Copyright and Religion:
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
In Search of Jefferson's Moose
Sources on the Second Amendment
Copyright and Religion:
|
ContactJohn Elwood CategoriesSubscribeArchives
FeaturesStuff from usAcademic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates In Search of Jefferson's Moose Sources on the Second Amendment Blogroll |
I did find the point that the C/R office attempts to distinguish between someone transcribing writings by a devinity, versus divinely inspired writings. The first would not be subject to copyright because: a) the author isn't human, and b) the scribe isn't (supposedly) adding original expression. The later would be, just as a translation would be.
My view of this area is colored, as are those of many, by the Scientology litigations awhile back. There, the question was not whether L. Ron had had a copyright in the works, but rather how far could his church enforce those copyrights to stifle dissent. I think the reason that I still have a bad taste in my mouth as to Scientology and copyright is that it appeared to me that they were engaged in massive discovery abuse, where they were using discovery in one case after another against their critics ostensibly to look for their sacred scriptures on the critics' hard drives. But then, they looked at the critics' email and address book, while they were at it, to find out their next targets to sue. The sanctions imposed seemed to always be too little, and too late to deter them.
I did find interesting the point that the C/R office attempts to distinguish between someone transcribing writings by a devinity, versus divinely inspired writings. The first would not be subject to copyright because: a) the author isn't human, and b) the scribe isn't (supposedly) adding original expression. The later would be, just as a translation would be.