Steve, or Moderators: A Question About Links

[Guest]

Does anyone know if the 2,000 words is the acceptable standard? It might actually have been only 500 words...I honestly can't remember!

There is no real limit and no real safe harbor -- it's very much situation dependent.

Yes, a snippet is probably safer, but as material often disappears, a full quote provides historic context for the commentary -- hence, some really good first amendment arguments -- I think if the situation allows for snippets, they're a good idea, unless that would take the quote out of context.

[Guest]

Hello Darin,

There is no real limit and no real safe harbor -- it's very much situation dependent.

Yes, a snippet is probably safer, but as material often disappears, a full quote provides historic context for the commentary -- hence, some really good first amendment arguments -- I think if the situation allows for snippets, they're a good idea, unless that would take the quote out of context.

As to "safety" (in the sense of not doing anything illegal) I've had the same practise since I got on the internet in 2000:
(1) Give the link from where you quoted,
(2) Name what you quoted,
(3) Name who you quoted,
(4) Comment on the quotation at least minimally in order to foster further discussion.
(5) Though it's not required, I usually "name" the link rather than just post the URL.

Snippets.
Much more common on blogs than forums.
Usually a kind of "referral" to "more" than actually posting something for discussion (bloggers do a different kind of surfing than we forums afficianados...though I do both). I prefer forums, and really only post here @ FBFF these days. Blogs are okay...but the topics quickly "come & go" and if you don't post for a couple days, the discussions die-down or "end!" (by then I'm often only just beginning to study the topic at hand)!
Too many blogs have ADD,

I agree with you about snippets and context.
Just a snippet, by itself, usually doesn't really give context.

On the "2000 words" thing I was trying to remember.
Upon further reflection, one more weekend day of rest, and a couple really strong cups of jaw...it seems that "2000 words" is often the recommended limit to the length of posts on many forums & blogs. On P&P (Parchment & Pen blog) if you go over 2000 words...it will just stop there and your entire post won't get posted....

Quoting without commentary.
Generally unacceptable. Especially so when it is done repeatedly. Of course, it depends on the context and situation of the discussion. My "So What?" NTW post didn't lead to much discussion and my limited comments about it were all I really needed to say.

My new job on 2nd shift is probably going to lead me back into doing more stuff on the internet. (One misses so much "stuff people do" on this shift). I've never been able to enjoy my day...knowing that I have to go to work later. As a result, when I'm on 2nd shift, I get off work and enjoy studying stuff and posting on the web...till right around when the birds start chirping, 8), and sleep till about an hour before I gotta go to work....

This is getting too autobiographical!
Maybe I'll get back on 1st shift some day and "have a life!"
Thanks,

[Guest]

Out of curiosity, I just went back to Beliefnet and my "old haunt" (fave board) of "C2CD" (Christian-to-Christian Debate) to see what's new.

I found a thread by a Beliefnet Staffer named BeliefnetSabee,
(who I kind of know, she's very nice), (@ this link) where she wrote:

Post title: "Reminder About Intellectual Property Rights"
Gentle reminder here, regarding posting material copied from other sources on Beliefnet boards. It is a violation of the Rules to post material which violates intellectual property rights.

If you feel that you must use information composed by someone else, as a point of reference for your discussions, it is alright to do so provided you have permission from the author and give proper credit to the source. Please try to limit the sharing to a small clipping and provide a link to the source.

For your convenience, here is a link:
http://www.beliefnet.com/about/rules.asp (a link to Bnet's Rules of Conduct)

I'd do not GET it!

How could Bishop N.T. Wright, for example, "give permission to quote himself" the hundreds of times he is probably quoted per day????

He'd be bombarded with emails!
(Btw, what IS his email address, anyway)?

This is whacky, imo,
Doesn't make one bit of sense to me! Not in the least,
--------------------------------------------------------

"Dear Steve Gregg, Bishop Wright, Michael Patton, Larry Hurtado, Karl Barth (who has died and who owns his rights?), Al Mohler, Bart Ehrman, Richard Bauckham, Stephan Hoeller, Richard Land, James White, J.D Crossan, Elaine Pagels, John Shelby Spong, Mike Lacona, tartanarmy, Homer, Michelle, Rick_C (ooops, I guess I don't count), Charles Stanley, Bill Moyers, John Hagee, Tim LaHaye, G.K. Beale, Gordon Fee, Danny, Paidion, Hal Lindsay, D.A. Carson, John Piper, John Wesley (another passed away guy), Jeff McDonald, Sean, Hank, Norman Geisler, and tons of other folks I don't have time to think of, leave alone type out right now (but yer included, if you don't mind):

Re: May I quote you on the interent? (and how often do I have to ask your permission)?

May I quote you on the internet?

If so, may I have a "one time permission"?
Or do you want me to email you every single time I quote you?

I know you must be very busy.

Thanks for your time,
Rick_C"
---------------------------------------------------

WhaT??????????

[Guest]

If you feel that you must use information composed by someone else, as a point of reference for your discussions, it is alright to do so provided you have permission from the author and give proper credit to the source. Please try to limit the sharing to a small clipping and provide a link to the source.

We do have to go to that trouble at the company I work for in our publications, but that's because we're a commercial enterprise and that sort of supercedes the other factors of fair use. I think people have taken these things too far in the private realm (my personal opinion), and that if we allow such narrow-minded legalism in fair use to continue, it will be established as the norm and the courts will require such narrow use rights -- this is how the law evolves, which is why I take a more liberal (or libertarian) approach to fair use than some. It's a way of protecting our rights in a way.

[Guest]

We do have to go to that trouble at the company I work for in our publications, but that's because we're a commercial enterprise and that sort of supercedes the other factors of fair use. I think people have taken these things too far in the private realm (my personal opinion), and that if we allow such narrow-minded legalism in fair use to continue, it will be established as the norm and the courts will require such narrow use rights -- this is how the law evolves, which is why I take a more liberal (or libertarian) approach to fair use than some. It's a way of protecting our rights in a way.

I work in education, which gives me, at work, more latitude in fair use. Perhaps that's why I don't balk at the restrictions; they seem fair to me.

I think this forum could be considered a non-profit educational enterprise, and if so, I think the same fair use guidelines should apply that I follow at work.

In the situation that started the discussion between Rick and me, it is Beliefnet that holds the copyright to the article. Beliefnet derives revenue from advertising based on traffic at their website. Their traffic is fierce! If all the people registered here logged on at the same time over there, it would hardly make a difference in the number of hits they receive on a given day. However, hits is how they get income and by pasting the entire article here, they were deprived of a few hits. I realize that it won't ever be noticed, but, to me, it's analogous to eating a handful of grapes while grocery shopping and rationalizing that the supermarket chain makes millions of dollars so they won't notice the loss of the few cents that the grapes would have fetched. I feel it's just as wrong to steal the grapes as it is to steal the intellectual property that belongs to a website.

I believe that fair use is the compromise between no access, which would make it impossible to share ideas; and a total free-for-all, which might make it unprofitable for anyone to host the kinds of articles that are in our interest to have available. It seems to me the end result of either extreme would be similar -- the hampering of healthy exchange of ideas.

If getting permission from the copyright holder is too intimidating or time consuming, I think the "snippet" solution is a good one. Here's how I would've handled the post where Rick had originally put the article:

Paul says, "It [the dead physical body] is raised a spiritual body." N.T. Wright explains this as: The resurrection body is "animated by [the Holy] Spirit" (and I think he's nailed Paul on this). So, in Platonic thought; there was no such thing as a "spiritual body." Only the spirit exists after physical life...as many Christians also wrongly believe they "will be in heaven forever" (without their bodies)....

I found an interesting article over at beliefnet where Laura Sheahen interviews N.T. Wright and he says this very thing. Here's an excerpt from the article where Wright puts his thoughts into clear, concise language:

(the bold parts are Laura Sheahen, the regular type is N.T. Wright's answers)

A lot of scholars seem to look at the Pauline phrase which in Greek is "pneumatic" body and in English is "spiritual" body, and they seem to think the resurrection won't be physical at all.

The word "spiritual" in 1 Corinthians 15 comes from the Greek "pneuma." But the word is pneumatikos. Greek adjectives that end in -kos do not describe the substance out of which something is made. They describe the force that is animating the thing in question. It's the difference between saying on the one hand, "Is this a wooden ship or a steel ship?" and saying on the other hand, "Is this a nuclear-powered ship or a steam-powered ship?" And the sort of adjective it is of the latter type, it's a spirit-powered body.

But it's still a ship.

Exactly! But it's still a body...

N.T.Wright fleshes out his thoughts in this article. It's short and a quick read; I would encourage everyone to read the entire article, it's that good!

source

That only took me ten minutes to produce and I'm using an old piece of junk computer that balks at copy and paste commands frequently.

Anyhoo...that's my opinion. I realize that I said I would just lurk and shake, but I felt like saying something, so I did.