How Will Logos/Faithlife Handle This?
Comments
-
Jack Caviness said:Todd Phillips said:
You probably get more in resale value now that the books are off the market
Only problem—You cannot break a set.
D'oh. Solution: Sell the whole set - rebuy current set.
MacBook Pro (2019), ThinkPad E540
0 -
Best solution: Sell your entire Logos library and re-buy all your books in paperback. I'm sure CBD misses your business!
0 -
ah CBD...its been so longs since I even got flyer from them...
0 -
Everett Headley said:
ah CBD...its been so longs since I even got flyer from them...
I remember when they used to sell Libronix software.
0 -
Everett Headley said:
ah CBD...its been so longs since I even got flyer from them...
Really? I still get catalogs monthly, and I haven't bought from them in 10 years(?). Sometimes I get two at a time.
MacBook Pro (2019), ThinkPad E540
0 -
Todd Phillips said:Everett Headley said:
ah CBD...its been so longs since I even got flyer from them...
Really? I still get catalogs monthly, and I haven't bought from them in 10 years(?). Sometimes I get two at a time.
They're somewhat consistently cheaper than Amazon, but I find the tagging of paperbacks pretty poor.
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
-
Everett Headley said:
I'd like to know what the return value would be before making a decision. Academically, it's dead to me. Pastoral lyrics there's probably still value. However there are other books I'd value more in Logos.
I agree with this as well.
Pastor, Mt. Leonard Baptist Church, SBC
0 -
Quick update (sorry to be brief but I'm out of the office):
We will be working with Eerdmans to offer credits for those who want to return them. If you want to keep them you can--we will not take them away from you.
There are a few details we need to work out on our end to figure out the credits (e.g. dynamic pricing considerations).
When I get back in the office I'll work on getting something put together and post here with our plan.
Thanks!
Senior Director, Content Products
0 -
Interesting take on this issue from Stanley E. Porter:
0 -
Thanks Paul for posting the link to the Porter article.
0 -
Paul-C said:
Interesting take on this issue from Stanley E. Porter:
a superb analysis of the situation. Thank you for the link.
0 -
Jack Caviness said:Paul-C said:
Interesting take on this issue from Stanley E. Porter:
a superb analysis of the situation. Thank you for the link.
Indeed!
0 -
Bill Cook said:Jack Caviness said:Paul-C said:
Interesting take on this issue from Stanley E. Porter:
a superb analysis of the situation. Thank you for the link.
Well said Mr. Stanley, well said!!! I'm keeping my copies too! 👍
Let the weak in conscience return their copies...hehehe...😜
Indeed!
0 -
Everett Headley said:
ah CBD...its been so longs since I even got flyer from them...
I'm not sure how they are still in business. Perhaps a large part of their income now comes from selling Christian homeschool material. Which, by the way, I believe Faithlife/Lexham/Vryso should try their luck at.
As for the topic at hand, I've decided to keep my commentaries, but still wish they would refund "partial" credit back to those who bought them and want to keep them. This needs to be the third option. I don't mind paying for the books, but the price I originally paid was based on the original academic value this resource was suppose to provide. Since this academic value has decreased, so should the original price paid.
0 -
Josh said:
Since this academic value has decreased, so should the original price paid.
As Stanley Porter pointed out in the linked article, O'Brien merely did what almost every other commentary writer does. He just got called out for what is —to all intents and purposes—normal practice. If the academic value of his commentaries is decreased, then honesty would require that the academic value of 95% of all other commentaries should also be decreased.
0 -
Jack Caviness said:
O'Brien merely did what almost every other commentary writer does. He just got called out for what is —to all intents and purposes—normal practice.
Okay, I stayed out of this but . . . The concept of an author owning their work is quite new - think 4 centuries or so ... So much of Porter's argument is anachronistic. Even so, ancient authors often specify their sources, when the resources to do so were available ... think of the authors we know only from the quotes in other authors or the the catenas ...
As for the self-evident point that current commentaries draw on the knowledge of previous commentaries without always giving credit, remember the rule of thumb for when information is "common knowledge" and therefore no longer requires attribution: "Generally speaking, you can regard something as common knowledge if you find the same information undocumented in at least five credible sources. Additionally, it might be common knowledge if you think the information you're presenting is something your readers will already know, or something that a person could easily find in general reference sources."
There are more subtle forms of plagarism beyond n consecutive words copied: see http://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/what-constitutes-plagiarism
I fully accept the explanation that work flow created the problem ... it is very easy to develop such work flows with the ease of web access and copy & paste. But any undergraduate should have the rules in their head by the end of their first year. And sloppy work habits may well be indicative of sloppy thinking habits. So sorry, I have no sympathy for an author who got caught for multiple publications having refractions.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Josh said:
Since this academic value has decreased, so should the original price paid.
Well, in that case we should be able to get partial refunds for thousands of books whose "academic value" has decreased. I am not just talking about plagiarism, but those books that once were held in high regard by the academic guild that have now been discredited or proved to be built on faulty argumentation. I just do not know how an argument like this is sustainable.
Cliff
My Blog: Theological Musings
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
There are more subtle forms of plagarism beyond n consecutive words copied: see http://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/what-constitutes-plagiarism
I fully accept the explanation that work flow created the problem ... it is very easy to develop such work flows with the ease of web access and copy & paste. But any undergraduate should have the rules in their head by the end of their first year. And sloppy work habits may well be indicative of sloppy thinking habits. So sorry, I have no sympathy for an author who got caught for multiple publications having refractions.
From what I've examined just doing Logos searches, this is beyond just reusing ideas. O'Brien often cites his sources without using explicit quotes, but his method of paraphrasing them is to change a word or two here and remove a few others--the kind of stuff high school students get in trouble for. Illegitimate paraphrasing is shown on this page: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/619/1/ and O'Brien is clearly doing that.
I'd have trouble quoting him knowing that they aren't really his words--but neither are they the exact words of the source, so I can't quote them as the source, either. Here's an example:
Hellenistic literary devices, such as repetition, anaphora, inclusio, parallelism, rhetorical questions, direct address to the listeners, oratorical imperative, ‘hook words’, and the like were employed by the author as he composed his ‘word of exhortation’ to be read aloud in the congregation to which it was addressed.
Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 24.Devices like repetition, anaphora, inclusio, responsio, parallelism, catchword association, oratorical imperatives, direct address to the listeners, rhetorical questions, “hook-words,” and the like are present in Hebrews because of the need to provide oral assistance to the listeners.
William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, vol. 47A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), lxxv.MacBook Pro (2019), ThinkPad E540
0 -
That is troubling...
0 -
Todd Phillips said:
From what I've examined just doing Logos searches, this is beyond just reusing ideas. O'Brien often cites his sources without using explicit quotes, but his method of paraphrasing them is to change a word or two here and remove a few others--the kind of stuff high school students get in trouble for. Illegitimate paraphrasing is shown on this page: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/619/1/ and O'Brien is clearly doing that.
I have learned that my attempted defense of O'Brien was quite premature. When I was working with the an introduction to Philippians, I read Bruce's Apostle of the Heart Set Free on Philippi. Then, when I read O'Brien's introduction in NIGTC, it was extremely close—something that definitely should have required citation. Then, another paragraph read very much like comments made by Gerald Hawthorne (WBC). This is much more than the situations Porter described in the article I cited in my previous post.
If anyone wants the references to those two examples, I can go back and find them again.
0 -
See for some nuance this blog from Stanley Porter:
The Shocking News of Peter O’Brien and Plagiarism: August is the Cruellest Month
MacOS Sierra / Logos 7 Collector's Edition & All Base Packages / Logos Now
0 -
Hans K said:
See for some nuance this blog from Stanley Porter:
The last few comments have been replying to/building on an earlier post linking to that article.
0 -
Clifford B. Kvidahl said:Josh said:
Since this academic value has decreased, so should the original price paid.
Well, in that case we should be able to get partial refunds for thousands of books whose "academic value" has decreased. I am not just talking about plagiarism, but those books that once were held in high regard by the academic guild that have now been discredited or proved to be built on faulty argumentation. I just do not know how an argument like this is sustainable.
Cliff
That's not what I meant by academic value. I meant the value of a work as a citable source in other scholarly work.
0 -
-
Did This get forgotten? It's been 36 days since this news broke.
0 -
See this thread:
0 -
Steven Leavitt said:
See this thread:
That is a distinct issue and a different commentary, by a different publisher. Presumably the events of this thread caused the notice of that one.
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
What would be the best recommendation for this?
Should I either return the volumes back to Logos for a refund, or would they still be beneficial to me in my personal Bible study and I should just leave them in my library?
If I choose to leave them in my library, should I tag them as resources not to cite (some form of "Do Not Cite" tagging so I can remember not to cite them in any future academic papers? Should I refrain from citing them in future academic papers should I choose to keep them?
Thanks!
Nathan Parker
Visit my blog at http://focusingonthemarkministries.com
0 -
Wow and FL just realized this now. How incompetent the editors of the James EEC who missed this, after spending money on the volume and even putting a mobile Ed for it. How come they haven't said anything about pulling out the Mobile Ed on James since it's pretty much based on the EEC and the author's "research"?
All this fuss for nonsense that has been going on for years. Most commentaries are written like this. Example: "As so and so aptly stated...as so and so rightly observed...as so and so put it...so and so's comments summarize the issue..." AND on and on the similar phrases go and many times only another author's name is mentioned and not the actual written source. Since when do we have to "copyright" our comments on the Bible? I'm sure God must be looking down on this man-made mess and is probably either laughing at it or saying, "Oh boy, judgement day is gonna be full of surprises!" Shame, shame!
DAL
0 -
Nathan Parker said:
If I choose to leave them in my library, should I tag them as resources not to cite (some form of "Do Not Cite" tagging so I can remember not to cite them in any future academic papers? Should I refrain from citing them in future academic papers should I choose to keep them?
Thanks!
It's a good question. It sounds like the content is still excellent, but who wrote what is the question.
I plan on keeping mine, but I'm not sure about the citation issue. I should do something as a reminder, because 5 years from now I'll have long forgotten this issue and I don't want to attribute information to one author when it really belongs to another.
0 -
Nathan Parker said:
What would be the best recommendation for this?
Should I either return the volumes back to Logos for a refund, or would they still be beneficial to me in my personal Bible study and I should just leave them in my library?
If I choose to leave them in my library, should I tag them as resources not to cite (some form of "Do Not Cite" tagging so I can remember not to cite them in any future academic papers? Should I refrain from citing them in future academic papers should I choose to keep them?
I too plan on keeping mine but citing is another issue. Perhaps your tag "Do Not Cite" may be the best approach.
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
At an undergrad level you might get away with it. At Grad school level, it would be discouraged. If you wrote a dissertation and tried to defend it, I am sure it would get hit. I tend to look at bibliographies first when reading someone's paper.
I, personally, would never cite it.
0 -
Everett Headley said:
Did This get forgotten? It's been 36 days since this news broke.
We haven't forgotten. We've had to work out a few details on our end and with Eerdmans and had a number of other things come up in between. I'll see exactly where we're at on this and post here later today.
Senior Director, Content Products
0 -
DAL said:
How come they haven't said anything about pulling out the Mobile Ed on James since it's pretty much based on the EEC and the author's "research"?
The Lexham Press and Mobile Ed teams have both based our decisions on compelling evidence. Lexham had strong evidence that EEC James was compromised, and (thankfully) we’ve found no evidence that Varner’s Mobile Ed course is problematic. A highly technical exegetical commentary is a very different context than an accessible course introducing an audience to the broad scope of James, which is also important to keep in mind. Mobile Ed and Lexham Press are equally committed to scholarly care and integrity. Finally, just as we have multiple speakers on other biblical books, we’re actively working on one or possibly more courses dealing with James from other speakers. Hope that helps clarify things.
0 -
Thanks everyone for your feedback.
For now, I've tagged both resources in my library with the tag "Do Not Cite" (one could shorten the tag to donotcite or something along those lines, but I chose the above so it would really stand out in my library not to cite these two resources in any future academic papers as my seminary has highly recommended Pillar before, and I may accidentally cite them if I forget).
Since I'm in a M Div at the moment and moving onto doctoral work and an academic career, I should probably shy away from citing them in any future academic papers (I don't think I used these in any previous academic papers). It's best to avoid citing them to be on the safe side.
Once Faithlife offers the return/refund period, I'll decide if the financial incentive is enough for me to part with them or if the content is still beneficial to keep on hand to read them for personal edification but just do not cite them in academic papers (there's other commentaries in my library I cannot cite in academic papers that are more "devotional" or "pastoral" and not "technical" and "academic" enough, so what's a couple more?).
I hope the Pillar Series will eventually replace the two with replacements we can use and cite in future papers, as the series has been beneficial overall.
I also saw the issue with EEC James. I was renting it on Cloud, and it's already been pulled from Cloud, so no worries about that one now.
Thanks!
Nathan Parker
Visit my blog at http://focusingonthemarkministries.com
0 -
John Schwandt said:DAL said:
How come they haven't said anything about pulling out the Mobile Ed on James since it's pretty much based on the EEC and the author's "research"?
The Lexham Press and Mobile Ed teams have both based our decisions on compelling evidence. Lexham had strong evidence that EEC James was compromised, and (thankfully) we’ve found no evidence that Varner’s Mobile Ed course is problematic. A highly technical exegetical commentary is a very different context than an accessible course introducing an audience to the broad scope of James, which is also important to keep in mind. Mobile Ed and Lexham Press are equally committed to scholarly care and integrity. Finally, just as we have multiple speakers on other biblical books, we’re actively working on one or possibly more courses dealing with James from other speakers. Hope that helps clarify things.
I haven't taken many mobile Ed classes, but I've taken a number of college and seminary classes where the book or books were integral to the class. Wondering if that is the case here, and how you'll deal with any references to the book (if any).
L2 lvl4 (...) WORDsearch, all the way through L10,
0 -
John Schwandt said:DAL said:
How come they haven't said anything about pulling out the Mobile Ed on James since it's pretty much based on the EEC and the author's "research"?
The Lexham Press and Mobile Ed teams have both based our decisions on compelling evidence. Lexham had strong evidence that EEC James was compromised, and (thankfully) we’ve found no evidence that Varner’s Mobile Ed course is problematic. A highly technical exegetical commentary is a very different context than an accessible course introducing an audience to the broad scope of James, which is also important to keep in mind. Mobile Ed and Lexham Press are equally committed to scholarly care and integrity. Finally, just as we have multiple speakers on other biblical books, we’re actively working on one or possibly more courses dealing with James from other speakers. Hope that helps clarify things.
Multiple courses...kind of like How to prepare and deliver sermons by Edwards, Chapell and the other guy. Similar subject, different speakers...
Anyway, I guess "speaking" allows more flexibility than writing.
DAL
0 -
Ben Amundgaard said:Everett Headley said:
Did This get forgotten? It's been 36 days since this news broke.
We haven't forgotten. We've had to work out a few details on our end and with Eerdmans and had a number of other things come up in between. I'll see exactly where we're at on this and post here later today.
Any update?
0 -
Everett Headley said:Ben Amundgaard said:Everett Headley said:
Did This get forgotten? It's been 36 days since this news broke.
We haven't forgotten. We've had to work out a few details on our end and with Eerdmans and had a number of other things come up in between. I'll see exactly where we're at on this and post here later today.
Any update?
It's going to take a few days. There are some limitations on our back end that we have to solve.
Senior Director, Content Products
0 -
Ben,
What's the status? Seems like this is dragging on and even now another couple volumes are being pulled. Perhaps someone should dedicate some more time to this and get a resolution to us as Logos users.
0 -
Everett Headley said:
Ben,
What's the status? Seems like this is dragging on and even now another couple volumes are being pulled. Perhaps someone should dedicate some more time to this and get a resolution to us as Logos users.
We are actively working on a solution right now. There are a few back end issues we need to set up before we can process credits. Once we're ready we'll send out an email notifying people of the procedure for returning the commentaries if they choose to do so.
Once we have done this work, it should be much easier to process the returns for the NSBT volumes.
Senior Director, Content Products
0 -
-
John Kight said:
Its been another week... any updates??
Thanks for checking. It's still moving forward. Nothing specific to update.
Senior Director, Content Products
0 -
Everett Headley said:
...and even now another couple volumes are being pulled.
Just for anyone who's missed it: As Everett notes in passing, and Ben acknowledges, there's a separate thread about O'Brien's two NSBT volumes: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/131361.aspx
0 -
Seriously, what's the hold up now? Can't you remove the liscnce, and grant our account the credit, VERY MUCH like a return? I'm sure there is stuff on your end that is different and would need to be cleaned up, but this seems to be taking way too long. Meanwhile, as the consumer, I continue to wait.
0 -
Wow some must really be short on cash 💰 LOL What if Logos said, "Refunds don't apply to digital copies, so keep it" That'd be fun to hear and then see the reactions of some haha 😂
DAL
0 -
DAL said:
Wow some must really be short on cash 💰
This is what I was thinking. I am sure that Logos is having to work out with the publishers how these refunds would work, as Logos would be refunding its users, and the publisher would be refunding Logos. This is in addition to how they are actually going to deal with the refunds. I say once they get it worked out with the publishers, they send out an email explaining the situation to the owners of those volumes. They should just request that owners call or email that they want a refund. If users don't call, then they don't want a refund. I would be surprised if a majority of owners want a refund.
Disclaimer: I hate using messaging, texting, and email for real communication. If anything that I type to you seems like anything other than humble and respectful, then I have not done a good job typing my thoughts.
0
