A Dead Horse Named "Plagiarism"
Frank H. Weeden
on this newsgroup. My own conclusion on the
whole thing is this:
Wherever Paul got some of his writings makes
no difference. Paul was the one who put it all
into one place, and furthermore, synthesized it
into a practical and applicable path for spiritual
unfoldment. Whether or not he was the sole author
of the words or not, makes little difference. It
is in the practical application of the information
that has made all of the difference. For me, his
books were like a small adjustment to the rudder of
my search, steering me in a better direction, so
that suddenly, I was on a course that has brought
immeasurable benefit.
I don't care where the information came from. I am
grateful to Julian Johnson, Paul, and every other
author that has been able to write and explain these
things that defy articulation. The fact that Paul was
able to put all of the pieces together and present
them in the way that he was able to, is such an
incredible gift.
If a stranger in rags hands you a priceless diamond,
it does not change the diamond. (Even though others
may scoff and call it a shiny bit of worthless glass!)
Love,
Frank
--
De oppresso liber
maha_...@my-deja.com
he wrote the eck books and discourses.
People will continue to bring up the plagiarism issue until Eckankar
gets honest.
In article <39FEE863...@united.net>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Frank H. Weeden
>
> Yet, Harold and Eck org can't quite admit that Paulji plagiarized when
> he wrote the eck books and discourses.
>
> People will continue to bring up the plagiarism issue until Eckankar
> gets honest.
Well, you can continue attempting to twist the arm of Eckankar
if you like. Personally, I can find a lot better things to
do with my time. To me, it doesn't make a bit of difference
if Paul was truly the Godman, and whether or not Sri Harold
is or isn't. It doesn't matter if everything is all made up.
What is truth, and who is the one to say, "Here! Here is the
only truth!" I can see God in you, Maha. So it would stand to
reason that I could just as easily see God shining through
Sri Harold, through Paul, through the words and books that
are available... There are so many things that have been
proven to be untrue within the realm of conventional religions,
and yet, those religions still produce saints and spiritual
giants. If I purchase a hammer from Stanley Tools, and a
ratchet from Snap-On Tools, and later, purchase another hammer
from someone else, and another ratchet from another place,
what difference does it make? It is up to me to determine the
quality of the tool as I use it, and it is up to me to build
whatever I choose to build with those tools. If one tool
breaks, there will be another to take its place. Where those
tools come from and who invented them makes no difference.
How well do the tools help me on the way to finishing what
I have begun building? And the only way to find that out is
to pick up the tools and begin using them, and if I am determined
to complete that which I have begun, to see it through until
the last piece is finishes and in place, then there is nothing
that can prevent that from happening.
gruendemann
seen on this group yet. That's exactly what this is..... amazing.
Jim
"Frank H. Weeden" wrote:
Now if you can get Harold Klemp to make a public statement like this on
behalf of Eckankar, the detractor population would decrease
exponentially. It's really not a matter of the detractors beating this
"dead horse", Frank......it's that Eckankar is still trying to keep the
poor thing alive on a respirator.
Jim
Jim
"Frank H. Weeden" wrote:
> If I purchase a hammer from Stanley Tools, and a
> ratchet from Snap-On Tools, and later, purchase another hammer
> from someone else, and another ratchet from another place,
> what difference does it make?
If you sold it as Frank's Tool Kit, everyone would be able to see where the
tools came from anyway, but more importantly there is good chance of
litigation from the OEM's (Original Equipment Manufacturers) using their
tools. It just ain't right unless you get permission and acknowledge your
sources.
Good analogy, Frank.
Jim
Frank H. Weeden
>
> If you sold it as Frank's Tool Kit, everyone would be able to see where the
> tools came from anyway, but more importantly there is good chance of
> litigation from the OEM's (Original Equipment Manufacturers) using their
> tools. It just ain't right unless you get permission and acknowledge your
> sources.
Okay, if this is the case, then where is the litigation?
If it is indeed such a big deal, it's interesting that
no one has come rushing to make a federal case of it.
> Good analogy, Frank.
Only as far as I have written. Whatever else you choose
to read into it is your business. Please don't put
words in my mouth. *shrug*
the_trol...@my-deja.com
his presenting knowledge of the Vairagi of India to the world, has
caused problems for future Mahanta/L.E.Masters. I know I am an
opinionated troll, but like it or not, once in a while a Vairigi Master
does listen to my comments about Eckankar, I did not write "agrees with
me". He would be silent while I spoke. The thing is this, due to
Paulji's work, many folks doubt the existence of the Vairagi adepts.
Those same folks have the potential to be someday sponsored by a Master
of the Brotherhood. Not only has the plagairism been a problem, so to
the misbehavior of two Masters during the early 1980s. Eckankar has a
past that it will never get away from. Due to the internet and
information superhighway, nearly every religion that has a skeleton or
two to hide, can be researched on the internet.
"Do not encroach on another or his property"-Sri Klemp. Is not denial
under copyright law an encroachment of One's rights ? Paul Twitchell
took from other folks hard work and made tens of thousands of dollars
from their work. They were not recognized by him, they were not
compensated for their just work. Do the ends justify the means ?-Troll
Frank H. Weeden
For me? Personally? Yes.
--
De oppresso liber
Michael Wallace
Joe's a nasty nasty boy who wants to bully us!! <G>
Serously, Paul was trying to help people OUT of the Human condition and into
the Soul Awareness... But Joe seems to want to make sure everyone doesn;t
leave the Human Condition... Because there "is" no such thing as awareness
as Soul (According to Joe)
If you don;t believe that we can become aware as Soul, then pretty much
everything Paul stood for would be offensive to you... Seeing things from
his perspective, I find the old saying "If you want to understand someone,
walk a mile in their moccasins"
Which is to say, when they find out you have stolen their shoes, you are a
mile away and they are shoeless! <G>
Love
michael
"gruendemann" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:39FEFB0E...@worldnet.att.net...
Karen
Karen
Karen : )
Michael Wallace
"Frank H. Weeden" <fisa...@united.net> wrote in message
news:39FF20AC...@united.net...
A set of tools that do the job, are a set of tools that do the job... There
was no "Frank's Tool Kit" for sale... Just tools that did the job which you
could pick up and use if you wanted to.
The whole focus of Eckankar being "books" is so adrift of the actual process
that it begs the imagination. Detractors like to focus on the "fact" that if
Paul 'stole' words and phrases then he could not possibly be a God Realised
Being...
Again... Not exactly a logical sytax to connect the thoughts together.. Only
the social program of rights and wrongs... Which is fine.
Love
Michael
Jim
Twitchell plagiarized from are no longer around nor the relatives or beneficiaries
of their works.If they are still alive, perhaps they are unaware of Twitchell's
plagiarism.
All I know is that if you break copyright laws, you are liable.. Just because no
one has come forward and claimed this, does no make it alright. Realistically, if
there was someone out there with Julian Johnson's rights, they could probaby
financially cripple the organization of Eckankar. I wonder if anyone has gone this
far. Excuse me while I go look up his name at Lycos.
"Frank H. Weeden" wrote:
I am not putting words in your mouth. I am trying to show you that by your own
analogy, that you can't get away with selling something like Frank's Tool Box
without paying someone to use Stanley, Snap-On, or whatever in that kit. You are
accountable to the manufacturers.
Jim
Jim
Michael Wallace wrote:
>
> A set of tools that do the job, are a set of tools that do the job... There
> was no "Frank's Tool Kit" for sale... Just tools that did the job which you
> could pick up and use if you wanted to.
Not so, Mikey. If you sell discourses and books that are plagiarized, then you
are breaking the law. Harold isn't giving this shit away.
>
>
> The whole focus of Eckankar being "books" is so adrift of the actual process
> that it begs the imagination. Detractors like to focus on the "fact" that if
> Paul 'stole' words and phrases then he could not possibly be a God Realised
> Being...
Hey, Down-Under-Dip. What do you think got Twitchell off the ground in the first
place? His written works. He made sure that the "word of eck" got published
first...THEN the inner stuff began. You cannot be an "ECK Spiritually Realized
Being(Soul)" without going through the training. You need the written word.
Harold doesn't come to you in your dream state then send you a bill, dude.....he
charges you for ongoing initiations and only then are you part of the club. How
the hell do you think they can afford that temple out there in Chanhassen??? The
temple of worship......when they say they don't worship anyone????????/
You are deceiving our reading public here Michael. Why don't you tell them the
truth. You and that liar Rich Smith.
Call 1-800-LOVEGOD and start opening your wallet for tokens to the Ocean of Love
And Mercy!<GG> Join Eckankar and feel warm and fuzzy that there are other
suckers out there who dished out a bundle to make their worthless lives part of
some New Age mumbo-jumbo.
Jim
Frank H. Weeden
It's just... I don't know... Like two entirely different
languages. Guess I'll just go back to clowning around. <G>
--
De Oppresso Liber
Frank H. Weeden
And Jim, who is it that owns these ideas? Where do they
come from? The ideas themselves? So really, what it
boils down to, is that Paul didn't put someone else's
name on a religious path that he put together through
his own research. Hrmmm... Okay. And people are bent
out of shape about that. Seems a bit silly to me, but
whatever... And even if Paul used someone else's work,
word for word in the framework of a massive body of
work, suddenly this portion spoils everything else?
To me, this seems a bit backwards. If I combine a
couple of different wrenches, or come up with a
better hammer, am I then trapped into mentioning
the original inventor's name, everytime I go out
to make a sales pitch on my own product? That's
ludicrous.
I don't doubt that Paul borrowed from other works.
The question, I feel, is why? What was his purpose?
He was stringing together heavy concepts like beads
on a string, and tying the truths he had found together.
As difficult as spiritual things are to articulate, and
as much work as he had before him, I think it was more
a matter of efficiency and finding other passages that
could convey the principles in better, more concise
terms. This is my own theory, anyway... And I think
a seeker would be hard-pressed to find the books and
truths that Paul found, if they were to continue searching
on their own. Personally, it took me thirteen years to
arrive at the set of beliefs I won for myself, before
finally finding Eckankar, and seeing how it all fit
together. I wouldn't wish the agony or the tedium of
that journey and search on anyone else. So personally,
I'm glad that Paul put it all together in one place.
Just my perspective....
Frank
--
De Oppresso Liber
Jan4litsnd
>
>I don't doubt that Paul borrowed from other works.
>The question, I feel, is why? What was his purpose?
>He was stringing together heavy concepts like beads
>on a string, and tying the truths he had found together.
>As difficult as spiritual things are to articulate, and
>as much work as he had before him, I think it was more
>a matter of efficiency and finding other passages that
>could convey the principles in better, more concise
>terms. This is my own theory, anyway... And I think
>a seeker would be hard-pressed to find the books and
>truths that Paul found, if they were to continue searching
>on their own. Personally, it took me thirteen years to
>arrive at the set of beliefs I won for myself, before
>finally finding Eckankar, and seeing how it all fit
>together. I wouldn't wish the agony or the tedium of
>that journey and search on anyone else. So personally,
>I'm glad that Paul put it all together in one place.
>
>Just my perspective....
>
>Frank
Wow, Frank, you're stringing pearls of wisdom together yourself here.
You're so right, it would be nearly impossible for us to find these truths in a
single lifetime and put them all together as Paul did. I surely tried for many
years. I looked for and took parts from the many in my search. The hodepodge
of my own beliefs ran the spectrum, yet nothing seemed complete in itself.
There was always something missing, until I read Paul's books. And then I knew
instantly that it was right for me. Perhaps others feel that in their own
religions too.
Jan
maha_...@my-deja.com
creative reworking of various books.
Paulji said it was was a chronicle of his inner experience, as given
him by a Rebezar Tarzs in the dream state.
Trouble is, much of his transcriped inner experience was merely taken
from this book and that. There's too much plagiarism for anyone to
suggest otherwise.
Rebezar Tarzs was really Kirpal Singh.
And the exalted magnitude of the claimed spiritual experience paled in
comparison to whatever it was Paulji sought to gain by joining the
Catholic Church.
In any case . . . if Eckankar now wants to say that THE TIGER'S FANG
was *really* supposed to represent a compilation of Paulji's reading
and experiences . . . then why isn't the book advertised this way to
the public?
Answer: because Eckankar is about as honest as a 3 card monte dealer
on Times Square.
In article <20001031232814...@ng-cb1.aol.com>,
SantimVah
<maha_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8toeee$8tp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> But Paulji (and Eckankar) never said that THE TIGER'S FANG was a
> creative reworking of various books.
>
> Paulji said it was was a chronicle of his inner experience, as given
> him by a Rebezar Tarzs in the dream state.
>
> Trouble is, much of his transcriped inner experience was merely taken
> from this book and that. There's too much plagiarism for anyone to
> suggest otherwise.
>
> Rebezar Tarzs was really Kirpal Singh.
>
> And the exalted magnitude of the claimed spiritual experience paled in
> comparison to whatever it was Paulji sought to gain by joining the
> Catholic Church.
>
> In any case . . . if Eckankar now wants to say that THE TIGER'S FANG
> was *really* supposed to represent a compilation of Paulji's reading
> and experiences . . . then why isn't the book advertised this way to
> the public?
>
> Answer: because Eckankar is about as honest as a 3 card monte dealer
> on Times Square.
>
>
Maha nah nah nana nah!
Really I can't understand how this man can respond to peoples posts and just
simply ignore them (as if he hadn't even read these or other posts here) and
then go on and on and on in his own world and totally oblivious of anything
*ever* said. *shrug*
I believe everything on Maha's list is a dead issue, even David Lane know
longer thinks that any of his stuff is a major issue. But I guess this
won't make any difference the usual crap will keep flowing. Oh well, a bit
like surfing at Bondi in a way. <g>
But thanks to everyone else in the thread who contributed something real and
valuable. :-)
With Love
Sean
Rich
> Because of Paul's error with
> his presenting knowledge of the Vairagi of India to the world,
Error? Vairagi of _India_? These are not the same as the ECK Masters.
You seem confused.
<SNIP the Troll *opinion*>
> "Do not encroach on another or his property"-Sri Klemp.
Eckankar is encroaching on no ones property. There may be written words
that are being used, and the originators seem content to share. It is
*only* Eckankar's detractors that try to make this out to be a crime.
If someone is picking mangoes from my tree and I don't care, what kind
of person is it that feels they should condemn the other person anyway?
Who are they fighting for besides their own petty egos? What good could
it do?
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rich
>
> This stuff from Joe sounds like a raving queen spitting the dummy!
>
> Maha nah nah nana nah!
>
> Really I can't understand how this man can respond to peoples posts and just
> simply ignore them (as if he hadn't even read these or other posts here) and
> then go on and on and on in his own world and totally oblivious of anything
> *ever* said. *shrug*
He's been practicing for years.<G> It's a cold hearted, dead pan act
that he somehow must think wins him the argument.
Michael Wallace
"Jim" <crescen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39FF6A45...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Michael Wallace wrote:
>
> >
> > A set of tools that do the job, are a set of tools that do the job...
There
> > was no "Frank's Tool Kit" for sale... Just tools that did the job which
you
> > could pick up and use if you wanted to.
>
> Not so, Mikey. If you sell discourses and books that are plagiarized, then
you
> are breaking the law. Harold isn't giving this shit away.
Alf... You know this is a false statement.
You are at perfect liberty to read all the books Paul did, and put things
together for yourself, should you choose...Just a matter of choice... that's
all. And as you well know, it isn't illegal to plagiarise... Copyright
infringement (Such as what David Lane was found guilty for) is against the
law...
So is misleading the court... Another thing David Lane was found on shakey
ground with.
Nice try... But some accurate facts would be better.
Love
Michael
KMerrymoon
"I don't care"- the mantric response of Eckists here for the last five years
when
conclusive proof is provided that the founder of Eckankar, who claimed to be
God
on earth and spiritual master of the entire universe, lied profusely in his
Eckankar writings and violated the law by stealing the copyrighted work of
other
authors and profiting from it.
DOUG:
If we return to the facts, Paul never claimed to be God on earth, and he never
"violated the law," as you put it. Copyrights are rights that can be exercised
by the copyright holder, if they so choose. These are rights granted the
copyright holder. There is no law broken unless the copyright holder inforces
those rights.
The use of other's materials in writing, music, art, engineering, etc., is
common practice and has been so for thousands of years. It is a part of how we
advance as a civilization and a culture. The question is where to draw the
line, and this line is continually changing. What Paul did in his day was
considered acceptible, which is one reason it was never a problem for Paul,
even though some asked him about it, like Dr. Bluth, while Paul was still
alive.
When Frank says he doesn't care, this is just another way of saying that the
whole issue is not black and white law breaking that is at stake here, but
about perceptions and interpretations.
Exaggeration of the matter is not a good way of getting at the reality of what
took place. The fact that the matter is continually exaggerated and blown out
of proportion suggests that the motive is not getting the truth out, as is
often suggested, but some other agenda.
That's my opinion, anyway.
Doug.
Rich
hyperbole, misrepresentation, lies, playing the victim card, putting
words in Eckists mouths, name calling, and his insistence on
misunderstanding the actual teachings and history of Eckankar.
Nice to see that some things never change, no matter which religion he
has hopped into. :-|
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dove wrote:
>
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> Frank Weeden wrote:
>
> >> Wherever Paul got some of his writings makes
> >> no difference. Paul was the one who put it all
> >> into one place, and furthermore, synthesized it
> >> into a practical and applicable path for spiritual
> >> unfoldment. Whether or not he was the sole author
> >> of the words or not, makes little difference. It
> >> is in the practical application of the information
> >> that has made all of the difference. For me, his
> >> books were like a small adjustment to the rudder of
> >> my search, steering me in a better direction, so
> >> that suddenly, I was on a course that has brought
> >> immeasurable benefit.
> >>
> >> I don't care where the information came from. I am
> >> grateful to Julian Johnson, Paul, and every other
> >> author that has been able to write and explain these
> >> things that defy articulation. The fact that Paul was
> >> able to put all of the pieces together and present
> >> them in the way that he was able to, is such an
> >> incredible gift.
> >>
> >> If a stranger in rags hands you a priceless diamond,
> >> it does not change the diamond. (Even though others
> >> may scoff and call it a shiny bit of worthless glass!)
>
> "I don't care"- the mantric response of Eckists here for the last five years when
> conclusive proof is provided that the founder of Eckankar, who claimed to be God
> on earth and spiritual master of the entire universe, lied profusely in his
> Eckankar writings and violated the law by stealing the copyrighted work of other
> authors and profiting from it.
>
> Of course you don't care, Frank, because the plagiarism benefits you.
>
> But when someone violates Eckankar's copyrights, even without a profit motive,
> Eckists say: "copyright violations bring about large fines and imprisonment".
> When their intellectual property is infringed upon, a cadre of Eck lawyers is
> unleashed.
>
> Then, finally, Eckankar really cares.
>
> Unbelievably, no one in Eckankar detects the severe hypocrisy in this approach.
>
> Of course you don't care that the discovery of plagiarism has brought some former
> Eckists to the brink of suicide. Why care about the serious harm your religion
> has caused others when you're having so much fun?
>
> Besides, they had it coming because, according to your leader, Harold Klemp,
> "there are no victims" (except when Eckankar is wronged).
>
> To express remorse would be to admit that your religion is flawed, but in your
> "feel good at all costs" theology, this is the highest of sins.
>
> Yours is also the predictable, self-centered, New Ager attitude-- rendered even
> more reprehensible in the face of wholesale religious fraud and law-breaking on
> the part of one's so-called "spiritual master".
>
> The plagiarism also represents hypocrisy in that Paul Twitchell said (while
> plagiarizing from Julian P. Johnson) that the leader of Eckankar "breaks no law of
> man".
>
> Even Eckankar's bible (The Shariyat Ki Sugmad) was recently found to contain 50
> pages of verbatim or near verbatim plagiarism, while Twitchell claimed that it
> was dictated in its ENTIRETY by two Eck masters (one for each of the two books).
>
> I am not aware of any other bible on earth that was found to contain 50 pages of
> verbatim plagiarism except Eckankar's. Some contain borrowing of concepts from
> earlier religions, which Eckankar has also clearly done by plagiarizing from Sant
> Mat, an earlier "light and sound" religion.
>
> The first "inner planes" chart Eckankar published, for example, was a copy of Sant
> Mat's. Later, the chart was altered slightly to make it appear original. This
> was done by switching the sounds associated with some of the planes and inventing
> new ones.
>
> Twitchell, predictably-- given his track record of deceit-- claimed that Sant
> Mat's teachings were derived from "the Eck teachings" which have supposedly
> existed since the dawn of time.
>
> If the "dawn of time" is 1965, when Twitchell created Eckankar, I would agree.
>
> I don't think any detractor here would deny the value of the plagiarized material
> in Paul Twitchell's books. This is not even an issue with most of us. Some, like
> me, were or are members of the religion Twitchell plagiarized from, so
> we would definitely not find fault with the plagiarized material itself.
>
> The real issue is simple, Frank.
>
> It seems that WE WERE LIED TO about the source of the Eck teachings. Most
> certainly, we were lied to by Paul Twitchell about this. This is a matter of
> historical record.
>
> The reason that detractors keep detracting is because Eckists keep refusing to
> face the real moral issues behind the plagiarism.
>
> Next time you rent a movie, look at the copyright notice. It says that anyone who
> infringes on the movie's copyright is subject to investigation by the FBI, fines,
> and even imprisonment.
>
> Would it matter to you if some of your leaders ended up in prison or Eckankar was
> bankrupted by copyright infringement lawsuits?
>
> I think at that point, finally, it would, but your reaction would be an
> indefensible cry of "injustice" despite their their alleged law-breaking. Then
> we'd hear about how this was all the work of Satan (Kal) in his ceaseless campaign
> (since the dawn of time) to undermine the "pure teachings of Eck".
>
> Welcome to the morally warped world of New Age religion.
>
> Remember also that it is YOUR religion that teaches that dishonesty is a karmic
> offense. Denying that plagiarism is morally wrong is a clear form of
> dishonesty. So is being an accessory to dishonesty by supporting a religion
> that allegedly profits from violating our nation's copyright laws.
>
> Thinking that you are beyond the reach of spiritual law because you send a $130
> yearly check to Eck HQ, sing "hu", and attend a few seminars is tragically
> reckless.
>
> I know some Christians who think along these same lines, but I just heard a sermon
> on TV last night that clearly stated that every misdeed one commits will have to
> be answered for on "Judgment Day".
>
> Interesting note: The other Light and Sound religion newsgroups have very few
> detractors, and there is very little verbal abuse going on there.
gruendemann
Sharo...@playful.com
> DOVE WRITES:
> "I don't care"- the mantric response of Eckists here for the last five
> years when
> conclusive proof is provided that the founder of Eckankar, who claimed to
> be God
> on earth and spiritual master of the entire universe, lied profusely in
> his Eckankar writings and violated the law by stealing the copyrighted
> work of other
> authors and profiting from it.
>
> DOUG:
> If we return to the facts, Paul never claimed to be God on earth, and he
> never "violated the law," as you put it. Copyrights are rights that can
> be exercised by the copyright holder, if they so choose. These are rights
> granted the copyright holder. There is no law broken unless the copyright
> holder inforces those rights.
>
Paul claimed to be the "only" and "highest" chosen voice of the "sugmad",
he also wrote that only the "sugmad" was the "real" god; all others were
"false" and of the "kal." No one gets to those "high spiritual planes"
without the LEM, remember? C'mon, Doug, don't you know your own "holey
scriptures"?
Do you know how absolutely pitiful your weak excuses and rationalizations
are?
> The use of other's materials in writing, music, art, engineering, etc.,
> is common practice and has been so for thousands of years. It is a part
> of how we advance as a civilization and a culture. The question is where
> to draw the line, and this line is continually changing. What Paul did in
> his day was considered acceptible, which is one reason it was never a
> problem for Paul, even though some asked him about it, like Dr. Bluth,
> while Paul was still alive.
>
Funny how when I was an elementary school at the time Twitch was concocting
his cult, I was taught that basically copying/paraphrasing from the World
Book Encyclopedia without crediting the source was "wrong". And...if I'd
claimed my little report was "dictated" by eckmasters, I'm sure the teacher
would have whupped my butt for lying. By the way, that *was* an accepted
practice back then!
You have *one* source which you use to support your ridiculous assertion
that what the Twitchster did was "acceptable", however...it's like
comparing apples and oranges. The source you site wasn't talking about
anything *near* what Twitch did at all.
> When Frank says he doesn't care, this is just another way of saying that
> the whole issue is not black and white law breaking that is at stake
> here, but about perceptions and interpretations.
>
No...what Frank is saying is that he's in that early stage of "eckhigh"
and really getting off on the boost to his ego, and there's no way in
hell he's going to let anything get between him and his security blanket.
> Exaggeration of the matter is not a good way of getting at the reality of
> what took place. The fact that the matter is continually exaggerated and
> blown out of proportion suggests that the motive is not getting the truth
> out, as is often suggested, but some other agenda.
Doug, pointing out that the Twitch copied the words of many other
others, claimed they were dictated to him by eckmasters, and used these
"holey scriptures" that resulted to get people to join his cult is *not*
exaggeration.
The fact that you continually try to eckanfog the subject, declare it a
"dead horse", and write a whole bunch of stupid crap rationalizing it just
shows *your* agenda of trying to get new cult members.
> That's my opinion, anyway.
>
And for this, Harold thanks you!
Sharon
--
Center for Twitchellian Plagiarism:
http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/center.htm
http://members.delphi.com/sharon2000
http://www.iguild.com/homes/eckcult
Michael Wallace
Love
Michael
"gruendemann" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3A006710...@worldnet.att.net...
Patrick L.
Frank H. Weeden <fisa...@united.net> wrote in message news:39FEE863...@united.net...
> This is probably the most popular dead horse
> on this newsgroup. My own conclusion on the
> whole thing is this:
>
> no difference. Paul was the one who put it all
> into one place, and furthermore, synthesized it
> into a practical and applicable path for spiritual
> unfoldment. Whether or not he was the sole author
> of the words or not, makes little difference. It
> is in the practical application of the information
> that has made all of the difference. For me, his
> books were like a small adjustment to the rudder of
> my search, steering me in a better direction, so
> that suddenly, I was on a course that has brought
> immeasurable benefit.
>
> I don't care where the information came from. I am
> grateful to Julian Johnson, Paul, and every other
> author that has been able to write and explain these
> things that defy articulation. The fact that Paul was
> able to put all of the pieces together and present
> them in the way that he was able to, is such an
> incredible gift.
>
> If a stranger in rags hands you a priceless diamond,
> it does not change the diamond. (Even though others
> may scoff and call it a shiny bit of worthless glass!)
Nicely crafted Waterford Crystal, might be the more accurate analogy.
But a diamond it is not.
Patrick L.
arel...@home.com
KMerrymoon wrote:
>
> DOVE WRITES:
> "I don't care"- the mantric response of Eckists here for the last five years
> when
> conclusive proof is provided that the founder of Eckankar, who claimed to be
> God
> on earth and spiritual master of the entire universe, lied profusely in his
> Eckankar writings and violated the law by stealing the copyrighted work of
> other
> authors and profiting from it.
>
> DOUG:
> If we return to the facts, Paul never claimed to be God on earth, and he never
> "violated the law," as you put it. Copyrights are rights that can be exercised
> by the copyright holder, if they so choose. These are rights granted the
> copyright holder. There is no law broken unless the copyright holder inforces
> those rights.
If a man breaks a window on a storefront and takes a fur coat with many
onlookers, runs away, and doesn't get caught, is he a thief? Sure, he
hasn't be given his day in court to defend himself, but those who saw
him take the fur coat can accurately call him a thief.
Paul's copyright violations can also be seen by anyone who cares to make
the comparisons. He's a thief waiting for a court of law to consummated it.
Besides that, please note that all the copyright holders of the books
Paul plagiarized may not have been aware of his appropriations and
therefore their choice not to prosecute was based upon that fact that
they did not know their stuff was appropriated.
Has Harold been crossing his fingers all these years hoping that the
copyrights would run out on these books? Hoping they won't be renewed
which would get eckankar legally off the hook. If so, what a cowardly
way of handling this issue.
>
> The use of other's materials in writing, music, art, engineering, etc., is
> common practice and has been so for thousands of years. It is a part of how we
> advance as a civilization and a culture. The question is where to draw the
> line, and this line is continually changing. What Paul did in his day was
> considered acceptible,
This is your fantasy or delusion Doug. Is was not acceptable to violate
copyright laws in Paul's time.
>...which is one reason it was never a problem for Paul,
It was never a problem for Paul to plagiarize and violate copyright laws
because he was a pathological liar and lying and deceiving people is
done without conscience.
> even though some asked him about it, like Dr. Bluth, while Paul was still
> alive.
>
> When Frank says he doesn't care, this is just another way of saying that the
> whole issue is not black and white law breaking that is at stake here, but
> about perceptions and interpretations.
>
> Exaggeration of the matter is not a good way of getting at the reality of what
> took place.
Ha! And you don't think your "it was common in his day" justification is
an exaggeration?
> The fact that the matter is continually exaggerated and blown out
> of proportion suggests that the motive is not getting the truth out, as is
> often suggested, but some other agenda.
I see this with your comments: your absurd theories are not an act of
getting out the truth, their an act of promoting the false? Talk about agendas.
Lurk
maha_...@my-deja.com
Lurk, when has Eckankar ever done anything in a forthright way?
>
> >
> > The use of other's materials in writing, music, art, engineering,
etc., is
> > common practice and has been so for thousands of years. It is a
part of how we
> > advance as a civilization and a culture. The question is where to
draw the
> > line, and this line is continually changing. What Paul did in his
day was
> > considered acceptible,
>
> This is your fantasy or delusion Doug. Is was not acceptable to
violate
> copyright laws in Paul's time.
>
> >...which is one reason it was never a problem for Paul,
Doug is absolutely wrong about it being "acceptable behavior" to write
books full of plagiarized, copyrighted material.
>
> It was never a problem for Paul to plagiarize and violate copyright
laws
> because he was a pathological liar and lying and deceiving people is
> done without conscience.
I guess some figure that if Paulji claims to be God's Chief Rep,
whatever he does must be okay.
I think they also (subconsciously) figure that if they ever judged
Paulji on a truly human level, their spiritual fantasy world would take
a tumble.
Plain old narcissitic cult thinking. It's as old as the hills.
>
> > even though some asked him about it, like Dr. Bluth, while Paul was
still
> > alive.
> >
> > When Frank says he doesn't care, this is just another way of saying
that the
> > whole issue is not black and white law breaking that is at stake
here, but
> > about perceptions and interpretations.
> >
> > Exaggeration of the matter is not a good way of getting at the
reality of what
> > took place.
>
> Ha! And you don't think your "it was common in his day" justification
is
> an exaggeration?
>
> > The fact that the matter is continually exaggerated and blown out
> > of proportion suggests that the motive is not getting the truth
out, as is
> > often suggested, but some other agenda.
>
> I see this with your comments: your absurd theories are not an act of
> getting out the truth, their an act of promoting the false? Talk
about agendas.
>
> Lurk
>
> >
> > That's my opinion, anyway.
> >
> > Doug.
>
Patrick L.
> Frank
> --
> De oppresso liber
You are living proof that fools will believe what they want to believe, for as long as they
want to believe it.
Like them, you are content, complacent, smug, and you are nothing
more than the lot of so many who have tread the path of mediocrity before you.
But, of course, that is only what I believe.
Patrick L.
Ken
"gruendemann" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
I doubt that Dove will ever answer you, so FWIW, I know of two newsgroups:
alt.meditation.shabda and alt.meditation.quanyin.
--
Ken
Those melodies come from the shoreless sea
which thunders like waves out of the infinite.
- Rumi
Ken
"Frank H. Weeden" <fisa...@united.net> wrote ...
>
> And if I choose to see it as a diamond, or choose
> to believe it is a diamond, are you then going to
> tell me how wrong I am? LOL
Yes he is, and don't you doubt it!
Frank H. Weeden
>
> "Frank H. Weeden" <fisa...@united.net> wrote ...
> >
> > And if I choose to see it as a diamond, or choose
> > to believe it is a diamond, are you then going to
> > tell me how wrong I am? LOL
>
> Yes he is, and don't you doubt it!
That's okay. Only the one holding the diamond can
know its true worth. What difference does it make
if others have a differing opinion, to the diamond
or its worth? :-)
gruendemann
Frank. Most people never recognize a diamond unless its in a box marked
Tiffany's. And then they pay too much for a good thing! :-)
Ken
"gruendemann" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
A diamond is as worthless as glass to a man who is lost in the desert
and dying of thirst. Likewise a gallon of water to a man drowning in a
flood. It all depends on your situation. That's why it's so humorous
when people tell others what's in their own best interest and what they
should do. Especially when they've never even met the person!
Well, you know the official a.r.e. motto . . . "Whatever!"
<VBG>
maha_...@my-deja.com
All the more reason to question the authority of the mail-order
gurus . . . the guy who bill themselves as "modern prophets" and hide
out from the rank and file devotees.
>
> Well, you know the official a.r.e. motto . . . "Whatever!"
>
> <VBG>
>
> --
>
> Ken
>
> Those melodies come from the shoreless sea
> which thunders like waves out of the infinite.
> - Rumi
>
>
Frank H. Weeden
Ken wrote:
>
> "gruendemann" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
> >
> > Diamonds on the soles of your shoes? <wink> I wouldn't worry about it
> > Frank. Most people never recognize a diamond unless its in a box marked
> > Tiffany's. And then they pay too much for a good thing! :-)
> >
> > "Frank H. Weeden" wrote:
> > >
> > > Ken wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Frank H. Weeden" <fisa...@united.net> wrote ...
> > > > >
> > > > > And if I choose to see it as a diamond, or choose
> > > > > to believe it is a diamond, are you then going to
> > > > > tell me how wrong I am? LOL
> > > >
> > > > Yes he is, and don't you doubt it!
> > >
> > > That's okay. Only the one holding the diamond can
> > > know its true worth. What difference does it make
> > > if others have a differing opinion, to the diamond
> > > or its worth? :-)
>
> A diamond is as worthless as glass to a man who is lost in the desert
> and dying of thirst. Likewise a gallon of water to a man drowning in a
> flood. It all depends on your situation. That's why it's so humorous
> when people tell others what's in their own best interest and what they
> should do. Especially when they've never even met the person!
>
> Well, you know the official a.r.e. motto . . . "Whatever!"
>
> <VBG>
>
> --
>
> Ken
>
> Those melodies come from the shoreless sea
> which thunders like waves out of the infinite.
> - Rumi
--
De oppresso liber
gruendemann
bad.... no wonder this is all greek to you. Oh well..... maybe someday.
:-)
maha_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <9gGM5.123$mq1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> All the more reason to question the authority of the mail-order
> gurus . . . the guy who bill themselves as "modern prophets" and hide
> out from the rank and file devotees.
>
> >
> > Well, you know the official a.r.e. motto . . . "Whatever!"
> >
> > <VBG>
> >
> > --
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > Those melodies come from the shoreless sea
> > which thunders like waves out of the infinite.
> > - Rumi
> >
> >
>
gruendemann
"Frank H. Weeden" wrote:
>
> Harmonizing: "Whatever...."
>
> Ken wrote:
> >
> > "gruendemann" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
> > >
> > > Diamonds on the soles of your shoes? <wink> I wouldn't worry about it
> > > Frank. Most people never recognize a diamond unless its in a box marked
> > > Tiffany's. And then they pay too much for a good thing! :-)
> > >
> > > "Frank H. Weeden" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ken wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Frank H. Weeden" <fisa...@united.net> wrote ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And if I choose to see it as a diamond, or choose
> > > > > > to believe it is a diamond, are you then going to
> > > > > > tell me how wrong I am? LOL
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes he is, and don't you doubt it!
> > > >
> > > > That's okay. Only the one holding the diamond can
> > > > know its true worth. What difference does it make
> > > > if others have a differing opinion, to the diamond
> > > > or its worth? :-)
> >
> > A diamond is as worthless as glass to a man who is lost in the desert
> > and dying of thirst. Likewise a gallon of water to a man drowning in a
> > flood. It all depends on your situation. That's why it's so humorous
> > when people tell others what's in their own best interest and what they
> > should do. Especially when they've never even met the person!
> >
> > Well, you know the official a.r.e. motto . . . "Whatever!"
> >
> > <VBG>
> >
> > --
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > Those melodies come from the shoreless sea
> > which thunders like waves out of the infinite.
> > - Rumi
>
> --
> De oppresso liber
Frank H. Weeden
>
> "I don't care"- the mantric response of Eckists here for the last five years when
> conclusive proof is provided that the founder of Eckankar, who claimed to be God
> on earth and spiritual master of the entire universe, lied profusely in his
> Eckankar writings and violated the law by stealing the copyrighted work of other
> authors and profiting from it.
>
So? Mr. Pseudonym? Are you going to show up at my door
and kick my ass because my personal view doesn't coincide
with yours? The refusal of the detractors to see how really
inconsequential the "plagiarism issue" is, is really quite
interesting. Hilarious, actually. If it weren't for this
"issue," which makes up the cornerstone and excuse for
religious bigotry, intolerance, and persecution, the detractors
might actually have to find some other axe to grind with some
other group. LOL
> But when someone violates Eckankar's copyrights, even without a profit motive,
> Eckists say: "copyright violations bring about large fines and imprisonment".
> When their intellectual property is infringed upon, a cadre of Eck lawyers is
> unleashed.
>
> Then, finally, Eckankar really cares.
I am not Eckankar. I am Frank H. Weeden. Frank really
doesn't give a shit about legalities. Instead, Frank is
interested in personal, spiritual unfoldment. Argue all
you like, but I know what positive results have come from
following this path, and there is no arguing with that
because you don't live my life, and you don't know anything
about me or what my life was like, or what it's like now.
And actually, people have been posting verbatim, their
discourses on the Net, and other things that are not meant
to be copied, and Eckankar is fully aware of this. They have
chosen restraint. They are not lawsuit-happy, as you attempt
to portray them.
> Unbelievably, no one in Eckankar detects the severe hypocrisy in this approach.
Unbelievably, you are unable to keep from exaggerating and distorting
the facts. *shrug*
> Of course you don't care that the discovery of plagiarism has brought some former
> Eckists to the brink of suicide. Why care about the serious harm your religion
> has caused others when you're having so much fun?
Suicide? Really? Well, if something like this is capable of
sending the poor dears to the edge, it was only a matter of time
before something else did it anyway. To put that responsibility
onto Eckankar, rather than the individuals themselves, is just
ignorant. But then, it's said that ignorance is bliss, so hey;
follow your bliss, dude. LOL
> Besides, they had it coming because, according to your leader, Harold Klemp,
> "there are no victims" (except when Eckankar is wronged).
Gosh... How do you "wrong" an entire organization of people?
Pretty amazing... LOL
> To express remorse would be to admit that your religion is flawed, but in your
> "feel good at all costs" theology, this is the highest of sins.
Sin? Uh... Okay. LOL
> Yours is also the predictable, self-centered, New Ager attitude-- rendered even
> more reprehensible in the face of wholesale religious fraud and law-breaking on
> the part of one's so-called "spiritual master".
And yours is the predictable, short-sighted, highly bigoted
and intolerant attitude of anal-retentive fundamentalists
the world over, who have no respect, love, or tolerance for
their fellow man or his/her beliefs. Your ego-driven onslaught
to prove everyone around you wrong, is very transparent, but
if this is the only way you can make yourself feel good, I
feel sorry for you.
<Snipped typical detractor rant
>
> The real issue is simple, Frank.
>
> It seems that WE WERE LIED TO about the source of the Eck teachings. Most
> certainly, we were lied to by Paul Twitchell about this. This is a matter of
> historical record.
You choose to believe you were lied to, and choose to take
personal offense to it. That's your problem. Your perceptions
are yours.
> The reason that detractors keep detracting is because Eckists keep refusing to
> face the real moral issues behind the plagiarism.
It's a moral issue for you. To me, it's not even an issue.
> Next time you rent a movie, look at the copyright notice. It says that anyone who
> infringes on the movie's copyright is subject to investigation by the FBI, fines,
> and even imprisonment.
Yes... So, it's interesting that no one has come forth
with any lawsuits, isn't it?
> Would it matter to you if some of your leaders ended up in prison or Eckankar was
> bankrupted by copyright infringement lawsuits?
Hrmmm... Probably not, but if that were ever to happen,
(which is highly unlikely) I guess I'd have to measure
my feelings on it at that time.
> I think at that point, finally, it would, but your reaction would be an
> indefensible cry of "injustice" despite their their alleged law-breaking.
You don't know what my reaction would be. It's ludicrous of
you to even suppose what my reaction might be. But by all
means, please, keep proving what an idiot you are. LOL
> Then
> we'd hear about how this was all the work of Satan (Kal) in his ceaseless campaign
> (since the dawn of time) to undermine the "pure teachings of Eck".
>
> Welcome to the morally warped world of New Age religion.
Welcome to the mentally warped world of the Detractor Religion. *shrug*
> Remember also that it is YOUR religion that teaches that dishonesty is a karmic
> offense.
Really? Can you present a quote to back that up?
> Denying that plagiarism is morally wrong is a clear form of
> dishonesty. So is being an accessory to dishonesty by supporting a religion
> that allegedly profits from violating our nation's copyright laws.
Anyway, this is something that has been addressed very clearly
in Doug Marman's book, "Dialogue In The Age Of Criticism."
Of course, you will continue to ignore the things that Doug
has brought out, because they don't serve your rabid agenda.
> Thinking that you are beyond the reach of spiritual law because you send a $130
> yearly check to Eck HQ, sing "hu", and attend a few seminars is tragically
> reckless.
In your opinion. And to call me "tragically reckless," well, what can I
say? Thanks for the compliment? <G>
> I know some Christians who think along these same lines, but I just heard a sermon
> on TV last night that clearly stated that every misdeed one commits will have to
> be answered for on "Judgment Day".
And you think that persecuting other religions and insulting
others will not have to be answered for, in your belief of Judgement
Day? Interesting...
> Interesting note: The other Light and Sound religion newsgroups have very few
> detractors, and there is very little verbal abuse going on there.
Oh? Well, I guess you and your cronies have a lot of work to do then.
LOL
Frank H. Weeden
And if I choose to see it as a diamond, or choose
to believe it is a diamond, are you then going to
tell me how wrong I am? LOL
--
De oppresso liber
Frank H. Weeden
>
> You are living proof that fools will believe what they
> want to believe, for as long as they want to believe it.
Thanks. I see you have exposed your own ignorance in
labeling me, without knowing anything about me. Carry on! ;-)
>
> Like them, you are content, complacent, smug, and
Oh? Complacent and smug? Really? LOL
Content? Hrmm... Interesting... Thank you for
your "expert" evaluation. ROFL!
> you are nothing
> more than the lot of so many who have tread the
> path of mediocrity before you.
Mediocrity?
How about some more compliments? This is getting fun,
Patrick. By all means, please continue. :-)
> But, of course, that is only what I believe.
And far be it from me to attempt to interfere with
your beliefs or perceptions. You are free to entertain
them all you like, and it would be ignorant of me to
take it seriously or personally. However, it IS funny. :-)
Thanks for bringing a smile to my face this morning, Patrick.
--
De oppresso liber
Frank H. Weeden
choice of beliefs and perceptions concerning
my character, speaks volumes about your own
character and state of mind. As such, I shall
let your words speak for yourself. :-)
--
De oppresso liber
Michael Wallace
"Ken" <ken.st...@att.net> wrote in message
news:RdEM5.43$cx1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Frank H. Weeden" <fisa...@united.net> wrote ...
> >
> > And if I choose to see it as a diamond, or choose
> > to believe it is a diamond, are you then going to
> > tell me how wrong I am? LOL
>
>
>
Well... When you have a glazed look in your eye, your diamond tends to look
like glass <G>
Love'
Michael
SantimVah
"Patrick L." <REMOVE-...@jazzytunes.com> wrote in message
news:OuqM5.14572$Pw6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Patrick slams his gavel whilst calling things to order and pronounces:
>
> You are living proof that fools will believe what they want to believe,
for as long as they
> want to believe it.
>
> Like them, you are content, complacent, smug, and you are nothing
> more than the lot of so many who have tread the path of mediocrity before
you.
>
> But, of course, that is only what I believe.
>
> Patrick L.
>
Given your stated beliefs it appears that this must be true: "You are living
proof that fools will believe what they want to believe, for as long as they
want to believe it."
Whatever....................................
Sean
>
>
>
KMerrymoon
> DOVE WRITES:
> "I don't care"- the mantric response of Eckists here for the last five years
> when
> conclusive proof is provided that the founder of Eckankar, who claimed to be
> God
> on earth and spiritual master of the entire universe, lied profusely in his
> Eckankar writings and violated the law by stealing the copyrighted work of
> other
> authors and profiting from it.
>
> If we return to the facts, Paul never claimed to be God on earth, and he
never
> "violated the law," as you put it. Copyrights are rights that can be
exercised
> by the copyright holder, if they so choose. These are rights granted the
> copyright holder. There is no law broken unless the copyright holder inforces
> those rights.
LURK WRITES:
If a man breaks a window on a storefront and takes a fur coat with many
onlookers, runs away, and doesn't get caught, is he a thief? Sure, he hasn't be
given his day in court to defend himself, but those who saw him take the fur
coat can accurately call him a thief.
Paul's copyright violations can also be seen by anyone who cares to make the
comparisons. He's a thief waiting for a court of law to consummated it.
Besides that, please note that all the copyright holders of the books Paul
plagiarized may not have been aware of his appropriations and therefore their
choice not to prosecute was based upon that fact that they did not know their
stuff was appropriated.
DOUG:
Think about that!
A person has their store window broken into and their stuff stolen but they
never realize it. Why would that be? Maybe because it was never stolen away
from them?
It's just like coming home from work one day and not realizing that your
furniture was stolen. Why? Because your furniture is still there. All that
really happened was that someone COPIED your furniture pattern.
Horrors!
Your own example, Lurk, proves the point I was making.
> DOUG ORIGINALLY WROTE:
> The use of other's materials in writing, music, art, engineering, etc., is
> common practice and has been so for thousands of years. It is a part of how
we
> advance as a civilization and a culture. The question is where to draw the
> line, and this line is continually changing. What Paul did in his day was
> considered acceptible,
LURK WROTE:
This is your fantasy or delusion Doug. Is was not acceptable to violate
copyright laws in Paul's time.
DOUG:
What a wonderful way of twisting my words into something I never said. Who's
fantasy are we talking about here?
Do you really think your twisting of the words of others, which you continue to
do over and over again, is ethical? How can you keep doing this and then point
fingers at Paul for his ethics? I don't get that.
DOUG ORIGINALLY WROTE:
>...which is one reason it was never a problem for Paul,
LURK WROTE:
It was never a problem for Paul to plagiarize and violate copyright laws
because he was a pathological liar and lying and deceiving people is done
without conscience.
DOUG:
That's interesting that you took my sentence to mean that it never bothered
Paul's ethics. What I was saying was that no one ever made a big deal about it
while Paul was alive.
DOUG ORIGINALLY WROTE, CONTINUED:
> even though some asked him about it, like Dr. Bluth, while Paul was still
> alive.
>
> When Frank says he doesn't care, this is just another way of saying that the
> whole issue is not black and white law breaking that is at stake here, but
> about perceptions and interpretations.
>
> Exaggeration of the matter is not a good way of getting at the reality of
what
> took place.
LURK WROTE:
Ha! And you don't think your "it was common in his day" justification is an
exaggeration?
DOUG:
Lurk, I showed the quote from Philip Meyer. I think he made it pretty clear
that this is not an exaggeration.
Why don't you show some evidence why you think otherwise?
DOUG ORIGINALLY WROTE:
> The fact that the matter is continually exaggerated and blown out
> of proportion suggests that the motive is not getting the truth out, as is
> often suggested, but some other agenda.
LURK WROTE:
I see this with your comments: your absurd theories are not an act of getting
out the truth, their an act of promoting the false? Talk about agendas.
DOUG:
Well, Lurk, although I see that you don't agree with what I've written, my
intention has been in fact to get out the truth.
What Dove wrote was clearly an exaggeration and distortion. Although you want
to believe that my theories are absurd, you offer nothing to back up your
opinion.
Critical opinions, without any substance to back them up, are merely opinions.
Or, I guess, they can also be agendas.
arel...@home.com
But my analogy was making the point that people can observe this
violation of the law and come to a conclusion about the person who took
furniture or Paul taking other's writing. Anyone can see it.
>
> It's just like coming home from work one day and not realizing that your
> furniture was stolen. Why? Because your furniture is still there. All that
> really happened was that someone COPIED your furniture pattern.
>
> Horrors!
Your contorting the analogy.
>
> Your own example, Lurk, proves the point I was making.
Your saying Paul did nothing wrong because he did not get caught. I
think that is a bogus argument. If a thief steals something and does get
caught he is still a thief. Paul was a thief.
>
> > DOUG ORIGINALLY WROTE:
> > The use of other's materials in writing, music, art, engineering, etc., is
> > common practice and has been so for thousands of years. It is a part of how
> we
> > advance as a civilization and a culture. The question is where to draw the
> > line, and this line is continually changing. What Paul did in his day was
> > considered acceptible,
>
> LURK WROTE:
> This is your fantasy or delusion Doug. Is was not acceptable to violate
> copyright laws in Paul's time.
>
> DOUG:
> What a wonderful way of twisting my words into something I never said. Who's
> fantasy are we talking about here?
>
> Do you really think your twisting of the words of others, which you continue to
> do over and over again, is ethical? How can you keep doing this and then point
> fingers at Paul for his ethics? I don't get that.
I notice whenever you don't want to respond to something you simply talk
about me twisting your words. The subject Dove brought up and you
responded to was violation of copyright laws. Here it is:
*******************
Dove Wrote:
...Lied profusely in his Eckankar writings and violated the law by
stealing the copyrighted work of
other authors and profiting from it.
DOUG:
If we return to the facts, Paul never claimed to be God on earth, and he never
"violated the law," as you put it. Copyrights are rights that can be exercised
by the copyright holder, if they so choose. These are rights granted the
copyright holder. There is no law broken unless the copyright holder enforces
those rights.
The use of other's materials in writing, music, art, engineering, etc.,
is common practice and has been so for thousands of years. It is a part
of how we advance as a civilization and a culture. The question is where
to draw the line, and this line is continually changing. What Paul did
in his day was considered acceptable, which is one reason it was never a
problem for Paul, even though some asked him about it, like Dr. Bluth,
while Paul was still alive.
*************
It certainly looks to me like you are making the point that it is
acceptable to violate copyright laws in Paul's day. I don't see how I'm
twisting your words.
>
> DOUG ORIGINALLY WROTE:
> >...which is one reason it was never a problem for Paul,
>
> LURK WROTE:
> It was never a problem for Paul to plagiarize and violate copyright laws
> because he was a pathological liar and lying and deceiving people is done
> without conscience.
>
> DOUG:
> That's interesting that you took my sentence to mean that it never bothered
> Paul's ethics. What I was saying was that no one ever made a big deal about it
> while Paul was alive.
If that's what you meant then I would argue that the authors and
publishers whose copyrights he violated were not aware of the
violations. It is not a wild leap to assume authors and publishers are
serious when they copyright their books.
>
> DOUG ORIGINALLY WROTE, CONTINUED:
> > even though some asked him about it, like Dr. Bluth, while Paul was still
> > alive.
> >
> > When Frank says he doesn't care, this is just another way of saying that the
> > whole issue is not black and white law breaking that is at stake here, but
> > about perceptions and interpretations.
> >
> > Exaggeration of the matter is not a good way of getting at the reality of
> what
> > took place.
>
> LURK WROTE:
> Ha! And you don't think your "it was common in his day" justification is an
> exaggeration?
>
> DOUG:
> Lurk, I showed the quote from Philip Meyer. I think he made it pretty clear
> that this is not an exaggeration.
>
> Why don't you show some evidence why you think otherwise?
Show some evidence? I think you flatter yourself in thinking you have
something substantial to refute. You really think a quote from Philip
Meyer is evidence to support your justification that it is alright to
violate copyrighted material?
That's called grasping at straws, Doug.
>
> DOUG ORIGINALLY WROTE:
> > The fact that the matter is continually exaggerated and blown out
> > of proportion suggests that the motive is not getting the truth out, as is
> > often suggested, but some other agenda.
>
> LURK WROTE:
> I see this with your comments: your absurd theories are not an act of getting
> out the truth, their an act of promoting the false? Talk about agendas.
>
> DOUG:
> Well, Lurk, although I see that you don't agree with what I've written, my
> intention has been in fact to get out the truth.
>
> What Dove wrote was clearly an exaggeration and distortion. Although you want
> to believe that my theories are absurd, you offer nothing to back up your
> opinion.
>
> Critical opinions, without any substance to back them up, are merely opinions.
> Or, I guess, they can also be agendas.
Doug I have been giving my opinions and supporting them as I review your
book here. There's a point where even I grow tire of repeating myself
for your benefit. But here goes:
Dove points out that Paul claimed to be God on earth. I agree Paul did
this with his position of the living eck master. Paul grandiosity got
the better of him. There are many quotes that can be brought up to
support this notion of Paul being God on earth.
Dove points out that Paul lied profusely. I agree. I think he lies when
he puts Rebezar Tarz in the books and old Reb speaks other author's
words. I think it has been proven that Paul lied in his official
biography. I guess we can all argue what constitutes profusely, but then
life is short.
Dove says Paul violate the law by stealing copyrighted works of other
authors and profiting from it. This is also true. A substantial portion
of "The Far Country" has shown to be plagiarized and taken from other
authors. So far, either the copyright holders have chosen to not take
legal action or they do not know about it. In my book this is something
that can be seen and determined by all who care to compare the writings.
Upon inspection, you can see Paul indeed did violate the copyright laws.
And as far as him profiting, how much money was made on that book or
other books that containing plagiarized material? Paul drew his salary
from the sales of these written materials.
So where exactly do you see the exaggeration and distortion in what Dove said?
Lurk
the_trol...@my-deja.com
kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) wrote:
>
> > DOVE WRITES:
> > "I don't care"- the mantric response of Eckists here for the last
five years
> > when
> > conclusive proof is provided that the founder of Eckankar, who
claimed to be
> > God
> > on earth and spiritual master of the entire universe, lied
profusely in his
> > Eckankar writings and violated the law by stealing the copyrighted
work of
> > other
> > authors and profiting from it.
> >
> > DOUG:
> > If we return to the facts, Paul never claimed to be God on earth,
ritual that the Eck descends and centers into the new master, giving
him the power of the word of God. He becomes the actual manifestation
of God through this power, which he retains throughout his life here on
Earth and throughout the universes. I stopped midway through the
paragraph. This is taken from the Spiritual Notebook*-Troll) and he
> never
> > "violated the law," as you put it. Copyrights are rights that can be
> exercised
> > by the copyright holder, if they so choose. These are rights
granted the
> > copyright holder. There is no law broken unless the copyright
holder inforces
> > those rights.
with, he usurped those rights. I bet Neville's family records do not
have a letter by Paulji asking permission.*-Troll)
KMerrymoon
> If a man breaks a window on a storefront and takes a fur coat with many
> onlookers, runs away, and doesn't get caught, is he a thief? Sure, he hasn't
be
> given his day in court to defend himself, but those who saw him take the fur
> coat can accurately call him a thief.
>
> Paul's copyright violations can also be seen by anyone who cares to make the
> comparisons. He's a thief waiting for a court of law to consummated it.
>
> Besides that, please note that all the copyright holders of the books Paul
> plagiarized may not have been aware of his appropriations and therefore their
> choice not to prosecute was based upon that fact that they did not know their
> stuff was appropriated.
>
> DOUG:
> Think about that!
>
> A person has their store window broken into and their stuff stolen but they
> never realize it. Why would that be? Maybe because it was never stolen away
> from them?
LURK WROTE:
But my analogy was making the point that people can observe this
violation of the law and come to a conclusion about the person who took
furniture or Paul taking other's writing. Anyone can see it.
DOUG:
Lurk, you are getting plagiarism and copyright infringement mixed up here.
Breaking into a store and stealing stuff is a violation of the law. Plagiarism
is not a violation of the law, it is an ethical matter.
If a copyright holder uses the courts to issue a cease and desist action to
stop the use of their material, and the person continues to use their material,
then that is a violation of the law.
There was no violation of the law in anything that has happened in regards to
Paul's copying.
Does that help explain what I've been saying?
> DOUG ORIGINALLY WROTE:
> It's just like coming home from work one day and not realizing that your
> furniture was stolen. Why? Because your furniture is still there. All that
> really happened was that someone COPIED your furniture pattern.
>
> Horrors!
LURK WROTE:
Your contorting the analogy.
DOUG:
You were making a number of points in your analogy. One was that plagiarism is
like breaking into a store and stealing stuff. I think it is quite clear that
they are not the same at all.
The other point you were making with your analogy was that what Paul did was a
violation of the law, just like breaking into a store and stealing. What Paul
did, however, was not a violation of law, it is a matter of plagiarism.
Take David's case. He had to go to court to find out of he would be able to
keep Life 101 on his web site. He lost the court battle. So he could no longer
keep Life 101 on his web site. If he had not taken down Life 101 from his web
site, he would have been violating the law. Until then it was not clear whether
publishing Life 101 was within his rights or not.
Since none of the copyright holders has objected so far, then we do not yet
have a violation of law issue at hand.
This is very different with someone breaking into a store and stealing stuff.
Unless that person owned the store, or had permission from the owner, that
person was breaking a law.
Copyright infringement can be the same, when someone duplicates a CD, for
example, and sells it without permission of the record label, because that is
clear infringement. What Paul did is not nearly as clear as you think it was. I
don't think it would be an easy case at all to prove that Paul's use of
Russell's writings in the Tiger's Fang was copyright infringement.
Paul's use of Johnson's writings is the only case that I would say that had
much of a chance in court, but the copyright holder has already publicly stated
that the matter was not a problem for them, so there is no copyright violation
there.
This is what I mean by discussing the matters openly. Why keep distorting it or
making it sound like something that it is not?
We may each have a different opinion about plagiarism, but it is certainly not
the same as stealing something away from someone else so that they no longer
have something that belonged to them.
Why keep distorting the matter?
KMerrymoon
> This is your fantasy or delusion Doug. Is was not acceptable to violate
> copyright laws in Paul's time.
>
> DOUG:
> What a wonderful way of twisting my words into something I never said. Who's
> fantasy are we talking about here?
>
> Do you really think your twisting of the words of others, which you continue
to
> do over and over again, is ethical? How can you keep doing this and then
point
> fingers at Paul for his ethics? I don't get that.
LURK THEN WROTE:
I notice whenever you don't want to respond to something you simply talk about
me twisting your words. The subject Dove brought up and you
responded to was violation of copyright laws. Here it is:
*******************
Dove Wrote:
...Lied profusely in his Eckankar writings and violated the law by
stealing the copyrighted work of
other authors and profiting from it.
DOUG:
If we return to the facts, Paul never claimed to be God on earth, and he never
"violated the law," as you put it. Copyrights are rights that can be exercised
by the copyright holder, if they so choose. These are rights granted the
copyright holder. There is no law broken unless the copyright holder enforces
those rights.
The use of other's materials in writing, music, art, engineering, etc.,
is common practice and has been so for thousands of years. It is a part
of how we advance as a civilization and a culture. The question is where to
draw the line, and this line is continually changing. What Paul did in his day
was considered acceptable, which is one reason it was never a problem for Paul,
even though some asked him about it, like Dr. Bluth, while Paul was still
alive.
*************
LURK THEN COMMENTS:
It certainly looks to me like you are making the point that it is acceptable to
violate copyright laws in Paul's day. I don't see how I'm
twisting your words.
DOUG:
This is real simple, Lurk. I have never said anywhere, or even implied in any
way, that violation of any law was acceptable.
What I said was that what Paul did was not a violation of the law. Plagiarism
is an ethical matter. There was no violation of copyright law established.
When you state that what I said was that it was acceptable to violate copyright
laws, you are clearly twisting my words.
It can't be any clearer than this, Lurk, and yet you go on with your arguments,
and actually think you are justified in doing this?
This is misinformation and distortion. If it was unintentional, then an apology
would be appreciated. Mistakes are always understandable. However, I am raising
this issue because you have made it a regular practice of yours.
Now, let's get back to issue that was being discussed. When someone publishes
someone else's complete book without the permission of the copyright holder,
then that can be considered a violation of the law and would fit with your
analogy. That is not what happened here, however.
The use of the ideas and words of others is what plagiarism is about. This is
not copyright violation. It's a matter of ethics, which continually change.
If you think it would easy to prove that Paul's books infringed the copyrights
of Walter Russell, I can only tell you that this would not be easy in a court
of law at all.
Let me remind you that copyright law is not an attempt to enforce ethics, it is
business matter. It is about profits. No one is thrown in jail for copyright
infringement. They can be forced to pay fines, however.
The main purpose of copyright law was to protect the copyright holder so that
their book, record, movie, work of art, etc., as a whole, belonged to them.
When it comes down to portions, especially small portions, copyright law is not
clear at all, but quite murky. The matter then comes down to profits, not
ethics.
Plagiarism is the issue at hand, which is a matter of ethics. Such ethical
lines are always changing and public dialogue about them continues to change
and shape how they are seen.
Copyright law is a matter settled in courts. It based on the right to profit
from your own work of art.
KMerrymoon
> Well, Lurk, although I see that you don't agree with what I've written, my
> intention has been in fact to get out the truth.
>
> What Dove wrote was clearly an exaggeration and distortion. Although you want
> to believe that my theories are absurd, you offer nothing to back up your
> opinion.
>
> Critical opinions, without any substance to back them up, are merely
opinions.
> Or, I guess, they can also be agendas.
LURK WROTE:
Doug I have been giving my opinions and supporting them as I review your book
here. There's a point where even I grow tire of repeating myself for your
benefit. But here goes:
Dove points out that Paul claimed to be God on earth. I agree Paul did
this with his position of the living eck master. Paul grandiosity got
the better of him. There are many quotes that can be brought up to
support this notion of Paul being God on earth.
Dove points out that Paul lied profusely. I agree. I think he lies when
he puts Rebezar Tarz in the books and old Reb speaks other author's
words. I think it has been proven that Paul lied in his official
biography. I guess we can all argue what constitutes profusely, but then
life is short.
Dove says Paul violate the law by stealing copyrighted works of other
authors and profiting from it. This is also true. A substantial portion
of "The Far Country" has shown to be plagiarized and taken from other
authors. So far, either the copyright holders have chosen to not take
legal action or they do not know about it. In my book this is something
that can be seen and determined by all who care to compare the writings.
Upon inspection, you can see Paul indeed did violate the copyright laws.
And as far as him profiting, how much money was made on that book or
other books that containing plagiarized material? Paul drew his salary
from the sales of these written materials.
So where exactly do you see the exaggeration and distortion in what Dove said?
DOUG RESPONDS:
1. Paul never claimed he was God on Earth. This is very clear, Lurk. Why say it
when this wasn't true?
You can certainly state that you think Paul made such claims that it was almost
like saying that he was God on Earth. While I would obviously disagree with
this, at least this is not out and out misinformation.
If Paul ever stated that he was God on Earth, then prove it and settle the
matter. Simply show us one quote. But there are none. I know it and you know
it.
In fact, it goes totally against what Paul did indeed claim.
We can of course get into a long and probably fruitless discussion about what
Paul did claim and what it meant, but there is no reason to misrepresent or
exaggerate the matter to make it sound like something that it isn't. That's
just distortion and misinformation.
2. Paul never violated copyright law. I've just posted my explanation about
this, so there is no need to repeat this.
To state this is misinformation and distortion. If a court of law had decided
that Paul's writings were an infringement of copyrights, like happened in David
Lane's case, then that would be different. Then Dove would have a right to say
what he did. Otherwise it is misinformation and distortion.
Why not just treat these matters as they are? Why keep distorting them?
The discussion about plagiarism is perfectly fair. Why start calling it
violation of law when that isn't what happened?
It's a discussion about ethics, and as we know ethics is a line that not
everyone agrees about and the public line of acceptance changes dramatically
from generation to generation.
The continual desire to distort and misrepresent is a clear indication that
there is an agenda beneath such actions, and truth is not what is being sought.
KMerrymoon
(*Excuse me Doug, but on page 164,second paragraph, "It is during this
ritual that the Eck descends and centers into the new master, giving
him the power of the word of God. He becomes the actual manifestation
of God through this power, which he retains throughout his life here on
Earth and throughout the universes. I stopped midway through the
paragraph. This is taken from the Spiritual Notebook*-Troll)
DOUG:
Troll, there are lots of quotes like these. I am not surprised that some people
don't accept such claims, but in regards to what Dove said: he didn't say that
Paul claimed to be the Living ECK Master, and that the Living ECK Master has
the power of the word of God, or that Paul claimed to be manifesting God
through the power of the word.
Those would have been more accurate statements, based on your quote.
Why not simply correctly represent what Paul actually did claim? I think Paul's
claims are controvertial enough. Why exaggerate them?
If we want to talk about Paul's controvertial statements, then why not quote
them exactly and discuss them? I think they are open to a wide range of
interpretations.
If we interested in truth, we will listen to the whole range of
interpretations, searching for one that is the most helpful and useful.
Insisting that the most extreme interpretation is the only right one is
obviously not useful in finding the truth of what Paul really meant.
Frank H. Weeden
>
> Why keep distorting the matter?
Because that's what trolls do, Doug. And if the
plagiarism issue is opened up and dealt with, and
it's found that it really isn't such an issue after
all, then suddenly, our resident trolls find that
their smug, self-righteousness is in peril. And
that really pisses them off! <G>
Love,
Frank
--
De Oppresso Liber
arel...@home.com
KMerrymoon wrote:
>
> > LURK WROTE:
> > This is your fantasy or delusion Doug. Is was not acceptable to violate
> > copyright laws in Paul's time.
> >
> > DOUG:
> > What a wonderful way of twisting my words into something I never said. Who's
> > fantasy are we talking about here?
> >
> > Do you really think your twisting of the words of others, which you continue
> to
> > do over and over again, is ethical? How can you keep doing this and then
> point
> > fingers at Paul for his ethics? I don't get that.
>
> LURK THEN WROTE:
> I notice whenever you don't want to respond to something you simply talk about
> me twisting your words. The subject Dove brought up and you
> responded to was violation of copyright laws. Here it is:
>
> *******************
> Dove Wrote:
> ...Lied profusely in his Eckankar writings and violated the law by
> stealing the copyrighted work of
> other authors and profiting from it.
>
> DOUG:
> If we return to the facts, Paul never claimed to be God on earth, and he never
> "violated the law," as you put it. Copyrights are rights that can be exercised
> by the copyright holder, if they so choose. These are rights granted the
> copyright holder. There is no law broken unless the copyright holder enforces
> those rights.
>
> The use of other's materials in writing, music, art, engineering, etc.,
> is common practice and has been so for thousands of years. It is a part
> of how we advance as a civilization and a culture. The question is where to
> draw the line, and this line is continually changing. What Paul did in his day
> was considered acceptable, which is one reason it was never a problem for Paul,
> even though some asked him about it, like Dr. Bluth, while Paul was still
> alive.
> *************
>
> LURK THEN COMMENTS:
> It certainly looks to me like you are making the point that it is acceptable to
> violate copyright laws in Paul's day. I don't see how I'm
> twisting your words.
>
> DOUG:
> This is real simple, Lurk. I have never said anywhere, or even implied in any
> way, that violation of any law was acceptable.
Looks to me it was via implication in your response to Dove about
copyright violation.
>
> What I said was that what Paul did was not a violation of the law. Plagiarism
> is an ethical matter. There was no violation of copyright law established.
Show me in the passage above where you indicate you are talking about
plagiarism. You were talking about copyright violations and using other
people's materials in response to Dove's assertions and then you make
the point about how it was acceptable in Paul's day.
>
> When you state that what I said was that it was acceptable to violate copyright
> laws, you are clearly twisting my words.
I'm feeding you back the meaning you create with the way your phrase
things Doug.
>
> It can't be any clearer than this, Lurk, and yet you go on with your arguments,
> and actually think you are justified in doing this?
Doug until and unless you begin to express yourself a tad more clearer,
I will continue to challenge your implications and the slick way you
respond. If you want to make the point the it is acceptable to
plagiarize in Paul time then say that. The way you position things above
gives people the impression via implication that it was acceptable in
Paul's time to violate copyright laws.
Needless to say, you know that I think your "plagiarism was common in
Paul's day" explanation is a bunch of bull.
>
> This is misinformation and distortion. If it was unintentional, then an apology
> would be appreciated. Mistakes are always understandable. However, I am raising
> this issue because you have made it a regular practice of yours.
And I rephrasing things back to you because you have a habit of being
cryptic, vague, indirect and imply lots by the way you write.
>
> Now, let's get back to issue that was being discussed. When someone publishes
> someone else's complete book without the permission of the copyright holder,
> then that can be considered a violation of the law and would fit with your
> analogy. That is not what happened here, however.
Could you cite the law where it says it has to be a whole book in order
for it to be consider a violation of copyright law?
>
> The use of the ideas and words of others is what plagiarism is about. This is
> not copyright violation. It's a matter of ethics, which continually change.
>
> If you think it would easy to prove that Paul's books infringed the copyrights
> of Walter Russell, I can only tell you that this would not be easy in a court
> of law at all.
Are you getting this from the eckankar lawyers?
>
> Let me remind you that copyright law is not an attempt to enforce ethics, it is
> business matter. It is about profits. No one is thrown in jail for copyright
> infringement. They can be forced to pay fines, however.
>
> The main purpose of copyright law was to protect the copyright holder so that
> their book, record, movie, work of art, etc., as a whole, belonged to them.
> When it comes down to portions, especially small portions, copyright law is not
> clear at all, but quite murky. The matter then comes down to profits, not
> ethics.
>
> Plagiarism is the issue at hand, which is a matter of ethics. Such ethical
> lines are always changing and public dialogue about them continues to change
> and shape how they are seen.
>
> Copyright law is a matter settled in courts. It based on the right to profit
> from your own work of art.
Again, I guess it is a semantic thing, I'm calling using other people's
material without permission or acknowledgment as a violation of a
holder's copyrights.
Maybe you're technically correct, but I see no reason to back away from
calling Paul's appropriations as violations of copyright laws. His
stealing of other's words do not fall under the fair use clauses. He did
not get permission and did not reference his material.
arel...@home.com
KMerrymoon wrote:
>
> > LURK WRITES:
> > If a man breaks a window on a storefront and takes a fur coat with many
> > onlookers, runs away, and doesn't get caught, is he a thief? Sure, he hasn't
> be
> > given his day in court to defend himself, but those who saw him take the fur
> > coat can accurately call him a thief.
> >
> > Paul's copyright violations can also be seen by anyone who cares to make the
> > comparisons. He's a thief waiting for a court of law to consummated it.
> >
> > Besides that, please note that all the copyright holders of the books Paul
> > plagiarized may not have been aware of his appropriations and therefore their
> > choice not to prosecute was based upon that fact that they did not know their
> > stuff was appropriated.
> >
> > DOUG:
> > Think about that!
> >
> > A person has their store window broken into and their stuff stolen but they
> > never realize it. Why would that be? Maybe because it was never stolen away
> > from them?
>
> LURK WROTE:
> But my analogy was making the point that people can observe this
> violation of the law and come to a conclusion about the person who took
> furniture or Paul taking other's writing. Anyone can see it.
>
> DOUG:
> Lurk, you are getting plagiarism and copyright infringement mixed up here.
>
> Breaking into a store and stealing stuff is a violation of the law. Plagiarism
> is not a violation of the law, it is an ethical matter.
>
> If a copyright holder uses the courts to issue a cease and desist action to
> stop the use of their material, and the person continues to use their material,
> then that is a violation of the law.
>
> There was no violation of the law in anything that has happened in regards to
> Paul's copying.
>
> Does that help explain what I've been saying?
>
> > DOUG ORIGINALLY WROTE:
> > It's just like coming home from work one day and not realizing that your
> > furniture was stolen. Why? Because your furniture is still there. All that
> > really happened was that someone COPIED your furniture pattern.
> >
> > Horrors!
>
> LURK WROTE:
> Your contorting the analogy.
>
> DOUG:
> You were making a number of points in your analogy. One was that plagiarism is
> like breaking into a store and stealing stuff. I think it is quite clear that
> they are not the same at all.
>
> The other point you were making with your analogy was that what Paul did was a
> violation of the law, just like breaking into a store and stealing. What Paul
> did, however, was not a violation of law, it is a matter of plagiarism.
>
> Take David's case. He had to go to court to find out of he would be able to
> keep Life 101 on his web site. He lost the court battle. So he could no longer
> keep Life 101 on his web site. If he had not taken down Life 101 from his web
> site, he would have been violating the law. Until then it was not clear whether
> publishing Life 101 was within his rights or not.
Lanes case was not so cut and dry and a matter of interpretation since
prior permission had been given to Lane.
Paul's copyright violations are obvious and cut and dry.
>
> Since none of the copyright holders has objected so far, then we do not yet
> have a violation of law issue at hand.
I guess we're at a semantic impasse. Because I think it is safe to say
Paul did indeed violate copyright law after seeing the comparisons. The
fact that nobody has taken Paul or eckankar to court over this doesn't
change the fact he violated the copyright laws in my mind. He did not
get permission and he did not reference material.
You're saying there is no law broken unless the copyright holder takes
action. I think Paul broke the law unless you can show me where he got
permission to use Nevilles, Russell's and all the others material.
Maybe I'm not expressing these things in the correct legalese terms, but
in my book when someone take chapters from another book without
permission and uses them in books which are sold, this is a violation of
the holder's copyrights.
>
> This is very different with someone breaking into a store and stealing stuff.
> Unless that person owned the store, or had permission from the owner, that
> person was breaking a law.
I chose that specific example for the purpose of demonstrating an
observable violation of a law and the fact that the thief did not get
caught does not detract from him being a thief.
It is easy to observe how Paul abused other's copyrights. That he did
not get caught and taken to court and fined doesn't mean he did not
violate the law.
>
> Copyright infringement can be the same, when someone duplicates a CD, for
> example, and sells it without permission of the record label, because that is
> clear infringement. What Paul did is not nearly as clear as you think it was. I
> don't think it would be an easy case at all to prove that Paul's use of
> Russell's writings in the Tiger's Fang was copyright infringement.
>
> Paul's use of Johnson's writings is the only case that I would say that had
> much of a chance in court, but the copyright holder has already publicly stated
> that the matter was not a problem for them, so there is no copyright violation
> there.
So are you saying that when Paul copies a chapter from Neville that this
in not copyright violation? Show me where Paul got permission to use
Neville's material. Show me where Paul reference Neville as the author
of the material in his book.
>
> This is what I mean by discussing the matters openly. Why keep distorting it or
> making it sound like something that it is not?
>
> We may each have a different opinion about plagiarism, but it is certainly not
> the same as stealing something away from someone else so that they no longer
> have something that belonged to them.
If Paul uses other people's writing without permission and makes money
off the books, that is stealing in my view.
>
> Why keep distorting the matter?
Calling it what it is. Your "plagiarism was common in Paul's day" line
of reasoning is the distortion and smacks of cultic thinking.
Lurk
arel...@home.com
KMerrymoon wrote:
>
> TROLL WROTE:
> (*Excuse me Doug, but on page 164,second paragraph, "It is during this
> ritual that the Eck descends and centers into the new master, giving
> him the power of the word of God. He becomes the actual manifestation
> of God through this power, which he retains throughout his life here on
> Earth and throughout the universes. I stopped midway through the
> paragraph. This is taken from the Spiritual Notebook*-Troll)
>
> DOUG:
> Troll, there are lots of quotes like these. I am not surprised that some people
> don't accept such claims, but in regards to what Dove said: he didn't say that
> Paul claimed to be the Living ECK Master, and that the Living ECK Master has
> the power of the word of God, or that Paul claimed to be manifesting God
> through the power of the word.
See what happens when someone gives you an example to back up Doves'
assertion that Paul "claimed to be God on earth and spiritual master of
the entire universe. You play semantic sleight of hand tricks by saying
Dove did not refer to the Living Eck Master. What a cope out and a big
distinction that doesn't make a difference.
>
> Those would have been more accurate statements, based on your quote.
You're impossible.
>
> Why not simply correctly represent what Paul actually did claim? I think Paul's
> claims are controvertial enough. Why exaggerate them?
What Dove representing as what Paul claimed is not materially different
than what is expressed in the quote above by Paul.
>
> If we want to talk about Paul's controvertial statements, then why not quote
> them exactly and discuss them? I think they are open to a wide range of
> interpretations.
Getting kind of picky here.
>
> If we interested in truth, we will listen to the whole range of
> interpretations, searching for one that is the most helpful and useful.
> Insisting that the most extreme interpretation is the only right one is
> obviously not useful in finding the truth of what Paul really meant.
So in all your semantic squirming here, I'm not sure I caught your
alternate interpretation of Dove's assertion that Paul "claimed to be
God on earth and spiritual master of the entire universe." Do you have
an alternate interpretation of the quote above?
Lurk
Michael Wallace
<arel...@home.com> wrote in message news:3A060705...@home.com...
>
>
>.
>
> Again, I guess it is a semantic thing, I'm calling using other people's
> material without permission or acknowledgment as a violation of a
> holder's copyrights.
>
> Maybe you're technically correct, but I see no reason to back away from
> calling Paul's appropriations as violations of copyright laws. His
> stealing of other's words do not fall under the fair use clauses. He did
> not get permission and did not reference his material.
God I love this... "Maybe you are technically correct, but I am going to lie
and misrepresent the issue anyway!"
The "Only" issue that is substantial to date is the question over the Jonson
material, and the COPYRIGHT holder in this instance said it was fine by
him...
But whatever... Lurk shall continue riding the dead horse...
Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
Love
Michael
<arel...@home.com> wrote in message news:3A060A9B...@home.com...
arel...@home.com
Michael Wallace wrote:
>
> <arel...@home.com> wrote in message news:3A060705...@home.com...
> >
> >
> >.
> >
> > Again, I guess it is a semantic thing, I'm calling using other people's
> > material without permission or acknowledgment as a violation of a
> > holder's copyrights.
> >
> > Maybe you're technically correct, but I see no reason to back away from
> > calling Paul's appropriations as violations of copyright laws. His
> > stealing of other's words do not fall under the fair use clauses. He did
> > not get permission and did not reference his material.
>
> God I love this... "Maybe you are technically correct, but I am going to lie
> and misrepresent the issue anyway!"
I'm not lying Michael. It is my view that Paul violated these author's
copyrights. He did not get permission to use material and he did not
reference it.
>
> The "Only" issue that is substantial to date is the question over the Jonson
> material, and the COPYRIGHT holder in this instance said it was fine by
> him...
How do you know that Paul plagiarizing Johnson is the only
substantial issue to date... because Doug says so?
Lurk
arel...@home.com
Michael Wallace wrote:
>
> This one should be framed!! <G>
It should be...it accurately describes Doug's apologetic response to the
quote Troll posted.
Lurk
maha_...@my-deja.com
"arel...@home.com" <arel...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> KMerrymoon wrote:
> >
> > Now, let's get back to issue that was being discussed. When someone
publishes
> > someone else's complete book without the permission of the
copyright holder,
> > then that can be considered a violation of the law and would fit
with your
> > analogy. That is not what happened here, however.
>
> Could you cite the law where it says it has to be a whole book in
order
> for it to be consider a violation of copyright law?
He can't Lurk.
Doug is talking out of his hat here.
>
> >
> > The use of the ideas and words of others is what plagiarism is
about. This is
> > not copyright violation. It's a matter of ethics, which continually
change.
And Doug is wrong here.
> >
> > If you think it would easy to prove that Paul's books infringed the
copyrights
> > of Walter Russell, I can only tell you that this would not be easy
in a court
> > of law at all.
Not easy? I doubt it Doug.
Doug, do you just make up stuff (about copyright law) as you go along?
----
Copyright Definition - Microsoft Encarta 96 Encyclopedia
Copyright, body of legal rights that protect creative works from being
reproduced, performed, or disseminated by others without permission.
The owner of copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce a protected
work; to prepare derivative works that only slightly change the
protected work; to sell or lend copies of the protected work to the
public; to perform protected works in public for profit; and to display
copyrighted works publicly. These basic exclusive rights of copyright
owners are subject to exceptions depending on the type of work and the
type of use made by others.
The term work used in copyright law refers to any original creation of
authorship produced in a tangible medium. Thus, works that can be
copyrighted include literary pieces, musical compositions, dramatic
selections, dances, photographs, drawings, paintings, sculpture,
diagrams, advertisements, maps, motion pictures, radio and television
programs, sound recordings, and-by special legislation passed by the
Congress of the United States in 1980-computer software programs.
Copyright does not protect the idea or concept; it only protects the
way in which an author has expressed an idea or concept. If, for
example, a scientist publishes an article explaining a new process for
making a medicine, the copyright prevents others from substantially
copying the article, but it does not prevent anyone from using the
process described to prepare the medicine. In order to protect the
process, the scientist must obtain a patent.
History of Copyright
The first real copyright law, enacted in 1710 by the British
Parliament, was the Statute of Anne. This law forbade the unauthorized
printing, reprinting, or importing of books for a limited number of
years.
In the United States, the founding fathers recognized the need to
encourage creativity by protecting authors. They placed in the
Constitution of the United States a provision giving Congress the
power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries" (Art. I, Sect. 8). This provision
gave the federal government the power to enact copyright and patent
statutes. In 1790, Congress passed the first U.S. copyright law. Since
then, the copyright statutes have been expanded and changed by Congress
many times. A major revision of U.S. law was made in the 1909 Copyright
Act, which remained the basic framework for protection until January 1,
1978, when the Copyright Act of 1976 went into effect. The 1976 act,
which is the legal basis for copyright protection today, made
substantial and important changes in U.S. law.
Copyright in the United States
The 1976 Copyright Act established a single system of federal statutory
protection for all eligible works, both published and unpublished. For
works created after January 1, 1978, copyright becomes the property of
the author the moment the work is created and lasts for the author's
life plus 50 years. When a work is created by an employee in the normal
course of a job, however, the copyright becomes the property of the
employer and lasts for 75 years from publication or 100 years from
creation, whichever is shorter. For works created before 1978, the old
act provided that the copyright endured for 28 years and might be
extended for another 28 years, for a maximum of 56 years from
publication. The new act "stretched" the term of copyrights existing on
January 1, 1978, so that they would last for about 75 years from
publication.
Notice
Although copyright becomes effective on creation of a work, it is lost
unless a prescribed copyright notice is placed on all publicly
distributed copies. This notice consists either of the word Copyright,
the abbreviation Copr., or the symbol Å accompanied by the name of the
owner and the year of first publication (for example, Å John Doe 1982).
In most printed books the copyright notice appears on the reverse side
of the title page. The use of the notice is the responsibility of the
copyright owner and does not require advance permission from, or
registration with, the Copyright Office. A similar notice bearing the
symbol Ž (for example, Ž 1982 Doe Record Company) is required to
protect sound recordings such as phonograph records and tapes.
A work is not fully protected until a copyright claim has been
registered with the Copyright Office in Washington, D.C. To register,
the author must fill out the application, pay a fee, and send two
complete copies of a published work or recording, which will be placed
in the Library of Congress. The sooner the claim to copyright is
registered, the more remedies the author may have in any litigation.
Licensing
Copyright can be sold or licensed to others. Licenses of copyrights are
normally granted in written contracts agreed to by all parties
involved. For example, an author of a novel can license one publisher
to print the work in hardbound copies, another publisher to produce
paperback copies, and a motion-picture company to make a movie based on
the novel. A sale or license of copyright made after January 1, 1978,
can be terminated by the author (or by the author's family) 35 years
after the sale or license. The purpose of allowing such a termination
is to permit an author to obtain more financial reward if the work
remains commercially valuable over a long period of time. For the sale
or license made before 1978, the author has a similar right of
termination 56 years from the copyright date.
The 1976 law sets up conditions for reproduction of copies by libraries
and archives and for transmission of audiovisual and other programs and
forbids unauthorized duplication of sound recordings. It provides for
royalty payments on recorded music, on public performance of sound
recordings by coin-operated phonographs, and on transmission of some
television programs. A radio station that broadcasts a recording of
copyrighted music is "performing" the work publicly and for profit and
must be licensed to do so. In 1984, however, the Supreme Court of the
United States ruled that noncommercial use of videocassette recorders
does not violate copyright law.
Infringement
Copyright infringement is any violation of the exclusive rights
mentioned above-for example, making an unauthorized copy of a
copyrighted book. Infringement does not necessarily constitute word-for-
word reproduction; "substantial similarity" may also be infringement.
Generally, copyright infringements are dealt with in civil lawsuits in
federal court. If infringement is proved, the copyright owner has
several remedies available. The court may order an injunction against
future infringement; the destruction of infringing copies;
reimbursement for any financial loss incurred by the copyright owner;
transfer of profits made from the sale of infringing copies; and
payment of fixed damages (usually between $250 and $10,000) for each
work infringed, as well as court costs and attorney's fees. In a few
cases, a criminal penalty of imprisonment and/or a fine can be imposed
for knowingly infringing the copyright for profit.
from:
http://www.sba.gov/hotlist/crdef.html
Twitchell's plagiarism of Johnson, Neville, and Russell are all
examples of violation of copyright law.
Kids, don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise.
KMerrymoon
says:
<<Copyright Definition - Microsoft Encarta 96 Encyclopedia
<<Copyright, body of legal rights that protect creative works from being
reproduced, performed, or disseminated by others without permission. The owner
of copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce a protected work; to prepare
derivative works that only slightly change the protected work; to sell or lend
copies of the protected work to the public; to perform protected works in
public for profit; and to display copyrighted works publicly. These basic
exclusive rights of copyright owners are subject to exceptions depending on the
type of work and the type of use made by others.>>
Note that it says specifically: "to prepare derivative works that only slightly
change the protected work." This is what is legally protected.
This means that slightly changed works are also protected, along with works
that are not changed at all. Substantially changed works are not protected by
copyrights. We are talking about the whole work here, not just a few paragraphs
or a chapter. Do you consider The Tiger's Fang only slightly changed from
Walter Russell's books? Not even close.
None of Paul's books are slightly changed works of another person's book.
Look again at another part of the definition:
<<Infringement
<<Copyright infringement is any violation of the exclusive rights mentioned
above-for example, making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted book.
Infringement does not necessarily constitute word-for-word reproduction;
"substantial similarity" may also be infringement.>>
Do you see where it says "substantial similarity" MAY also be infringement?
What do you think substantial means? Well, obviously it's wide open to
interpretation, but it means that the work strikes the average person as being
pretty much the same. The whole work, not just a passage or a chapter. Do you
really think The Tiger's Fang is the same as Walter Russell's works? Not even
close.
If Paul's writings were so similar, why is it that it took decades before the
similarity was noticed? This is exactly the question that a lawyer would ask in
a court of law.
And even if the whole book was substantially similar, this only means it MAY
infringe.
Thank you, Joe. Your quote proves my point just as I stated it.
Lurk likes to pronounce that Paul violated copyright law because he likes the
sound of it, not because he has bothered to research what this means. Copyright
law is a very complex law. When a complete work is copied without permission
and sold, even then, as in David's case, it is not black and white, because you
can have questions of validity and ownership.
When the work is not "substantially the same" it is a real reach to pronounce
that a violation of the law. I seriously doubt it would hold up in court.
Now, Joe, perhaps you could do some research to show us what Copyright Law
really stated before 1976, when Paul was alive and published his works. I think
you will find it even less clear and less supportive of partial copying. The
reason? Because it was accepted practice back in journalism back then.
Truth is painful only to those who do not love Truth and search for Truth.
Michael Wallace
<arel...@home.com> wrote in message news:3A062FF0...@home.com...
Lurk... You are at perfect liberty to prove your allegations. Currently the
state of things are such that the only significant body of published
evidence of plagiarism is with Jonson.
And again... This is not copyright infringement. It is plagiarism... Which I
know does not quite have the same impact... In fact, such proceedures in
writing are inherently common place throughout literary classics.
This simple message I understand is difficult for you to grasp, because you
don;t want to, but that's OK... I really don;t mind if you want to spend all
your days here on Dead Horse Issues such as this.
But do you ever wonder about a small little detail I would like to bring
up... Do you ever wonder about what purpose this all serves? Paul left a
mark that is essentially cherished by a good many people, and his efforts
have helped enormous numbers of people... This is the person you are
consistently bitching about...
I have this simple little equation, and little question in my mind when ever
I read your tweaking and twisting and personal variations to your perceived
truth... And this question is:
Who cares about 'your' life, Lurk?
It appears to many here that you haven't done a single thing in your life
that appears to be noteworthy. Which is fine... Whatever turns you on. But
from where I sit you seem to really have so little to offer beyond verbage
and rubarb. The last half- decent thread you offered was on the UFO
business... But since then ... Zilch.
But hey... Whatever!
Love
Michael
SantimVah
"KMerrymoon" <kmerr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001106014123...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
> When the work is not "substantially the same" it is a real reach to
pronounce
> that a violation of the law. I seriously doubt it would hold up in court.
>
> Now, Joe, perhaps you could do some research to show us what Copyright Law
> really stated before 1976, when Paul was alive and published his works. I
think
> you will find it even less clear and less supportive of partial copying.
The
> reason? Because it was accepted practice back in journalism back then.
>
> Truth is painful only to those who do not love Truth and search for Truth.
>
All these claims about violations of Copyright Law are just that, claims,
and that's all. Navel gaze all you want and nothing stacks up, except that
PT did not reference a Bibliography to his works. On the other hand, paul
never denied he was well read either.
The facts are simple. David Lane was found guilty of violationg Copyright
Law in a federal court, Paul twitchell and Eckankar have not. Simple really.
It has to do with *credibility* imo. <g>
Sean
SantimVah
<the_trol...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8u437c$f51$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > DOUG:
> > > If we return to the facts, Paul never claimed to be God on earth,
> (*Excuse me Doug, but on page 164,second paragraph, "It is during this
> ritual that the Eck descends and centers into the new master, giving
> him the power of the word of God. He becomes the actual manifestation
> of God through this power, which he retains throughout his life here on
> Earth and throughout the universes. I stopped midway through the
> paragraph. This is taken from the Spiritual Notebook*-Troll)
Didn't Troll claim the Spiritual Notebook plagarised from elsewhere?
That was just a neville or johnson bit troll. Careful what you quote!! <g>
arel...@home.com
KMerrymoon wrote:
>
> Thank you Joe for posting this definition. Now let's look at what it really
> says:
>
> <<Copyright Definition - Microsoft Encarta 96 Encyclopedia
>
> <<Copyright, body of legal rights that protect creative works from being
> reproduced, performed, or disseminated by others without permission. The owner
> of copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce a protected work; to prepare
> derivative works that only slightly change the protected work; to sell or lend
> copies of the protected work to the public; to perform protected works in
> public for profit; and to display copyrighted works publicly. These basic
> exclusive rights of copyright owners are subject to exceptions depending on the
> type of work and the type of use made by others.>>
>
> Note that it says specifically: "to prepare derivative works that only slightly
> change the protected work." This is what is legally protected.
In context it is saying only the owner of the copyright has exclusive
right to prepare derivative works that is only slightly change from the
protected work. IN other words, Neville has the right to use his own
material in another work, but Paul Twitchell does not have permission to
use his work if he slightly changes them.
>
> This means that slightly changed works are also protected, along with works
> that are not changed at all. Substantially changed works are not protected by
> copyrights.
This is a leap.
We are talking about the whole work here, not just a few paragraphs
> or a chapter. Do you consider The Tiger's Fang only slightly changed from
> Walter Russell's books? Not even close.
Again, cite a legal case where a precedent was established where a
Chapter of one person's book was place in another person's book and the
ruling was it was not substantial enough to be protected by the
copyright laws.
>
> None of Paul's books are slightly changed works of another person's book.
I think you are reading the above paragraph incorrectly. The right to
slightly change is referring to the original author in republishing his
own works.
>
> Look again at another part of the definition:
>
> <<Infringement
>
> <<Copyright infringement is any violation of the exclusive rights mentioned
> above-for example, making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted book.
> Infringement does not necessarily constitute word-for-word reproduction;
> "substantial similarity" may also be infringement.>>
>
> Do you see where it says "substantial similarity" MAY also be infringement?
>
> What do you think substantial means?
It means when Paul sat down with books in front of him and wrote his
books, he sometimes copied word for word and sometimes he use his own
vernacular to replace an authors words. When he replaced some words and
rearranged sentences of other authors, these were substantial similarities.
So Paul's copying did not always constitute word-for-word reproduction
which is infringement and there was substantial similarity which may
also be infringement.
Well, obviously it's wide open to
> interpretation, but it means that the work strikes the average person as being
> pretty much the same. The whole work, not just a passage or a chapter. Do you
> really think The Tiger's Fang is the same as Walter Russell's works? Not even
> close.
>
> If Paul's writings were so similar, why is it that it took decades before the
> similarity was noticed? This is exactly the question that a lawyer would ask in
> a court of law.
>
> And even if the whole book was substantially similar, this only means it MAY
> infringe.
>
> Thank you, Joe. Your quote proves my point just as I stated it.
>
> Lurk likes to pronounce that Paul violated copyright law because he likes the
> sound of it, not because he has bothered to research what this means.
Here's the definition again:
"Copyright, body of legal rights that protect creative works from being
reproduced, performed, or disseminated by others without permission."
Did Paul get permission to use other author's way of expressing their
ideas? No
Did Paul reference other author's works when he used them, some word for
word and some falling under the substantial similarity? No.
That's why I say he violated the copyright laws. Anyone can look at his
plagiarism and see he abuse other's copyrights.
Copyright
> law is a very complex law. When a complete work is copied without permission
> and sold, even then, as in David's case, it is not black and white, because you
> can have questions of validity and ownership.
It is not that complex in Paul's case to see he copied other's works
directly and violate the copyright laws.
>
> When the work is not "substantially the same" it is a real reach to pronounce
> that a violation of the law. I seriously doubt it would hold up in court.
Again, cite a case.
>
> Now, Joe, perhaps you could do some research to show us what Copyright Law
> really stated before 1976, when Paul was alive and published his works. I think
> you will find it even less clear and less supportive of partial copying. The
> reason? Because it was accepted practice back in journalism back then.
>
> Truth is painful only to those who do not love Truth and search for Truth.
Ironic.
Lurk
Hawk
A.R.E. children's room,once,again,can't find the rabbit in his hat
and,instead,saws another subject thread in half.
The crowd applauds wildly and Lurk disappears under the stage in a puff
of smoke.
love, Hawk
In article <3A063022...@home.com>,
--
Hu-for-U
Ken
> Copyright in the United States
>For works created before 1978, the old
> act provided that the copyright endured for 28 years and might be
> extended for another 28 years, for a maximum of 56 years from
> publication.
Does anyone know when Johnson's book was originally published?
--
Ken
"Once again sharon, truth knocks at your door.... and you're in the tub."
- Cheryl
maha_...@my-deja.com
> >For works created before 1978, the old
> > act provided that the copyright endured for 28 years and might be
> > extended for another 28 years, for a maximum of 56 years from
> > publication.
>
Read on Ken, the copyrights on Johnson's books were RENEWED by rs beas.
Also, I've seen the 1st edition, 1st printing of THE PATH OF THE
MASTERS. Copyrighted, all All Rights Reserved, 1939.
Paulji was a copyright violator. No 2 ways about it.
>
> --
>
> Ken
>
> "Once again sharon, truth knocks at your door.... and you're in the
tub."
> - Cheryl
>
>
Len
Truth is painful only to those who do not love Truth and search for Truth.
Len:
Thanks for this gem of inspiration. A wonderful way to start a day or a
dream!
Len
maha_...@my-deja.com
kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) wrote:
> Thank you Joe for posting this definition. Now let's look at what it
really
> says:
>
> <<Copyright Definition - Microsoft Encarta 96 Encyclopedia
>
> <<Copyright, body of legal rights that protect creative works from
being
> reproduced, performed, or disseminated by others without permission.
The owner
> of copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce a protected work;
to prepare
> derivative works that only slightly change the protected work; to
sell or lend
> copies of the protected work to the public; to perform protected
works in
> public for profit; and to display copyrighted works publicly. These
basic
> exclusive rights of copyright owners are subject to exceptions
depending on the
> type of work and the type of use made by others.>>
>
> Note that it says specifically: "to prepare derivative works that
only slightly
> change the protected work." This is what is legally protected.
By the copyright OWNER Doug.
That's THEIR exclusive right; it's NOT the right of the knock-off
artiste.
What point are you trying to make here? Seems you're just pointing out
the very aspect of the law that Paulji violated.
>
> This means that slightly changed works are also protected, along with
works
> that are not changed at all. Substantially changed works are not
protected by
> copyrights. We are talking about the whole work here, not just a few
paragraphs
> or a chapter. Do you consider The Tiger's Fang only slightly changed
from
> Walter Russell's books? Not even close.
?????
...You've got to be kidding...or you're having a hard time reading this
posting on copyright law.
The works Paulji plagiarized were all currently protected by copyrights
at the time Paulji cribbed them, and Paulji violated those copyrights
by the definitions given of copyright law.
There have been works of far LESS plagiarism than was committed by
Paulji that have been deemed violations of copyright law.
>
> None of Paul's books are slightly changed works of another person's
book.>
> Look again at another part of the definition:
>
> <<Infringement
>
> <<Copyright infringement is any violation of the exclusive rights
mentioned
> above-for example, making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted book.
> Infringement does not necessarily constitute word-for-word
reproduction;
> "substantial similarity" may also be infringement.>>
>
> Do you see where it says "substantial similarity" MAY also be
infringement?
>
> What do you think substantial means? Well, obviously it's wide open to
> interpretation, but it means that the work strikes the average person
as being
> pretty much the same. The whole work, not just a passage or a
chapter. Do you
> really think The Tiger's Fang is the same as Walter Russell's works?
Not even
> close.
Again, works of far less similarity and plagiarism have been deemed
violations of copyright law.
Paulji cribbed hundreds of paragraphs.
In the comparison to the Russell works, yes, the paragraphs are very
much the same, the meaning of the paragraphs is very much the same, the
style is very much the same, and the theme is very much the same.
LOL...
Read the post Doug...copyright law had been around for hundreds of
years. Also, you're being very dishonest when you keep bringing up
this redherring of "journalism practice," as if that somehow negates
all copyright law altogether.
Lurk's point still stands: just because Paulji was never taken to
court, doesn't mean that Paulji wasn't a violator of copyright law.
However, if you want to stand on your point that because Paulji wasn't
taken to court, that makes what he did okay...more power to you and
eckankar.
Windy
>
> > Copyright in the United States
> >For works created before 1978, the old
> > act provided that the copyright endured for 28 years and might be
> > extended for another 28 years, for a maximum of 56 years from
> > publication.
>
>
> --
>
> Ken
>
> "Once again sharon, truth knocks at your door.... and you're in the tub."
> - Cheryl
So anything in the bible can be "stolen" Hmmmmm
arel...@home.com
>
> <arel...@home.com> wrote in message news:3A062FF0...@home.com...
> state of things are such that the only significant body of published
> evidence of plagiarism is with Jonson.
Easy for you to say since it was not your copyrighted works which have
been inserted into Twitchell's books. It is Doug's interpretation that a
copyright violation requires a substantial appropriations. You you or
him need to cite a legal precedent.
>
> And again... This is not copyright infringement. It is plagiarism... Which I
> know does not quite have the same impact... In fact, such proceedures in
> writing are inherently common place throughout literary classics.
Did Paul get permission from the authors to use their words and
paragraphs—sometimes verbatim, sometimes reworded—from the authors? No.
Did Paul reference these authors in his books? No
He violated the copyright laws then, eh?
>
> This simple message I understand is difficult for you to grasp, because you
> don;t want to, but that's OK... I really don;t mind if you want to spend all
> your days here on Dead Horse Issues such as this.
>
> But do you ever wonder about a small little detail I would like to bring
> up... Do you ever wonder about what purpose this all serves?
The purpose to bring up Paul's plagiarism is so people can see how he
abused other author's copyrights, how Harold directly condoned it with
his inaction, and how Harold and other eckists try to make up absurd
excuses to rationalize it, so people can make an informed choice when
making a determination about whether to associate with eckankar, its
leaders and followers.
How the org and its leaders handle things says a lot about them.
Paul left a
> mark that is essentially cherished by a good many people, and his efforts
> have helped enormous numbers of people... This is the person you are
> consistently bitching about...
I think he left an unbalanced legacy.
>
> I have this simple little equation, and little question in my mind when ever
> I read your tweaking and twisting and personal variations to your perceived
> truth... And this question is:
>
> Who cares about 'your' life, Lurk?
I care. I don't have a need to create a grandiose fantasy land to make
other care for me as we saw with Paul.
>
> It appears to many here that you haven't done a single thing in your life
> that appears to be noteworthy.
What are you talking about? You don't know what I have and have not done.
Which is fine... Whatever turns you on. But
> from where I sit you seem to really have so little to offer beyond verbage
> and rubarb. The last half- decent thread you offered was on the UFO
> business... But since then ... Zilch.
As you recall, in the UFO thread it took quite a bit of time for you to
come around to see the truth of the matter as I expressed it. I have
hope you will do the same with the current thread.
I'm pulling for you Michael.
Repeat after me. "Paul violate the copyright laws."
C'mon, don't be bashful: "Paul violate the copyright laws."
"Paul violate the copyright laws."
"Paul violate the copyright laws."
There's your spiritual exercise for the day.
Lurk
>
> But hey... Whatever!
>
> Love
>
> Michaelp
gruendemann
and reread your post and no where do I see permission granted for posting
this material to the internet.... an act some would call, publishing.
KMerrymoon
> Note that it says specifically: "to prepare derivative works that only
slightly
> change the protected work." This is what is legally protected.
LURK:
In context it is saying only the owner of the copyright has exclusive
right to prepare derivative works that is only slightly change from the
protected work. IN other words, Neville has the right to use his own
material in another work, but Paul Twitchell does not have permission to use
his work if he slightly changes them.
DOUG:
No, Lurk, that is not the correct legal interpretation. I am taking the time to
explain these things because I know that a lot of people are not familiar with
the legal complexities. When it says that copyright protection grants exclusive
rights to prepare derivative works that only slightly change the protected work
- this means that this is the limit of the rights that the owner has.
This means that if a work was only slightly changed from the copyrighted work,
that, yes, the owner has exclusive rights to print or publish that. But this
doesn't mean that only slightly changing some portion of the work is protected.
Read it carefully. All legal statements are worded very exactingly. It is the
whole work that is being protected. Slight changes to that whole work are also
protected. Not slight changes to some portion.
LURK:
Again, cite a legal case where a precedent was established where a
Chapter of one person's book was place in another person's book and the
ruling was it was not substantial enough to be protected by the
copyright laws.
DOUG:
Lurk, you are the one who needs to check into this. There are thousands of such
cases. There have been numerous cases with songs, where a famous musician was
accused of stealing a song from an unknown composer who had copyrighted their
song. However, unless the whole song melody was similar, the case was
dismissed. Portions of a melody are commonly used and reused by different
musicians.
The test is usually when the two works are listened to side by side that they
strike you as being substantially the same. The whole work. New chord
embellishments would be considered slight changes. A few percent of similar
phrasing would not.
DOUG ORIGINALLY WROTE:
> Look again at another part of the definition:
>
> <<Infringement
>
> <<Copyright infringement is any violation of the exclusive rights mentioned
> above-for example, making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted book.
> Infringement does not necessarily constitute word-for-word reproduction;
> "substantial similarity" may also be infringement.>>
>
> Do you see where it says "substantial similarity" MAY also be infringement?
>
> What do you think substantial means?
LURK WROTE:
It means when Paul sat down with books in front of him and wrote his
books, he sometimes copied word for word and sometimes he use his own
vernacular to replace an authors words. When he replaced some words and
rearranged sentences of other authors, these were substantial similarities.
So Paul's copying did not always constitute word-for-word reproduction
which is infringement and there was substantial similarity which may
also be infringement.
DOUG:
The question is not whether there was substantial similarity to a few passages,
the question is whether the copyrighted work, as a whole, is substantially
similar.
You see, the problem here is that this is getting mixed up with plagiarism.
This is copyright law we are talking about, not plagiarism. They are not going
to grant exclusive rights to every paragraph that someone writes. The law is
clear about that. This is why sections about The Fair Use Doctrine have been
added to make it even clearer.
In granting exclusive rights, copyright law is trying to encourage the efforts
of artists, writers, musicians, etc, so that they can make a profit on their
works as a whole, and others can not take their works without their permission.
This doesn't mean that no one can copy their style, copy their plot, copy their
title, copy their data or their paragraphs.
KMerrymoon
...You've got to be kidding...or you're having a hard time reading this
posting on copyright law.
The works Paulji plagiarized were all currently protected by copyrights
at the time Paulji cribbed them, and Paulji violated those copyrights
by the definitions given of copyright law.
There have been works of far LESS plagiarism than was committed by
Paulji that have been deemed violations of copyright law.
DOUG:
You speak with such confidence, but unfortunately you don't know what you are
talking about. Show us a case of far LESS plagiarism that was ruled a violation
of copyright law in the courts.
The main cases that go to court are complete copies of the work, like the
recent lawsuits with Napster, and numerous pirates that sell unauthorized
copies of CDs. That's what the law was intended to protect.
It is not about plagiarism. It is not about ethics.
When JR was selling xeroxed copies of Paul's discourses, that was a clear case
of copyright infringement, since the whole thing was copied without permission.
Partial copies rarely show up in court, but when they do they are only when the
heart and core of the copyrighted work has been copied as a whole, with only
slight changes.
If small portions have been copied, such a case would be very difficult to win.
If those small portions had been altered and reworked, it would be even more
difficult.
JOE WROTE:
Again, works of far less similarity and plagiarism have been deemed
violations of copyright law.
Paulji cribbed hundreds of paragraphs.
In the comparison to the Russell works, yes, the paragraphs are very
much the same, the meaning of the paragraphs is very much the same, the style
is very much the same, and the theme is very much the same.
DOUG:
Show us even one case to prove your point, Joe.
Copying of style is common amongst writers, even today. You can write a book
just like a Star Trek novel, or just like a Perry Mason murder story. You can
use quotes from characters in a famous novel in other books. You can write a
new book with exactly the same meanings or the same themes in different words.
These might all be considered cases of plagiarism to some extent, but they are
not cases of copyright infringement.
JOE:
Read the post Doug...copyright law had been around for hundreds of
years. Also, you're being very dishonest when you keep bringing up
this redherring of "journalism practice," as if that somehow negates
all copyright law altogether.
Lurk's point still stands: just because Paulji was never taken to
court, doesn't mean that Paulji wasn't a violator of copyright law.
However, if you want to stand on your point that because Paulji wasn't
taken to court, that makes what he did okay...more power to you and
eckankar.
DOUG:
I did read the post, Joe, and it said quite clearly that a major change in
copyright law took place in 1976. But as you know, Paul wrote his book well
before then. So, how can you say Paul violated copyright law when you haven't
even studied the law before 1976?
This is just a lot of huff and puff from you and Lurk. Don't you even care to
back up anything you say with something more than bluster?
Perhaps I am wrong. I'm willing to see something that shows me I'm wrong. I am
not a lawyer, so I'm sure there's a lot more about all of this I could learn.
But it's clear I know a lot more than you guys do about it.
You say I'm being very dishonest with my comments about journalistic practice,
but you say this without a shred of evidence to back you up, after I presented
solid quotes from recognized authorities. You and Lurk and Chuck simply don't
want to believe it. It's become a matter of belief to you guys.
With all the years that you have criticized ECKists for not investigating the
truth for themselves, why is it that you and Lurk are not investigating for
yourselves to find out the truth?
Our world is filled with ironies.
Rich
>
> > Copyright in the United States
> >For works created before 1978, the old
> > act provided that the copyright endured for 28 years and might be
> > extended for another 28 years, for a maximum of 56 years from
> > publication.
>
1939 + 28 = 1967 renewed + another 28 = 1995 hmmmmm When was the
Far Country last printed?
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rich
> Here's the definition again:
>
> "Copyright, body of legal rights that protect creative works from being
> reproduced, performed, or disseminated by others without permission."
>
> Did Paul get permission to use other author's way of expressing their
> ideas? No
>
> Did Paul reference other author's works when he used them, some word for
> word and some falling under the substantial similarity? No.
>
> That's why I say he violated the copyright laws. Anyone can look at his
> plagiarism and see he abuse other's copyrights.
Lurk's argument _seems_ reasonable. Unfortunately he ignore the fact
that these laws were written seven years _after_ Paul died.
gruendemann
An important aspect of the charges you're talking about also has to do
with proving that the so called copied work took away from the value of
your own work, there by decreasing the artistic ability to make a living.
That's why it has little to do with the amount that may be similar or even
identical, but whether or not the work in its entirety has a different
impact on the audience and whether it constitutes a loss of profit for the
other author. It is at best a very tedious process proving such a thing in
all its complexities.
KMerrymoon wrote:
>
> JOE WROTE:
> ...You've got to be kidding...or you're having a hard time reading this
> posting on copyright law.
>
> The works Paulji plagiarized were all currently protected by copyrights
> at the time Paulji cribbed them, and Paulji violated those copyrights
> by the definitions given of copyright law.
>
> There have been works of far LESS plagiarism than was committed by
> Paulji that have been deemed violations of copyright law.
>
> DOUG:
> You speak with such confidence, but unfortunately you don't know what you are
> talking about. Show us a case of far LESS plagiarism that was ruled a violation
> of copyright law in the courts.
>
> The main cases that go to court are complete copies of the work, like the
> recent lawsuits with Napster, and numerous pirates that sell unauthorized
> copies of CDs. That's what the law was intended to protect.
>
> It is not about plagiarism. It is not about ethics.
>
> When JR was selling xeroxed copies of Paul's discourses, that was a clear case
> of copyright infringement, since the whole thing was copied without permission.
>
> Partial copies rarely show up in court, but when they do they are only when the
> heart and core of the copyrighted work has been copied as a whole, with only
> slight changes.
>
> If small portions have been copied, such a case would be very difficult to win.
> If those small portions had been altered and reworked, it would be even more
> difficult.
>
> JOE WROTE:
> Again, works of far less similarity and plagiarism have been deemed
> violations of copyright law.
>
> Paulji cribbed hundreds of paragraphs.
>
> In the comparison to the Russell works, yes, the paragraphs are very
> much the same, the meaning of the paragraphs is very much the same, the style
> is very much the same, and the theme is very much the same.
>
> DOUG:
> Show us even one case to prove your point, Joe.
>
> Copying of style is common amongst writers, even today. You can write a book
> just like a Star Trek novel, or just like a Perry Mason murder story. You can
> use quotes from characters in a famous novel in other books. You can write a
> new book with exactly the same meanings or the same themes in different words.
> These might all be considered cases of plagiarism to some extent, but they are
> not cases of copyright infringement.
>
> JOE:
> Read the post Doug...copyright law had been around for hundreds of
> years. Also, you're being very dishonest when you keep bringing up
> this redherring of "journalism practice," as if that somehow negates
> all copyright law altogether.
>
> Lurk's point still stands: just because Paulji was never taken to
> court, doesn't mean that Paulji wasn't a violator of copyright law.
>
> However, if you want to stand on your point that because Paulji wasn't
> taken to court, that makes what he did okay...more power to you and
> eckankar.
>
maha_...@my-deja.com
kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) wrote:
> JOE WROTE:
> ...You've got to be kidding...or you're having a hard time reading
this
> posting on copyright law.
>
> The works Paulji plagiarized were all currently protected by
copyrights
> at the time Paulji cribbed them, and Paulji violated those copyrights
> by the definitions given of copyright law.
>
> There have been works of far LESS plagiarism than was committed by
> Paulji that have been deemed violations of copyright law.
>
> DOUG:
> You speak with such confidence, but unfortunately you don't know what
you are
> talking about. Show us a case of far LESS plagiarism that was ruled a
violation
> of copyright law in the courts.
>
> The main cases that go to court are complete copies of the work, like
the
> recent lawsuits with Napster, and numerous pirates that sell
unauthorized
> copies of CDs. That's what the law was intended to protect.
>
> It is not about plagiarism. It is not about ethics.
You're still having a hard time reading the posting on copyright law.
It plainly contradicts what you're saying here -- a violation of
copyright DOESN'T have to be a complete copy of a work.
For goodness sake, look at George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord," which the
courts ruled violated the copyright on "He's so Fine."
Hardly an exact copy. Yet, it went to court, and it went against
Harrison.
>
> When JR was selling xeroxed copies of Paul's discourses, that was a
clear case
> of copyright infringement, since the whole thing was copied without
permission.
So was Paulji's plagiarism. Read the law Doug.
You're having a hard time reading the complete posting.
>
> Partial copies rarely show up in court, but when they do they are
only when the
> heart and core of the copyrighted work has been copied as a whole,
with only
> slight changes.
>
> If small portions have been copied, such a case would be very
difficult to win.
> If those small portions had been altered and reworked, it would be
even more
> difficult.
The law speaks for itself Doug, try your best to compromise it.
Just as Eckankar's lack of responsibility speaks for itself.
>
> JOE WROTE:
> Again, works of far less similarity and plagiarism have been deemed
> violations of copyright law.
>
> Paulji cribbed hundreds of paragraphs.
>
> In the comparison to the Russell works, yes, the paragraphs are very
> much the same, the meaning of the paragraphs is very much the same,
the style
> is very much the same, and the theme is very much the same.
>
> DOUG:
> Show us even one case to prove your point, Joe.
Aside from Harrison, there was also the recent case (front page of one
of the Sunday sections of a major newspaper's Bookworld) of the story
of a recently published science book. Even though very few paragraphs
bore a striking resemblance to another author (I believe it was Bohm;
should have kept the article), there was criticisms of plagiarism and
allegations of copyright violation. I'll try to find more on this
story...
To plagiarize a copyrighted text -- to violate the terms of the rights
allowed by the true author of the copyrighted text -- is to necessarily
violate that text's copyright.
>
> Copying of style is common amongst writers, even today. You can write
a book
> just like a Star Trek novel, or just like a Perry Mason murder story.
You can
> use quotes from characters in a famous novel in other books. You can
write a
> new book with exactly the same meanings or the same themes in
different words.
> These might all be considered cases of plagiarism to some extent, but
they are
> not cases of copyright infringement.
No, Doug, copying literary style is not an example of plagiarism.
However, plagiarism of a copyrighted text, as it falls within the
stated law, is an example of copyright infringement.
Paulji's plagiarism does, I believe, fall within what the law deems
copyright infringement.
1) Significant similarity to the copied text.
2) Significant volume of copied text.
3) Similar theme to the copied text.
4) Permission of the copyright holder wasn't asked, or granted.
5) The plagiarized texts were sold for profit.
>
> JOE:
> Read the post Doug...copyright law had been around for hundreds of
> years. Also, you're being very dishonest when you keep bringing up
> this redherring of "journalism practice," as if that somehow negates
> all copyright law altogether.
>
> Lurk's point still stands: just because Paulji was never taken to
> court, doesn't mean that Paulji wasn't a violator of copyright law.
>
> However, if you want to stand on your point that because Paulji wasn't
> taken to court, that makes what he did okay...more power to you and
> eckankar.
>
> DOUG:
> I did read the post, Joe, and it said quite clearly that a major
change in
> copyright law took place in 1976. But as you know, Paul wrote his
book well
> before then. So, how can you say Paul violated copyright law when you
haven't
> even studied the law before 1976?
>
> This is just a lot of huff and puff from you and Lurk. Don't you even
care to
> back up anything you say with something more than bluster?
I'll say this: if you think the law changed significantly after 1976,
tell us why Eckankar still markets books with plagiarized material?
>
> Perhaps I am wrong. I'm willing to see something that shows me I'm
wrong. I am
> not a lawyer, so I'm sure there's a lot more about all of this I
could learn.
> But it's clear I know a lot more than you guys do about it.
LOL...
Doug, you weren't even able to read the post correctly. Both Lurk and
I pointed it out to you that you confused the rights of the copyright
holder with the ... rights of the guy doing the copyright violations!
And I posted that criticism before I read what Lurk had to say.
>
> You say I'm being very dishonest with my comments about journalistic
practice,
> but you say this without a shred of evidence to back you up, after I
presented
> solid quotes from recognized authorities. You and Lurk and Chuck
simply don't
> want to believe it. It's become a matter of belief to you guys.
It's quite simple Doug.
Go look at a copy of Julian Johnson's THE PATH OF THE MASTERS,
1939.
The first page of the 1st edition says COPYRIGHT, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
What part of "copyright, all rights reserved" didn't Paulji understand?
What part don't you understand?
As for your thing about the liberties of journalistic practice, well
yes, I do take your word for that...but only in the specific CONTEXT
of newspaper journalism for SPECIFIC TYPES of stories.
Your problem is you've obliterated that context, tried to apply it to
the writing of books that contain plagiarized material taken from
copyrighted texts.
That's what I mean by dishonest. And of course, it doesn't wash,
because if we believe your take on "journalistic practices," then we
have to believe that copyright law, as it was written, was completely
meaningless.
>
> With all the years that you have criticized ECKists for not
investigating the
> truth for themselves, why is it that you and Lurk are not
investigating for
> yourselves to find out the truth?
>
> Our world is filled with ironies.
I guess the world is filled with foolish authors as well...who go to
the trouble of copyrighting their books, when they should know that
copyrights don't mean a thing.
Frank H. Weeden
>
> Our world is filled with ironies.
Now if I can just find some starchies
to go with them, maybe my clothes wouldn't
look so awful! <G>
Love,
Frank
--
My religion is to live
-and die- without regret.
-Milarepa
Jackie
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/index.html
--
With gratitude & love,
Jackie
@->->--
"HU is spiritual food for all."
<maha_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8u6ma5$enl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <%eAN5.2914$%%1.19...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Ken" <ken.st...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Copyright in the United States
> > <snips>
> > >For works created before 1978, the old
> > > act provided that the copyright endured for 28 years and might be
> > > extended for another 28 years, for a maximum of 56 years from
> > > publication.
> >
> > Does anyone know when Johnson's book was originally published?
>
> Read on Ken, the copyrights on Johnson's books were RENEWED by rs beas.
>
> Also, I've seen the 1st edition, 1st printing of THE PATH OF THE
> MASTERS. Copyrighted, all All Rights Reserved, 1939.
>
> Paulji was a copyright violator. No 2 ways about it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > --
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > "Once again sharon, truth knocks at your door.... and you're in the
> tub."
> > - Cheryl
> >
> >
>
>
Rich
> It is Doug's interpretation that a
> copyright violation requires a substantial appropriations. You you or
> him need to cite a legal precedent.
No need to quote law. The the real life precedent has been ongoing for
thirty years覧copyright holders have determined not to try and exercise
their rights, no lawsuits.
<SNIP Lurk still trying to argue the current copyright law angle dispite
that he has no idea of how tolerant the 1909 copyright laws were>
Rich
> I did read the post, Joe, and it said quite clearly that a major change in
> copyright law took place in 1976. But as you know, Paul wrote his book well
> before then. So, how can you say Paul violated copyright law when you haven't
> even studied the law before 1976?
>
> This is just a lot of huff and puff from you and Lurk. Don't you even care to
> back up anything you say with something more than bluster?
>
> Perhaps I am wrong. I'm willing to see something that shows me I'm wrong. I am
> not a lawyer, so I'm sure there's a lot more about all of this I could learn.
> But it's clear I know a lot more than you guys do about it.
>
> You say I'm being very dishonest with my comments about journalistic practice,
> but you say this without a shred of evidence to back you up, after I presented
> solid quotes from recognized authorities. You and Lurk and Chuck simply don't
> want to believe it. It's become a matter of belief to you guys.
>
> With all the years that you have criticized ECKists for not investigating the
> truth for themselves, why is it that you and Lurk are not investigating for
> yourselves to find out the truth?
>
> Our world is filled with ironies.
It's not really an irony Doug, because they have never really been
interested in the truth that I have seen since I have been on this NG.
It appears that the only thing that is near and dear to them is
disparaging anything to do with Eckankar, at any cost of reason or
honesty. Every time they see another fault with their favorite
plagiarism issue being exposed, the rally all the indignant bluster,
illogic, smoke, mirrors and deflection they can muster... because they
have else nothing to substantiate and support them.
But hey, they're having their fun trying to mess with us.<g>
Rich
> I was interpreting the paragraph Joe posted which was outlining the
> rights of the copyright holder. Specifically, it said "The owner of
> copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce a protected work; to
> prepare derivative works that only slightly change the protected work."
>
> This reference to derivative works is to the copyright holder, not too
> someone else as you suggested in the prior post.
There ya go. You hit the heart of this little tidbit that you are
failing to understand. If the copyright holder changes his own work
more that slightly, then even his _own_ copyright will not cover his new
work! Get it now? His has to be the same or it is not covered.
<SNIP Lurk wasting his time quoting, arguing and trying to apply current
day laws, that were _not in effect_ when Paul wrote his books. Lurk is
comparing shiny new apples to antique raisins>
Rich
>
> http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html
> excerpt:
> "Copyright law in the US is derived from English copyright law (Statute of
> Anne) and common law. The framers of the U.S. Constitution made copyright
> law purely federal: "The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the
> progress of science and useful arts . . . by securing for limited times to
> authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings
> and discoveries." Congress subsequently enacted the Copyright Act of 1790
> and major revisions to it in 1831, 1870, 1909, and 1976."
>
> Please take notice that there is a huge distance in time between 1909 and
> 1976.... It appears that we would need to view 1909 copyright law to
> better understand Pauls world.
This is the key. The detractors will have to quote *1909 law* before we
need to bother with listening to any of their bluster or argument.
Jackie
Jackie
maha_...@my-deja.com
"Jackie" <HU4...@loveable.com.NoSpAm> wrote:
> Learn more about Copyright Law at
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/index.html
I was just there! How weird is that!
Yes, this is the place to go to learn about the U.S legal code on
copyright law.
The bottom line is this:
The registered copyright holder of a work has certain exclusive rights
to that work. Hence, "copy - right."
Anyone who uses the copyright holder's text, outside the exceptions
(from the link):
US Code as of: 01/23/00
Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors
to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished
shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon
consideration of all the above factors.
======
...is a violater of the copyright.
I don't believe Eckankar's commercial use of Paulji's plagiarized stuff
doesn't fall into any of these exceptions.
arel...@home.com
>
> DOUG ORIGINALLY WROTE:
> > Note that it says specifically: "to prepare derivative works that only
> slightly
> > change the protected work." This is what is legally protected.
>
> In context it is saying only the owner of the copyright has exclusive
> right to prepare derivative works that is only slightly change from the
> protected work. IN other words, Neville has the right to use his own
> material in another work, but Paul Twitchell does not have permission to use
> his work if he slightly changes them.
>
> No, Lurk, that is not the correct legal interpretation.
I was interpreting the paragraph Joe posted which was outlining the
rights of the copyright holder. Specifically, it said "The owner of
copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce a protected work; to
prepare derivative works that only slightly change the protected work."
This reference to derivative works is to the copyright holder, not too
someone else as you suggested in the prior post.
I am taking the time to
> explain these things because I know that a lot of people are not familiar with
> the legal complexities. When it says that copyright protection grants exclusive
> rights to prepare derivative works that only slightly change the protected work
> - this means that this is the limit of the rights that the owner has.
>
> This means that if a work was only slightly changed from the copyrighted work,
> that, yes, the owner has exclusive rights to print or publish that. But this
> doesn't mean that only slightly changing some portion of the work is protected.
Never said it was.
> Read it carefully. All legal statements are worded very exactingly. It is the
> whole work that is being protected. Slight changes to that whole work are also
> protected. Not slight changes to some portion.
You're arguing with yourself.
>
> LURK:
> Again, cite a legal case where a precedent was established where a
> Chapter of one person's book was place in another person's book and the
> ruling was it was not substantial enough to be protected by the
> copyright laws.
>
> DOUG:
> Lurk, you are the one who needs to check into this.
Why, you are making the claim that a copyright violation is defined
quantitatively. Support it.
> There are thousands of such
> cases.
Good then you should be able to show me the legal precedent which has
defines quantitatively what constitutes a violation of copyright laws
with regard to written works. Is it a percentage? Is a chapter too much?
A paragraph? Could a part of a book be in violation and another part not?
From what I understand, it more has to do with the damage it causes the
copyright holder which is established by a lawyer in a legal argument in
court. If it is only a paragraph that is plagiarize and the case can be
made that this paragraph sufficiently causes damage to the copyright
holder, then penalties and fines will be award.
Here's a direct quote from a lawyer on this web site:
http://www.writerswrite.com/journal/sept97/cew2.htm
"Quoting small amounts from a work have been held to be copyright
infringement where the quoted matter was crucial to the work and the
copying contributed to the decline in commercial value of the work. On
the other hand, entire passages quoted from books have been held to be
"fair use". To be safe, ask permission from the author."
So contrary to what you are saying, your "whole works" as a determinant
to assessing copyright violations is inaccurate.
There have been numerous cases with songs, where a famous musician was
> accused of stealing a song from an unknown composer who had copyrighted their
> song. However, unless the whole song melody was similar, the case was
> dismissed. Portions of a melody are commonly used and reused by different
> musicians.
>
> The test is usually when the two works are listened to side by side that they
> strike you as being substantially the same. The whole work. New chord
> embellishments would be considered slight changes. A few percent of similar
> phrasing would not.
Why not stick with books for a apple to apple comparison. No need to
change mediums unless you feel you can spin better with music. (no pun intended)
>
> DOUG ORIGINALLY WROTE:
> > Look again at another part of the definition:
> >
> > <<Infringement
> >
> > <<Copyright infringement is any violation of the exclusive rights mentioned
> > above-for example, making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted book.
> > Infringement does not necessarily constitute word-for-word reproduction;
> > "substantial similarity" may also be infringement.>>
> >
> > Do you see where it says "substantial similarity" MAY also be infringement?
> >
> > What do you think substantial means?
>
> LURK WROTE:
> It means when Paul sat down with books in front of him and wrote his
> books, he sometimes copied word for word and sometimes he use his own
> vernacular to replace an authors words. When he replaced some words and
> rearranged sentences of other authors, these were substantial similarities.
>
> So Paul's copying did not always constitute word-for-word reproduction
> which is infringement and there was substantial similarity which may
> also be infringement.
>
> DOUG:
> The question is not whether there was substantial similarity to a few passages,
> the question is whether the copyrighted work, as a whole, is substantially
> similar.
That's what you keep claiming here, back it up.
>
> You see, the problem here is that this is getting mixed up with plagiarism.
> This is copyright law we are talking about, not plagiarism. They are not going
> to grant exclusive rights to every paragraph that someone writes.
This is from this site: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
"However, it must be remembered that copyright has two main purposes,
namely the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit
from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's
general right to control how a work is used.
"While copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce almost
any new creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if
the work is unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very
little protection. The author in this case can sue for an injunction
against the publication, actual damages from a violation, and possibly
court costs. Actual damages means actual money potentially lost by the
author due to publication, plus any money gained by the defendant. But
if a work has no commercial value, such as a typical E-mail message or
conversational USENET posting, the actual damages will be zero. Only
the most vindictive (and rich) author would sue when no damages are
possible, and the courts don't look kindly on vindictive
plaintiffs, unless the defendants are even more vindictive."
Did the books Paul plagiarized have commercial value? Yes.
Did Paul do damage to those commercial value? Debatable.
Did Paul make money off of other works? Yes.
> The law is
> clear about that. This is why sections about The Fair Use Doctrine have been
> added to make it even clearer.
Also from this site: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
"The "fair use" exemption to copyright law was created to allow things
such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about
copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's important
so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own
works -- only the ability to express other people's. Intent, and damage
to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are
you reproducing an article from the New York
Times because you needed to in order to criticize the quality of the
New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own
story, or didn't want your readers to have to pay for the New York Times
web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.
Fair use is almost always a short excerpt and almost always attributed.
(One should not use more of the work than is necessary to make the
commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in
the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason
why reproduction of the entire work is generally forbidden.)"
Does Paul's plagiarism fall under the the fair use? No
Did he reference his appropriations? No
Since he does not fall under these exceptions, he violated the
copyrights of others.
>
> In granting exclusive rights, copyright law is trying to encourage the efforts
> of artists, writers, musicians, etc, so that they can make a profit on their
> works as a whole, and others can not take their works without their permission.
Paul took the words of others without their permission and therefore
violate the copyrights of others. He did not reference the words of other
but pass them off as his writing or he had a fictions master speak the words.
> This doesn't mean that no one can copy their style, copy their plot, copy their
> title, copy their data or their paragraphs.
As the piece Joe posted stated, ideas can not be copyrighted but
expression of those ideas can. To use someone's expressions, you have to
get permission from the author or reference the material. Paul did
neither. Therefore, he violate the copyright laws.
What is that so hard for you to grasp.
Lurk
arel...@home.com
>
> JOE WROTE:
> ...You've got to be kidding...or you're having a hard time reading this
> posting on copyright law.
>
> The works Paulji plagiarized were all currently protected by copyrights
> at the time Paulji cribbed them, and Paulji violated those copyrights
> by the definitions given of copyright law.
>
> There have been works of far LESS plagiarism than was committed by
> Paulji that have been deemed violations of copyright law.
>
> DOUG:
> You speak with such confidence, but unfortunately you don't know what you are
> talking about. Show us a case of far LESS plagiarism that was ruled a violation
> of copyright law in the courts.
>
> The main cases that go to court are complete copies of the work, like the
> recent lawsuits with Napster, and numerous pirates that sell unauthorized
> copies of CDs. That's what the law was intended to protect.
>
> It is not about plagiarism. It is not about ethics.
>
> of copyright infringement, since the whole thing was copied without permission.
>
> heart and core of the copyrighted work has been copied as a whole, with only
> slight changes.
Your rhetoric is getting to confusing to follow. Partial copies that
have been copied as a whole with slight changes does not make sense to me.
Your thinking too much. <g>
>
> If small portions have been copied, such a case would be very difficult to win.
What's small? Have there been cases where the whole work was not copied
and a favorable judgment given to the author?
> If those small portions had been altered and reworked, it would be even more
> difficult.
>
> JOE WROTE:
> Again, works of far less similarity and plagiarism have been deemed
> violations of copyright law.
>
> Paulji cribbed hundreds of paragraphs.
>
> In the comparison to the Russell works, yes, the paragraphs are very
> much the same, the meaning of the paragraphs is very much the same, the style
> is very much the same, and the theme is very much the same.
>
> DOUG:
> Show us even one case to prove your point, Joe.
You're awful demanding when you refuse to show me one case to prove your point.
>
> Copying of style is common amongst writers, even today. You can write a book
> just like a Star Trek novel, or just like a Perry Mason murder story. You can
> use quotes from characters in a famous novel in other books. You can write a
> new book with exactly the same meanings or the same themes in different words.
> These might all be considered cases of plagiarism to some extent, but they are
> not cases of copyright infringement.
None of this is what Paul did. He copied exact paragraphs... a whole
chapter in Neville's case. A good deal of a book in Johnson's case.
>
> JOE:
> Read the post Doug...copyright law had been around for hundreds of
> years. Also, you're being very dishonest when you keep bringing up
> this redherring of "journalism practice," as if that somehow negates
> all copyright law altogether.
>
> Lurk's point still stands: just because Paulji was never taken to
> court, doesn't mean that Paulji wasn't a violator of copyright law.
>
> However, if you want to stand on your point that because Paulji wasn't
> taken to court, that makes what he did okay...more power to you and
> eckankar.
>
> DOUG:
> I did read the post, Joe, and it said quite clearly that a major change in
> copyright law took place in 1976. But as you know, Paul wrote his book well
> before then. So, how can you say Paul violated copyright law when you haven't
> even studied the law before 1976?
If you know the major differences that impact Paul's plagiarism what not
share them unless you want to keep it vague with the implication that
Paul did not do anything wrong with the way the laws were in 1965.
And even if there is some major difference you still have to explain why
Darwin and Harold continued to violate the copyright laws after 1976.
>
> This is just a lot of huff and puff from you and Lurk. Don't you even care to
> back up anything you say with something more than bluster?
Well Doug you have not back anything you have said up.
>
> Perhaps I am wrong. I'm willing to see something that shows me I'm wrong. I am
> not a lawyer, so I'm sure there's a lot more about all of this I could learn.
> But it's clear I know a lot more than you guys do about it.
>
> You say I'm being very dishonest with my comments about journalistic practice,
> but you say this without a shred of evidence to back you up, after I presented
> solid quotes from recognized authorities. You and Lurk and Chuck simply don't
> want to believe it. It's become a matter of belief to you guys.
Believe what, that journalist all use the same story for their papers?
One guy writes about a fire and another reporter for a different paper
reworks the story? Big deal. What does that have to do with Paul copying
other author's copyrighted material and claiming it is his? Both are
These are not even remotely the same thing.
>
> With all the years that you have criticized ECKists for not investigating the
> truth for themselves, why is it that you and Lurk are not investigating for
> yourselves to find out the truth?
Why should I investigate and support the claims you make, you need to do
that for yourself. You claim that it is not a copyright violation unless
it is the whole work being reproduced. Again cite a legal precedent and
I'll be happy to alter my view that taking partial works is a violation
of copyrights of authors. I quote some lawyer in the other post that
says a paragraph can be a serious violation. Where's your sources?
>
> Our world is filled with ironies.
Yep.
Lurk
arel...@home.com
Rich wrote:
>
> arel...@home.com wrote:
>
> > Here's the definition again:
> >
> > "Copyright, body of legal rights that protect creative works from being
> > reproduced, performed, or disseminated by others without permission."
> >
> > Did Paul get permission to use other author's way of expressing their
> > ideas? No
> >
> > Did Paul reference other author's works when he used them, some word for
> > word and some falling under the substantial similarity? No.
> >
> > That's why I say he violated the copyright laws. Anyone can look at his
> > plagiarism and see he abuse other's copyrights.
>
> Lurk's argument _seems_ reasonable. Unfortunately he ignore the fact
> that these laws were written seven years _after_ Paul died.
Are you suggesting that the copyright laws as they were in 1965 did not
require authors to get permission from copyright holders to use their
material and to refernce such material?
Lurk
gruendemann
excerpt:
"Copyright law in the US is derived from English copyright law (Statute of
Anne) and common law. The framers of the U.S. Constitution made copyright
law purely federal: "The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the
progress of science and useful arts . . . by securing for limited times to
authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings
and discoveries." Congress subsequently enacted the Copyright Act of 1790
and major revisions to it in 1831, 1870, 1909, and 1976."
Please take notice that there is a huge distance in time between 1909 and
1976.... It appears that we would need to view 1909 copyright law to
better understand Pauls world. And it is good to remember that there are
many changes recently with copyright due to the introduction of the
computer and other means of copying works by others such as VCR, Cassette,
ect. With the advent of any advances in technology there is of course a
need for change to the laws. Also we now have global considerations. So
what would be considered a terrible mis-justice today is just that....
from todays viewpoint but certainly not from the time frame in which it
happened.
Over and over again we seem to forget that these things happened in a time
different from what we live today. :-/ In so many aspects of what we
discuss here, it is time sensitive from the aspect of historical
understanding. You can take the actions and behavior of anyone out of
context and make an issue out of it, but it doesn't give the object of
observation credence. All it shows is the uneducated and unsophisticated
mind struggling to put too many pieces together to equal a preconceived
conclusion. In other words, we have a non issue. Popular culture
pretending to be high science and reason..... :-) Heaven fobid you then
add on top of this a viewpoint from a higher level of consciousness than
human.
Michael Wallace
"SantimVah" <seerep...@message.body> wrote in message
news:8u6a9l$k5r$1...@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
>
> "KMerrymoon" <kmerr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20001106014123...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
>
> > When the work is not "substantially the same" it is a real reach to
> pronounce
> > that a violation of the law. I seriously doubt it would hold up in
court.
> >
> > Now, Joe, perhaps you could do some research to show us what Copyright
Law
> > really stated before 1976, when Paul was alive and published his works.
I
> think
> > you will find it even less clear and less supportive of partial copying.
> The
> > reason? Because it was accepted practice back in journalism back then.
> >
> > Truth is painful only to those who do not love Truth and search for
Truth.
> >
>
> and that's all. Navel gaze all you want and nothing stacks up, except that
> PT did not reference a Bibliography to his works. On the other hand, paul
> never denied he was well read either.
>
> The facts are simple. David Lane was found guilty of violationg Copyright
> Law in a federal court, Paul twitchell and Eckankar have not. Simple
really.
> It has to do with *credibility* imo. <g>
Well, yes... Especially when David has already been found to not be credible
as a witness by a US Court Judge.
This is, of course, not a judgement by someone connected with Eckankar, but
an official court notice from the United States... It is telling,
especiallywhen we look at the amount of times there appears to be
contradictions in David's Book. What is most telling is the apparent fact
that he seems to not want to deal with these in any substantial manner.
But then, I guess some people are not too concerned with things like this.
Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
> DOUG ORIGINALLY WROTE:
> > Note that it says specifically: "to prepare derivative works that only
> slightly
> > change the protected work." This is what is legally protected.
>
> LURK:
> In context it is saying only the owner of the copyright has exclusive
> right to prepare derivative works that is only slightly change from the
> protected work. IN other words, Neville has the right to use his own
> material in another work, but Paul Twitchell does not have permission to
use
> his work if he slightly changes them.
>
> DOUG:
time to
> explain these things because I know that a lot of people are not familiar
with
> the legal complexities. When it says that copyright protection grants
exclusive
> rights to prepare derivative works that only slightly change the protected
work
> - this means that this is the limit of the rights that the owner has.
>
> This means that if a work was only slightly changed from the copyrighted
work,
> that, yes, the owner has exclusive rights to print or publish that. But
this
> doesn't mean that only slightly changing some portion of the work is
protected.
the
> whole work that is being protected. Slight changes to that whole work are
also
> protected. Not slight changes to some portion.
>
> Again, cite a legal case where a precedent was established where a
> Chapter of one person's book was place in another person's book and the
> ruling was it was not substantial enough to be protected by the
> copyright laws.
>
> DOUG:
such
> cases. There have been numerous cases with songs, where a famous musician
was
> accused of stealing a song from an unknown composer who had copyrighted
their
> song. However, unless the whole song melody was similar, the case was
> dismissed. Portions of a melody are commonly used and reused by different
> musicians.
>
> The test is usually when the two works are listened to side by side that
they
> strike you as being substantially the same. The whole work. New chord
> embellishments would be considered slight changes. A few percent of
similar
> phrasing would not.
"My Sweet Lord" is the title that comes to mind <G>
And it is exactly what I sing to myself when I read through Lurk's verbage
!!
Curiously as it stands, George Harrison was found guilty of Copyright
infringement to a song which was structurally so simple it could have been a
thousand songs... He said it came more from a Krishna chant, but the woman
was successful in her copyright issue with him.
It is such a difficult line to draw in the sand with this one... Especially
considering the state of what we call "Justice" in our Western Society.
Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
Copyright Law in the 1960's in the States was so notoriously weak it was
virtually non existant. One of the more obvious tales is that of Tolkein and
"Lord of the Rings"... It was simply taken, printed by an underground press,
and when Tolkein went to take them to court, he was told "Better sign a
publishing deal with them...."
As they printed it first, he would have been at odds to protect any right
what-so-ever to copyright.
Doug is correct when he says that what we now call plagiarism was, in fact,
common place right through the 1950's and 1960's... And if you consider, it
was not until the late 60's that artists began to have the possibility of
making real money from their works that they really wanted to enforce them.
Many times it was a case of "Imitation is the most sincere form of
flattery."
Love
Michael
"gruendemann" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3A07648B...@worldnet.att.net...
Michael Wallace
>
> With all the years that you have criticized ECKists for not investigating
the
> truth for themselves, why is it that you and Lurk are not investigating
for
> yourselves to find out the truth?
>
And Joe's Magnetic personality is just waiting to pounce on ALL of those
little Iron-ies <G>
All this reason and common sense... It must be awful to have to deal with
this. Doug you are clearly a most terrible person, inflicting this on our
local detractors, when you KNOW they hate it so much <G>
Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
Love
Michael
"Hawk" <hu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8u6i0r$ans$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Lurk,the "Master of Spin",Jack of all trades,literary critic for the
> A.R.E. children's room,once,again,can't find the rabbit in his hat
> and,instead,saws another subject thread in half.
> The crowd applauds wildly and Lurk disappears under the stage in a puff
> of smoke.
>
> love, Hawk
>
>
>
> In article <3A063022...@home.com>,
> "arel...@home.com" <arel...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Michael Wallace wrote:
> > >
> > > This one should be framed!! <G>
> >
> > It should be...it accurately describes Doug's apologetic response to
> the
> > quote Troll posted.
> >
> > Lurk
> >
> > >
> > > Love
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > <arel...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3A060A9B...@home.com...
> > >
> > > You play semantic sleight of hand tricks
> >
>
> --
> Hu-for-U