Official Church Logo . . .

[Pahoran]

It was intended for them to think about it, more than simply to listen.

Your first sentence is an obvious counterfactual. Your well-poisoning was intended to persuade people to not think about joining the Church, or giving the missionaries any serious consideration.

It’s cute how you conflate knowledge with prejudice. It takes some serious mental gymnastics to go from “analytics quoted the church’s official teachings so extensively it was an alleged copyright violation” to “analytics was attempting to prejudice his audience against the church.”

Not at all. "Analytics" quoted LDS copyright material far too substantially to have any good faith basis on which to claim that it was merely "fair use." But "Analytics" also supplemented his wholesale quotations with heavy-handed anti-Mormon commentary that attempted to prejudice his audience against the Church.

What "serious mental gymnastics" do you see there?

As you perfectly well know, "Analytics," it was not your quotation that was prejudicial, it was your heavy-handed commentary; which, by your own admission, constituted approximately nine times as much material as the wholesale quotations. You left nothing to chance, ensuring that your audience got 10% LDS material and 90% of your nasty prejudicial spin.

My idea of fair use is the legal definition of it.

CFR, please. Which "legal definition" is that? Every "legal definition" I've seen says that "substantial" copying is not "fair use."

The book goes on to give several case studies of the chilling effects associated with corporations stifling free speech. If you go down to page 42 (in the section Strong or Reasonable Defenses), they give their point of view on how your Church tried to stifle the free exchange of ideas in this case.

So there are other people who agree with you that the rights of copyright owners are irrelevant. Got it.

But I’ll tell you what. If you insist that my use of the missionary discussions was illegal, I’ll go ahead and restore the website to its former state.

I'm not a lawyer; I venture no legal opinion. I only insist that your use of the missionary discussions was cynical, malicious and dishonest.

And therefore, completely in character.

I’ll notify the church’s attorneys that I’m doing so, that I believe that it is fair use, and that if they disagree, we can go to court and have a judge decide.

And I will cheerfully volunteer to testify in your behalf. I will testify that, based upon my years of interaction with you, I am convinced that you genuinely and sincerely believe that any use of any material in order to stick it to the Church of Jesus Christ is always absolutely fair.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

The book goes on to give several case studies of the chilling effects associated with corporations stifling free speech. If you go down to page 42 (in the section Strong or Reasonable Defenses), they give their point of view on how your Church tried to stifle the free exchange of ideas in this case.

Here's a link to the book: http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/8769.pdf

Their opinion, based as it is upon false assertions of fact, is fundamentally worthless.

Indeed, the second sentence of their opinion says: "The site is not hostile to the Church, but includes discussion and analysis; it seeks to 'fairly present both sides and let the reader arrive at his own conclusions.'" This, of course, is merely quoting your own promotional blurb; and it is false. Your site was palpably hostile, and the so-called "discussion and analysis" was merely spin, intended to influence opinion in one direction only.

Also, it said that you quoted "excerpts," when in fact you were quoting wholesale.

Did it tell those lies on their own initiative, or were they simply gullible enough to believe you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Analytics]

CFR, please. Which "legal definition" is that? Every "legal definition" I've seen says that "substantial" copying is not "fair use."

As you said, you aren't a lawyer.

U.S. Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(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.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

[Analytics]

Their opinion, based as it is upon false assertions of fact, is fundamentally worthless.

Indeed, the second sentence of their opinion says: "The site is not hostile to the Church, but includes discussion and analysis; it seeks to 'fairly present both sides and let the reader arrive at his own conclusions.'" This, of course, is merely quoting your own promotional blurb; and it is false. Your site was palpably hostile, and the so-called "discussion and analysis" was merely spin, intended to influence opinion in one direction only.

Also, it said that you quoted "excerpts," when in fact you were quoting wholesale.

Did it tell those lies on their own initiative, or were they simply gullible enough to believe you?

Regards,

Pahoran

They are fair-minded, unbiased experts in the law who understand the facts of the case correctly--it's no wonder they came to the polar-opposite opinion as you did.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion to the contrary, but the site has received enough feedback over the years to prove that it is in fact not hostile. I have literally hundreds of emails from Mormons and investigators acknowledging the basic fairness of that site.

In any case, this disagreement whether or not the site is hostile is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the quotations constitute fair use.

And of course you are lying when falsely claim I was quoting wholesale. Yes, I quoted the left-hand columns of the left-hand pages of the middle sections of booklets 2-7, which is less than 10% of the work as a whole.

[Pahoran]

You seem opposed to well poisoning against the Church.

And you seem to be in favour of it.

Well poisoning has little or no bearing concerning a Fair Use claim, as Fair Use is intended to allow commentary - good or bad,

I did not say that well-poisoning had any bearing upon a "Fair Use" claim, so you are attacking a straw man.

so as a Freedom loving American, I support the right of Free Speech,

While, as a believing Latter-day Saint, I support the Church's right to carry out its mission without evil people constantly trying to interfere.

I accept the fact that such considerations are contrary to your ethos.

I also support people acting in good faith when it comes to claiming the law is on a persons side, so I try to live my life as Voltaire and with the counsel giving to Mr. Roper by Moore in "A Man For All Seasons" .

While I try to live my life as a Latter-day Saint. However, I don't necessarily accept that just because a person claims that the law is on his side, it automatically is.

Nor, due to my extensive experience with anti-Mormons, do I accept that such claims are always made in good faith.

Regards,

Pahoran

[USU78]

Only to the expensive and ultimately useless copyright attorneys, everyone else has the two brain cells to rub together and figure out that a logo doesn't equal official Church statement. Anyone can make

a logo, if you want something official go to an official site, not a public forum.

I'm sorry, Mr. Wilson, but we just gotta put 2nd base in your living room.

[TAO]

Is it just me... or is this topic really.... bitter.

Yes, LDSGuy should have removed it... and he did, with Minos's guidance.

But as Lehi says, it is intended to prevent bad publicity of the logo, and I am pretty sure the church will not press charges versus people innocently using it.

For example, I occasionally post several of Pres. Monson's experience excerpts from one of his books. But I do not think he would mind in the least, I think he built the stories to be shared, that he did =). And I provide the reference to the book just in case (in addition, he shares some of these stories in GC talks which are not posted under a license as well, so technically I could get them from another source pretty easily).

So ultimately, I think the idea to keep in mind is that it is against copyright when used inappropriately (because generally, otherwise they will not mind). Of course, according to board rules, we shouldn't use copyrighted materials without permission, so that we should listen to definitely.

[USU78]

See this is exactly what expensive lawyers do, that take a extremely rare and ultimately unrelated event and try and make it seem like it makes sense in the context of there silly and useless arguement, then if you don't agree with them they sue you for every penny you got!

I'm sorry the police won't move Dennis' 2nd base from your living room, Mr. Wilson. I guess you'll have to get someone to help you move it.

[Pahoran]

They are fair-minded, unbiased experts in the law who understand the facts of the case correctly--it's no wonder they came to the polar-opposite opinion as you did.

Yes, all those who agree with you -- and uncritically quote your self-promotional blather -- are automatically "fair-minded, unbiased experts." Funny, that.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion to the contrary, but the site has received enough feedback over the years to prove that it is in fact not hostile. I have literally hundreds of emails from Mormons and investigators acknowledging the basic fairness of that site.

Yes, I have no doubt that the denizens of the "Telestial Forum" on Shades's Sty would unanimously agree that your dishonest propaganda site was wonderfully impartial.

So not only are those who like your hate site "fair-minded, unbiased experts," they agree that you're a splendiferously "fair" fellow as well.

All those who share your view of the Church, for whatever reason, are just wonderfully fair people together, aren't you?

In any case, this disagreement whether or not the site is hostile is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the quotations constitute fair use.

And of course you are lying when falsely claim I was quoting wholesale. Yes, I quoted the left-hand columns of the left-hand pages of the middle sections of booklets 2-7, which is less than 10% of the work as a whole.

I see you are trying to tone down your claim. Here is how you previously described your quoting:

If you are familiar with those old pastel discussions, what I quoted was the left-hand column of the left page, where each principle of each discussion had the verbiage of what the missionaries were supposed to teach.

IOW, you provided wholesale quotations of what the missionaries presented when teaching.

And of course, when you accused me of lying, which you do with all the predictability of a knee jerk -- or any other kind -- you were indulging your own penchant for false accusations.

The website was probably about 10% quotations of missionary discussions and 90% commentary on what they said.

IOW, your "fair and unbiased" approach was not to allow the missionaries to speak for themselve; you made sure that your audience would think exactly what you wanted them to think about the missionary discussions.

It was non-profit, and clearly was fair use.

I agree that it was of no profit -- i.e. benefit -- to anyone. And I understand that, given your trenchant hostility to the Church of Jesus Christ, you think it absolutely "fair" to stick it to the Church any way you can.

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

And you seem to be in favour of it.

there must needs be opposition in all things. As the LDS are concerned it was Satan who wanted to take destroy the agency of mankind and force them to act a certain way. I accept that not everyone will agree with my religious opinion, I also accept that people are free to express their opinions. I also accept that I can not force another person to remain silent, as that would make me no better than Satan.

I did not say that well-poisoning had any bearing upon a "Fair Use" claim, so you are attacking a straw man.

here is what you said:

"The Church may not suffer economic loss, but the purpose of his anti-Mormon well-poisoning was to put people off hearing the missionaries and/or joining the Church." and you also said this in a different post but it followed a similar statement as the first quotation herein, "And that's your idea of "fair use.""

So it appeared you were more concerned about the content of his message as the reason for the copyright violation rather than anything else

.

"Putting people off" is his freedom, and you would do well to protect that freedom of his. Additionally, as I have stated commentary good or bad, is what Fair Use protects, so yes, even if his intent is to discourage people from speaking with the missionaries that is his right, and he can legally use Church copyright material under fair use to discourage people from meeting with the missionaries. And you would be wise to protect that freedom to speak against the church, lest "[T]hey came for [you]and there [will be] no one left to speak out for [you]." The freedoms an American citizen enjoys are inseparably connected to the freedoms of every other American, even those people who speak evil of the Church. So to protect my freedom, I have to defend that which others find offensive.

While, as a believing Latter-day Saint, I support the Church's right to carry out its mission without evil people constantly trying to interfere. I accept the fact that such considerations are contrary to your ethos.

The Church does not have a "right to carry out its mission without evil people constantly trying to interfere". And again as the BoM teaches, there must needs be opposition.

[Rivers]

Scott Lloyd was kind enough to provide me a link to the CHI which provides the following as it relates to the Church logo:

This strikes me as offensive on a number of levels.

Somewhere along the way, the LDS Church seems to have forgotten we are the LDS Church.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The LDS Church is corporation. This is simply an example of the church doing something that corporations do.

[Pahoran]

there must needs be opposition in all things. As the LDS are concerned it was Satan who wanted to take destroy the agency of mankind and force them to act a certain way. I accept that not everyone will agree with my religious opinion, I also accept that people are free to express their opinions. I also accept that I can not force another person to remain silent, as that would make me no better than Satan.

Yes. We live in a world where the Church is free to stand for truth and righteousness, and evil people attack it for so doing.

here is what you said:

"The Church may not suffer economic loss, but the purpose of his anti-Mormon well-poisoning was to put people off hearing the missionaries and/or joining the Church." and you also said this in a different post but it followed a similar statement as the first quotation herein, "And that's your idea of "fair use.""

So it appeared you were more concerned about the content of his message as the reason for the copyright violation rather than anything else.

Not quite.

One of the criteria used by US courts in determining "Fair use" is to look at the effect such use has on the copyright owner's "market." Now it happens that the Church is not a business and does not sell the discussions, but the anti-Mormon in question was using the Church's copyright material in a deliberate attempt to have a deleterious effect upon the Church's "market." Thus, the only way he could defeat that test of his "Fair use" claim is by arguing that his efforts were ineffective.

Beyond that, I was attempting to appeal to your fair-mindedness, and alleged loyalty to the Church, in asking you to consider whether it is really "fair" to use the Church's own missionary material -- heavily larded with hostile commentary intended to poision the well -- in order to hamper its mission.

Evidently, my appeal was ineffective.

"Putting people off" is his freedom, and you would do well to protect that freedom of his.

And his "freedom" is in nowise under threat. The only thing that is even slightly diminished is his "freedom" to abuse the Church's copyright materials in order to turn them into polemical weapons.

Why anyone would want to "protect" that is beyond me. But I suggest you stop the patronising remarks about what I "would do well" to do.

Additionally, as I have stated commentary good or bad, is what Fair Use protects, so yes, even if his intent is to discourage people from speaking with the missionaries that is his right, and he can legally use Church copyright material under fair use to discourage people from meeting with the missionaries.

All you are telling me is that the law -- under his interpretation, and perhaps yours also -- might permit him to do something that is morally inconscionable.

Which really just shows how utterly inadequate the law is as a guide to moral behaviour.

And you would be wise to protect that freedom to speak against the church, lest "[T]hey came for [you]and there [will be] no one left to speak out for [you]."

Since I'm not so morally bankrupt as to thieve someone else's intellectual property under a flimsy pretext of "Fair use" and then lard it up with spiteful commentary so that people will be prejudiced against the copyright owner, I fail to see that I have any self-interest in supporting "Analytics" in his intellectual thievery.

The freedoms an American citizen enjoys are inseparably connected to the freedoms of every other American, even those people who speak evil of the Church. So to protect my freedom, I have to defend that which others find offensive.

He intoned, sanctimoniously. Thank you for admitting that you don't find anti-Mormon distortions and misrepresentations offensive.

But then again, why should you?

When an anti-Mormon such as Analytics uses a set of missionary discussions as the grist for a disinformation campaign, that's not your ox being gored; but when the Church manages to stop him from using those discussions -- but without interfering with his "right" to continue his campaign by any other means he can devise without using the Church's own material -- then that is your ox being gored.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

The Church does not have a "right to carry out its mission without evil people constantly trying to interfere". And again as the BoM teaches, there must needs be opposition.

Of course the Church has such a right. It is just that the law -- which for you seems to be all that matters -- is inadequate to protect that right.

However, in this instance it does appear to be adequate, so I'm pleased with that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

Since I'm not so morally bankrupt as to thieve someone else's intellectual property under a flimsy pretext of "Fair use" and then lard it up with spiteful commentary so that people will be prejudiced against the copyright owner, I fail to see that I have any self-interest in supporting "Analytics" in his intellectual thievery.

One can not "thieve" what the Law allows to be taken. But since we are talking about thievery, judgment is for God and so is vengeance, to take upon either is to steal from God.

Of course the Church has such a right.

and where is this right? or what is this right? How can the Church assert this right? Rights are created/protected by laws, if you can not point to a law that protects the right you assert, then it can be said there is no right to be protected.

That you can not understand the need to protect the rights of another person is really no suprise to me.

Is it "fair use" to use the Church materials against, yes it is. And that is what the law intended. That you don't like it is a personal issue.

Thank you for admitting that you don't find anti-Mormon distortions and misrepresentations offensive.

should I be offended by your judgment, distortions and misrepresentations? I admitted nothing other than that I defend the right of another to be offensive.

[Gohan]

Dang, I'm just remembering the flyer one of my companions made for a Spanish class that he and my other companion - we were in a trio - taught. He definitely had the Church logo on there...dang it...

I agree with what the Church is doing though, makes sense to me.

[Calm]

Dang, I'm just remembering the flyer one of my companions made for a Spanish class that he and my other companion - we were in a trio - taught. He definitely had the Church logo on there...dang it...

I agree with what the Church is doing though, makes sense to me.

I don't think there's any reason to be that concerned about it, just correct the mistake when you see it now that you know.

[LDSToronto]

One of the criteria used by US courts in determining "Fair use" is to look at the effect such use has on the copyright owner's "market." Now it happens that the Church is not a business and does not sell the discussions, but the anti-Mormon in question was using the Church's copyright material in a deliberate attempt to have a deleterious effect upon the Church's "market." Thus, the only way he could defeat that test of his "Fair use" claim is by arguing that his efforts were ineffective.

And, as you said, you are not an attorney, nor are you familiar with U.S. IP law, so your opinion is about as valuable as the plastic keys you are pounding away on.

H.

[Pahoran]

One can not "thieve" what the Law allows to be taken.

It has not been established that the law (I keep forgetting that it is your highest good) actually permits the thievery in question. He was not quoting the occasional sentence or paragraph in order to comment on it; he quoted, by his own admission, the entirety of what the missionaries actually presented in the discussions as they then existed. If that's not "substantial," I don't know what is. His "Fair use" claim has never been tested in any court, so he is merely spouting off his own opinion when he insists that it was "clearly" the case.

But since we are talking about thievery, judgment is for God and so is vengeance, to take upon either is to steal from God.

No "vengeance" is in view. Apart from that, I am merely exercising my right to freedom of speech. I thought you were in favour of freedom of speech. Or do you only approve of it when you like the content?

and where is this right? or what is this right? How can the Church assert this right? Rights are created/protected by laws, if you can not point to a law that protects the right you assert, then it can be said there is no right to be protected.

Yes, it can be said -- by people who don't acknowledge anything higher than manmade laws. I take it you are one of them.

That you can not understand the need to protect the rights of another person is really no suprise to me.

That you will assiduously protect the "rights" of deceitful men to frighten people away from the Church of Jesus Christ, while denying that the Church has any rights in its intellectual property at all, is really no surprise to me.

Is it "fair use" to use the Church materials against, yes it is. And that is what the law intended. That you don't like it is a personal issue.

On a common sense reading of the four-part definition of "Fair use" offered in this thread Analytics's wholesale lifting of the former missionary discussions fails on at least two parts.

should I be offended by your judgment, distortions and misrepresentations? I admitted nothing other than that I defend the right of another to be offensive.

But only offensive to "others." Clearly it is not offensive to you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

And, as you said, you are not an attorney, nor are you familiar with U.S. IP law, so your opinion is about as valuable as the plastic keys you are pounding away on.

Just like Analytics's own opinion.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Analytics]

Pahoran,

Your bile is getting repetitive and there’s little left to say, but I would like to respond to one thing. You said:

Yes, I have no doubt that the denizens of the "Telestial Forum" on Shades's Sty would unanimously agree that your dishonest propaganda site was wonderfully impartial.

So not only are those who like your hate site "fair-minded, unbiased experts," they agree that you're a splendiferously "fair" fellow as well.

All those who share your view of the Church, for whatever reason, are just wonderfully fair people together, aren't you?

Approximately 99% of the people of the world agree with my basic viewpoint of your church. Some of them are “wonderfully fair”, others are not. But that has nothing to do with what I said.

I said, the site has received enough feedback over the years to prove that it is in fact not hostile. I have literally hundreds of emails from Mormons and investigators acknowledging the basic fairness of that site.

Let me emphasize that. The vast majority of Mormons, who have given me feedback have been classy, and they typically thank me for being respectful, despite the fact that they disagree with some things.

Here is an excerpt of a typical email I receive from Mormons:

Dear Analytics,

I am writing this email in response to reading the Missionary Rules and skimming over the content of the rest of your website. As my email address states I am a Mormon. I came to your website to learn more about the rules of the mission I am about to go on. Long story short, I found your rules very helpful. Yet I noted that a few of them such as the one about making two calls over a year needed to be updated.

Overall, I wanted to let you know that I was not only intrigued but fascinated and even respectful by how articulate your comments were on the Church…

The vast majority of emails I get are like this—-the basic attitude is that while they don’t agree with everything I said, they do acknowledge my sincerity and they thank me for disagreeing without being disagreeable.

The truth is, I barely remember what that website even says. I haven’t looked at it in years, much less updated it. But since the vast majority of the feedback I get from faithful Mormons acknowledges the site’s basic decency, I am confident that I was pretty successful in my sincere objective of being fair.

[sethpayne]

Since I'm not so morally bankrupt as to thieve someone else's intellectual property under a flimsy pretext of "Fair use" and then lard it up with spiteful commentary so that people will be prejudiced against the copyright owner, I fail to see that I have any self-interest in supporting "Analytics" in his intellectual thievery.

I am really perplexed by the above statement.

Didn't you write this review?

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=14&num=1&id=414

It seems to me you use the concept of "fair use" to critisize and comment upon JP Holding's arguments. Your review is certainly intended to prejudice people against the content of Holding's book, is it not?

Why is it OK for you to use "fair use" to critique Holding's work but it is not OK for Analytics to critique the the content of the old missionary discussions using the same "fair use" laws of which you take full advantage?

I understand you disagree with Analytic's viewpoint but I suppose I don't fully understand the moral difference you are trying to make between your critique/commentary and Analytic's critique/commentary.

*Also, this is a sincere inquiry. I am trying to understand your position here and would like to keep our discourse on this subject kind, informative and civil.*

[giantfly665]

ii agree with the idea the the use of our logo is disrespectful at times. it is a shame to see the representation of our ideals being used as some sort of cheap drawing, nevermind the sacred connotations that it brings and tyhe personal value that i has in all of us.

here, watch:

in this video we can see a group of weell-meaning youngster ythat are participant of our faith that, despite the best intentions, are using the Logo in a utermost disrespectful manner. i live the link for youtr opinion.

[frankenstein]

Apart from that, I am merely exercising my right to freedom of speech. I thought you were in favour of freedom of speech. Or do you only approve of it when you like the content?

out of curiosity, where does your avatar picture come from. On a separate but similar note, yes, you exercise your freedom of speech, but it is not your freedom of speech to steal from God is it, as judgment belongs to him.

That you will assiduously protect the "rights" of deceitful men to frighten people away from the Church of Jesus Christ, while denying that the Church has any rights in its intellectual property at all, is really no surprise to me.

Once again, you are passing judgment on me. I do not protect rights "to frighten people away from the Church...", I protect rights because my rights and everyone else are inseparably connected.

Secondly, I have not denied "that the Church has any rights in its intellectual property at all", once again should we be offended by your "distortions and misrepresentations". I have only commented on one situation where Fair Use comes into play.

It is really hard to take you seriously when in every other post you contradict yourself, either distortions and misrepresentations are offensive - which means you should not use them either, or distortions and misrepresentation are not offensive which means Analytics is entitled to use such against the Church. It is interesting how much you rail against what he did while you do the same.

But only offensive to "others." Clearly it is not offensive to you.

Regards,

Pahoran

surely you realize the most basic of fallacies you have committed, you strain yourself beyond reason.

last question, is it morally bankrupt thievery for someone to use a copyright image from the Sistine Chapel, Wizard of Oz, Flash Gordon (nice one Dr), Princess Bride X 2 , Clint Eastwood (I think), Futurama (nice), Anime, and so forth. I dare there are very few on these boards who are not using a copyright image as their Avatar.

[Analytics]

Just like Analytics's own opinion.

Regards,

Pahoran

My own opinion is expressed in the NYU case study referenced above. According to the case study, "[analytics] thought he had a fair chance of prevailing if he had been able to afford a good attorney." My opinion is that when it comes to fair use, there is some tension between intellectual property rights and free speech rights, and it isn’t always clear which right takes precedence. While I believed that my use was fair use, I acknowledged the fact that I may have been wrong, and readily acquiesced to the Church’s request that I remove the material in question.

Since then, I’ve had the opportunity to talk to multiple attorneys who specialize in intellectual property, and their opinions have ranged from saying I had a strong fair-use defense to saying I had a bullet-proof fair-use defense.

Pahoran shouldn’t conflate their legal opinion with mine.

[consiglieri]

I am really perplexed by the above statement.

Didn't you write this review?

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=14&num=1&id=414

Quadruple zinger!

[Pahoran]

I am really perplexed by the above statement.

Didn't you write this review?

I do not comment, in this forum, about anything that I may or may not have done elsewhere under my IRL name.

However, as I read the review in question, I am puzzled that you should fail to see the significant differences.

The review itself is very brief, and its quotations from the book itself are much briefer. I see one quote of a couple of lines of the back-cover blurb; one quote of an entire three-line paragraph from the book; and a few quotes of single sentences or part sentences.

By contrast, "Analytics," by his own admission, quoted the entirety of the material that the missionaries routinely taught in six lessons.

A review that did not quote from the book under review would be no review at all; however, a review that quoted all of the text except the footnotes and supplementary material would go far beyond a review, and would also go far beyond "Fair use." Just IMHO, of course. A reader, having read the text in the so-called "review" or "commentary" would have no reason at all to go to the original, would he?

It seems to me you use the concept of "fair use" to critisize and comment upon JP Holding's arguments. Your review is certainly intended to prejudice people against the content of Holding's book, is it not?

Certainly the review disagrees with Holding's book. But it does not give the reader any reason to suppose that he has read everything Holding has to say, and therefore he does not need to read the original.

*Also, this is a sincere inquiry. I am trying to understand your position here and would like to keep our discourse on this subject kind, informative and civil.*

Wouldn't it be nice?

Regards,

Pahoran