[Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

[emijrp]

I was not aggresive, but "sarcastic".

But obviously, there are reasons for being furious.

2011/10/1 KIZU Naoko <aphaia at gmail.com>

> Claiming copyright for religious works in use works also defense for
> possible alteration the original publisher or editor may regard as
> heretical. The similar happens in academia too. I know a certain
> online text database based on a scanned PD works, but the publisher (a
> certain academic society) denied even to put online publicly, they
> claimed "otherwise the data would be erroneously changed, we'll send a
> set of disks upon request for free, so everyone who needs can get the
> data. It's the best way for our interest to keep the criticized text
> in an appropriate level, avoid any corruption." There' a lot of this
> kind anecdotes, I guess?
>
> Be relaxed, you have not to be so hostile, Emijrp. While we don't
> agree with them in this point (firmly), we can still be polite and
> they wouldn't disagree we share an ultimate goal to let the world
> share the knowledge. As Liam suggested. On the other hand we should
> understand they have their own revenue system - their own ecosystem
> which has been built perhaps for centuries, so that we should have
> them understand we don't want them to survive by exploring free access
> and rather we would like them to cooperate and cohabit.
>
> It'll sure take a time, but I hope we go forward our mission without
> being unnecessarily aggressive.
>
> Cheers,
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:42 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Chris Keating
> > <chriskeatingwiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls[1] have copyright[2]. Courtesy of The
> Israel
> >>> Museum. Congratulations.
> >>
> >>
> >> If the Dead Sea Scrolls were divinely inspired, like other Biblical
> texts,
> >> then there is an argument that the author is still alive.... ;-)
> >>
> >> (c) God, 2011
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> > Are there any jurisdictions where a religious texts have been refused
> > a copyright for reason of being divine?
> >
> > There are a few legal cases about copyright of religious texts where
> > the copyright has been given to the 'medium' / 'channeler'.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_on_religious_works
> >
> > And there is the crown hold copyright on KJV, in perpetuity.
>
> As commentary, I'd like to add they put the Book of Common Prayer
> under the crown hold copyright too, but also they haven't done so on
> drafts, so that ongoing drat of BCP has been freely circulated and
> could be discussed.
> >
> > --
> > John Vandenberg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子
> member of Wikimedians in Kansai  / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会
> http://kansai.wikimedia.jp
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>