Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Setting the record straight
#31
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama all--

Apparently the message hasn't gotten totally through yet. I will try one more time. I did not "avoid plagiarism by the narrowest of margins" because the works are PUBLIC DOMAIN. I don't know how many different ways I can say this. You can NOT plagiarize public domain works. It doesn't matter WHERE attribution of if it is given with public domain resources.

As Plagiarism.org points out, there are a lot of kinds of plagiarism. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_types_of_plagiarism.html">http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_ ... arism.html</a><!-- m -->
And some of these are legal. Technically, Mr. Roth, plagiarism of a public domain source is legal. It's still plagiarism, though.
Note this line from Wikipedia: Plagiarism is not copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they are different transgressions.

Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Nevertheless, I went above and beyond in giving attribution, though I didn't have to. I did so to be open and honest, and as I answered each charge, the critics simply tried and failed to change tactics they were using against me. Let's review.

3) Then they said that I didn't give "attribution" which I didn't have to give, but nevertheless did give in hundreds of places, like the footnotes. (How about apologizing for getting this fact wrong?)

The point was dealt with above. The second I didn't fully understand, but I think I'm in agreement with you.
It is true that you gave attribution, but I know how few people read introductions and such. And without doing that you miss the attribution and you don't know what (PY) and (JM) mean.

AGR Wrote:4) Then they said "OK, you gave attribution in the footnotes, but not in the Preface which is the proper place." First, again, there is NO LAW requiring WHERE I give attribution. Second, I did give attribution in the Preface, reproduced the two paragraphs. (How about apologizing for getting this fact wrong too?)

I don't think he's talking about legally. You were completely legal, and I'm pretty sure Mr. Bauscher will agree with me on that.

AGR Wrote:5) In addition, I have explained the definitions in the full rebuttal on Refiners FIre the terms:
a) MARI - Murdock-Roth-Younan.
b) The meaning of the sub title, " a compilation, annotation and translation".
c) That I have cross checked EVERY line in AENT against my own Aramaic understanding.
d) That even if Bauscher was correct, the fact is there are almost 400 pages of totally new features, essays, grammar guides, 1500 footnotes that are totally of my own creation, etc.
e) That the Aramaic text is itself carefully annotated (there's that word again) and checked against the 1905-20 Critical Edition with hundreds of places of major and minor variants cited. This is something that, BTW, Bauscher does NOT do. Bauscher would have you believe the Western Peshitto, the latest version of the Aramaic NT, is letter for letter identical to the autographs and divinely encoded.

I didn't know what MARI meant until Friday. Not that you meant to conceal it, but it is easy to miss.
"a compilation, annotation and translation" is somewhat vague. It is great to have this in the subtitle to alert readers to what it is, only it is still a little unclear.
From the aspect of plagiarism what you add that is your own is irrelevant if you took credit for something that wasn't yours. You didn't take credit for something not yours. But I don't think that your point (d) applies.

AGR Wrote:"barely avoided plagiarism" my behind. How dare you?

Please don't become indignant. I'm sorry if this is offensive to you, but I believe I am being respectful, gentle, and liberal. Please return this courtesy.

AGR Wrote:PS--As for the bibliography issue, I didn't view that as being super critical only because all the sources are clearly listed up front and others as needed in the footnotes and essays. The overriding pattern seems to be confusion that only arises from not reading my posts here or the info I give in the AENT preface. I mean, I attribute Khabouris Codex, I atttribute the 1905-20 Critical Edition by BFBS, I attribute Murdock, I attribute Younan. When I want to contrast with Lamsa, Etheridge or anyone else, guess what, I say so.

I understand that, but one cannot be too careful or too clear.
Expecting everyone who buys your book to have read the posts here is probably a bit much. As for not reading the preface, it may be inexcusable, but it is also not uncommon.

AGR Wrote:If folks think on top of all this there needs to be a bibliography page as well, we will consider that. The proper place for that however is on AENT.org, or email Baruch at <!-- e --><a href="mailto:info@aent.org">info@aent.org</a><!-- e -->. That's a minor style point at best, and there is nothing wrong with the way the sources are listed in AENT. Again the important thing is that they ARE listed. Even the two main systems, MLA and Turabian, disagree often on how to do this, and the styles have changed quite a bit over the years.

I sincerely hope this is clear.

It's a bit more than a minor point. And I don't understand what you're trying to say when you mention the two styles. I don't think anyone is going to object to you using the wrong style book, as long as the attributions are made.
#32
Paul Younan Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:It escaped being plagiarism by the narrow margin of one paragraph in the introduction.

And the title of the book reflected the names of the 3 (primary) contributors doesn't count?

Suppose I compiled a series of horror stories from the following authors:

Fred Durbin
VC Andrews
Rachel Vincent
Scott Edelman
Stephen King

Linda Addison

Charles Grant
Owl Goingback
Michael Oliveri
Polly Frost

Now suppose, besides giving credit in my introduction to these individuals, that I also choose as the name of the compilation an acronym of their names....say "Dave's a Goof"....how on earth would any of my actions be considered plagiarism?

On top of all that, the other necessary condition would be that all of the above authors were either in the public domain by death or choice!

Yeah, plagiarism. Good one, Dave. Now you haven't the faintest idea about Qnoma and Plagiarism!
According to Plagiarism.org, anything that is not properly attributed is plagiarism. Even if it is attributed, for instance, it says "The writer mentions an author's name for a source, but neglects to include specific information on the location of the material referenced. This often masks other forms of plagiarism by obscuring source locations."
This is plagiarism. It doesn't matter that the author gave credit. If they didn't do so properly, it is still plagiarism.

Again, there is a difference between violation of copyright law and plagiarism. You can plagiarize legally. I could claim to have written The Declaration of Independence and it would be completely legal, though it would be dishonest, and it would be plagiarism.
#33
gbausc Wrote:Where is your source about "public domain cannot be plagiarized?"

Common sense.

gbausc Wrote:The claim that public domain cannot be plagiarized is simply false, and only a thief and a fraud would take someone else's translation(s) and put his name on it and sell it as his own translation. What you are saying is that I could republish Lamsa' s 1933 translation with my name on it and sell it with impunity. This is essentially what Andrew has done.

Lamsa's translation is still under copyright <!-- sSleepy --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sleepy.gif" alt="Sleepy" title="Sleepy" /><!-- sSleepy -->

If a public domain work can be plagiarized then how can it be a public domain work? Can you not see the absurdity of this statement? This is nonsense when you look at it from the original author's point of view, which Paul has already testified. Murdock is dead, and I doubt he's turning in his grave over this, though you're free to ask him at the resurrection. As for Paul's work, it is for Paul to decide whether Andrew has plagiarized his work or not, AND HE HAS DECIDED THAT HE HASN'T - HOW THE HELL CAN YOU STILL NOT UNDERSTAND THIS???

gbausc Wrote:The issue is not public domain, nor is it getting permission from Paul Younan (who says never translated anything from the NT anyway); it is about "proper attribution"- giving proper credit to the real authors, for the translation (not the notes, which is another topic, as far as I am concerned.)

PAUL HAS SAID THAT ANDREW DIDN'T NEED TO GIVE HIM CREDIT!!! WHO ARE YOU TO DICTATE TO PAUL HOW ANDREW SHOULD GIVE PROPER ATTRIBUTION TO HIM - IT'S PAUL'S WORK (WHICH ANDREW HAD A HAND IN ANYWAY) NOT YOURS - SO IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

You, Albion & Ryan are claiming that Andrew plagiarized Paul, and that Paul is CYAing Andrew's plagiarism of his own work, and at the same time saying that Paul's permission doesn't count??? Honestly, I HAVE NEVER HEARD ANYTHING MORE STUPID IN MY ENTIRE LIFE!!!

Forget the arguments of all posts on this thread - COMMON SENSE ITSELF COMPLETELY DESTROYS YOUR ARGUMENT.

gbausc Wrote:He still has not told us how much of the work is original to him, and told Albion, "I don't like your tone" for even asking the question. Now Albion is banned for it.

What is this, the Grand Inquistion of Rome? If someone dares to question the great Andrew Gabriel Roth, he is excommunicated? I see nothing but corruption and lies being perpetrated here to protect Andrew Roth from his own sins.

He refused to answer the question.

For the record I'm not the moderator who banned Albion, neither was it Andrew or Paul, it was Abudar. I didn't have a problem with Albion's questions, I had a problem with his attitude, but that wasn't the reason for my proposal to have him banned, it was because Albion insulted Paul and his church:

Christina Wrote:
The Truth Committee Wrote:Paul Younan will coddle satanic demonized hackers, and attack me, and CENSOR me, because we have very different understandings of what the word FREEDOM implies.

It's no wonder that the Assyrian Church of the East was submerged under radical Islam, if THIS is any indication of it's spiritual leadership!

That is absolutely cheap and low, and completely unacceptable and inexcusable <!-- s:angry: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/angry.gif" alt=":angry:" title="Angry" /><!-- s:angry: --> <!-- s:mad: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/mad.gif" alt=":mad:" title="Mad" /><!-- s:mad: --> <!-- s:angry: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/angry.gif" alt=":angry:" title="Angry" /><!-- s:angry: --> <!-- s:mad: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/mad.gif" alt=":mad:" title="Mad" /><!-- s:mad: --> and you deserve to be banned for it! Moderators: should we ban him for good? I vote yes, cast your votes.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1936&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1936&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15</a><!-- l -->

THIS IS AGAINST THE FORUM RULES, READ IT FOR YOURSELF:

Paul Younan Wrote:The Peshitta.org Forum is a monitored forum. In an effort to make this forum as useful and as constructive as possible, any threatening, abusive, libelous, or defamatory information of any kind posted here will be removed. Personal insults or insults toward any community will not be tolerated and the entire post will be summarily removed, along with its replies...

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=612">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=612</a><!-- l -->

Albion also insulted Thirdwoe by calling him "a kid who knows nothing":

The Truth Committe Wrote:"Thirdwoe", people like you know nothing. Your a KID, for Messiah's sake. What do you know?

"Fawning" isn't wanting the BEST, it's kissing up to someone's backside. I wanted the BEST, and I prayed fervently for it. Oh well. Our BEST CHANCE for a real Eastern version of the Peshitta is NOW GONE.

If you weren't just trying to hurt me with your words, you'd wake up, and actually REALIZE THAT. But as I said, your just a kid.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1936&st=0&sk=t&sd=a">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1936&st=0&sk=t&sd=a</a><!-- l -->

These are the details that Ryan left out of his comment on amazon (out of convenience?).

And Albion blatantly lied when he said this:

The Truth Committee Wrote:I DID contact BOTH Andrew AND Baruch IN PRIVATE. It did absolutely NO GOOD.

You've been wanting to ban me since you got "the power" Christina. Go head, DON'T THREATEN.......do it!

Time will PROVE ME RIGHT. Wait and SEE. This is another HRV deal, and we ALL got screwed. PERIOD.

Considering all of THE HATE for me on this list (generated by "Corvus Argentum", Latin for "Crow, Silver") WHY WOULD I USE *MY REAL NAME*? I mean duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Stupid IS, as stupid DOES. (Forrest Gump)

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1936&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1936&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15</a><!-- l -->

I never threatened to ban Albion since the day I became a moderator, I received my moderator's control panel AFTER Albion left the forum voluntarily, in fact these were Albion's last words the day he voluntarily left the forum:

Albion Wrote:I can't be a member of this forum any longer.

I will certainly miss my friends: Andrew Gabriel Roth, Ryan, And Christina. I was beginning to get to know Phil, and I'm sorry that that will be interrupted now.

I wish nothing but the BEST for this Forum, and I know that it will continue to thrive and grow. I have certainly learned A LOT while I was here, and from everybody that I learned from, THANK YOU!

I leave knowing that my Brother Andrew got immersed at the Church of the East...........I just think that that is the coolest thing!

To my Dear Friends, thank each one of you for being my friend......you KNOW that I will miss you. I'll continue to read here from time-to-time, but my days of writing are over, I was surely never that great of a writer anyways!

Thanks again for letting me share Matthew's Gospel Andrew! I WAS and still AM HONORED!

Christina, you'll make a GREAT MODERATOR!

Ryan, you and I can still talk, as always.

GOODBYE MY FRIENDS.

Albion

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1827&p=11025">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1827&p=11025</a><!-- l -->

What I find amazing is how you and Ryan cannot see Albion's blindingly obvious self-centeredness:

Albion Guppy Wrote:To Nick D.,

Dear Nick,

*I* was/am "the inquirer" that Ryan so courageously mentions here.

It was I who ANDREW CHOSE to release his first Book (Matthew's Gospel) of the AENT to the public through my review.

He (Andrew Gabriel Roth) sent me a PDF file of 'Matthew's Gospel' from MARI (P.E.A.C.E.)......this is what we ALL used to call the book that is now known as the AENT.

Anyway, Andrew chose me to release the PDF of Matthew's Gospel as a preview of his soon coming New Testament, to <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org">http://www.peshitta.org</a><!-- m -->, which I gladly DID...

Albion seems to think that the entire universe revolves around him, that the AENT was made exclusively for him, this is obvious in his continuous nagging in the days leading up to the AENT's release: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1708&p=10400">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1708&p=10400</a><!-- l -->

And as for Ryan quoting me out of context:

Ryan Dooley Wrote:"Has the so-called `truth' committee been sent a warning? That's usually what I do before I ban a user ... Otherwise rules are rules, such posts are to be removed ... let's send him a warning if he posts again, though he might not come back now that we know who he is". (a moderator who spoke w/o even owning a copy of AENT)

It's true that I didn't own a copy of AENT at the time (I do now) but I specifically said that I based my judgment on Otto's review:

Christina Wrote:
The Truth Committee Wrote:You, and everyone here, should be sitting in shiva, over this particular issue.

But you don't have enough spiritual sense and understanding to do this.

Really? Akhan Otto didn't seem to have a problem with Mari and he knows a thing two about the Peshitta, so I think I'm gonna go with his judgement. And I remember that you were lucky enough to see the pre-published Mari Matthew and you raved about it. I get the feeling that this isn't about Andrew or Mari, but it's actually about you!

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1936&st=0&sk=t&sd=a">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1936&st=0&sk=t&sd=a</a><!-- l -->

Here's Otto's review:

ograabe Wrote:Wow! I am delighted and overwhelmed to have a copy of Andrew Roth's ARAMAIC ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT, Netzari Press, 2008.

Andrew has distilled the Peshitta + FIVE into a perfectly balanced English translation that maintains the semitic foundations without confusing the reader. Also, he has deftly incorporated his rational interpretation of many ideas kicked around in this forum and balanced them with good judgement. The Appendix is an intellectual gold mine. This is the Aramaic primacy book for true scholars!

I think everyone who supports Aramaic primacy should purchase an extra copy and donate it to his or her favorite University Library to spread this knowledge to young students as well as old professors.

Thank you, Andrew, for your brilliant hard work and this great gift. God Bless You!

Sincerely,

Otto

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1935">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1935</a><!-- l -->

Otto is a real Semitic scholar who knows what he's talking about and I will trust his judgment over Albion's any day!

BTW can you please admit to Ryan that you are not a real "Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew scholar" as he claims by your own admissions on this forum? And that you haven't earned the title of "Reverend" as he claims? Not only because of your ungodly behavior but also because you yourself have admitted that you have been thrown out of several churches, and that most churches consider your Christological views heretical:

Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:
gbausc Wrote:I have paid a price for my beliefs and been rejected by several churches after preaching the word for a time. My position has been hammered out on the anvil of trial and opposition and forged in heaven. I cannot deny what God has revealed to me and proven in the lab of life. I have seen Him and heard his voice. I cannot go back.

I SEE, SO YOU DO WISH TO BE A CULTIC LEADER. ONLY YOUR REVELATION IS CORRECT. THANKS FOR COMING THEN TO ENLIGHTEN US. DON'T LET THE SCREEN DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT.

Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Dave,

Firstly, "Burkate" is spelled with a Kaph, not a Khet! <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> Secondly, you have no place telling anyone what Qnoma means if you can't even spell an Aramaic word properly!

Thirdly, it does not come as that big of a surprise to me that you've been rejected by several churches. No Orthodox Christian would tolerate your Eutychian sympathies. This heresy is condemned by all churches that I know of (including the CoE, SOC and RCC.)

...You stated that the "Incarnation means that God became man" - that's pure heresy, condemned at Chalcedon and other synods in the Eastern Church as well. This matter was settled a long time ago.

The Incarnation does NOT mean that God changed into anything. God remained God, and simply took the form of a servant by taking a temple of humanity from Mary. His Divinity dwelled within the humanity with which He clothed Himself.

It is this humanity that was tempted in the wilderness, that urinated, that defecated, that ate food, that drank water, that bled on the Cross and that lay dead in the tomb for three days and three nights. God was not involved in any of those things. God is impassible, eternal and in need of none of those things.

You, sir, worship a "god-man" in the Greek pagan tradition. Orthodox Christianity worships a "God and Man" - there is a BIG difference between the two.

That is the Orthodox definition of the Incarnation - anything else is heresy (and should be kicked out of any church!)...

gbausc Wrote:Akha Paul,

Thankyou for correcting my spelling; I hate incorrect spelling in any language; I admit I am not an expert in Aramaic; I am quite good at NT Greek and French; Hebrew to a lesser extent.

Yes , I am a heretic, by most Church Council standards; I hope to die a heretic. I would very disappointed in myself if I don't. I want to follow Him who said, "Take up your cross and follow Me." "If the world hated me , it will hate you also." "Woe to you when all speak well of you; blessed are ye when men shall hate you, persecute you and speak all manner of evil against you, falsely for my sake..."

All I have done was to express my position and now I am told, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Andrew seems a bit sensitive and thin skinned. That's OK, I can take banishment; I would rejoice all the more for Christ's sake.

I may be mistaken about some things; I have been wrong before; I am honest about what I believe and constantly ask The Father for His guidance and wisdom, and implicitly believe in His word.

I have found that many who profess faith in Christ and God have never known either in a personal sense. Doctrine and works of righteousness which we have done can never save us- only being born of the Spirit from above can do that.

I say you are ignorant of God; I say Andrew is ignorant of God. I will trust your future salvation to Him. He has made provision for it and for all men in His own time.

I wish you well; I will not post any more; You may remove my forum and posts if you wish. I do not sense any liberty with you guys; I sense a sectarian legalism and censorship of speech and ideas. God's spirit cannot abide in such a mind.

You would persecute The Son of Man if he were in the flesh on earth today; indeed , He is in the flesh on earth today and you do persecute Him as did the Scribes and Pharisees of the first century.
Yes , you persecute Him for telling you the truth of God and challenging your false doctrine.

I know you will ridicule me even more for writing these words and mock me for them.

You might take pause before you do so, if you believe the words, "He that receives him that I send receives me; He that rejects him that I send, rejects Me also."

All the best followers of Christ are heretics and fools; They are His representatives , as He died as a heretic and fool.
Beware what you do to us; If Satan has his way, you will let your hate possess you and go on a full fledged attack against God in the name of your religion, as did Saul of Tarsus.

Perhaps that is the best way; perhaps you will meet him on the road to Damascus when He knocks you off your high horse and gives you the blinding light of His presence and truth.


Of course, I may be crazy, as you think; but what if I am right ? Jesus was thought to be crazy by His brothers; Paul was thought mad by Festus.I also have the Spirit of God;

If you believe I am a heretic and deceiver, say out loud that I am a child of Satan, and see what happens to you.

Amen & Amen


Dave B

Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Dave,

...please spare me the "Christ was persecuted, I think am persecuted, therefore I must be right and you must be wrong" poppycock. There have been millions of nutcases (like Koresh) who have tried the exact same logic.

You don't know what persecution is until you've at gazed at a scar on your grandfather's neck that stretched from ear to ear. Then you can tell me about persecution.

I don't care whether you're a "heretic" or not. Up until a few years ago, we were "heretics" (according to the Western Church.) That all of a sudden changed because they admitted that they "misunderstood" us.

I care when someone pretends to teach me about something they know very little about, about which I know alot. First, learn how to properly spell in Aramaic and then you can get into the deeper subjects, like word imagery.

Right now, your method of declaring the imagery of Aramaic words by comparing them to your KJV is a downright shame and a disservice to yourself and others...

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=212&st=0&sk=t&sd=a">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=212&st=0&sk=t&sd=a</a><!-- l -->

There you go Ryan, it's up there there in red and bold, it is Bauscher NOT Andrew who is "claiming to be something he's not".

Anyway I'm done with you, the other moderators can decide what to do about your posts Dave, though the thought of banning you is starting get very tempting indeed, especially after you called us "brainless sheep".

And I'll say this for the last time: Andrew is not guilty of plagiarism - TELIA KE PAVLA!!!
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
#34
Shlama all--

I will make this as a separate topic as well, so that all have a chance to see and understand.

Here is the proof of what I am saying. You can look at hundreds of legal sites on the internet and they will all tell you the same thing. This one is from <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter8/8-a.html#1">http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_a ... 8-a.html#1</a><!-- m -->. I have bolded what I feel are the most relevant portions and added some commentary:

A. Welcome to the Public Domain
PREVIOUS NEXT

The term "public domain" refers to creative materials that are not protected by intellectual property laws such as copyright, trademark or patent laws. The public owns these works, not an individual author or artist. Anyone can use a public domain work without obtaining permission, but no one can ever own it.

[NOTE from AGR: This means, as Christina pointed out, that AENT is protected by copyright even if public domain resources are part of its' collection. Attribution of sources, by defintion, means I ackhowledge I don't "own" them.]


You are free to copy and use individual images but copying and distributing the complete collection may infringe what is known as the "collective works" copyright. Collections of public domain material will be protected if the person who created it has used creativity in the choices and organization of the public domain material.

[NOTE from AGR: AENT more than meets this test. I have been very creative in when I use sources, when it is my own work. The many unique features of AENT more than prove this out. I did not just "copy" these things but added greatly to what was there, used way different terminology, expanded footnotes and added Aramaic text.]

This usually involves some unique selection process, for example, a poetry scholar compiling a book, The Greatest Poems of e.e. cummings.

There are four common ways that works arrive in the public domain:

expiration of copyright: the copyright has expired.

failure to renew copyright: the owner failed to follow copyright renewal rules.
dedication: the owner deliberately places it in the public domain.


[NOTE from AGR: This applies to Paul Younan. He literally placed his work, which I helped him with, in the public domain.]

no copyright protection available: copyright law does not protect this type of work.

Let's look at each of these routes into the public domain more closely.

1. Expired Copyright

Copyright has expired for all works published in the United States before 1923. In other words, if the work was published in the U.S. before January 1, 1923, you are free to use it in the U.S. without permission.

[NOTE from AGR: This applies to Murdock.]

As an example, the graphic illustration of the man with mustache was published sometime in the 19th Century and is in the public domain, so no permission is required to include it within this book. These rules and dates apply regardless of whether the work was created by an individual author, a group of authors or by an employee (the latter sometimes referred to as a "work made for hire.")


[NOTE from AGR: Murdock published his work in the 1850's...I couldn't think of a better example myself. The rest is just a detailed description from these principles. ]

Because of legislation passed in 1998, no new works will fall into the public domain until 2019 when works published in 1923 will expire. In 2020, works published in 1924 will expire and so forth. If a work was written by a single author and published after 1977, the copyright will not expire until 70 years after the author's death. If a work was written by several authors and published after 1977, it will not expire until 70 years after the last surviving author dies.

[NOTE from AGR: This is exactly the point I make in the Refiners Fire essay whose link I gave at the beginning of this thread. Copyright is life plus 70 years. I studied law at a Catholic University of all places back in the day, so I know what I am talking about though I didn't pursue it as a career.]

So you see my friends, it is Bauscher and others who have been lying to you. And it is Bauscher and others who clearly, as I said, do not know the legal or practical ramifications--let alone the definitions--behind their accusations. They can twist and spin and writhe all day in their paranoia but the law is the law. It won't change 200+ years of statutory jurisprudence.

I know the laws of man and I know the laws of YHWH. I have violated NEITHER in the production of AENT.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
#35
Mr. Roth, plagiarism is not illegal. Just for the record. Copyright infringement is illegal. I have seen nowhere that you have been accused of copyright infringement. The thing that Mr. Bauscher says you are guilty of is plagiarism, which is a related, though different, animal. Plagiarism is unethical but it is not necessarily illegal.
#36
Shlama Akhi Dawid, and I see you are not addressing me in this way nor wishing me peace.

Please see the defintions I just provided. I gave the Merriam-Webster defintions of plagiarism in the link originally provided and turned every aspect of that defintion back, i.e. shown that they don't apply to AENT. A plagiarized work can be considered an infringement of copyright. The two ideas a frequently interchanged in public discourse, so to allege one is to imply the other. I refuse to stand on semantic ceremony. Plus it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that Bauscher is suggesting the more serious allegation by applying the broader term and hoping people will think A = B.

But beyond this, AENT is NOT plagiarized, and I will continue to say so that by the legal, copyright and fair use provisions NEITHER HAS HAPPENED.

Please get your facts right.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
#37
Those who want to ask Murdock if what Andrew did is unethical are free do so at the resurrection, though I doubt that he cares.

As for Paul, why don't we ask him if what Andrew did was unethical. So Shamasha, do you think that what akhan Andrew has done is unethical?
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
#38
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama Akhi Dawid, and I see you are not addressing me in this way nor wishing me peace.

Please see the defintions I just provided. I gave the Merriam-Webster defintions of plagiarism in the link originally provided and turned every aspect of that defintion back, i.e. shown that they don't apply to AENT. A plagiarized work can be considered an infringement of copyright. The two ideas a frequently interchanged in public discourse, so to allege one is to imply the other. I refuse to stand on semantic ceremony. Plus it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that Bauscher is suggesting the more serious allegation by applying the broader term and hoping people will think A = B.

But beyond this, AENT is NOT plagiarized, and I will continue to say so that by the legal, copyright and fair use provisions NEITHER HAS HAPPENED.

Please get your facts right.
Mr. Roth, I'm afraid I don't understand what relation my greeting has to do with the issue at hand.

I've just re-read your post, and I'm afraid I see nowhere that equates plagiarism with copyright infringement. Were you referring to a post other than the one in this thread that begins with "I will make this as a separate topic as well, so that all have a chance to see and understand."?
Many times plagiarism is copyright infringement. But not all instances of plagiarism are a copyright infringement. I have my dictionary in front of me and nowhere are the two equated or compared. Nor in my Roget's Thesaurus. As pointed out here (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2005/10/06/copyright-infringement-plagiarism-and-fair-use/">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2005/10/ ... -fair-use/</a><!-- m -->) on plagiarismtoday.com/, not every case of plagiarism is copyright infringement.
I do not mean to become more blunt than I have been, but to put it simply I'm afraid that it is incorrect to say that, "A plagiarized work can be considered an infringement of copyright." This is simply not true.

I must ask you, if anyone who says "plagiarism" implies "copyright infringement" then what would you call it if a modern poet claimed to have written "Annie Laurie"?

It has occurred to me what he may be trying to do. But I rejected it after trying to imagine what else he would call it if he believes you were intellectually dishonest, and yet did not violate the law.

Please do not think that I am accusing you of plagiarism. But I do disagree with you when you equate plagiarism and copyright infringement.
#39
The fact is Murdock cannot accuse Andrew of either plagiarism or copyright infringement for obvious reasons. And even if by some miracle his ghost appears to us why would he bother? How would he still benefit from the sales of his work in Sheol? What would it benefit him to say: "everyone who wants to quote my work must make it clear that it's mine"? All his peers are in Sheol with him, why would he care to uphold his reputation in the "land of the living"?

And about akhan Paul: He can speak for himself but from what I gather from his posts, he's against both copyrights and any kind of "intellectual property", especially when it concerns the Scriptures, why are you and Bauscher still ignoring what he said on this matter? Paul willingly placed his interlinear in the public domain, anyone who does this knows that people can legally copy their work even without giving them attribution. If Paul really cared so much about his name always being mentioned by everyone who copies his work he wouldn't have placed it in the public domain! And what's more Paul not only confirmed that Andrew DID give him credit, he has plainly stated that it wasn't even necessary for Andrew to mention him! Why isn't this good enough???

Dawid I honestly think this is starting to become an exercise into futility.
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
#40
Christina Wrote:The fact is Murdock cannot accuse Andrew of either plagiarism or copyright infringement for obvious reasons. And even if by some miracle his ghost appears to us why would he bother? How would he still benefit from the sales of his work in Sheol? What would it benefit him to say: "everyone who wants to quote my work must make it clear that it's mine"? All his peers are in Sheol with him, why would he care to uphold his reputation in the "land of the living"?

And about akhan Paul: He can speak for himself but from what I gather from his posts, he's against both copyrights and any kind of "intellectual property", especially when it concerns the Scriptures, why are you and Bauscher still ignoring what he said on this matter? Paul willingly placed his interlinear in the public domain, anyone who does this knows that people can legally copy their work even without giving them attribution. If Paul really cared so much about his name always being mentioned by everyone who copies his work he wouldn't have placed it in the public domain! And what's more Paul not only confirmed that Andrew DID give credit, he has plainly stated that it wasn't even necessary for Andrew to mention him! Why isn't this good enough???

Dawid I honestly think this is starting to become an exercise into futility.

Debates like this are an exercise in futility by nature. I still would like to make my voice heard.

Whether or not they object is, I'm afraid, not the question Mr. Bauscher is raising. Mr. Bauscher believes that Mr. Roth has been intellectually dishonest. It's not a matter of whether or not Mr. Younan is okay with it.
Like I said before, I'm not siding with Mr. Bauscher. Or with Mr. Roth for that matter. I hate taking sides period. But I do think that there is a huge lack of communication going on here. And whether or not Mr. Younan is okay with it or not, it still needs to be noted.
#41
Shlama Akhi Dawid,

HOW CAN I BE "INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST" WHEN I HAVE DETAILED EVERYTHING THAT I DID IN THE FIRST PLACE???

Almost everyone here uses the address "Shlama Akhi/Khati" (peace my brother/sister) when talking with a member. So if you see what is going on here and just call me "Mr. Roth" when everyone else is wishing me peace and when even Bauscher is addressed as "Shlama Akhi" by those who are clearly against him, I think you can see why that would not escape my attention.

There are different forms of plagiarism. A student who totally copies another's work and calls it original will not be prosecuted, but he could fail the course or be expelled from the school.

Another form of it has to do with books and research. If a work is plagiarized THEN, the source of the original work can sue for copyright infringement. The one leads to the other. In public parlance as is common on the internet, to suggest one is to imply the other. Alternatively, it is no friendly reassurance to suggest I am guilty of one but not the other. I will vigorously fight BOTH.

Here is what you don't seem to understand. If a work is PUBLIC DOMAIN, it does not, by defintion, come under copyright infrignement. There literally is no copyright to infringe. So, if the greater charge is disproved, so is what is in your mind the "lesser' charge of plagiarism. If there is no infringement, there is no plagiarism either. But I agree with you that not all of which is plagiarized leads to legal infringement cases. Even so, I cannot allow such association to be implied without comment.

I don't know why you seem to think this is an appropriate time to engage in such fine points, and you are insensitive in the extreme in the way you worded your first post to me. Do you honestly think I care which forms of plagiarism may or may not lead to infringement or is it enough that AENT is NOT plagiarized??? Come on.

Just so we are clear, THIS is the definition I say does NOT apply to AENT:

Plagiarize: Function: verb Inflected Form(s): pla??gia??rized; pla??gia??riz??ing Etymology: plagiary Date: 1716 transitive verb: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source intransitive verb : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

I really, really wish you would read the full rebuttal on Refiners Fire <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.therefinersfire.org/aent_critics.htm">http://www.therefinersfire.org/aent_critics.htm</a><!-- m --> to see what it really is I am challenging. I am not going for a narrow "barely escapes illegality" paradigm. I am proving that there is no part of the laws of man or of YHWH that has been violated by AENT. PLEASE understand the difference. It doesn't matter to me only that the work escapes illegality in the sense that I already know it does. The point is, let me say it again, PUBLIC DOMAIN WORKS CAN NEITHER HAVE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT NOR PLAGIARISM ATTACHED TO THEM. I GIVE PROPER ATTRIBUTION TO ALL SOURCES IN AENT.

And finally, in addition to the title of Mari meaning in part "Murdock-Roth-Younan", there is this line in the title page:

Compiled, Edited & Translated with consultation to both
Ancient and Modern Authorities
including:
The Khabouris Codex and the 1905 Edition of the Syriac New Testament
by the British and Foreign Bible Society.

I would hope that you would see that leaving a post open to the interpretation of plagiarism is not a good detail to leave in place.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
#42
Dawid Wrote:Debates like this are an exercise in futility by nature. I still would like to make my voice heard.

Fair enough, you're entitled to make your voice heard, I won't stop you, carry on...

Dawid Wrote:Whether or not they object is, I'm afraid, not the question Mr. Bauscher is raising. Mr. Bauscher believes that Mr. Roth has been intellectually dishonest. It's not a matter of whether or not Mr. Younan is okay with it.

Yes Bauscher believes that Andrew has been intellectually dishonest and he gave his reason - plagiarism - which he has defined as "not giving proper attribution even if the sources are PD" the way HE defines it (in the preface/intro, as I last read it though he keeps changing his mind). But his claims have already been refuted. Seriously why does his opinion matter more than Paul's? I don't get it. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh --> AENT has no relationship with him or his work whatsoever, again I just don't get it. <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->

Albion, one of his "partners in crime" even says in one of his amazon comments that "Paul, of all people should be able to recognize Andrew's plagiarism" and yet at the same time he keeps saying that "Paul is CYAing Andrew's plagiarism of his PD interlinear"! This is nonsensical to me, if Paul says that Andrew didn't plagiarize his PD work then Andrew didn't plagiarize his PD work, it's as simple as that! This proves that they are in the wrong, whether they want to acknowledge it or not, as far as I'm concerned. Just because they believe that Andrew's AENT is a plagiarism, it doesn't mean that we must consider their opinion as fact, and it has already been demonstrated that it's not.

Dawid Wrote:Like I said before, I'm not siding with Mr. Bauscher. Or with Mr. Roth for that matter. I hate taking sides period. But I do think that there is a huge lack of communication going on here. And whether or not Mr. Younan is okay with it or not, it still needs to be noted.

Man, I admire your optimism <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> , but I have seen enough evidence to convince me that Bauscher & co.'s case has been defeated.
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
#43
Shlama Khatan Christina,

Christina Wrote:Those who want to ask Murdock if what Andrew did is unethical are free do so at the resurrection, though I doubt that he cares.

As for Paul, why don't we ask him if what Andrew did was unethical. So Shamasha, do you think that what akhan Andrew has done is unethical?

Absolutely not, in fact I called Andrew a couple of days ago and chastised him for even gracing this charge with an answer.

Fact of the matter is that way back when MARI was still a mere thought in his heart, Andrew called me and lamented at the state of affairs in the world of the Aramaic NT...especially with regard to an English translation. I mean a proper translation, not a literal Interlinear. It was during the time when my mother was ill, on life support for nearly 10 months before she passed into life eternal. This event was followed by the illness of my sister, who also was on life support for nearly a year before she passed into the Arms of our Lord.

During this very difficult 2 years for me personally, Andrew communicated with me on multiple occasions both via email and over the phone about his intention to create MARI, the meaning of the name of his work, and his attribution to myself personally by incorporating my surname into the acronym MARI (despite my objections at the time.)

What many people may not realize is how instrumental Andrew (and others...but especially Andrew) has been to the work here on peshitta.org. There were times on the phone that we made breakthroughs. Discoveries over emails. And, over coffee at a Jewish restaurant in Los Angeles far away from our native Chicago and Philadelphia.

Andrew was a guest in my home, along with Dean Dana....and we spent many a night pouring over texts and our own ideas. We sat at the computer and translated interlinear chapters together. Dean Dana (who runs aramaicbooks.com), another CoE-baptized Jew (and one of my best friends, who I talk to almost daily), can testify to this.

I become really distraught when the work on peshitta.org is referred to by my surname. The fact of the matter is that the work here is in the public domain not from the goodness of my heart, or from a sense of humility on my part. It is in the public domain precisely because this work is the product of many hands, and like any other open-source project it may be used and reproduced freely.

You will notice that on no page of the Interlinear is my name to be found.

I do have one final request of everyone, and that does include you Akhi Dave - please refrain from calling this work the "Younan Translation." Certainly I do not refer to it as such, and this also goes for anything Mr. Lawrence Sheets has derived from these Interlinear chapters.

There is no such thing as the "Younan Translation." There is a Peshitta.org Interlinear, and many people have contributed to it over the years. No one owns it, and it is provided freely to all as a Korban by my own resources, for reasons that people who've been here long enough know.

Thank you in advance for your understanding.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#44
Dawid Wrote:Whether or not they object is, I'm afraid, not the question Mr. Bauscher is raising. Mr. Bauscher believes that Mr. Roth has been intellectually dishonest. It's not a matter of whether or not Mr. Younan is okay with it.

Shalom Akhi Dawid,

You are correct, it shouldn't matter if Mr. Younan is okay with it. But it should matter that Mr. Bauscher's belief that Mr. Roth has been intellectually dishonest is baseless.

Besides Andrew's notation of the names of the primary sources in the acronym MARI and mentioning those sources in the Intro, please refer to the following thread that Mr. Roth addressed to you personally....dated 12/11/2008:

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic....hilit=mari

Quote:(regarding the Murdoch Translation - PY) My idea with Mari was to represent the spectrum of readings, annotate the differences, and let the reader decide for themselves. That's why I chose an interlinear format in the first place, but to be fair to Murdock, his original translation (as opposed to the plain text version on line) references many Aramaic words in the side panels. It is somewhere between straight English and an interlinear. Etheridge also in admirable, but for other reasons. Lamsa of course made a point of going from the Eastern text for the 22. Paul Younan's interlinear is also great, of course.

Andrew has always stated that MARI was intended to be a collation of various readings that came before MARI. I don't understand how there is any question about intellectual dishonesty.

Also make note of this thread:

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic....ari#p10504

Dated 9/19/2008:

Quote:Shlama Akhi Stephen,

You are way too modest Akhi Khabiba. Yes I know there are a few errors here and there but your transcription of Khabouris and the other resources at Dukhrana are the best that exist. When you did this great work and I saw it, I literally had to re-think some of what I was doing with Mari to make sure I took what you did into account. Mari is closer to a critical edition because your eyes started what mine could confirm. You may not have done my work but you made it easier for me to get mine done and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

After Paul Younan's work, I would put Dukhrana as the next most important resource that I use. I put it even ahead of my beloved "Aramaic New Covenant Peshitta Text with Hebrew Translation" because Khabouris and what you did with it make it easier for me to confirm 1905.

Shlama w'burkate

Andrew Gabriel Roth

Make note that Andrew stated that "Paul Younan's work" was the most important resource that he used.

Finally, read the following thread (during a moment when Albion was apparently thinking a little more clearlySmile

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic....ari#p10366

Albion Wrote:Dave COULD still be here........BUT, he viciously attacked Andrew Gabriel Roth, and Paul Younan, then he decided that we were all his "enemies", and he summarily LEFT the Forum.

All of this because he could NOT handle someone else believing that the Godhead was NOT how Dave thought that it should be!

But his REAL reason was even more sinister.............his jealously over Andtrew's forthcoming, Mari/PEACE!

Just a reminder of what REALLY happened!

In that moment of lucidity from Albion, you will find the truth behind Dave's real intentions in his vicious, unprompted attacks on Andrew's work.

Sooner or later these snakes will turn upon each other. Mark my words.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#45
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:I suggest that you repent of your nastiness, anti-Semitism and religious prejudice.

Hi Andrew, is dave really doing any of this because he is anti-semitic?
Can you explain why you make this accusation?

Thanks


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)