by actage 34 Replies latest watchtower bible
According to Cornell's Copyright Information Center (in footnote 8 here):
"A 1961 Copyright Office study found that fewer than 15% of all registered copyrights were renewed. For books, the figure was even lower: 7%."
Of course, you should always carefully check to see that something is in the public domain before you do something that would otherwise violate copyright law.
Any direct quote must be cited, even if only one word.
I don 't believe it. It it were true, nothing would ever get accomplished. Could you provide a source other than your BA or your Dad's MD proving this?
"A 1961 Copyright Office study found that fewer than 15% of all registered copyrights were renewed. For books, the figure was even lower: 7%."
Wow, but what time frame are we talking about? 300 years?
"The"
How many copyright law violations did I just commit?
One word? Crikey! And I don't think it was Steve Irwin.
oops
I do not like when copyrighted material in its entirity is made available, when the copyright holder is trying to make a living off of it. That is why copyrights are there. This includes works by Raymond Franz. It is permissible to use portions of his works to make comments with, but if you want the whole thing, I suggest buying it.
This does not apply when a copyright is used for nefarious purposes. Copyrighted material that is being held back from people that are joining, in an attempt to withhold information needed to make a wise decision, simply needs to be exposed anyways. Much of the "secret" material that the witlesses put out is copyrighted so they can win custody battles (and the children get careers as window washer pio-sneers) and get undeserved legal recognition. They are not making a penny off such materials--and a person that is legitimately interested cannot get that information that is going to affect them and should affect their decision before it is too late.
Myths regarding copyright law as it applies in Australia: http://www.legalservices.uwa.edu.au/lso/ip_res_contracts/5._copyright/primer/10._myths
The Australian Copyright Council provides a range of Information Sheets at: http://www.copyright.org.au/publications/infosheets.htm
"Dictionary of Biblical Imagery" is copyright ©1998 by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA and, as a work of corporate authorship, is protected by copyright law for 95 years from the date of publication. The posting of this title or any significant excerpt thereof without written permission from InterVarsity Press is illegal. The specific posting referred to on this board in unauthorized, and therefore, illegal.
Look at the examples I provided. A direct quote (meaning a statement attributed to a specific individual) needs to be footnoted. "Do'h" by itself does not need citation. "Homer Simpson says 'doh' all the time." does not need citation. "When told that people on JWN are using him as a source for academic information, Homer Simpson's response was 'Do'h'" needs a citation.
We're also talking about use of copyrighted material here, if you're quoting from a copyrighted source, it needs citation; particularly in an academic environment.
If nothing else I can flunk you out my English class for not doing it the way I told you to, next semester you can find a prof that isn't as old as dirt and doesn't have OCD about this stuff.
edited to add: see "A Writer's Reference" Diana Hacker, Bedford/St. Martin's Boston, MA 1999 page 82
