The Copyright Cop-Out


INTRODUCTION

It seems that the actively publishing members of the Truth Fellowship are quite concerned with copyright infringement issues, and their concerns have been expressed in different ways.

For example, near the bottom of the index page of Nathan Barker's Topics in Bible website is the following statement:

Feel Free To Print
and Share, But Never
Post on Any Board
Unless Permission of
the Author is granted 
- Thank You

Lest the reader have the mistaken impression that Nate is just taking a principled stand against the intellectual dishonesty of improper citation and plagiarism, his true motivation was revealed during an exchange on the Truth Meetings Message Board on Oct 7th, 2003, 9:21pm, when someone quoted part of an article from his site to bring up an objection. To this challenge Nate completely ignored the question and simply asked, "Did you have the permission from the author to post his testimony on this message board?"

The actual content of the discussion is irrelevant, but despite repeated requests to answer the question, he would only reiterate his initial position, saying "Read the NOTE on the bottom of our website. NOT to post anything on our website to any message board unless you have the permission from me/Diane or the authors of the article."

This diversionary tactic is certainly amusing given Nate's own tendency to not cite appropriately his sources on his website; however, his history of sloppy citation notwithstanding, it is obvious that his protest was just a ploy used to avoid answering the question. In other words, by pretending to care about the integrity of the quote, Nate apparently thought no one would notice that he once again refused to answer the question. While this is a new twist to his methods of evasion, the underlying motive was the same - to attempt to avoid direct challenges to his site's content. Just for clarification, I will post what the United States law actually says:
CHAPTER 1 - SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT
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."
The tactic of copyright infringement claims does appear to be a common one, as currently-professing member Josh Lang had also tried to preempt any response to the content on his own Perspectives and Persuasions website by appealing to the Australian Copyright Act of 1968. In fact, at one time on his site he warned against unauthorized copying of any of the content, in such a way that the only way to enter the site was to click on the index link containing the phrase "I Agree". Unfortunately for him, that's not what the law says there, either:
Section 41 - Fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review

"A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is for the purpose of criticism or review, whether of that work or of another work, and a sufficient acknowledgement of the work is made."
Yet another member of the Truth Fellowship has used the threat of copyright infringement - Dr. Cornelius Jaenan. Even as recently as October 22, 2003, he contacted me claiming that he had learned "through an American legal firm dealing with intellectual property" that I had cited part of his book The Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship without permission as required by copyright law and that I was to removed them "immediately". I politely informed him of the Fair Use clause in the American Copyright Act as quoted above and invited him to view my website to provide examples of what he would consider either copyright infringement or "libelous and defamatory". Since Jaenan lives in Canada, perhaps it is useful to note that Canada's copyright laws are similar to both the U.S.A. and Australia:
PART III - INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT AND MORAL RIGHTS AND EXCEPTIONS TO INFRINGEMENT

Section 29.1 Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:
(a) the source; and
(b) if given in the source, the name of the
  • (i) author, in the case of a work
    • CONCLUSION

    Copyright infringement is a serious issue. It is neither lawful nor morally acceptable to take somone else's work and try to portray it as your own, especially for financial or personal gain. This is the main reason for the existence of copyright in the first place. However, there must be provision for people to discuss with impunity the content of what someone else says, which is where the Fair Use clause comes in. Admittedly, the term "fair" is defined subjectively, but the U.S. Copyright Act, for example, tries to take four things into consideration when making such a determination:
  • purpose and character of use, whether of a commercial nature or for nonprofit educational purposes;
  • the nature of the copyrighted work;
  • the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  • the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
    • In other words, my tiny citations of Nate's, Josh's, or Jaenan's work is not for making money but rather for nonprofit educational purposes. While I'd like to think that my arguments are so devastatingly powerful that no one ever wants to buy Jaenan's book, I seriously doubt this will be the case. In fact, for him to make this kind of claim would be to admit that there serious weaknesses in his arguments.

    It is easy to see to the unbiased observer that quoting a portion of someone else's work for the purpose of criticism or comment, as long as it is properly documented, is not against the law. An intellectually honest person would actually respond to questions and challenges instead of hiding behind subtle threats of copyright infringement. Obviously, people like Nate have demonstrated no such inclination to do so.

    This article might be seen as a personal attack on Nate, but it is not intended that way; it is only because he is the most glaring example. I do think it is necessary to document his incessant and inexplicable refusals to answer questions asked of him. Why does it matter? Because THIS is the kind of behavior that I find offensive - by constantly refusing to interact with objectors by defending the statements he has made, Nate is essentially telling those who disagree with him that they're not worth the time it takes to give an explanation. This is a symptom of the exclusivism he practices and is the basis for the website he maintains; not for the purpose of outreach, but in order to reassure and keep those already in the Truth Fellowship by any means necessary.

    Anyway, the real purpose seems to be more as the result of these people wanting to say whatever they want without the responsibility of answering for it. They seem to want a unilateral exchange of ideas - as the saying goes, they want to play but they don't want to lose....

    Below are a few links related to copyright issues:

    10 Big Myths About Copyright - by Brad Templeton

    Copyright: An Overview - by the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School



    |back|