Logos 4 (content and documentation) - terms of use

Page 2 of 2 (35 items) < Previous 1 2
This post has 34 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 8899
fgh | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 30 2011 11:19 AM

Christopher Edward Gunter:
Documentation refers to the stuff the program is made of.

"The package contains software ("Software") and may contain electronic text, graphics, audio, or other resources ("Content") and related explanatory written materials ("Documentation"). "Software" includes any upgrades, modified versions, updates, additions and copies of the Software."

Christopher Edward Gunter:
One of my suggestions is that Logos alter the EULA so that end users don't have additional restrictions on the content.

Hardly likely. That would presumably mean you could copy a whole Public Domain book, on which Logos has spent considerable resources, paste it into Word, and then publish it in hardback, earning money on Logos' work. It might even mean that you'd be free to copy the resource file, hack it, turn it into a file for your own new competing Bible software, and sell it to your customers.

David Ames:
But to fix that TYPO

I very much doubt that's a typo. Logos doesn't give any guarantees they'll support this software forever. You buy at your own risk. Logos can go the way Pradis did.

But thanks for the quote. It was interesting. My copy of Logos has never "perform[ed] in substantial accordance with the Documentation".

 

"The Christian way of life isn't so much an assignment to be performed, as a gift to be received."  Wilfrid Stinissen

Mac Pro OS 10.9.

Posts 23
Christopher Gunter | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 8:22 AM

 

Thanks for that fgh: I didn't see that the license explains these terms for it's self. 

 So according to the logos 4 license (see http://www.logos.com/ArticleViewer/2090 - “License grant”):

Content = electronic text, graphics, audio or other resources -To my understanding this includes the books public domain or otherwise

Documentation = related explanatory written materials

Software = upgrades, modified versions, updates and additions and copies of the software

 However, under the heading of “Things you may not do”, the license expressly says that we may not copy the documentation, the software or the content. Now since Logos has built into it's license that the “content” may not be copied (at all!?) it means that in protecting themselves from people republishing their work they have restricted us from copying it (even if it is for personal, non-commercial use, never mind commercial, re-copyrighted use). So if you can't copy the logos 4 book content into external documents in order to re-use them in your own sermons, books, websites then logos is only meant for personal study and not for public presentations. This license really restricts Logos 4 users from using the logos software and content to it's full potential. I still think it should be changed. They should give us permission to copy the content (even if it is a limited permission). Something like “You may copy the content into external documents, but you may not republish an entire book – even if it is public domain. Where the book is copyrighted, permission should be sought from the original copyright holders in order to re-use content – unless the use of the content falls under the perimeter of fair use”." 

There should also be some kind of automated copyright notice pasted into the external document in which copyrighted text is inserted that states (1) that the copied material came from Logos 4 which is copyrighted and (2) that the text/graphic it's self is copyrighted by it's own individual copyright. (e.g. Canne, Browne, Blayney, Scot and others (1880) Treasury of scriptural knowledge. Public domain. In Logos 4 (c) 20xx).

Posts 23
Christopher Gunter | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 10:31 AM

Now as to fair use. That is a separate matter and it has less to do with Logos and more to do with the individual copyright holders of the copyrighted books in Logos. This is assuming we can get around the Logos 4 EULA and actually copy content into external documents.

Now, does the publisher of the original work allow for small portions to be quoted? Keep in mind that most books say on the copyright page, that “no portion of this book may be reproduced in any form, written, visual, audio or electronic without the prior permission of the publisher”. So

  1. Does this statement apply even if you are only going to use the copyrighted material in non-commercial, non-copyrighted material?

  2. Does this statement apply even if you are going to re-use a small portion (fully referenced) in another copyrighted work?

  3. Do you always have to seek permission of the publisher before you can quote from the book if the book has this statement in it, but if it does not have this statement then you can claim fair use?

The US copyright office (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html) recommends that it is always safest to go to the copyright holder and get permission first, and that if there is any doubt, an attourney should be consulted. However, they also state that an example that the US courts have regarded as fair use is quotation of short passages in a scholarly or techincal work. Nevertheless, if publishers have stated in their book that permission must be sought for the re-use of their work, can the re-user claim fair use in that case?

Possibly if the publisher does not take issue with the amount and manner of the re-use of their copyrighted work, then the quoter will get away with it and everything will be fine. Since the law is there to protect the rights of the publisher, if the publisher does not feel like they were infringed by the quote, they won't do anything about it and you will have gotten away with it. It is only if the publisher thinks that copyright has been infringed that they will take legal action and remuneration will be sought by means of splitting legal hairs about numbers of words and the exact definition of fair use.

My suggestion here is,

  1. that Logos make the users aware of the fair use policy with regard to copyright in the documentation of Logos 4, and

  2. if there is a statement in the book that restricts end users from quoting the book without permission (like the statement given above), logos can provide clarification about whether the publisher must be contacted or whether fair use can be claimed. This should be done for each individual book because the copyright statements in each book may vary.

  3. that Logos 4 could try to organise for it's end users “quoting permission” for all the books included in the content of Logos 4, particularly for the re-use of short passages or graphics. Perhaps there are some books that are published by Logos for which they can give us this kind of permission without a lot of extra cost on their part (in contacting the publisher and negotiating it) or ours (in hiring an attorny to contact the publisher to make sure that we can quote the book).

  4. If a book has been given this “quoting permission” when you right click to copy the text into an external document, Logos could include an option that is a link to the information about the extent and nature of the quoting permission. If there is no quoting permission, then the contact details of the publisher be given with another link to the fair use policy explanation.

Posts 23
Christopher Gunter | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 10:41 AM

Another matter that comes to mind in these discussions is the extent to which we are required by law to give the reference for the quoted material. How much information do you actually have to give about the source of the quote? Can you just state the name of the author, or just the name of the publisher without giving the date and page number for the quoted portion? What is the minimum really required? Is this a matter of individual discretion that must be sorted out between the publisher and the quoter? Perhaps it is if the publisher does not take it up with the re-user of their work then it is fine, but if the publisher has issues then the quoter will have to change the extent of their reference and if they refuse, legal action will be sought. Since this might cost a lot of money for a minor issue, publishers may be unwilling to actually take legal action unless they really feel like the copyright of the work has been infringed.

Posts 8899
fgh | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 3 2012 9:50 AM

If you want the authoritative answer, e-mail bob at logos dot com.

"The Christian way of life isn't so much an assignment to be performed, as a gift to be received."  Wilfrid Stinissen

Mac Pro OS 10.9.

Posts 23
Christopher Gunter | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 3 2012 10:21 AM

Good idea!

Posts 23
Christopher Gunter | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 3 2012 10:37 AM

An additional note to all this is that the license actually tells us in the first paragraph that the package is intended for personal use. "You may load it on both for your personal use" (http://www.logos.com/ArticleViewer/2090). So now we can ask another question of interpretation, and that is what is "personal use?" Does it mean that you can use it in public addresses or your own books as long as it is for non-commercial use? or does it mean that you can only use the content in private, personal study? The latter confirms the notion that the user may not copy the software, documentation or content.

If this is a mis-interpretation of the license, then it is perhaps another good reason for the license to be changed.

Posts 1829
Rick | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 3 2012 4:27 PM

You may want to look here: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/341/3265.aspx#3265

Christopher Edward Gunter:
or does it mean that you can only use the content in private, personal study?

The fact that they have an academic program in which they have partnered with many schools and that they offer Logos Academic Training with the description of "Now he is bringing his popular, world-wide seminar straight to your classroom with Logos Academic Training. This video series is made specifically for a seminary or Bible college environment, for both professors and students..." and other similar statements, I think that it is safe to assume that Logos can be used in the classroom. In fact, I think that it is well known that it is and Logos has never showed any disapproval that I know of as long as it is an academic setting. The only time that I have heard of Logos intervening is that I heard they caught some students using the same user name.

My advice is to use these links (especially Bob's) and the EULA with due diligence and you will be fine. We can nit-pick any EULA or contract to death. It is done everyday in the public sector with more than just software and has made a lot of lawyers very wealthy.

Posts 23
Christopher Gunter | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 6 2012 8:18 AM

Hi Rick;

Thanks for the reply. What a useful tool - logos in the academic setting, I wasn't aware of that - the potential is enormous, with many benefits. However, and we would have to check, it is possible that the academic version might have a different end user license agreement because of the educational setting. The definition of fair use includes "educational use" and this might be reason enough to be less stringent about copying from Logos when in the academic program.

Now I realise that I have been very nit-picky about the license, and even in South Africa there are some people whom I have discussed this matter of EULAs with who didn't agree with me. They have been ignoring end user license agreements, instantly they have clicked that yes "I agree" to be "BOUND BY the terms and conditions of this license" without even knowing that they are agreeing to be bound by something and becoming party to it. Now if you asked me to agree that I would give you $1000 and I said "I agree" but didn't give it to you, could I say that you were being nit-picky if I didn't give you the $1000? Well yes, but in this case you would be right to nit-pick because if I said I agree to give you $1000 (especially if the agreement was in writing) then I should give it to you. If this is such an unimportant matter why would Logos have bothered to put it into the license. Why leads me to another suggestion:

Why not just have no license agreement, or have a license, but don't make us agree to it, or have a license but a very simple, 3-4 sentence license that is easy to understand and easy to agree to so that even if people do agree to it without thinking, they have not agreed to anything hard to understand or keep. 

Interestingly I came across some technology in some audio recording software that I bought a while back. With each set of purchased disks to install the program, you get like a USB key that has to be plugged into your computer in order for the software to work. Each key is specific to one set of software disks. Even if you have fully loaded the software onto another computer, if the USB key is not plugged into the computer, the software won't open. This stops people from using the software on more than one computer at a time. You can load it onto someone elses computer, but if you don't give them the USB key they can't open it. So this is a physical way of actually stopping people from giving the software away to others illegally.

Personally I think it might be better to build software in a way that you literally can't use it in an illegal manner thus making a user license unnecessary rather than to design the software in such a way that it is easy for people to copy and steal it illegally but you have a long, complicated, hard-to-understand user license agreement (that a lot of people won't even read through) that makes you agree to be bound by terms and conditions that you won't copy or steal it.

 

Posts 2838
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 7 2012 3:55 AM

Found on the net  [[Search for: eula soul sell  for the full story]]

Like all of us, you probably click through EULAs without reading them. It’s understandable: no one’s going to read twenty pages of purposely obtuse legalese just to install iTunes.

But if an April Fool’s Day joke plays by British retailer GameStation is anything to go by, maybe you should read the fine print more carefully: over 7,500 unsuspecting customers signed their souls away to GameStation by refusing to untick a box in their update EULA.

The exact wording of the soul clause in GameStation’s terms and conditions read:

By placing an order via this Web site on the first day of the fourth month of the year 2010 Anno Domini, you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from gamesation.co.uk or one of its duly authorised minions. We reserve the right to serve such notice in 6 (six) foot high letters of fire, however we can accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by such an act.

If you a) do not believe you have an immortal soul, b) have already given it to another party, or c) do not wish to grant Us such a license, please click the link below to nullify this sub-clause and proceed with your transaction.

Posts 23
Christopher Gunter | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 10 2012 10:49 AM

I see your point. In this case, they are trying to get get people to agree to a joke. At least they put in point (c) which enabled people to by-pass the joke. If they had not said that, I would have been reluctant to use the website if I were to go there. I mean these websites that say "by reason of the use of this website, you agree that you understand and will be bound by these terms and conditions" are trying to force you to read and keep the terms and conditions. Much better just to have no agreement or to say "all rights reserved". People don't have to agree to anything.

To me this is not a joke though, I certainly take saying "I AGREE" seriously. These scriptures come to mind. 

  • Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 18:19 KJV)
  • But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? (Matthew 20:13 KJV)
  • But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. (Matthew 5:37 KJV)
  • Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. (Ephesians 4:25 KJV)
  • But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: (Ephesians 4:15 KJV)

Now how do you not take "I agree" too literally? Is there anyway you can take it figuratively? I mean it is like saying don't take the scriptures above literally, well how are you supposed to take them?

Posts 2838
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 10 2012 3:10 PM

Christopher Gunter:

Personally I think it might be better to build software in a way that you literally can't use it in an illegal manner thus making a user license unnecessary

That has been tried. Normal results is that the user has a hard time using the program. The person that did not pay for it finds a way and with all the things that made it hard for the paid user removed.  [all it takes is patching a GOTO OK code to bypass the illegal check - works every time in all software [or did your programing class skip GOTO? [a few good GOTO statements can cut code size and unwind deeply nested loops - but may cause memory leeks]]]

[there are several million angels that are not going to be needed until THAT DAY. Maybe someone could find a way to use them to insure legal use only :) ]

Posts 23
Christopher Gunter | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 12 2012 3:34 AM

David Ames:

... or did your programing class skip GOTO?

 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. (James 4:13-14 KJV)

 When I was at school some of us learned the skills of how to read and interpret end user license agreements, while others learned how to break into programs illegally and violate the end user license agreements without reading them at all. Thankfully I was part of the former group.

 Now I have learned numerous computer skills, and perhaps someday the Lord will see fit for me to learn about GO TO's and how to use them to advance His kingdom but He has not asked me to do this until now. Perhaps you could teach me.

David Ames:

 That has been tried. Normal results is that the user has a hard time using the program. The person that did not pay for it finds a way and with all the things that made it hard for the paid user removed. 

Frankly I think that it wouldn't make logos harder to use if there were NO option to copy the text and one could not copy the text at all (as in a locked pdf document) since this would help people keep the eula. Now some people might try to break into the source code of the software and copy the text of the books, but they would do this anyway. Designing the software in this way just means that less people (especially those that never took a GO TO class), will actually break the eula and also the eula can be less complicated and easier to read – Yeah, praise God for such eulas, and praise God for the computer programmers and lawyers who design them. By faith I can see the day when software with long complicated eulas and a lot of technical jargon that make the end user click “I agree that I understand and agree to be bound by these terms and conditions” will be so unpopular that the software will not be bought and the designers will have to make their eula's more word of God friendly so that we can agree to them speedily and use them with out thinking “am I going to break the eula if I do this”?

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 12 2012 4:11 AM

Christopher Gunter:
Frankly I think that it wouldn't make logos harder to use if there were NO option to copy the text

I think you are the one who makes it hard for yourself.  Why don't you put a cork in it?  Read what Bob has written and your questions should be answered.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 33400
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 12 2012 9:42 PM

Christopher Gunter:
Frankly I think that it wouldn't make logos harder to use if there were NO option to copy the text and one could not copy the text at all (as in a locked pdf document) since this would help people keep the eula.

Christopher Gunter:
 When I was at school some of us learned the skills of how to read and interpret end user license agreements, while others learned how to break into programs illegally and violate the end user license agreements without reading them at all.

And some of us learned to do both - legally. The ability to copy a portion of a text for inclusion as a quotation in a paper is an essential function for products like Logos. Just like the lock on a PDF, a no copy feature in Logos would simply mean a slight annoyance of a couple of extra steps to copy portions. In fact, I tend to find locking a PDF means users are more apt to copy large portions and trim back to what they ultimately use rather than simply taking what is legitimate under the fair use doctrine.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Page 2 of 2 (35 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS