I hope that you stick around! Its great to remeber why I left.
they just did that in rancho cocamonga ca. near ontario. they shut somebodys (not way a fellowship) bible fellowship down about a month ago. it was in the la times newspaper. the local politicians told them they will to get a permit , obtain an enviromental impact report , etc. etc. ! the devil never stops and wants to shut those down that TEACH and PREACH THE WORD ! if you are speaking the word the devil will try to shut you down !
They (the bible study folks) got in a hit and run accident with a neighbors car if you read the article.. as they had no parking and were creating a public nuisance ...I suppose that you wouldnt mind getting your car destroyed or your driveway blocked as long as whoever did it was at a bible study?
You can say whatever you want, but when you start being criminally negligent, bible study or no you are still subject to the same rules and laws as everyone else in your community. Your interpretation of the bible may give you some special exemption to be any kind of a-hole that you want to be, but in the real world there are requirements to at least be civil to your neighbors. You cant run a crackhouse, in many communities you cant run abusiness out of your home and in many other communities you cant have 20 cars show up at your house unless you have made legal arrangements for safe parking. THAT group didn't, was given a chance and refused---the only 'witness' that bible study gave to the community was that they were a bunch of self centered arrogant pr*cks
I hope that you stick around! Its great to remeber why I left.
They (the bible study folks) got in a hit and run accident with a neighbors car if you read the article.. as they had no parking and were creating a public nuisance ...I suppose that you wouldnt mind getting your car destroyed or your driveway blocked as long as whoever did it was at a bible study?
You can say whatever you want, but when you start being criminally negligent, bible study or no you are still subject to the same rules and laws as everyone else in your community. Your interpretation of the bible may give you some special exemption to be any kind of a-hole that you want to be, but in the real world there are requirements to at least be civil to your neighbors. You cant run a crackhouse, in many communities you cant run abusiness out of your home and in many other communities you cant have 20 cars show up at your house unless you have made legal arrangements for safe parking. THAT group didn't, was given a chance and refused---the only 'witness' that bible study gave to the community was that they were a bunch of self centered arrogant pr*cks
First of all we are not talking about civil neglect or running a crackhouse. Although there is a parallel to the crackhouse in that there was an American Indian Tribe that used an illegal hallucinogenic drug (Peyote) as part of their religion, The Supreme Court has ruled that they are not "subject to the same rules and laws as everyone else" when they use peyote in their religion.
Here the issue is itself Scripture interpretation, because Bible translation is Scripture interpretation and Scripture interpretation is doctrine. In the past the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the courts cannot hear property disputes (copyrights are property) between two religions if doing so would require the court to consider doctrine, weigh doctrine, interpret doctrine or resolve doctrinal issues. The Government cannot regulate the interpretation of the Scriptures and therefore the copyright law cannot be applied in such a way as to allow the government to regulate the interpretation of the Scriptures. The Establishment Clause forbids the government from allowing one religion to interpret Scripture in a certain way while forbidding another religion from using the same interpretation.
The Way International (“TWI”) filed this suit under the Court’s Copyright jurisdiction,
seeking recovery of damages and an injunction against James Scott Trimm and SANJ, for alleged
copyright infringement and other related causes of action in relation to the Aramaic English
Interlinear New Testament (“AEINT”).
The Way International (“TWI”) filed this suit, under the Court’s copyright law
jurisdiction, seeking recovery of damages from and injunction against The Society for the
Advancement of Nazarene Judaism (“SANJ”) and its president, James Scott Trimm. TWI claims
copyright infringement by James Scott Trimm and SANJ. TWI states in their Original
Complaint: “8. TWI is a non denominational biblical research, teaching and fellowship
ministry…. TWI has provided religious educational services… since its inception. 9. As a
provider of religious educational services, TWI has produced a wide range of religious education
materials…. 10. Among TWI’s published materials is the three-volume Aramaic-English
Interlinear New Testament (the “AEINT”)…. 13. …the AEINT shows three texts of the New
Testament side by side… The left-hand page is divided into two columns. The right column is
TWI’s word-by-word translation of its Aramaic text…. 22. Defendant Trimm has made certain
limited word substitutions throughout the HRV for the words used by TWI in the AEINT….”
Original Complaint ¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 13, 22.
TWI refers to the AEINT as a “New Testament” which is a “translation” of the
“Aramaic text” and as “religious educational material” derived from “religious education service”
as part of TWI’s “biblical research, teaching and fellowship ministry.” Clearly, “religious
education material” and “religious education services” which are part of the “teaching” of a
“ministry” are doctrine by the very definition of the word. The Bible is doctrine to a “biblical
research, teaching and fellowship ministry” by definition. If a ministry’s “teaching” and
“religious educational services/materials” are not its doctrine then the word “doctrine” can have
no meaningful definition. (The Concordance to the Pedangta Version of the Aramaic New
Testament p. 156a word no. 1262; published by TWI gives the words “teaching” and “doctrine”
as alternate translations of the same Aramaic word in the Scriptures) Moreover, “translation” is a
form of interpretation. The two words are synonyms, a “translator” is an “interpreter” because
“translation” is “interpretation.” Therefore translation of the Aramaic New Testament is by its
very nature Scripture interpretation on the most fundamental level, and thus is doctrine. Scripture
interpretation is doctrine. In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), at footnote 1, the Supreme
Court identifies the Seventh-Day Adventist’s “interpretation of the Holy Bible” as doctrine and
implicating the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Thus by the face of TWI’s pleading, the Court’s determination of this suit hinges upon
resolving a dispute between two religious groups over how doctrine may be worded because
determination in this suit hinges upon the interpretation of Scripture and particularly the wording
of the Bible. Translation of the Bible is by its very nature the interpretation of a sacred religious
text. At issue in this suit is the translation of the Ancient Aramaic New Testament version.
Scripture interpretation and therefore Bible translation by the Bible believer is not just
interpreting a Scripture simply by examining the text itself, but by reading the text with openness
to the mind of God and the Holy Spirit. See, 1 Cor. 2:12-16; James 1:5; and 1 John 2:27.
Interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an exercise of religion. Bible translation
involves examining words and phrases in a biblical language (in this case Aramaic) and
interpreting these with English words and phrases that have as close to the same meaning as
possible to the source words and phrases. When the Believer engages in this process, it involves
not only an examination of the text itself, but interpreting this text with openness to the mind of
God and the Holy Spirit. The result is Scripture interpretation and therefore doctrine on the most
fundamental level.
Plaintiff contends that the Defendants’ translation agrees too closely with their own
translation and thus that the Defendants’ translation infringes on their copyright. Plaintiff admits
that the AEINT and the HRV are not identical when Plaintiff says the HRV contains what
Plaintiff calls “word substitutions throughout.” (Defendants maintain there are many other
differences beyond “word substitutions; however, Plaintiff’s statement admits that the two
versions are not actually identical). Plaintiff in effect contends that the copyright law would
forbid Defendants from interpreting the New Testament in a manner that is similar but not
identical to Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends therefore that the copyright law may be used to prohibit
Defendants from holding to “doctrine” that is similar but not identical to Plaintiff’s doctrine.
Thus, although AEINT is property, it is also Scripture interpretation and doctrine and the Court is
barred from determining ecclesiastical questions (Scripture interpretation and doctrine) in
resolving property disputes pursuant to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and U.S.
Supreme Court case law. Thus, the Court is barred from determining if Mr. Trimm and SANJ
may interpret/translate Scripture in a given way in resolving this property dispute. Plaintiff
therefore is asking the Court to settle a dispute between two religions concerning just how a
sacred religious text may be interpreted. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear
TWI’s claims because to do so would require the court to evaluate and scrutinize, consider and
weigh interpretations of a religious text by two religions and resolve if Defendants may or may
not interpret the Bible in a given way. The Court would be asked to weigh and consider line by
line whether Defendant’s doctrine necessitates translating a given word or phrase in a given way
and even whether Defendants’ doctrine would permit translating a given word or phrase in
another way, or even whether the guidance of the Holy Spirit would allow Defendant to translate
or interpret a word or phrase in another manner. Only Defendants may determine their own
doctrine. The Aramaic text of the New Testament is doctrine, the interpretation of the Aramaic
Scripture into English is doctrine, and the guiding criteria used to choose which words and
phrases with which to interpret the Aramaic Scripture into English is doctrine. Ultimately the
decision to interpret the Aramaic Scripture in a given way is a doctrinal decision guided by the
Holy Spirit. The Court would thus be asked to weigh and consider doctrine in resolving this
property dispute. The Court would also be asked to forbid one religion from interpreting the
Bible in a given way, while allowing another religion that same interpretation, in violation of the
First Amendment.
The First Amendment requires that courts “decide church property disputes without
resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine.” Presbyterian Church in the United
States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440,448. The Supreme Court
has recognized three methods of accomplishing this goal, only one of which is relevant in this
case. Maryland & Virginia Eldership of Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, 396
U.S. 367.
The first method is Deference to Hierarchical Decision-Making Body. Civil courts may
follow Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13Wall.) 679 (1871), and its progeny, in deferring to the
decision making authorities of hierarchical churches. Maryland & Virginia Eldership of
Churches of God at 368. Through this approach the court avoids entanglement in religious issues
by accepting the decision of the established decision making body of the religious organization.
This method cannot be applied to the present case, because Plaintiff and Defendant have never
shared a mutually recognized Hierarchical Decision-Making Body.
The second method is to apply neutral principles of law. Id. at 370. However, the
Neutral Principle cannot be applied in this case because the property in question is itself doctrine,
i.e., the Bible. Normally a copyright case would be resolved largely by comparing and
scrutinizing the works in question. In this case, however, this would involve scrutinizing
Defendants’ Spirit led interpretation of Scripture (and therefore Defendants’ doctrine) which
would by its very nature fall outside the bounds of neutral principles of law. The U. S. Supreme
Court states in relation to this method that it may be used only “so long as it involves no
consideration of doctrinal matters, whether the ritual and liturgy of worship or the tenets of faith.”
Id. at 368. And “general principles of property law may not be relied upon if their application
requires civil courts to resolve doctrinal issues.” Id. at 370. The Court cannot determine by
Neutral Principles the legitimacy of Defendants’ interpretation of Scripture or his guidance by the
Holy Spirit. Moreover, the Court cannot determine through Neutral Principle if Defendants are
permitted to interpret Scripture in a given manner. Defendant’s translation choice, in each and
every instance, is by definition, Defendant’s interpretation of Scripture, and is therefore by
definition defendant’s doctrine as he was guided by the Holy Spirit. Any analysis of Defendants’
interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an analysis of Defendants’ doctrine and guidance
by the Holy Spirit, and this violates the very bounds envisioned by the First Amendment as it has
been upheld by the U. S, Supreme Court. Such an analysis would cross the line described by the
U.S. Supreme Court as “the forbidden process of interpreting and weighing church doctrine.”
Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440, 451. If the “Neutral Principle” could allow
the Court to consider, analyze, weigh and scrutinize doctrine and forbid one religious group from
interpreting Scripture in a given way, while permitting another to do so, then the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment itself would become in effect nullified by “Neutral Principle.” In
this situation Neutral Principles cannot be applied, because they cannot be applied where the
would require the court to “engage in consideration of doctrinal matters”; “resolve doctrinal
disputes” or “interpreting or weighing church doctrine”. Thus the Court is prohibited from: 1)
Consideration of doctrinal matters; 2) Interpreting church doctrine; 3) Weighing church doctrine;
and 4)Resolving doctrinal disputes.
This very case is a dispute between two churches over how one church may interpret its
Scriptures and would require the court to engage in consideration of doctrinal matters. Hearing
this case would itself be “consideration of doctrinal matters” because the translation of Scripture
is the interpretation of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture is clearly a doctrinal matter.
Hearing this case would also involve the court interpreting church doctrine in that the court would
be hearing testimony and considering evidence as to other possible translation options as well as
instances where witnesses would testify that a given translation is erroneous or awkward. This
would place the Court in the situation of itself “interpreting” these Scriptures. The Court is
clearly barred from determining whether or not a Church’s Spirit led interpretation of Scripture is
erroneous or awkward, rather than Spirit led. The court would also be asked to engage in
weighing of church doctrine. ‘Weighing’ implies a judgment rooted in comparing two or more
things. In this case the court would be weighing church doctrine in that it would be comparing
two translations and therefore weighing interpretations of Scripture. Also, the court ultimately in
this case would be asked effectively to resolve doctrinal disputes because here we have a dispute
between two ministries over how the Defendant Church may interpret Scripture and render its
doctrine through the interpretation Scripture. The copyright law cannot be used to forbid one
religious group from interpreting Scripture in a specific way, while allowing another to do so
without violating the First Amendment itself. Therefore Neutral Principles cannot be used in this
case, because hearing this case would require the court to engage in the very activities which the
US Supreme Court has specifically excluded from Neutral Principles.
Should the Court find that it has jurisdiction, all of TWI’s alleged causes of action fail to
state a claim for which relief can be granted, because they are each barred by the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an exercise of religion and specifically in
“rightly proclaiming the word of truth.” 2 Tim. 2:15 HRV. Defendants’ Hebraic Roots Version
is a translation, and therefore an interpretation of Hebrew and Aramaic religious texts and is
therefore the product of Defendants’ free exercise of religion. This Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to hear TWI’s claims because to do would require the Court to determine if it should
prohibit Defendants’ free exercise of religion in violation of the First Amendment. Accordingly,
all of TWI’s alleged causes of action fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted, because
they are each barred by the First Amendment.
TWI has requested that the Court grant them relief in the form of a preliminary and
permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants “manufacturing, printing, producing,
distributing, importing, exporting, transporting, circulating, selling, offering for sale, or otherwise
disposing of the HRV” and “That the court order the destruction of all copies of the HRV of all
plates, matrices, masters, tapes, film negatives, or other articles by means of which copies may be
reproduced, including but not limited to electronically stored copies.” Original Complaint, p. 21.
In effect, Plaintiff asks the Court to ban the version of the Bible used by SANJ and many other
Nazarene Jewish groups as their standard “Scriptures” and forbid the use of the HRV as
“doctrine.” Therefore, the relief sought by TWI is impermissible under the First Amendment and
TWI’s claim should be dismissed because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the
claim, or alternately, the relief TWI seeks is barred by the First Amendment and should be
dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
II. STATEMENT OF THE LAW
REGARDING ECCLESIASTICAL DOCTRINE
AND PROPERTY DISPUTES
The First Amendment’s mandate, “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” has been consistently
recognized and upheld by the courts of this country to require the government to refrain from
interfering with religious organizations with respect to matters of their doctrine. U.S. Const.
Amend. I.
In 1872, the U.S. Supreme Court made the following observations:
In this country the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice
any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate
the laws of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights, is
conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no
dogma, the establishment of no sect. Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679.
While TWI claims that the AEINT is “property” it is clear on the face of their complaint
that the AEINT is also doctrine in that it is “religious education material” of TWI’s “ministry” as
well as the translation (and therefore interpretation) of Scripture.
As the Supreme Court has observed, religious freedom encompasses the power of
religious bodies to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church
government as well as those of faith and doctrine. Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94.
In 1862 the U.S. Supreme Court held in a dispute between Presbyterians and Unitarians
over title to a church meetinghouse in Boston, that there was no subject matter jurisdiction to
permit an appeal from state court. Attorney General v. Federal Street Meeting-house, 66 U.S.
262.
In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Georgia court ruling holding that Civil courts
cannot, consistently with First Amendment principles, determine ecclesiastical questions in
resolving property disputes; and since the departure-from-doctrine element of Georgia's implied
trust theory requires civil courts to weigh the significance and meaning of religious doctrines, it
can play no role in judicial proceedings. Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440.
The U.S. Supreme Court observed in Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church:
It is of course true that the State has a legitimate interest in resolving property
disputes, and that a civil court is a proper forum for that resolution. Special
problems arise, however, when these disputes implicate controversies over church
doctrine and practice. The approach of this Court in such cases was originally
developed in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (1872), a pre-Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
diversity decision decided before the application of the First Amendment to the
States but nonetheless informed by First Amendment considerations. (fn4) There,
as here, civil courts were asked to resolve a property dispute between a national
Presbyterian organization and local churches of that organization. There, as here,
the disputes arose out of a controversy over church doctrine. There, as here, the
Court was asked to decree the termination of an implied trust because of
departures from doctrine by the national organization. The Watson Court refused,
pointing out that it was wholly inconsistent with the American concept of the
relationship between church and state to permit civil courts to determine
ecclesiastical questions. Id. at 446.
In language which has a clear constitutional ring, the Court went on to further state:
“In this country the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice
any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate
the laws of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights, is
conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no
dogma, the establishment of no sect. . . . All who unite themselves to such a body
[the general church] do so with an implied consent to [its] government, and are
bound to submit to it. But it would be a vain consent and would lead to the total
subversion of such religious bodies, if any one aggrieved by one of their decisions
could appeal to the secular courts and have them [sic] reversed. It is of the essence
of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of
questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all
cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism
itself provides for.” 13 Wall., at 728-729.
The logic of this language leaves the courts no role in determining ecclesiastical
questions in the process of resolving property disputes. …Any decisions which
have been made by the general church about the local churches’ withdrawal have
at most a tangential relationship to the state-fashioned departure-from-doctrine
standard. A determination whether such decisions are fraudulent, collusive, or
arbitrary would therefore not answer the questions posed by the state standard. To
reach those questions would require the civil courts to engage in the forbidden
process of interpreting and weighing church doctrine. Even if the general church
had attempted to apply the state standard, the civil courts could not review and
enforce the church decision without violating the Constitution. Presbyterian
Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440, 446-451 (1969) [Emphasis added].
Justice Brennan further noted in the same case that:
….First Amendment values are plainly jeopardized when church property
litigation is made to turn on the resolution by civil courts of controversies over
religious doctrine and practice. If civil courts undertake to resolve such
controversies in order to adjudicate the property dispute, the hazards are ever
present of inhibiting the free development of religious doctrine and of implicating
secular interests in matters of purely ecclesiastical concern. . . . [T]he [First]
Amendment therefore commands civil courts to decide church property disputes
without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine. Id. at 449
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there are limited ways to resolve property disputes
between religious bodies. The first is the approach of as articulated in the Watson case:
Thus the States may adopt the approach of Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (1872),
and enforce the property decisions made within a church of congregational polity
“by a majority of its members or by such other local organism as it may have
instituted for the purpose of ecclesiastical government,” id., at 724, and within a
church of hierarchical polity by the highest authority that has ruled on the dispute
at issue, (fn1) unless “express terms” in the “instrument by which the property is
held” condition the property's use or control in a specified manner. (fn2) Under
Watson civil courts do not inquire whether the relevant church governing body has
power under religious law to control the property in question. Such a
determination, unlike the identification of the governing body, frequently
necessitates the interpretation of ambiguous religious law and usage. To permit
civil courts to probe deeply enough into the allocation of power within a church so
as to decide where religious law places control over the use of church property
would violate the First Amendment in much the same manner as civil
determination of religious doctrine. (fn3) Similarly, where the identity of the
governing body or bodies that exercise general authority within a church is a
matter of substantial controversy, civil courts are not to make the inquiry into
religious law and usage that would be essential to the resolution of the controversy.
In other words, the use of the Watson approach is consonant with the prohibitions
of the First Amendment only if the appropriate church governing body can be
determined without the resolution of doctrinal questions and without extensive
inquiry into religious polity. (MD. & VA. Churches v. Sharpsburg CH., 396 U.S.
367, 368-370 (1970)
The Second approach is that of neutral principles of law, as the Supreme Court continued:
“[N]eutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes,”
Presbyterian Church, at 449, provide another means for resolving litigation over
religious property. Under the “formal title” doctrine, courts can determine
ownership by studying deeds, reverter clauses, and general state corporation laws.
Id. at 370.
The Supreme Court went on to state that the “Neutral Principles of law” cannot be applied
where the State would be resolving “doctrinal issues”:
Again, however, general principles of property law may not be relied upon if their
application requires civil courts to resolve doctrinal issues. For example,
provisions in deeds or in a denomination's constitution for the reversion of local
church property to the general church, if conditioned upon a finding of departure
from doctrine, could not be civilly enforced. Id. at 370.
First of all we are not talking about civil neglect or running a crackhouse....
James,... that thing about the crackhouse and civil neglect didn't have to do with your issue.... It was addressing a side-issue someone else had brought up in this thread.
Its nobodies business what I did but their translation work does not belong to them anyway so its not wrong--the spirit told me to do it.
Subtext--Yes I plagiarized the work but I will never admit it. I can dance around (obfusticate -h/t to Wordwolf) the legal issue forever and will. I prefer endless loopholes instead of direct truth
Actually James it works like this, if your work was printed after their work and more than a certain percentage of it is Word for word the same with out noting what was copied and what is original, it is plagerized plain and simple.
Now in a court of Law, you may be able to dance around the issue all you want but that is how it works in academic circles.
I hope you really have done your own work because then you will prevail but if you are a liar and stole their work then you will get nailed
the court is not ruling on doctirne in this case but on the percentage of what has been printed word for word in each work. IF you did your work before them then you should have proof of that.
Obsfucate away buddy you may need to if you plagerized.
Its nobodies business what I did but their translation work does not belong to them anyway so its not wrong--the spirit told me to do it.
Subtext--Yes I plagiarized the work but I will never admit it. I can dance around (obfusticate -h/t to Wordwolf) the legal issue forever and will. I prefer endless loopholes instead of direct truth
Actually the first question is: can the court hear the case without violating a little thing called the Constitution of the United States of America.
Regardless of whether item 1 is true, its frankly none of the Governments business if its none of the Governments business constitutionally.
Your logic is like saying that only a guilty person would not want his home searched without a warrant.
They can hear any plagiarism case whenever they want. Charges of plagiarism or lack thereof
are independent of the content of the plagiarized work. If that's the extent of your defense,
you're going to get spanked by the real lawyers. The LAYMEN here can apparently fry you like a fish.
My post was a tactical assessment. For fun, I'm an armchair tactician. I look over situations
and make an appraisal of what strategies could lead to victory, and I look over strategies and
assess what they say of the people who chose them.
Sun Tzu would have pointed out that tactical assessments are to be made before any conflict,
and victory or defeat should be determined before BEGINNING the conflict. Winners won first on paper,
then went to the conflict, losers went to the conflict THEN tried to win.
There's strategies for use when one is "strong" and strategies for use when one is "weak".
In this case, arguing directly from evidence is "strong" and arguing to dismiss or disregard
evidence is "weak." So far, the "weak" argument is not good enough for a judge to take it
seriously- thus it would be a LOSING argument.
Sun Tzu said that if you were unable to fight "strong" and refused to fight with a winning "weak"
strategy, you would lose. In this case, that means you're smoked meat.
Of course, you're free to ignore everything I've said, and let the judge tell you the same thing
in different words when it will cost you thousands of dollars.
For everyone except James Trimm, this is very simple.
Party A (the way international, known criminal cartel)
has claimed that Party B (James Trimm)
has plagiarized a written work of theirs, and has sued over it.
Party B has 2 possible responses.
1) "I produced this work independently and I shall demonstrate how I did it!"
This indicates he honestly put in the work and can show some of it.
2) "I shall obfuscate the issues, and debate the meaning of the word 'is'."
This indicates he honestly did NOT put in the work and is trying to fog
the issues as much as possible.
Looks like we're seeing a clear example of Scenario 2.
That's the strategic summary. If I can see it, real lawyers and judges can see it, too.
Actually James it works like this, if your work was printed after their work and more than a certain percentage of it is Word for word the same with out noting what was copied and what is original, it is plagerized plain and simple.
Now in a court of Law, you may be able to dance around the issue all you want but that is how it works in academic circles.
I hope you really have done your own work because then you will prevail but if you are a liar and stole their work then you will get nailed
the court is not ruling on doctirne in this case but on the percentage of what has been printed word for word in each work. IF you did your work before them then you should have proof of that.
Obsfucate away buddy you may need to if you plagerized.
We've had some lengthy discussions here in the past on what is allowed and what is prohibited
under US laws concerning plagiarism. The court will rule on whether your work is plagiarized or
original. If your "argument" is based on anything else, you're going to get filleted.
The reality, James, is that you could have made your work say the same thing using different words, because (as you said) sometimes you went a bit more "literal" in your translation. I don't know why you went the doctrine route, unless it was a justification for plagiarizing
The reality, James, is that you could have made your work say the same thing using different words, because (as you said) sometimes you went a bit more "literal" in your translation. I don't know why you went the doctrine route, unless it was a justification for plagiarizing
I made the doctrine argument because first and foremost I want to protect our constitutional rights as an establishment of religion, and our independent rights in the free exercise of religion, to function without interference by the State. It is the equivalent of an innocent man refusing to allow his home or person to be searched without a warrant. I do not believe my forefathers surrendered to the Federal government our Yah given right as an Establishment of Religion and as individual persons in our free exercise of religion to interpret the Scriptures as we see fit.
But yes, we do have a very good affirmative argument that the HRV is an original literal translation made directly from the Aramaic (at times even more literal than the AEINT). We have an argument that any agreements are within the confines of the legal doctrine of merger. We have an argument that to any degree that it may be argued that the HRV may have relied on the AEINT was within the four criteria laid out in the legal definition of "Fair Use". We also have an argument that to any degree that it may be argued that the HRV may have relied on the AEINT was permitted by an implied license. And on top of this there are a number of First Amendment issued to boot.
They can hear any plagiarism case whenever they want. Charges of plagiarism or lack thereof
are independent of the content of the plagiarized work. If that's the extent of your defense,
you're going to get spanked by the real lawyers. The LAYMEN here can apparently fry you like a fish.
My post was a tactical assessment. For fun, I'm an armchair tactician. I look over situations
and make an appraisal of what strategies could lead to victory, and I look over strategies and
assess what they say of the people who chose them.
Sun Tzu would have pointed out that tactical assessments are to be made before any conflict,
and victory or defeat should be determined before BEGINNING the conflict. Winners won first on paper,
then went to the conflict, losers went to the conflict THEN tried to win.
There's strategies for use when one is "strong" and strategies for use when one is "weak".
In this case, arguing directly from evidence is "strong" and arguing to dismiss or disregard
evidence is "weak." So far, the "weak" argument is not good enough for a judge to take it
seriously- thus it would be a LOSING argument.
Sun Tzu said that if you were unable to fight "strong" and refused to fight with a winning "weak"
strategy, you would lose. In this case, that means you're smoked meat.
Of course, you're free to ignore everything I've said, and let the judge tell you the same thing
in different words when it will cost you thousands of dollars.
That's the strategic summary. If I can see it, real lawyers and judges can see it, too.
We've had some lengthy discussions here in the past on what is allowed and what is prohibited
under US laws concerning plagiarism. The court will rule on whether your work is plagiarized or
original. If your "argument" is based on anything else, you're going to get filleted.
Actually no. Plagiarism is an academic term, not a legal term. The issue here is copyright infringement.
Plagiarism is also not a Scriptural concept. For example the Synoptic Gospels in modern terms might be accused of "plagiarizing" from one another. 2Peter might be said to have "plagiarized" from Jude. The author of 1&2 Chronicles (traditionally Ezra) might be said to have "plagiarized" from the books of Samuel and Kings. Clearly there was no concept of "plagiarism" among the Biblical authors.
Now there are a LOT of issues involved in Copyright law, that might or might not pertain to so-called "plagiarism", issues such as the legal doctrine of Merger, the Fair Use law, implied license etc.
I made the doctrine argument because first and foremost I want to protect our constitutional rights as an establishment of religion, and our independent rights in the free exercise of religion, to function without interference by the State. It is the equivalent of an innocent man refusing to allow his home or person to be searched without a warrant. I do not believe my forefathers surrendered to the Federal government our Yah given right as an Establishment of Religion and as individual persons in our free exercise of religion to interpret the Scriptures as we see fit.
But yes, we do have a very good affirmative argument that the HRV is an original literal translation made directly from the Aramaic (at times even more literal than the AEINT). We have an argument that any agreements are within the confines of the legal doctrine of merger. We have an argument that to any degree that it may be argued that the HRV may have relied on the AEINT was within the four criteria laid out in the legal definition of "Fair Use". We also have an argument that to any degree that it may be argued that the HRV may have relied on the AEINT was permitted by an implied license. And on top of this there are a number of First Amendment issued to boot.
Actually no. Plagiarism is an academic term, not a legal term. The issue here is copyright infringement.
[Technically correct. The issue is plagiarism leading to copyright infringement.
They tend to get discussed together around here for obvious reasons.]
Plagiarism is also not a Scriptural concept. For example the Synoptic Gospels in modern terms might be accused of "plagiarizing" from one another. 2Peter might be said to have "plagiarized" from Jude. The author of 1&2 Chronicles (traditionally Ezra) might be said to have "plagiarized" from the books of Samuel and Kings. Clearly there was no concept of "plagiarism" among the Biblical authors.
Now there are a LOT of issues involved in Copyright law, that might or might not pertain to so-called "plagiarism", issues such as the legal doctrine of Merger, the Fair Use law, implied license etc.
I made the doctrine argument because first and foremost I want to protect our constitutional rights as an establishment of religion, and our independent rights in the free exercise of religion, to function without interference by the State. It is the equivalent of an innocent man refusing to allow his home or person to be searched without a warrant. I do not believe my forefathers surrendered to the Federal government our Yah given right as an Establishment of Religion and as individual persons in our free exercise of religion to interpret the Scriptures as we see fit.
But yes, we do have a very good affirmative argument that the HRV is an original literal translation made directly from the Aramaic (at times even more literal than the AEINT). We have an argument that any agreements are within the confines of the legal doctrine of merger. We have an argument that to any degree that it may be argued that the HRV may have relied on the AEINT was within the four criteria laid out in the legal definition of "Fair Use". We also have an argument that to any degree that it may be argued that the HRV may have relied on the AEINT was permitted by an implied license. And on top of this there are a number of First Amendment issued to boot.
[You're going to make an argument that the First Amendment clause of freedom of
religion means you're entitled to infringe copyright?
All I have left to say is, go for it, and let us know what happens.]
[You're going to make an argument that the First Amendment clause of freedom of
religion means you're entitled to infringe copyright?
All I have left to say is, go for it, and let us know what happens.]
It appears you are not familiar with the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is not a clause, it contains several clauses, two of which pertain to the freedom of religion (others pertain to free speech and free press). The two clauses pertaining to religion are the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
The Establishment Clause forbids congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion.
The Free Exercise Clause guarantees the individual to freely exercise religion.
I hope that you stick around! Its great to remeber why I left.
They (the bible study folks) got in a hit and run accident with a neighbors car if you read the article.. as they had no parking and were creating a public nuisance ...I suppose that you wouldnt mind getting your car destroyed or your driveway blocked as long as whoever did it was at a bible study?
You can say whatever you want, but when you start being criminally negligent, bible study or no you are still subject to the same rules and laws as everyone else in your community. Your interpretation of the bible may give you some special exemption to be any kind of a-hole that you want to be, but in the real world there are requirements to at least be civil to your neighbors. You cant run a crackhouse, in many communities you cant run abusiness out of your home and in many other communities you cant have 20 cars show up at your house unless you have made legal arrangements for safe parking. THAT group didn't, was given a chance and refused---the only 'witness' that bible study gave to the community was that they were a bunch of self centered arrogant pr*cks
i just reread the article as i clipped and saved it and theres nothing about an accident in the la times article. i can definitly see someone getting upset about hit and run. you hope i stick around cause its great to remember why you left ? why do you post that ? you dont know anything about me but you accuse me of doing something to you and i dont know you , thats really not cool.
Edited by shiftthis
I don't see anything in that scripture to indicate that man can't make the planet uninhabitable.
if the entire WORD of GOD is going to come to pass then the planet has to be able to sustain human life. according to the enviromentalist c02 the stuff we breath out is destroying the earth. gas engines emit carbon monoxide and diesels emit sulfur dioxide but thats not whats being regulated. there have ben enviromentalist that have called for human giniside and have called man a virus on the face of the earth. the devil seeks worship anyway he can get it and this is one way. if man could make the earth where it couldnt sustain human life then the devil could wipe us all out right now and defeat GOD by not allowing all the rest of HIS WORD to come to pass.
Edited by shiftthis
[You're going to make an argument that the First Amendment clause of freedom of
religion means you're entitled to infringe copyright?
All I have left to say is, go for it, and let us know what happens.]
It appears you are not familiar with the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is not a clause, it contains several clauses, two of which pertain to the freedom of religion (others pertain to free speech and free press). The two clauses pertaining to religion are the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
The Establishment Clause forbids congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion.
The Free Exercise Clause guarantees the individual to freely exercise religion.
But the lawsuit is not about the exercise of religious freedom. You are just using that argument as a way to distract from the real issue which is Copy right infringment (Plagerism, by any other name is still plagerism)
You are selling for profit a book that may or may not have large sections of it copied from another book.
You can do your whole song and dance but it is still what is being argued in court.
The issue is not whether or not you can practice your religion it is DID YOU STEAL your work from this other book.
IT sound like you may have done just that in your own words because they are translating the Bible you can use their work to make a bible and say you did the work, by just changeing a phrase here and there. IT is still stealing.
Maybe I am just a layman but the truth is the truth no matter how much you try to bury it in Dung!
Last I checked the copyright law was created by congress and therefore subject to the boundaries Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
Last I checked the copyright law was created by congress and therefore subject to the boundaries Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
And as such it is subject to the same jurisdiction amd management by the same government.
By the way did I not say that stealing a copy righted book is not included in your first amendment rights. I am pretty sure I said that.
And just so you do not think I am picking on You Mr. Trimm For the purposes of our discussion lets assume you did not steal the work done by the translation department of The Way International. Lets assume you took the time yourself, to actually translate that work, word for word, as you say. Then I am sure the Court will find in your favor, provided you have proof that you translated your document from the same manuscripts that they did, and that you, or people who were working for you, were doing the actual translation. Which means you have some kind of notes and such that you used to do your translating. Translating takes a lot of note taking and paperwork. I assume since you are so certain that you will prevail in court, that you have credentials showing you have mastered the language and the writing and the traditions and lifestyle of these people. Because just translating from a manuscript word for word, would not produce a concise accurate document.
I do want to point something interesting out to you about translation of material word for word. it never ever is exactly the same. unless it is some thing simple like Sally ran fast.
even that little phrase can be interpreted several ways.
For any one interested in actually seeing what copyright law actually covers
The blue text below is a quick synopsis, for more indepth detail you can go to this link , where I obtained this information. Which is from the Us Copyright office.
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States
(title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of original works of authorship, including
literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This
protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106
of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive
right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or
other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and
choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual
works;
To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and
choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural
works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual
work; and
In the case of sound recordings,* to perform the work publicly by means of
a digital audio transmission.
In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution
and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For
further information, see Circular 40, Copyright Registration for Works of the
Visual Arts.
It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright
law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in
scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations
on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from
copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of fair use, which
is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other
instances, the limitation takes the form of a compulsory license under which
certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of
specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information
about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or
write to the Copyright Office.
For any one who is curious what the first amendment actualy says and what it covers by Law
here you go. The text below in green is a brief discripotion and you can go to my link for more information, which I obtained from Justice Learning a web site set up by NPR and the NEw York Times to help teachers educate people about their rights as citizens.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the states twelve proposed amendments. Two of these, which involved congressional representation and pay, were not adopted. The remaining ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified on December 15, 1791.
First Amendment - The Meaning
Freedom of Speech and of the Press: The First Amendment allows citizens to express and to be exposed to a wide range of opinions and views. It was intended to ensure a free exchange of ideas even if the ideas are unpopular.
Freedom of speech encompasses not only the spoken and written word, but also all kinds of expression (including non-verbal communications, such as sit-ins, art, photographs, films and advertisements). Under its provisions, the media including television, radio and the Internet is free to distribute a wide range of news, facts, opinions and pictures. The amendment protects not only the speaker, but also the person who receives the information. The right to read, hear, see and obtain different points of view is a First Amendment right as well.
But the right to free speech is not absolute. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government sometimes may be allowed to limit speech. For example, the government may limit or ban libel (the communication of false statements about a person that may injure his or her reputation), obscenity, fighting words, and words that present a clear and present danger of inciting violence. The government also may regulate speech by limiting the time, place or manner in which it is made. For example the government may require activists to obtain a permit before holding a large protest rally on a public street.
Freedom of Assembly and Right to Petition the Government: The First Amendment also protects the freedom of assembly, which can mean physically gathering with a group of people to picket or protest; or associating with one another in groups for economic, political or religious purposes.
The First Amendment also protects the right not to associate, which means that the government cannot force people to join a group they do not wish to join. A related right is the right to petition the government, including everything from signing a petition to filing a lawsuit.
Freedom of Religion: The First Amendment's free exercise clause allows a person to hold whatever religious beliefs he or she wants, and to exercise that belief by attending religious services, praying in public or in private, proselytizing or wearing religious clothing, such as yarmulkes or headscarves. Also included in the free exercise clause is the right not to believe in any religion, and the right not to participate in religious activities.
Second, the establishment clause prevents the government from creating a church, endorsing religion in general, or favoring one set of religious beliefs over another. As the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, the establishment clause was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and state," although the degree to which government should accommodate religion in public life has been debated in numerous Supreme Court decisions since then.
Sorry for the length but If we really are to discuss this we need to know what it all really says, not what some one tells us it says.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
9
8
23
Popular Days
Apr 12
29
Apr 11
19
Apr 14
16
Apr 6
10
Top Posters In This Topic
Tzaia 8 posts
WordWolf 9 posts
leafytwiglet 8 posts
James Trimm 23 posts
Popular Days
Apr 12 2010
29 posts
Apr 11 2010
19 posts
Apr 14 2010
16 posts
Apr 6 2010
10 posts
Popular Posts
mstar1
Hi Rock THIS SITE lists them as different people with different skill sets and different 'gifts' <_< :) It lists Rood as a "False Prophet", while Trimm is a "pathological liar"
mstar1
Hi Shift I hope that you stick around! Its great to remeber why I left. They (the bible study folks) got in a hit and run accident with a neighbors car if you read the article.. as they had no park
mstar1
Im not a lawyer but I would think that there would be some legal boundaries beyond "whatever". Fundamentalist Mormons are not legally free to exercise their belief in plural marriage. David Koresh ty
mstar1
Hi Shift
I hope that you stick around! Its great to remeber why I left.
They (the bible study folks) got in a hit and run accident with a neighbors car if you read the article.. as they had no parking and were creating a public nuisance ...I suppose that you wouldnt mind getting your car destroyed or your driveway blocked as long as whoever did it was at a bible study?
You can say whatever you want, but when you start being criminally negligent, bible study or no you are still subject to the same rules and laws as everyone else in your community. Your interpretation of the bible may give you some special exemption to be any kind of a-hole that you want to be, but in the real world there are requirements to at least be civil to your neighbors. You cant run a crackhouse, in many communities you cant run abusiness out of your home and in many other communities you cant have 20 cars show up at your house unless you have made legal arrangements for safe parking. THAT group didn't, was given a chance and refused---the only 'witness' that bible study gave to the community was that they were a bunch of self centered arrogant pr*cks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
James Trimm
First of all we are not talking about civil neglect or running a crackhouse. Although there is a parallel to the crackhouse in that there was an American Indian Tribe that used an illegal hallucinogenic drug (Peyote) as part of their religion, The Supreme Court has ruled that they are not "subject to the same rules and laws as everyone else" when they use peyote in their religion.
Here the issue is itself Scripture interpretation, because Bible translation is Scripture interpretation and Scripture interpretation is doctrine. In the past the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the courts cannot hear property disputes (copyrights are property) between two religions if doing so would require the court to consider doctrine, weigh doctrine, interpret doctrine or resolve doctrinal issues. The Government cannot regulate the interpretation of the Scriptures and therefore the copyright law cannot be applied in such a way as to allow the government to regulate the interpretation of the Scriptures. The Establishment Clause forbids the government from allowing one religion to interpret Scripture in a certain way while forbidding another religion from using the same interpretation.
The Way International (“TWI”) filed this suit under the Court’s Copyright jurisdiction,
seeking recovery of damages and an injunction against James Scott Trimm and SANJ, for alleged
copyright infringement and other related causes of action in relation to the Aramaic English
Interlinear New Testament (“AEINT”).
The Way International (“TWI”) filed this suit, under the Court’s copyright law
jurisdiction, seeking recovery of damages from and injunction against The Society for the
Advancement of Nazarene Judaism (“SANJ”) and its president, James Scott Trimm. TWI claims
copyright infringement by James Scott Trimm and SANJ. TWI states in their Original
Complaint: “8. TWI is a non denominational biblical research, teaching and fellowship
ministry…. TWI has provided religious educational services… since its inception. 9. As a
provider of religious educational services, TWI has produced a wide range of religious education
materials…. 10. Among TWI’s published materials is the three-volume Aramaic-English
Interlinear New Testament (the “AEINT”)…. 13. …the AEINT shows three texts of the New
Testament side by side… The left-hand page is divided into two columns. The right column is
TWI’s word-by-word translation of its Aramaic text…. 22. Defendant Trimm has made certain
limited word substitutions throughout the HRV for the words used by TWI in the AEINT….”
Original Complaint ¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 13, 22.
TWI refers to the AEINT as a “New Testament” which is a “translation” of the
“Aramaic text” and as “religious educational material” derived from “religious education service”
as part of TWI’s “biblical research, teaching and fellowship ministry.” Clearly, “religious
education material” and “religious education services” which are part of the “teaching” of a
“ministry” are doctrine by the very definition of the word. The Bible is doctrine to a “biblical
research, teaching and fellowship ministry” by definition. If a ministry’s “teaching” and
“religious educational services/materials” are not its doctrine then the word “doctrine” can have
no meaningful definition. (The Concordance to the Pedangta Version of the Aramaic New
Testament p. 156a word no. 1262; published by TWI gives the words “teaching” and “doctrine”
as alternate translations of the same Aramaic word in the Scriptures) Moreover, “translation” is a
form of interpretation. The two words are synonyms, a “translator” is an “interpreter” because
“translation” is “interpretation.” Therefore translation of the Aramaic New Testament is by its
very nature Scripture interpretation on the most fundamental level, and thus is doctrine. Scripture
interpretation is doctrine. In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), at footnote 1, the Supreme
Court identifies the Seventh-Day Adventist’s “interpretation of the Holy Bible” as doctrine and
implicating the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Thus by the face of TWI’s pleading, the Court’s determination of this suit hinges upon
resolving a dispute between two religious groups over how doctrine may be worded because
determination in this suit hinges upon the interpretation of Scripture and particularly the wording
of the Bible. Translation of the Bible is by its very nature the interpretation of a sacred religious
text. At issue in this suit is the translation of the Ancient Aramaic New Testament version.
Scripture interpretation and therefore Bible translation by the Bible believer is not just
interpreting a Scripture simply by examining the text itself, but by reading the text with openness
to the mind of God and the Holy Spirit. See, 1 Cor. 2:12-16; James 1:5; and 1 John 2:27.
Interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an exercise of religion. Bible translation
involves examining words and phrases in a biblical language (in this case Aramaic) and
interpreting these with English words and phrases that have as close to the same meaning as
possible to the source words and phrases. When the Believer engages in this process, it involves
not only an examination of the text itself, but interpreting this text with openness to the mind of
God and the Holy Spirit. The result is Scripture interpretation and therefore doctrine on the most
fundamental level.
Plaintiff contends that the Defendants’ translation agrees too closely with their own
translation and thus that the Defendants’ translation infringes on their copyright. Plaintiff admits
that the AEINT and the HRV are not identical when Plaintiff says the HRV contains what
Plaintiff calls “word substitutions throughout.” (Defendants maintain there are many other
differences beyond “word substitutions; however, Plaintiff’s statement admits that the two
versions are not actually identical). Plaintiff in effect contends that the copyright law would
forbid Defendants from interpreting the New Testament in a manner that is similar but not
identical to Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends therefore that the copyright law may be used to prohibit
Defendants from holding to “doctrine” that is similar but not identical to Plaintiff’s doctrine.
Thus, although AEINT is property, it is also Scripture interpretation and doctrine and the Court is
barred from determining ecclesiastical questions (Scripture interpretation and doctrine) in
resolving property disputes pursuant to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and U.S.
Supreme Court case law. Thus, the Court is barred from determining if Mr. Trimm and SANJ
may interpret/translate Scripture in a given way in resolving this property dispute. Plaintiff
therefore is asking the Court to settle a dispute between two religions concerning just how a
sacred religious text may be interpreted. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear
TWI’s claims because to do so would require the court to evaluate and scrutinize, consider and
weigh interpretations of a religious text by two religions and resolve if Defendants may or may
not interpret the Bible in a given way. The Court would be asked to weigh and consider line by
line whether Defendant’s doctrine necessitates translating a given word or phrase in a given way
and even whether Defendants’ doctrine would permit translating a given word or phrase in
another way, or even whether the guidance of the Holy Spirit would allow Defendant to translate
or interpret a word or phrase in another manner. Only Defendants may determine their own
doctrine. The Aramaic text of the New Testament is doctrine, the interpretation of the Aramaic
Scripture into English is doctrine, and the guiding criteria used to choose which words and
phrases with which to interpret the Aramaic Scripture into English is doctrine. Ultimately the
decision to interpret the Aramaic Scripture in a given way is a doctrinal decision guided by the
Holy Spirit. The Court would thus be asked to weigh and consider doctrine in resolving this
property dispute. The Court would also be asked to forbid one religion from interpreting the
Bible in a given way, while allowing another religion that same interpretation, in violation of the
First Amendment.
The First Amendment requires that courts “decide church property disputes without
resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine.” Presbyterian Church in the United
States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440,448. The Supreme Court
has recognized three methods of accomplishing this goal, only one of which is relevant in this
case. Maryland & Virginia Eldership of Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, 396
U.S. 367.
The first method is Deference to Hierarchical Decision-Making Body. Civil courts may
follow Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13Wall.) 679 (1871), and its progeny, in deferring to the
decision making authorities of hierarchical churches. Maryland & Virginia Eldership of
Churches of God at 368. Through this approach the court avoids entanglement in religious issues
by accepting the decision of the established decision making body of the religious organization.
This method cannot be applied to the present case, because Plaintiff and Defendant have never
shared a mutually recognized Hierarchical Decision-Making Body.
The second method is to apply neutral principles of law. Id. at 370. However, the
Neutral Principle cannot be applied in this case because the property in question is itself doctrine,
i.e., the Bible. Normally a copyright case would be resolved largely by comparing and
scrutinizing the works in question. In this case, however, this would involve scrutinizing
Defendants’ Spirit led interpretation of Scripture (and therefore Defendants’ doctrine) which
would by its very nature fall outside the bounds of neutral principles of law. The U. S. Supreme
Court states in relation to this method that it may be used only “so long as it involves no
consideration of doctrinal matters, whether the ritual and liturgy of worship or the tenets of faith.”
Id. at 368. And “general principles of property law may not be relied upon if their application
requires civil courts to resolve doctrinal issues.” Id. at 370. The Court cannot determine by
Neutral Principles the legitimacy of Defendants’ interpretation of Scripture or his guidance by the
Holy Spirit. Moreover, the Court cannot determine through Neutral Principle if Defendants are
permitted to interpret Scripture in a given manner. Defendant’s translation choice, in each and
every instance, is by definition, Defendant’s interpretation of Scripture, and is therefore by
definition defendant’s doctrine as he was guided by the Holy Spirit. Any analysis of Defendants’
interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an analysis of Defendants’ doctrine and guidance
by the Holy Spirit, and this violates the very bounds envisioned by the First Amendment as it has
been upheld by the U. S, Supreme Court. Such an analysis would cross the line described by the
U.S. Supreme Court as “the forbidden process of interpreting and weighing church doctrine.”
Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440, 451. If the “Neutral Principle” could allow
the Court to consider, analyze, weigh and scrutinize doctrine and forbid one religious group from
interpreting Scripture in a given way, while permitting another to do so, then the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment itself would become in effect nullified by “Neutral Principle.” In
this situation Neutral Principles cannot be applied, because they cannot be applied where the
would require the court to “engage in consideration of doctrinal matters”; “resolve doctrinal
disputes” or “interpreting or weighing church doctrine”. Thus the Court is prohibited from: 1)
Consideration of doctrinal matters; 2) Interpreting church doctrine; 3) Weighing church doctrine;
and 4)Resolving doctrinal disputes.
This very case is a dispute between two churches over how one church may interpret its
Scriptures and would require the court to engage in consideration of doctrinal matters. Hearing
this case would itself be “consideration of doctrinal matters” because the translation of Scripture
is the interpretation of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture is clearly a doctrinal matter.
Hearing this case would also involve the court interpreting church doctrine in that the court would
be hearing testimony and considering evidence as to other possible translation options as well as
instances where witnesses would testify that a given translation is erroneous or awkward. This
would place the Court in the situation of itself “interpreting” these Scriptures. The Court is
clearly barred from determining whether or not a Church’s Spirit led interpretation of Scripture is
erroneous or awkward, rather than Spirit led. The court would also be asked to engage in
weighing of church doctrine. ‘Weighing’ implies a judgment rooted in comparing two or more
things. In this case the court would be weighing church doctrine in that it would be comparing
two translations and therefore weighing interpretations of Scripture. Also, the court ultimately in
this case would be asked effectively to resolve doctrinal disputes because here we have a dispute
between two ministries over how the Defendant Church may interpret Scripture and render its
doctrine through the interpretation Scripture. The copyright law cannot be used to forbid one
religious group from interpreting Scripture in a specific way, while allowing another to do so
without violating the First Amendment itself. Therefore Neutral Principles cannot be used in this
case, because hearing this case would require the court to engage in the very activities which the
US Supreme Court has specifically excluded from Neutral Principles.
Should the Court find that it has jurisdiction, all of TWI’s alleged causes of action fail to
state a claim for which relief can be granted, because they are each barred by the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an exercise of religion and specifically in
“rightly proclaiming the word of truth.” 2 Tim. 2:15 HRV. Defendants’ Hebraic Roots Version
is a translation, and therefore an interpretation of Hebrew and Aramaic religious texts and is
therefore the product of Defendants’ free exercise of religion. This Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to hear TWI’s claims because to do would require the Court to determine if it should
prohibit Defendants’ free exercise of religion in violation of the First Amendment. Accordingly,
all of TWI’s alleged causes of action fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted, because
they are each barred by the First Amendment.
TWI has requested that the Court grant them relief in the form of a preliminary and
permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants “manufacturing, printing, producing,
distributing, importing, exporting, transporting, circulating, selling, offering for sale, or otherwise
disposing of the HRV” and “That the court order the destruction of all copies of the HRV of all
plates, matrices, masters, tapes, film negatives, or other articles by means of which copies may be
reproduced, including but not limited to electronically stored copies.” Original Complaint, p. 21.
In effect, Plaintiff asks the Court to ban the version of the Bible used by SANJ and many other
Nazarene Jewish groups as their standard “Scriptures” and forbid the use of the HRV as
“doctrine.” Therefore, the relief sought by TWI is impermissible under the First Amendment and
TWI’s claim should be dismissed because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the
claim, or alternately, the relief TWI seeks is barred by the First Amendment and should be
dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
II. STATEMENT OF THE LAW
REGARDING ECCLESIASTICAL DOCTRINE
AND PROPERTY DISPUTES
The First Amendment’s mandate, “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” has been consistently
recognized and upheld by the courts of this country to require the government to refrain from
interfering with religious organizations with respect to matters of their doctrine. U.S. Const.
Amend. I.
In 1872, the U.S. Supreme Court made the following observations:
In this country the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice
any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate
the laws of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights, is
conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no
dogma, the establishment of no sect. Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679.
While TWI claims that the AEINT is “property” it is clear on the face of their complaint
that the AEINT is also doctrine in that it is “religious education material” of TWI’s “ministry” as
well as the translation (and therefore interpretation) of Scripture.
As the Supreme Court has observed, religious freedom encompasses the power of
religious bodies to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church
government as well as those of faith and doctrine. Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94.
In 1862 the U.S. Supreme Court held in a dispute between Presbyterians and Unitarians
over title to a church meetinghouse in Boston, that there was no subject matter jurisdiction to
permit an appeal from state court. Attorney General v. Federal Street Meeting-house, 66 U.S.
262.
In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Georgia court ruling holding that Civil courts
cannot, consistently with First Amendment principles, determine ecclesiastical questions in
resolving property disputes; and since the departure-from-doctrine element of Georgia's implied
trust theory requires civil courts to weigh the significance and meaning of religious doctrines, it
can play no role in judicial proceedings. Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440.
The U.S. Supreme Court observed in Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church:
It is of course true that the State has a legitimate interest in resolving property
disputes, and that a civil court is a proper forum for that resolution. Special
problems arise, however, when these disputes implicate controversies over church
doctrine and practice. The approach of this Court in such cases was originally
developed in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (1872), a pre-Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
diversity decision decided before the application of the First Amendment to the
States but nonetheless informed by First Amendment considerations. (fn4) There,
as here, civil courts were asked to resolve a property dispute between a national
Presbyterian organization and local churches of that organization. There, as here,
the disputes arose out of a controversy over church doctrine. There, as here, the
Court was asked to decree the termination of an implied trust because of
departures from doctrine by the national organization. The Watson Court refused,
pointing out that it was wholly inconsistent with the American concept of the
relationship between church and state to permit civil courts to determine
ecclesiastical questions. Id. at 446.
In language which has a clear constitutional ring, the Court went on to further state:
“In this country the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice
any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate
the laws of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights, is
conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no
dogma, the establishment of no sect. . . . All who unite themselves to such a body
[the general church] do so with an implied consent to [its] government, and are
bound to submit to it. But it would be a vain consent and would lead to the total
subversion of such religious bodies, if any one aggrieved by one of their decisions
could appeal to the secular courts and have them [sic] reversed. It is of the essence
of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of
questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all
cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism
itself provides for.” 13 Wall., at 728-729.
The logic of this language leaves the courts no role in determining ecclesiastical
questions in the process of resolving property disputes. …Any decisions which
have been made by the general church about the local churches’ withdrawal have
at most a tangential relationship to the state-fashioned departure-from-doctrine
standard. A determination whether such decisions are fraudulent, collusive, or
arbitrary would therefore not answer the questions posed by the state standard. To
reach those questions would require the civil courts to engage in the forbidden
process of interpreting and weighing church doctrine. Even if the general church
had attempted to apply the state standard, the civil courts could not review and
enforce the church decision without violating the Constitution. Presbyterian
Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440, 446-451 (1969) [Emphasis added].
Justice Brennan further noted in the same case that:
….First Amendment values are plainly jeopardized when church property
litigation is made to turn on the resolution by civil courts of controversies over
religious doctrine and practice. If civil courts undertake to resolve such
controversies in order to adjudicate the property dispute, the hazards are ever
present of inhibiting the free development of religious doctrine and of implicating
secular interests in matters of purely ecclesiastical concern. . . . [T]he [First]
Amendment therefore commands civil courts to decide church property disputes
without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine. Id. at 449
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there are limited ways to resolve property disputes
between religious bodies. The first is the approach of as articulated in the Watson case:
Thus the States may adopt the approach of Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (1872),
and enforce the property decisions made within a church of congregational polity
“by a majority of its members or by such other local organism as it may have
instituted for the purpose of ecclesiastical government,” id., at 724, and within a
church of hierarchical polity by the highest authority that has ruled on the dispute
at issue, (fn1) unless “express terms” in the “instrument by which the property is
held” condition the property's use or control in a specified manner. (fn2) Under
Watson civil courts do not inquire whether the relevant church governing body has
power under religious law to control the property in question. Such a
determination, unlike the identification of the governing body, frequently
necessitates the interpretation of ambiguous religious law and usage. To permit
civil courts to probe deeply enough into the allocation of power within a church so
as to decide where religious law places control over the use of church property
would violate the First Amendment in much the same manner as civil
determination of religious doctrine. (fn3) Similarly, where the identity of the
governing body or bodies that exercise general authority within a church is a
matter of substantial controversy, civil courts are not to make the inquiry into
religious law and usage that would be essential to the resolution of the controversy.
In other words, the use of the Watson approach is consonant with the prohibitions
of the First Amendment only if the appropriate church governing body can be
determined without the resolution of doctrinal questions and without extensive
inquiry into religious polity. (MD. & VA. Churches v. Sharpsburg CH., 396 U.S.
367, 368-370 (1970)
The Second approach is that of neutral principles of law, as the Supreme Court continued:
“[N]eutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes,”
Presbyterian Church, at 449, provide another means for resolving litigation over
religious property. Under the “formal title” doctrine, courts can determine
ownership by studying deeds, reverter clauses, and general state corporation laws.
Id. at 370.
The Supreme Court went on to state that the “Neutral Principles of law” cannot be applied
where the State would be resolving “doctrinal issues”:
Again, however, general principles of property law may not be relied upon if their
application requires civil courts to resolve doctrinal issues. For example,
provisions in deeds or in a denomination's constitution for the reversion of local
church property to the general church, if conditioned upon a finding of departure
from doctrine, could not be civilly enforced. Id. at 370.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
For everyone except James Trimm, this is very simple.
Party A (the way international, known criminal cartel)
has claimed that Party B (James Trimm)
has plagiarized a written work of theirs, and has sued over it.
Party B has 2 possible responses.
1) "I produced this work independently and I shall demonstrate how I did it!"
This indicates he honestly put in the work and can show some of it.
2) "I shall obfuscate the issues, and debate the meaning of the word 'is'."
This indicates he honestly did NOT put in the work and is trying to fog
the issues as much as possible.
Looks like we're seeing a clear example of Scenario 2.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
James Trimm
Actually the first question is: can the court hear the case without violating a little thing called the Constitution of the United States of America.
Regardless of whether item 1 is true, its frankly none of the Governments business if its none of the Governments business constitutionally.
Your logic is like saying that only a guilty person would not want his home searched without a warrant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
James,... that thing about the crackhouse and civil neglect didn't have to do with your issue.... It was addressing a side-issue someone else had brought up in this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Thanks WordWolf. James - CliffsNotes next time?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
My gathering so far---ie the Cliffnotes version:
Its nobodies business what I did but their translation work does not belong to them anyway so its not wrong--the spirit told me to do it.
Subtext--Yes I plagiarized the work but I will never admit it. I can dance around (obfusticate -h/t to Wordwolf) the legal issue forever and will. I prefer endless loopholes instead of direct truth
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bowtwi
Thank you WordWolf and mstar!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
Actually James it works like this, if your work was printed after their work and more than a certain percentage of it is Word for word the same with out noting what was copied and what is original, it is plagerized plain and simple.
Now in a court of Law, you may be able to dance around the issue all you want but that is how it works in academic circles.
I hope you really have done your own work because then you will prevail but if you are a liar and stole their work then you will get nailed
the court is not ruling on doctirne in this case but on the percentage of what has been printed word for word in each work. IF you did your work before them then you should have proof of that.
Obsfucate away buddy you may need to if you plagerized.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...
I'd understand that,... but this is more of a Jimmy took Rosie's Ball kind of thing here.
Did not!
Did so!
Did not,................
I hope standing out in the yard crying Nanny-Nanny-Boo-Boo works fer ya.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That sums it all up nicely. Good work, mstar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
They can hear any plagiarism case whenever they want. Charges of plagiarism or lack thereof
are independent of the content of the plagiarized work. If that's the extent of your defense,
you're going to get spanked by the real lawyers. The LAYMEN here can apparently fry you like a fish.
My post was a tactical assessment. For fun, I'm an armchair tactician. I look over situations
and make an appraisal of what strategies could lead to victory, and I look over strategies and
assess what they say of the people who chose them.
Sun Tzu would have pointed out that tactical assessments are to be made before any conflict,
and victory or defeat should be determined before BEGINNING the conflict. Winners won first on paper,
then went to the conflict, losers went to the conflict THEN tried to win.
There's strategies for use when one is "strong" and strategies for use when one is "weak".
In this case, arguing directly from evidence is "strong" and arguing to dismiss or disregard
evidence is "weak." So far, the "weak" argument is not good enough for a judge to take it
seriously- thus it would be a LOSING argument.
Sun Tzu said that if you were unable to fight "strong" and refused to fight with a winning "weak"
strategy, you would lose. In this case, that means you're smoked meat.
Of course, you're free to ignore everything I've said, and let the judge tell you the same thing
in different words when it will cost you thousands of dollars.
That's the strategic summary. If I can see it, real lawyers and judges can see it, too.
We've had some lengthy discussions here in the past on what is allowed and what is prohibited
under US laws concerning plagiarism. The court will rule on whether your work is plagiarized or
original. If your "argument" is based on anything else, you're going to get filleted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
The reality, James, is that you could have made your work say the same thing using different words, because (as you said) sometimes you went a bit more "literal" in your translation. I don't know why you went the doctrine route, unless it was a justification for plagiarizing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
James Trimm
I made the doctrine argument because first and foremost I want to protect our constitutional rights as an establishment of religion, and our independent rights in the free exercise of religion, to function without interference by the State. It is the equivalent of an innocent man refusing to allow his home or person to be searched without a warrant. I do not believe my forefathers surrendered to the Federal government our Yah given right as an Establishment of Religion and as individual persons in our free exercise of religion to interpret the Scriptures as we see fit.
But yes, we do have a very good affirmative argument that the HRV is an original literal translation made directly from the Aramaic (at times even more literal than the AEINT). We have an argument that any agreements are within the confines of the legal doctrine of merger. We have an argument that to any degree that it may be argued that the HRV may have relied on the AEINT was within the four criteria laid out in the legal definition of "Fair Use". We also have an argument that to any degree that it may be argued that the HRV may have relied on the AEINT was permitted by an implied license. And on top of this there are a number of First Amendment issued to boot.
Edited by James TrimmLink to comment
Share on other sites
James Trimm
Actually no. Plagiarism is an academic term, not a legal term. The issue here is copyright infringement.
Plagiarism is also not a Scriptural concept. For example the Synoptic Gospels in modern terms might be accused of "plagiarizing" from one another. 2Peter might be said to have "plagiarized" from Jude. The author of 1&2 Chronicles (traditionally Ezra) might be said to have "plagiarized" from the books of Samuel and Kings. Clearly there was no concept of "plagiarism" among the Biblical authors.
Now there are a LOT of issues involved in Copyright law, that might or might not pertain to so-called "plagiarism", issues such as the legal doctrine of Merger, the Fair Use law, implied license etc.
I made the doctrine argument because first and foremost I want to protect our constitutional rights as an establishment of religion, and our independent rights in the free exercise of religion, to function without interference by the State. It is the equivalent of an innocent man refusing to allow his home or person to be searched without a warrant. I do not believe my forefathers surrendered to the Federal government our Yah given right as an Establishment of Religion and as individual persons in our free exercise of religion to interpret the Scriptures as we see fit.
But yes, we do have a very good affirmative argument that the HRV is an original literal translation made directly from the Aramaic (at times even more literal than the AEINT). We have an argument that any agreements are within the confines of the legal doctrine of merger. We have an argument that to any degree that it may be argued that the HRV may have relied on the AEINT was within the four criteria laid out in the legal definition of "Fair Use". We also have an argument that to any degree that it may be argued that the HRV may have relied on the AEINT was permitted by an implied license. And on top of this there are a number of First Amendment issued to boot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
James Trimm
[
My post was a tactical assessment. For fun, I'm an armchair tactician. I look over situations
and make an appraisal of what strategies could lead to victory, and I look over strategies and
assess what they say of the people who chose them.
I can appreciate that. I am a chess player. Anyway this could be settled soon, or it could end up dragging on for years with appeals and so on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[You're going to make an argument that the First Amendment clause of freedom of
religion means you're entitled to infringe copyright?
All I have left to say is, go for it, and let us know what happens.]
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
James Trimm
[You're going to make an argument that the First Amendment clause of freedom of
religion means you're entitled to infringe copyright?
All I have left to say is, go for it, and let us know what happens.]
It appears you are not familiar with the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is not a clause, it contains several clauses, two of which pertain to the freedom of religion (others pertain to free speech and free press). The two clauses pertaining to religion are the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
The Establishment Clause forbids congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion.
The Free Exercise Clause guarantees the individual to freely exercise religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shiftthis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shiftthis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
But the lawsuit is not about the exercise of religious freedom. You are just using that argument as a way to distract from the real issue which is Copy right infringment (Plagerism, by any other name is still plagerism)
You are selling for profit a book that may or may not have large sections of it copied from another book.
You can do your whole song and dance but it is still what is being argued in court.
The issue is not whether or not you can practice your religion it is DID YOU STEAL your work from this other book.
IT sound like you may have done just that in your own words because they are translating the Bible you can use their work to make a bible and say you did the work, by just changeing a phrase here and there. IT is still stealing.
Maybe I am just a layman but the truth is the truth no matter how much you try to bury it in Dung!
Edited by leafytwigletLink to comment
Share on other sites
James Trimm
Last I checked the copyright law was created by congress and therefore subject to the boundaries Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
And as such it is subject to the same jurisdiction amd management by the same government.
By the way did I not say that stealing a copy righted book is not included in your first amendment rights. I am pretty sure I said that.
And just so you do not think I am picking on You Mr. Trimm For the purposes of our discussion lets assume you did not steal the work done by the translation department of The Way International. Lets assume you took the time yourself, to actually translate that work, word for word, as you say. Then I am sure the Court will find in your favor, provided you have proof that you translated your document from the same manuscripts that they did, and that you, or people who were working for you, were doing the actual translation. Which means you have some kind of notes and such that you used to do your translating. Translating takes a lot of note taking and paperwork. I assume since you are so certain that you will prevail in court, that you have credentials showing you have mastered the language and the writing and the traditions and lifestyle of these people. Because just translating from a manuscript word for word, would not produce a concise accurate document.
I do want to point something interesting out to you about translation of material word for word. it never ever is exactly the same. unless it is some thing simple like Sally ran fast.
even that little phrase can be interpreted several ways.
For any one interested in actually seeing what copyright law actually covers
The blue text below is a quick synopsis, for more indepth detail you can go to this link , where I obtained this information. Which is from the Us Copyright office.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf on 4/12/10
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States
(title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of original works of authorship, including
literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This
protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106
of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive
right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or
other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and
choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual
works;
To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and
choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural
works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual
work; and
In the case of sound recordings,* to perform the work publicly by means of
a digital audio transmission.
In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution
and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For
further information, see Circular 40, Copyright Registration for Works of the
Visual Arts.
It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright
law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in
scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations
on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from
copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of fair use, which
is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other
instances, the limitation takes the form of a compulsory license under which
certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of
specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information
about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or
write to the Copyright Office.
For any one who is curious what the first amendment actualy says and what it covers by Law
here you go. The text below in green is a brief discripotion and you can go to my link for more information, which I obtained from Justice Learning a web site set up by NPR and the NEw York Times to help teachers educate people about their rights as citizens.
From This web site http://www.justicelearning.org/justice_timeline/Amendments.aspx
on 4/12/10
First Amendment - The Text
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the states twelve proposed amendments. Two of these, which involved congressional representation and pay, were not adopted. The remaining ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified on December 15, 1791.
First Amendment - The Meaning
Freedom of Speech and of the Press: The First Amendment allows citizens to express and to be exposed to a wide range of opinions and views. It was intended to ensure a free exchange of ideas even if the ideas are unpopular.
Freedom of speech encompasses not only the spoken and written word, but also all kinds of expression (including non-verbal communications, such as sit-ins, art, photographs, films and advertisements). Under its provisions, the media including television, radio and the Internet is free to distribute a wide range of news, facts, opinions and pictures. The amendment protects not only the speaker, but also the person who receives the information. The right to read, hear, see and obtain different points of view is a First Amendment right as well.
But the right to free speech is not absolute. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government sometimes may be allowed to limit speech. For example, the government may limit or ban libel (the communication of false statements about a person that may injure his or her reputation), obscenity, fighting words, and words that present a clear and present danger of inciting violence. The government also may regulate speech by limiting the time, place or manner in which it is made. For example the government may require activists to obtain a permit before holding a large protest rally on a public street.
Freedom of Assembly and Right to Petition the Government: The First Amendment also protects the freedom of assembly, which can mean physically gathering with a group of people to picket or protest; or associating with one another in groups for economic, political or religious purposes.
The First Amendment also protects the right not to associate, which means that the government cannot force people to join a group they do not wish to join. A related right is the right to petition the government, including everything from signing a petition to filing a lawsuit.
Freedom of Religion: The First Amendment's free exercise clause allows a person to hold whatever religious beliefs he or she wants, and to exercise that belief by attending religious services, praying in public or in private, proselytizing or wearing religious clothing, such as yarmulkes or headscarves. Also included in the free exercise clause is the right not to believe in any religion, and the right not to participate in religious activities.
Second, the establishment clause prevents the government from creating a church, endorsing religion in general, or favoring one set of religious beliefs over another. As the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, the establishment clause was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and state," although the degree to which government should accommodate religion in public life has been debated in numerous Supreme Court decisions since then.
Sorry for the length but If we really are to discuss this we need to know what it all really says, not what some one tells us it says.
edited to fix some typos
Edited by leafytwigletLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.