http://www.spunkybean.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=384&Itemid=54

Let me know what you think!

I think, had it been 100% in Steve’s hands, Steve would have ceased and desisted with the first order or at least turned over a copy of the book. However, by this point, Steve had most likely signed a contract with RDR allowing them to publish the book, and thus probably had very little say in the matter. My guess is that RDR ordered Steve not to respond at all, saying that they and their non-existent lawyers would handle the matter.

Matthew

Don’t make me out to be too saintly. I still attribute all sorts of bad motives to people; just my sinful nature which needs to be restrained by the Law.

But, yes, I think we’re essentially on the same page. The time for this to be worked out personally was a long time ago. Perhaps SVA should’ve desisted in his attempts to get the Lexicon published when he saw how vehemently Jo reacted against it. Not because, according to human law, he necessarily had to, but because of charity on his part for JKR.

But human law is a wonderful thing, providing us with all sorts of justifications. Who shall we believe? One group of lawyers, Jo’s, says don’t do it; another group of lawyers, Steve’s, says it’s okey-dokey. And who decides, another lawyer dressed up in a black robe.

It all reminds me of a Simpson’s cartoon, where the people ask the reverend about legalized gambling. He says, “Well, once the government declares something legal, it’s no longer immoral.”

Which is of course totally wrong, but very funny. SVA could win this case in court & according then to the law he would’ve done nothing illegal, but would his actions still be immoral & unethical?

Luther says regarding coveting that it’s not right to take our neighbor’s property even in a way that appears right. And he perhaps knew something about the way the legal system worked because he had received his law degree before entering the monastery.

You are charity personified. I will grant you all your maybes.

And I don’t think that we are that far apart in our thinking. What you call maybes are what I would call ways people justify their actions when they suspect that they have done something wrong.

What I’m saying is not that he’s acting like a spouse abuser but rather he’s justifying his actions like an abuser. And that this is completely human.

As for the thief part, maybe you’re right. Maybe it’s not as clear as I think it is. Certainly, creating the Lexicon online and getting the author’s approval, could easily have led him to believe that taking it to the next step was not wrong. But that belief should with equal certainty have been dispelled when the author and publishers told him to cease and desist. That is when I suspect the justifications kicked in.

No problem. I thought you meant the ‘not stealing’ one, but I wasn’t sure. Yes, we can look at this issues from the point of view of that commandment. Taking what belongs to someone else is not right. I think most people have come to the conclusion that intellectual property is the same or close enough to the same as actual real property, so that taking it without permission & profiting off it is wrong.

Of course, in SVA’s case, we also have to use the 8th Commandment in viewing this, that is, don’t bear false witness against your neighbor. Luther expounds on this meaning by saying the commandment includes not just refraining from slandering, speaking ill, or lying about our neighbor, but also speaking well of him & explaining everything in the kindest way.

Speaking thus of Steve, I think we could explain this by saying, maybe he doesn’t believe he’s stealing Jo’s property. Maybe he thinks his printed Lexicon is actually a critical work & thus protected work. Maybe he thinks this was a gray area & now the law will have to define it. Maybe he thinks that since Jo had no problem with the Lexicon being on the web for all to see, that she wouldn’t have any problem seeing it in print. There’s a whole bunch of maybes that speak better of Steve than simply saying he’s a thief or that he’s acting like a spouse abuser.

All those may be true or they may not be, but in keeping with the spirit of the commandment, we can’t say for sure, because we don’t know for sure. I don’t know Steve or Jo. I’m not their friend or pastor to be able to discern more clearly what’s going on. I’m not a lawyer on the case. So, all I can go on is what the parties say.

I meant the “you shall not steal” commandment, as well as the one about not coveting what doesn’t belong to you, in this case, the credit for someone else’s work.

It depends on which numbering of the Commandments you’re talking about. For me, the 7th Commandment is “You shall not steal.” The 8th is “Do not bear false witness against your neighbor.” And the 10th is about not coveting your neighbor’s wife or manservant or maidservant, ox, donkey, or anything that belongs to him.