Why don't you post your questions to folks who read and publish literature, and ask them how the feel about the wholesale piracy of published literature? Or, do you have such friends; friends who read? P
There's no need. "Folks who publish literature" earn their livelihood from doing that. The LDS Church, on the other hand, pulls in income from a variety of other avenues. Finally, I do not think that the CHI qualifies even remotely as "literature," in either a colloquial or conventional sense. One could argue that the Book of Mormon is "literature," in a sense, but dissemination of the Book of Mormon is not regarded as problematic from the Church's POV.
I see your argument now. The Copyright Act should not apply to the Church's publications because the Church (a non-profit) does not earn its livelihood from publication. Gee, I hadn't considered that before; what a powerful argument.
Why don't you post your questions to folks who read and publish literature, and ask them how the feel about the wholesale piracy of published literature? Or, do you have such friends; friends who read? P
There's no need. "Folks who publish literature" earn their livelihood from doing that. The LDS Church, on the other hand, pulls in income from a variety of other avenues. Finally, I do not think that the CHI qualifies even remotely as "literature," in either a colloquial or conventional sense. One could argue that the Book of Mormon is "literature," in a sense, but dissemination of the Book of Mormon is not regarded as problematic from the Church's POV.
I see your argument now. The Copyright Act should not apply to the Church's publications because the Church (a non-profit) does not earn its livelihood from publication. Gee, I hadn't considered that before; what a powerful argument.
P
The measure of copyright law is in money. If you defend a copyright you are only defending ones income.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
VegasRefugee wrote:The measure of copyright law is in money. If you defend a copyright you are only defending ones income.
Thanks. I didn't realize that. Published material is protected by the Copyright Act only if it makes money. Those who do not publish for money, such as non-profits and religions, have no such protections. I learned something important today.
Why don't you post your questions to folks who read and publish literature, and ask them how the feel about the wholesale piracy of published literature? Or, do you have such friends; friends who read? P
There's no need. "Folks who publish literature" earn their livelihood from doing that. The LDS Church, on the other hand, pulls in income from a variety of other avenues. Finally, I do not think that the CHI qualifies even remotely as "literature," in either a colloquial or conventional sense. One could argue that the Book of Mormon is "literature," in a sense, but dissemination of the Book of Mormon is not regarded as problematic from the Church's POV.
I see your argument now. The Copyright Act should not apply to the Church's publications because the Church (a non-profit) does not earn its livelihood from publication. Gee, I hadn't considered that before; what a powerful argument.
P
No, that's not my argument, nor where my criticism has been aimed. You tried to claim that the CHI is somehow equivalent to Lonesome Dove, with which I disagreed. My criticism has to do with the Church's absurd, over-the-top reaction to publication of the CHI on the Internet. Honestly, P.---can you tell me what legitimate harm was done? The Church didn't lost any money. What was the harm? You try to claim that this is some kind of preventative measure, but what's being prevented? Why should the Church fear its materials being disseminated online? What's the motivation, other than a knee-jerk desire to control everything?