
> this
> one, what will it be this time? Will you deny it, spin it, or ignore
> it?

## Blind eye allowing three spins, thus creating effective denial...

[tianyue]

Rich wrote:
> "tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> Rich wrote:
> > "tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > Rich wrote:
> > > Habitually ignoring the facts and attacking the messenger like is a
> > > defense mechanism that is out of control.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I have not ignored any facts, Rich.
> >
> > ## Oh... You've gone off on so many tangents, attacking everyone, and
> > introducing new issues that I must have missed it where you specifically
> > acknowledged _the original point of contention_, the fact that
> > plagiarism
> > and copyright infringement are not theft.
>
>
> They are theft.
>
> ## !! Now you believe that your opinion overrules the US Supreme Court.
> Your getting worse Kent. Get professional help.
>

Please document, if you are at all able, the actual US supreme court's
opinion that you refer to, if it exists. As usual, you aren't backing
up your claims. The fact is, US copyright violations are criminal if
they meet the standard in the statutes. Whether this is technically
termed theft, or copyright infringement, hardly matters. The word
'theft' in common terms may at times mean different things than the
legal definition. Literary theft in some cases may be termed 'copyright
infringement' rather than theft, and in some cases it may be simply an
ethics issue but not a legal one, in which case it is termed plagiary,
but in the highly technical jargon of law, different terms may be used.
So this is semantics you are building your argument on, nothing more.

People know what the issue is when we speak of plagiary, no matter how
you try to murk up definitions. It is all part of your rather extreme
position you take with plagiary.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

> While a minority of people may think they are not, it
> is clearly the prevailing view that plagiarism and copyright violation
> is a form of theft. In fact, in some instances copyright violation is
> criminal. Why would it be prosecutable if it isn't theft? You're in
> denial, Rich. Your world is the world created by Rich.
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
>

I see no answer to this point (above) that I made. How typical.

>
>
> > Copy and paste your quote here for us, or provide a link to the post.
> >
> > While your at it, provide where you specifically acknowledged the fact
> > that contrary to you assertion, plagiarism does not remove any material
> > 'fruits or labor' from the original creator.
> >
>
>
> Plagiarism uses others labors and creative effort without crediting the
> source, and without reimbursement, and without permission. Hence, it is
> taking something of value from another.
>
> ## Take it to the Supreme Court and see if you can get them to reverse
> their 2004 ruling, and then get back to us.
> You'd accomplish more by seeing a shrink though...
>

Document their ruling with the actual ruling (give us a link) and we'll
discuss it. Usually you've misinterpreted something you've read (as
just observed recently in another post), so just refering to some
ruling with nothing to back it up is not acceptable. You tend to make
things up, or exagerate, or sometimes misconstrue things. Again, there
are copyright codes that are definitely in effect, and cases are heard
everyday, so I think you're confusing something here, as usual.

>
> The value could be professional
> recognition (important in literary carreers), it could be financial
> (why buy the original piece if it is stolen and mass produced by
> another?), and it could even destroy livelyhoods (maybe the plagiarizer
> gets the credit, and the originator is forgotten). You can't be so
> dense as to not see this easy point.
>
>
> > How about where you specifically acknowledged the fact that contrary to
> > your assertion, Eckists do not believe that 'It is fine to steal', that
> > 'wholesale plagiary' is OK, ect.
>
>

If you believe Twitchell did not plagiarize in his voluminous use of
plagiary, then you do, in fact, believe it is fine to steal, in my
opinion. We're beating a dead horse here. Nothing new, just you
repeating yourself. I already answered this. Repeating it over and over
just reveals your lack of having a rebuttal. This is cultic.

>
> Your denials of PT's extensive plagiarism and attempts to minimize it
> and sweep it under the rug as a mere triviality indicates you have
> little concern about plagiarism.
>
> ## Lying to yourself about what I believe hasn't ever worked for you here.
> What was it that Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over
> again and expecting different results?
>

You have gone on record over an over with attempts to trivialize PT's
plagiarism. The debate has lasted for years, with you at the very
center of the issue. Anyone can read your recent attempts made within
the last day or two. So you're not fooling anyone. Of course you try to
use denials and attempts to minimize and trivialize. Everyone here sees
this and knows this. It is cultic that you try to deny what is as plain
as day.

>
>
> In this way, you trivialize literary
> stealing. You can't even acknowledge it is stealing. This is why I say
> you think its fine to steal.
>
> > Actually, those were tongue in cheek requests because I know you haven't
> > done these things, so you can't provide quotes where you did.
> >
>
>
> I don't need quotes,
>
> ## Because as I said, you never acknowledged these facts you ignored. But
> apparently I was wrong and again underestimate the seriousness of your
> engram. It is so bad that it wasn't ignoring them. Blind eyed suppression
> never let the Supreme Count ruling(which was cited a few times) even get
> to your conscious mind. You just carry on blithely in your fantasy world.
>

Ahh, back to splitting my sentences and replying to fragments out of
context. Your same old tricks. But they don't work anymore. Your usual
m.o. is too easy to spot. You are asking for quotes. What quotes are
you referring to? Try to eplain yourself a little better. This is
silly. Read the rest of the sentence and paragraph you split, and see
my answer.

>
> I can provide fresh material. This argument for
> quotes is a strawman argument. Who said this was about quotes? You made
> this up, as you make up nearly everything you say. You're among the
> most dishonest people I've ever corresponded with. And that's the
> truth, dude.
>
> ## Your problem is that you believe how you imagine I am and attack that,
> instead of perceiving what I actually write. This is serious Kent.
> You've done the same thing with every Eckists here for years. Every one
> has pointed it out to you and you simple mindedly carry on doing it. I'd
> bet there are way more documented instances of you putting words in others
> mouths and other false attributions that can be found in the archives,
> than there are documented plagiarized paragraphs of Paul's. Recall how
> feel about the number of paragraphs, and then look in the mirror.
>

I perceive what you write quite easily. Quite whining and try to write
without so many contradictions and denials. As to "everyone" (using the
word "everyone" is a logical fallacy, a sweeping generalization--tsk,
tsk) pointing things out to me, you are referring to about 3 or 4 rabid
zealots who defend eckankar. They hardly have any objectivity. As to
putting words in peoples' mouths, you have done this on countless
occasions. Perhaps you should cease this practice yourself before
carying on about it regarding others. But if you want to complain about
it, do it correctly, and document exactly what you mean. Give one
detailed specific instance. What is really going on here is you don't
have any good rebuttals, so you complain about the messenger, and try
to make that the issue, thus avoiding the real issues that I have
raised. That's YOUR sop. That way you think you've fooled people into
thinking you've answered the points raised, when in fact you've not
said anything new.

You're not an honest debator, Rich.

Tianyue

[Rich]

"tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:1150482019.2...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

Rich wrote:
> "tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> Rich wrote:
> > "tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > Rich wrote:
> > > Habitually ignoring the facts and attacking the messenger like is a
> > > defense mechanism that is out of control.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I have not ignored any facts, Rich.
> >
> > ## Oh... You've gone off on so many tangents, attacking everyone, and
> > introducing new issues that I must have missed it where you
> > specifically
> > acknowledged _the original point of contention_, the fact that
> > plagiarism
> > and copyright infringement are not theft.
>
>
> They are theft.
>
> ## !! Now you believe that your opinion overrules the US Supreme Court.
> Your getting worse Kent. Get professional help.
>

Please document, if you are at all able, the actual US supreme court's
opinion that you refer to, if it exists. As usual, you aren't backing
up your claims.

## Reasonable people eventually recognize when they have dug themselves
into a hole, and stop digging...

I'm not going to spoon feed you something you already spit out once in
this thread. The citation is there. Read the case yourself and change your
bib. It's becoming unsightly.

[tianyue]

Rich wrote:
> "tianyue" <tian...@earthlink.net> wrote

> Rich wrote:
> > "tianyue" <tian...@earthlink.net> wrote

> > Rich wrote:
> > > Habitually ignoring the facts and attacking the messenger like is a
> > > defense mechanism that is out of control.

I have not ignored any facts, Rich.

> > ## Oh... You've gone off on so many tangents, attacking everyone, and
> > introducing new issues that I must have missed it where you
> > specifically
> > acknowledged _the original point of contention_, the fact that
> > plagiarism
> > and copyright infringement are not theft.

They are theft.

> ## !! Now you believe that your opinion overrules the US Supreme Court.
> Your getting worse Kent. Get professional help.

Please document, if you are at all able, the actual US supreme court's
opinion that you refer to, if it exists. As usual, you aren't backing
up your claims.

>## Reasonable people eventually recognize when they have dug themselves
>into a hole, and stop digging...

So you can't document this, but merely believe without question the
author's citation in your article? Has it occurred to you that he
might be as wrong about his statements as you are about yours? In any
case, the fact is, this is a red herring. The courts still uphold
copyright infringement laws, no matter what you want to term the act of
copyright infringement. It is still a prosecutable offense in a
criminal court, or subject to civil litigation in a civil court, or
sometimes both. In law, one must realize that terms are as technical
and specific as they are in any other highly technical field. To a
lawyer, "theft" means something very specific, as well as does
"copyright infringement." Everything has its own specific name. To
those not bound by courtrooms and artificial technicalities, common
terms suffice. Theft means theft. Building your entire argument on mere
semantics will reveal that you have nothing else to fall back on except
whether the proper term is used. For example, in medicine, one might
suffer from intercostal neuralgia. But more commonly people call this
"pain in the ribs." They both mean about the same thing, but those
who must use technical jargon have to use the most applicable term that
satisfies the technical, exacting needs of their profession. So
frankly, I don't care how they parse the offense, it is still an
offense, and it is still unethical, and it still reveals much about
so-called "masters" who resort to such behavior against others.
Plagiarism is still plagiarism. Copyright infringement is still
copyright infringement.

>I'm not going to spoon feed you something you already spit out once in
>this thread. The citation is there. Read the case yourself and change your
>bib. It's becoming unsightly.

Nice insult which you've used again and again ad nauseam, but the
truth is, you can't spoonfeed anyone if there is nothing on the
spoon. Your arguments have been shown to be deeply flawed, and you
haven't answered or corrected those obvious flaws. All you have left
is endless repetitions of the same old tune. Plagiarism or copyright
infringement doesn't become okay just because the offense is called
something else, or is put into a different technical legal category.
Nearly anyone on the street knows what it is, why it is wrong, and what
it says about those who engage in it. To most people, including
Webster, it is stealing or theft; to the word-parsing lawyers maybe it
isn't technically theft, but is "copyright infringement." The
terms don't matter and never were the issue. The notion that the
words alone are the issue is a strawman argument you created. The issue
is what it says about a self-proclaimed high spiritual master that he
plagiarized the writings of many other authors. He didn't bother to
be honest and credit those writers. This puts into question his
honesty, and puts into doubt his authenticity, and reveals a lack of
respect for others. It tends to make his "mastership" claims appear
hollow. If this were not true, you would not be spending your life
feverishly slandering those of us who want to bring this out. If it
were obvious to all that PT did nothing wrong, why would you bother
spending so many years defending eckankar?

As I said before, people know what the issue is when we speak of
plagiarism, no matter how

you try to murk up definitions. It is all part of your rather extreme

position you take with plagiarism. Your attempts to deny this, or
trivialize or ignore what PT did, is rather extremist. There are few
persons outside of eckankar who would support your extreme views about
plagiarism. Even the journal in which you found the article that you
posted, despite their very lenient views of copyright infringement,
have much higher standards than PT, who had no standards at all.

Tianyue

>Rich

[Doug]

It is always interesting to see how heated these discussions get. You
might think this is a sign of people knowing what they are talking
about, but my experience has been that experts who really know don't
get that worked up about interpretations. It is when we don't know much
that we get the most heated - probably because we are hanging from such
a slender thread.

I have to admit that when we first started this discussion with David
Lane many, many years ago, I didn't know how complicated these issues
are. I learned a lot more about copyrights and plagiarism because of
those discussions.

I suppose heated debates do have one benefit - they can get us to
research and study up on things we might never have.

I guess this means we like it when the heat is on.

Anyway, I can see that there is some truth in the point that Tianyue is
making that the author of that article was not completely right that
copyright infringement is different than stealing someone's property.
The author clearly believes this, but copyright law does give rights of
ownership for intellectual property.

However, the law gives no such rights against plagiarism. Therefore,
according to the law plagiarism is not theft, but copyright
infringement is. So, if we want to go by how our laws view these things
today, then infringement of intellectual property is similar to theft
and is a crime, but plagiarism is not.

Stealing someone's idea and making it a commercial success happens all
the time. The person who first had the idea might feel it is unfair,
but if they had the idea first this doesn't mean it belongs to them. In
other words, plagiarism is not taking from anyone something that they
have rights to own.

This is obvious once you realize that the difference between plagiarism
and not-plagiarizing is simply the matter of giving credit. I could use
paragraph after paragraph from someone else's book, and as long as I
credit them, then it isn't plagiarism. If I copied the whole book, or
almost all of the book, it would be copyright infringement, but it
still wouldn't be plagiarism as long as I credited my source.

Everyday we can find cases where someone gets more credit than they are
due, and others get overlooked for their contributions. These are not
crimes, but we know that it is better when people get the credit they
are due. Unfortunately, it is literally impossible to credit everyone
for everything, and it is impossible to determine exactly how much
credit anyone is due. The matter becomes far more complicated when we
realize that what is more important is not where some threads came
from, but who created the new tapestry using those threads. The fact
that threads had been used before is really not that important, so it
is hard to understand why it is used so often as a form of criticism.

That's why I think plagiarism has gone off the track of common sense.
While it is good for everyone to have the understanding that we should
give credit to others, it is ridiculous to do this like automatons. We
should give credit when we feel others deserve it, not by some kind of
rote rules established back in the Victorian era.

That's why it is a matter of ethics. And that's why people will always
argue over where to draw the line. This is also why none of this is
considered a crime.

I personally think that when it comes to ethics, each person needs to
decide for themselves what they should do.

If people want to publicly ridicule others for not living as they think
they should, or for transgressing their own sense of ethics - well they
certainly have a right to do that. But it is foolish for anyone to
think that this means anything but a lack of respect for others. What
is important when it comes to ethics is doing what we think is right -
not telling others what they should be doing.

Yet, public condemnation seems to be the goal of these discussions of
ethics.

What I find interesting is hearing what each person has decided is
right for them, and why they think that. That's where the discussion of
ethics belongs. This means taking responsibility for our own ethics and
living as we think best.

That makes so much more sense to me than this idea that the world
should all be forced to live according to the rules of a special group
who thinks they are superior to everyone else.

So, it seems to me this discussion is really about respecting the
differences in ethics that people have. These morals are not universal
principles. They are beliefs that we adopt by choice.

That's why I think talking about why we've choosen the ethics we have
is far more interesting and reasonable than trying to act as if there
should be one public rule of morals and we should hang those who don't
do what we tell them.

Or so it seems to me.

Doug.

[Rich]

"tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:1150505583.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

[Rich]

"tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:1150505583.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

[Rich]

"tianyue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote

> Rich wrote:
>> "tianyue" <tian...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> Rich wrote:
>> > "tianyue" <tian...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> > Rich wrote:
>> > > Habitually ignoring the facts and attacking the messenger like is a
>> > > defense mechanism that is out of control.
>
>
> I have not ignored any facts, Rich.
>
>
>> > ## Oh... You've gone off on so many tangents, attacking everyone, and
>> > introducing new issues that I must have missed it where you
>> > specifically
>> > acknowledged _the original point of contention_, the fact that
>> > plagiarism
>> > and copyright infringement are not theft.
>
>
> They are theft.
>
>
>> ## !! Now you believe that your opinion overrules the US Supreme Court.
>> Your getting worse Kent. Get professional help.
>
>
>
> Please document, if you are at all able, the actual US supreme court's
> opinion that you refer to, if it exists. As usual, you aren't backing
> up your claims.
>
>
>
>>## Reasonable people eventually recognize when they have dug themselves
>>into a hole, and stop digging...
>
>
> So you can't document this,

What's wrong with you Kent? The original author provided the citation. I
followed it and read the case. Why can't you? Why do you demand to be
spoon-fed? I told you that it had been cited below. Why couldn't you do
your own research? Why should I repeat things for you when it's proven
over and over to be a waste of time. Spouting off like this is just
digging yourself deeper. The case was already cited in this thread. Why
you couldn't have just said, 'Oh, I missed it' and followed it up yourself
is beyond me.

> but merely believe without question the
> author's citation in your article?

I read it. What you believe I believe is most always wrong. Why can't you
ever see that?

> Has it occurred to you that he
> might be as wrong about his statements

I know that you need right or wrong. I don't. The issue is complex. Yet
still, I followed up and you didn't.

> as you are about yours? In any
> case, the fact is, this is a red herring. The courts still uphold
> copyright infringement laws,

I know that, but it's a strawman because that was _never_ the issue.

> no matter what you want to term the act of
> copyright infringement.

Huh!? Earth to Kent. It is copyright infringement. One of our
disagreements that started this this time is that _you_ termed it
something else. You do this a lot. You accuse me of doing something you
did. You are attacking yourself and you are not cognizant of it.

> It is still a prosecutable offense in a
> criminal court

Read the Supreme Court case. It's complex. I'll bet you that you can't
find one case where a _literary_ copyright infringement was prosecuted
successfully as a criminal offense, or even one that was prosecuted
unsuccessfully. You can't, can you? Why not? Because I'm probably right
and thus you won't do the research. Of course that absents of proof will
not stop you from continuing to assert that Paul was a criminal.

> or subject to civil litigation in a civil court, or
> sometimes both. In law, one must realize that terms are as technical
> and specific as they are in any other highly technical field.

You're lecturing me about technicalities, when you haven't read the case
in question to know what they are. It's bluster. One Justice brought up
the point that Congress made laws that conflict with each other.

> To a
> lawyer, "theft" means something very specific, as well as does
> "copyright infringement." Everything has its own specific name. To
> those not bound by courtrooms and artificial technicalities, common
> terms suffice. Theft means theft.

Yes, and common sense tells most, except you, that the property of the
original writers still possess that property and their copyright,
therefore no theft occurred. Just because you 'feel' that does doesn't
make it so. If Paul stole something, you tell us what it is that he could
return. What could he have given back to the authors? What?

> Building your entire argument on mere semantics

That's a false statement. Your delusion. You're arguing against yourself.

> will reveal that you have nothing else to fall back on except
> whether the proper term is used.

Wrong again. I haven't fallen back. I cited the article. I read the case
the article cited. I've done hours and hours of research on how the law is
written and applied in real life. You just feel you know how it should be.
You are unwaveringly relying only on your opinion that Paul was a thief.
You feel he should have been prosecuted. He wasn't. No one cares but
apostate detractors. It's thirty-five years ago that Paul died. That's a
long time for you to hold on to an issue that even the original authors
never brought up. It fanaticism on your part.

> For example, in medicine, one might
> suffer from intercostal neuralgia. But more commonly people call this
> "pain in the ribs." They both mean about the same thing, but those
> who must use technical jargon have to use the most applicable term that
> satisfies the technical, exacting needs of their profession. So
> frankly, I don't care how they parse the offense,

Actually, you don't care if what Paul did wasn't a real offense. You still
need to call him a criminal.

> it is still an
> offense, and it is still unethical, and it still reveals much about
> so-called "masters" who resort to such behavior against others.

Against others? You have demonstrated fantasies that are not true about
all the Eckists here. You've done it to me numerious times in this thread
alone. ECK Masters are no different.

> Plagiarism is still plagiarism. Copyright infringement is still
> copyright infringement.
>
>
>>I'm not going to spoon feed you something you already spit out once in
>>this thread. The citation is there. Read the case yourself and change
>>your
>>bib. It's becoming unsightly.
>
>
> Nice insult which you've used again and again ad nauseam,

Because you keep doing it again and again, just like you did above. How
bad of an insult would it take for you to stop? Stop asking me to do it
for you if you feel your questioning appears as insulting behavior. What
would you have me call it?

> but the
> truth is, you can't spoonfeed anyone if there is nothing on the
> spoon. Your arguments have been shown to be deeply flawed,

Only in your imagination. That works well for you because you attack your
own arguments. When I tell you that what you said is not what I meant,
intended or believe, you just do it again and repeat your attack on your
words. That makes it a win-win in your mind.

I'm more interested in clarity than persuasion. It's fine with me if we
have different views. But when you always put thoughts, feeling and words
in my mouth, you make clarity of where I'm really coming from impossible
for you. So all we see is you arguing against your own words. You are
fighting battles against your own strawmen. I guess I'm crazy to keep
trying to make myself clear to you...

> and you
> haven't answered or corrected those obvious flaws.

The flaws are your not being clear on what I actually write.

> All you have left
> is endless repetitions of the same old tune. Plagiarism or copyright
> infringement doesn't become okay just because the offense is called
> something else, or is put into a different technical legal category.

There you go again.:-/ I never said nor do I believe that it's OK. See?
You are arguing against your delusion, not me.

> Nearly anyone on the street knows what it is, why it is wrong, and what
> it says about those who engage in it. To most people, including
> Webster, it is stealing or theft; to the word-parsing lawyers maybe it
> isn't technically theft, but is "copyright infringement." The
> terms don't matter and never were the issue.

Right. It's not the words, it the actual act. Nothing taken from someone
is not an action. Any emotive reaction about a non-action is... what?

> The notion that the
> words alone are the issue is a strawman argument you created.

There you go again. I never said that the words alone are the issue. The
issue is that you insist that Paul was a criminal. Neither you, the
copyright holders nor the law have shown that to be a legitimate
accusation.

> The issue
> is what it says about a self-proclaimed high spiritual master that he
> plagiarized the writings of many other authors.

Really? Then why do you keep insisting that it is criminal?! There was
no crime. Beyond "The Far Country" there is no proof that he did it
consciously. And most importantly he was benefiting others spiritual
awareness without taking anything away from anyone.

> He didn't bother to
> be honest and credit those writers. This puts into question his
> honesty, and puts into doubt his authenticity, and reveals a lack of
> respect for others. It tends to make his "mastership" claims appear
> hollow.

In your mind... The laws and attitudes during his time were different. He
was drawing from his memory and experiences. That he didn't know that he
had read some words he wrote somewhere else isn't being dishonest. You've
seen the long list of famous authors that this very same thing happened
to. Were they dishonest too? No. For you it's only about Paul. It's
what you feel, fine.

> this were not true, you would not be spending your life
> feverishly slandering those of us who want to bring this out.

There you go again. :-/

> If it
> were obvious to all that PT did nothing wrong, why would you bother
> spending so many years defending eckankar?

And again...

> As I said before, people know what the issue is when we speak of
> plagiarism,

No they don't. That's the point. Doug has cited numerous articles and
books that address that most clearly. You change those facts in you mind,
thus allowing you to keep beating this dead horse year after year.

> no matter how you try to murk up definitions.

I've been trying to make them clear. You refuse, holding on to
misperceptions, fine.

> It is all part of your rather extreme
> position you take with plagiarism.

There you go again. You are arguing against how you portray my position,
not how I see it. Count how many times you did it in just this one post.
That IS slanderous. And that is criminal, as is calling Paul a criminal.
You are lucky that Eckankar ignores miscreants like you and your apostates
cohorts.

> Your attempts to deny this, or
> trivialize or ignore what PT did, is rather extremist.

There you go again. I know what my position is. It is not what you say
it is! This kind of unwavering delusion that you can state unequivocally
the opposite of what others experiences actually are in the face of
hundreds of people correcting you about it, is why I keep telling you that
you have a serious cognitive failings. I believe your only hope of
recovery from this specious behavior is to get professional help.

> There are few
> persons outside of eckankar who would support your extreme views about
> plagiarism.

And again... They are your extreme views, not mine.

> Even the journal in which you found the article that you
> posted, despite their very lenient views of copyright infringement,
> have much higher standards than PT, who had no standards at all.

And again... You have no idea what his standards were. It's all in your
distorted mind. You are arguing against yourself. It's a sad
demonstration of dis-functional behavior.