On 9/15/06, Varvel, Virgil <vvarvel[_at_]uillinois.edu> wrote:
>
> Is it a copyright violation then?
To repeat what I wrote in my older post, except for the works covered by Section 106A in the U.S. copyright law, the answer is no.
> More
> scholarly argumentation would then ask if it is plagiarism?
Whatever the academia thinks has no relevance to the copyright law. If the choir was not doing the song for course credit, there is no plagiarism. The rules created by the academia for plagiarism are driven by the mythical, romantic concept of author (where author is seen as a god that creates new works out of nothing and must be treated with high reverence) and very huge egoism.
> More
> religious connotations would ask why a 'Christian' artist wouldn't give
> credit anyway too I guess.
Where in the Scriptures does it require a believer to give attribution? It is a man-made rule invented by the believers to impose the burden on the people to provide attribution. Secondly, most of them are hypocritical where they say that they want attribution to their works but they never give attribution to the sources that they used to create their own works. Thirdly, the requirement to give attribution is contrary to the spirit of "freely received, freely give". I would go on and on but like the above, whatever they think has no relevance to the copyright law.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<josephpietrojeungriolo[_at_]gmail.com>
Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923 in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright owners' prisons: 4,489
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. Received on Mon Sep 18 2006 - 20:45:30 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:57 GMT