As for the Church’s approval or disapproval on matters that don’t have to do with the law, I’ve wondered at times if they would approve of my reader’s edition of the Book of Mormon. If they didn’t, and asked me to pull it, would I? Probably. Now, I don’t really think that they would, and so far I’ve heard nothing from Salt Lake, but if for some reason it came down to that, I don’t think it matters enough to me to go against the Church’s wishes. (I’d try to present my case as best I could, of course, and hopefully convince them otherwise, mind you.) I’ve never been one to butt heads with authority. (I don’t think that’s always a good thing, though, but for better or for worse, that’s how I’m made.)

Paragraph 8 should read “programs which are old, outdated and not sold commercially anymore” instead of “…not old…”

That’s not true. Users have rights that are independent of copyrights. In the U.S., you can do whatever is protected under fair use doctrine, even if the Church disapproves of it. In other countries, it depends on both the copyright laws and fair use and/or fair dealing laws of that country.

It’s this sort of misunderstanding of copyright law that empowers those who wish to abuse their copyrights (read: several notorious trade associations) at consumers’ expense.

Copyright protects the right to profit from one’s creative work. Whether something is protected as “fair use” is contingent on four factors (the following language is from the Copyright Act of 1976):

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

In the case of translations of the Book of Mormon, I presume these are classified as “works for hire” and that the Church retains all rights to them. But the Church does not (nor does it seek to) profit from these translations. So there’s no way to go afoul of #4. Obviously under #1 you can’t use it commercially, and #2 is probably on your side, since this is a non-commercial work to begin with. So it falls to #3. Which doesn’t rule out your being able to make a full digital copy for personal use, though.

Breaking a copyright is not criminal, RIAA be damned. Apart from serious counterfeiting, copyright issues have historically been issues for the civil courts. Nowadays every creative work is automatically copyrighted by law whether copyright is explicitly claimed or not, but fair use language is intentionally vague, so to a certain degree a copyright requires the owner to exercise his right to have effect.

One interesting example of this is “abandonware” software. These tend to be programs which are not old, outdated and not sold commercially anymore. Hence there is no market to be damaged by distribution, since the software has been “abandoned” by its copyright owner. If a third-party website is distributing abandonware freely, the owner can assert his right to it even if he has no intention to ever market it again. Some organizations do this. But barring this sort of assertion, many believe that fair use entitles them to use the programs without permission from the creator.

That, of course, is an entirely different scenario, because (a) abandonware is distributed on websites and can be downloaded by anyone, and (b) the software is not available through traditional commercial channels (except as rare or even impossible-to-find used software).

In this case, we’re dealing with books that are in print and available through the Church. Now, the Church has a track record of being generous with copyrights for personal use, but I think they would try to actively defend their copyright for fear of the book being altered. That doesn’t mean they have a legal right to control the book in any way they want. They can’t override fair use. But they do have a organizational and doctrinal interest in keeping the book available only through official channels, for fear of corruption. From what I’ve heard, the Church tries to stamp out (or at least discourages) use of unofficial translations of the Book of Mormon in languages for which it hasn’t been officially translated–but they have no legal right to do so whatsoever, of course. The source material is out of copyright in every country on earth (so long as it’s a sufficiently old copy according to local laws).

I say digitize all you want for personal use, and see what the Church’s response is to a request to make distributions public. The Church doesn’t own the ideas contained in the Book of Mormon, in any language, anymore than Disney owns the idea of an anthropomorphic mouse with a high voice. Run with the idea. Ask for permission. I’ll be interested to know the answer you get, though I can guess what it will be. And send me a copy of whatever you do. :)

Katherine: Yes, you should go to Pioneer Book. There’s also Anderson’s Books and Collectibles on University (and around 200 North), but I’ve never been inside. You can borrow my copy of Frankl if you’d like. And I’ve never read any of Wilkie Collins’ books, but I own both TWIW and The Moonstone, and I’m dying to start. The Return of the Native’s trashy? I had no idea. Now you’ve piqued my curiosity. :P And in all honesty I’ve used a multitude of variations on the master’s degree issue, so I’m not that concerned. :)

Amy: Ah, but your statement presupposes a causal link between dating and marriage. This can indeed be the case, but in my own circumstances I very strongly doubt that going on more dates is going to lead to my marriage. You see, I need to meet more girls. When I’m on dates, I’m not supposed to scope out other girls, so the only dating opportunity I have to meet new ones is the blind date. And I’m becoming more and more opposed to blind dates as time goes on, if only because the Yentas of the world generally get it completely, utterly wrong. Not always, but most of the time — enough to destroy my confidence in getting set up. (Having said that, watch: in a year or two I’ll end up marrying a girl I meet on a blind date. Life is so unfair. ~sigh~)

Scott: It depends on what you mean by “digitize.” :) First, the translation would have to be in the public domain (pre-1923), unless you’re doing it purely for your own use and never send anyone else a copy. (But if the Church gives you permission, then you can do whatever they say you can do with it. :)) Second, you’d have to either type it in or scan and OCR it. Third, typesetting it or putting it online (assuming you have copyright clearance or it’s public domain) would require a little more effort, so I’d worry about that after you finish the second part. :)

Mali: That would be a rather cool date, come to think of it… :) (And shortly I’ll blog about another date idea.)

Q: What would I have to do if I wanted to digitize translations of the Book of Mormon? Do you think the Church would be interested in such a project? (it would be for my own use, but I would gladly pass it along.) I’m mostly interested in translations into African languages - for now.

We read excerpts from Parley P. Pratt’s Biography in LDS literature last fall. It’s pretty thrilling stuff.

I tried to check Frankl’s book out from the HBLL in May, but there were complications and I have yet to read it, sadly.

The Woman in White–excellent choice. The book is positively brilliant. Every time I read it, I’m in awe of Wilkie Collins’s skill. When I write, I have a hard enough time developing a distinctive voice for one character–he does it for nearly a dozen.

The Return of the Native–if this book weren’t so literary, it would be downright trashy. I like Thomas Hardy, though. And I’m a big fan of Diggory Venn.

Ben, how could someone trained in the field of linguistics expect to concern himself with such prescriptive and historically arbitrary rules of English usage? Honestly. Leave that to the editing minors. (Matt is right: see Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., 8.32 & 15.21)