Volatility of Digital Content

A rising concern regards the possibility that original published digital content could be modified (consider author Roald Dahl's situation, situation has thankfully been reversed) by publishers or adversaries, internally or externally. This concern doesn't just arise from me, a 25 year professional in the data engineering field, but others in the church. Individuals are expressing concern of bringing digital copies of their Bibles to church. I do value the availability of a physical book. However, I greatly appreciate Logos, the program, and having access to my library wherever I go.

Point: Perhaps it would be wise of Logos to articulate or re-emphasize their commitment to protecting digital copies. Additionally, it might also be wise to consider and address this emerging threat horizon to manipulate digital stores.

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

EastTN

Point: Perhaps it would be wise of Logos to articulate or re-emphasize their commitment to protecting digital copies.

This is particularly relevant in a scholarly context, where a particular edition of a work will be quoted by other scholars. It's one thing if new editions are edited, but if I quote or cite the current edition of something, it's a problem if readers in the future follow my citation to the edition I was using and see something different than I did.

JT (alabama24)

Perhaps it would be wise of Logos to articulate or re-emphasize their commitment to protecting digital copies

As I understand your concern, this isn't the role of Logos, but of the publisher.

For example: When a typo is found in a resource, Logos checks to see if the typo is a result of THIER error (conversion problem, etc). If it is, they fix it. If not, however, and the error is found to be in the original... they report the issue to the publisher and do nothing more unless the publisher makes the change.

Logos is not in the business of making editorial changes (other than in their own books) in resources... and should not be. Therefore, there is nothing to "recommit" to.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1267216#Comment_1267216

For example: When a typo is found in a resource, Logos checks to see if the typo is a result of THIER error (conversion problem, etc). If it is, they fix it. If not, however, and the error is found to be in the original... they report the issue to the publisher and do nothing more unless the publisher makes the change.

Logos is not in the business of making editorial changes (other than in their own books) in resources... and should not be. Therefore, there is nothing to "recommit" to.

I don't think the ask of Logos is that they commit to never changing a book - that is the publishers decision. Rather, it's that they commit to:

Distinguishing any materially altered version as a distinct, updated work from the original, and
Continuing to support the original version for those who have already purchased it.

In other words, it should work just like a paper version. If I have the original on my shelf, I can keep it. If the publisher makes a change to the text, I can buy another copy. In that case, I'd have two versions on my shelf, and could choose to read either one - or even compare the two to each other to see what's changed.

My personal concern - and what I suspect the original poster was concerned about - would be "stealth" changes to books in my library. It's one thing to fix a typo or formatting issue. But it would be a problem if a routine update made a material change to a work that I've quoted in a paper, such that if someone goes back and looks at it they'll find fundamentally different text than I quoted.

I don't think FaithLife would do that. But it would be nice to have a commitment that we won't wake up one morning and find that our library has been bowdlerized overnight.

Patrick Curry

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1267216#Comment_1267216

Patrick Curry

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1267221#Comment_1267221

You are correct. Thank you!

Patrick Curry

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1267216#Comment_1267216

Perhaps it would be wise of Logos to articulate or re-emphasize their commitment to protecting digital copies

As I understand your concern, this isn't the role of Logos, but of the publisher.

For example: When a typo is found in a resource, Logos checks to see if the typo is a result of THIER error (conversion problem, etc). If it is, they fix it. If not, however, and the error is found to be in the original... they report the issue to the publisher and do nothing more unless the publisher makes the change.

Logos is not in the business of making editorial changes (other than in their own books) in resources... and should not be. Therefore, there is nothing to "recommit" to.

Thank your for your response and transparency. However, my comments were not regarding editorial changes or typos. Radical efforts from publishers have already emerged changing content (reference my previous). Your response seems to confirm concerns - that if any like series of publications has an ownership or ideological change, that publisher's content modifications would be passed through to Logos users. Thank you again for your transparency. Unfortunately, this does not abate this concern.

If these concerns appear outside the scope of Logos library curation scope, I'm not sure where that puts digital content subscribers.

Patrick Curry

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1267221#Comment_1267221

For example: When a typo is found in a resource, Logos checks to see if the typo is a result of THIER error (conversion problem, etc). If it is, they fix it. If not, however, and the error is found to be in the original... they report the issue to the publisher and do nothing more unless the publisher makes the change.

Logos is not in the business of making editorial changes (other than in their own books) in resources... and should not be. Therefore, there is nothing to "recommit" to.

I don't think the ask of Logos is that the commit to never changing a book - that is the publishers decision. Rather, it's that they commit to:

Distinguishing any materially altered version as a distinct, updated work from the original, and

Continuing to support the original version for those who have already purchased it.

In other words, it should work just like a paper version. If I have the original on my shelf, I can keep it. If the publisher makes a change to the text, I can buy another copy. In that case, I'd have two versions on my shelf, and could choose to read either one - or even compare the two to each other to see what's changed.

My personal concern - and what I suspect the original poster was concerned about - would be "stealth" changes to books in my library. It's one thing to fix a typo or formatting issue. But it would be a problem if a routine update made a material change to a work that I've quoted in a paper, such that if someone goes back and looks at it they'll find fundamentally different text than I quoted.

I don't think FaithLife would do that. But it would be nice to have a commitment that we won't wake up one morning and find that our library has been bowdlerized overnight.

Agreed and thank you

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1267226#Comment_1267226

that if any like series of publications has an ownership or ideological change, that publisher's content modifications would be passed through to Logos users

I didn't say they would.

Logos doesn't make changes in resources unless they have to do so. If the licensing agreement is such that a change must be made, then the change must be made. Publishers may have "ideologies" and "agendas," however agenda #1 is making money. In light of that, if there are changes, they would come to new editions of a resource. The publisher (and author) have every right to make the changes they see fit. If they make changes to NEW editions, you can choose not to buy them. If you have the old edition, you can keep it, unchanged.

To summarize:

1. If there is an already published resource in the catalog (same edition) which MUST be changed due to licensing agreements, it must be changed. There is nothing Logos can do about it.

2. In all likelihood, changes like these come to NEW editions, which are viewed as NEW resources, which the customer has to pay to receive. They don't impact current editions.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1267269#Comment_1267269

JT, first, thank you for your help and insights. This comment is intended to clarify - not to stir the pot. I think it's the "In all likelihood..." in the point below that creates some potential heartburn. As you correctly noted, Logos has to abide by all of its contractual obligations. But one unsettling aspect of the digital world in general is that digital works are inherently impermanent and subject to change. It would be unfortunate if we eventually have to add an "(accessed on [date])" to citations we make to books in our Logos library. I don't think that's going to happen, but if authors and publishers were to begin using contract terms to force digital distributors like Logos to make material changes to existing editions of works, it could happen. As someone who grew up with paper books, I'd personally find that deeply unsettling.

2. In all likelihood, changes like these come to NEW editions, which are viewed as NEW resources, which the customer has to pay to receive. They don't impact current editions.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1267357#Comment_1267357

I can appreciate that... but there is nothing you, I, or even Logos can do about it.

We don't own the "books" we have in Logos. We own a license. That license gives us (and Logos) certain privileges and obligations. If a user doesn't like those terms, there is nothing else to do except not to "purchase" eBooks at all.

Dave Hooton

Patrick,

A rising concern regards the possibility that original published digital content could be modified

Try to address concerns like this in the General forum.

This Logos 9 forum has been superseded and is part of a forum that addresses software issues.