Permission was granted for reprinting what?

City News recently ran an article on “Action taken to Rectify Citation Issues” regarding Kong Hee’s plagiarism of certain articles and infringement of copyright by claiming copyright when he printed them in his books “Renewing your Spiritual…” KH claimed he and others concerned “had taken measures to do what is necessary to put things right”. What caught my attention was the statement, “One such example is portions that were taken from “The Leadership Bible, New International Version.” In March 2010, Kong’s editorial team wrote to publisher Zondervan Publishing House to seek permission to reprint these portions in the Daily Devotion. The Leadership Bible is authored/edited by Sid Buzzell, Kenneth Boa and Bill Perkins. Permission was granted the following month, stating that “since [the request to reprint] falls under our fair use guidelines (you are using less than 500 words), Zondervan is happy to grant permission at no charge”. The article can be read here http://www.citynews.sg/CNnewspaper/cnjune2010p22/

I am a little curious as to the exact nature of their request for re-producing the articles. 1) Did they SPECIFICALLY STATE their request was to print some of the articles/notes from the Leadership Study Bible? 2) Or did they JUST REQUEST TO reproduce from the Leadership Bible? There is a difference depending on how the written request is crafted. If it is the latter request, Zondervan could be thinking the request is to reprint the NIV BIBLE TEXT IN A COMMERCIAL REFERENCE, not for reprinting of the articles. Looking at Zondervan’s above reply, this may be the permission granted Kong’s team. Zondervan’s reply is based on fair use of the NIV text which is freely given. Just look inside any Zondervan-published Bible. Stated in the inside page is “the NIV TEXT may be quoted in any written form…, up to and inclusive of 500 verses without express written permission of the publisher…” They have written fair use guidelines but it is meant for the NIV text and these guidelines are worded very closely in Zondervan’s reply to KH’s team.

The articles/notes in the Leadership Study Bible are however a different thing. In any study/devotional Bible, these are the intellectual property of the person who wrote them, not necessarily the publisher. Just check any study Bible to ascertain this. In the case of the Leadership Bible, the copyright remains with Buzzell & Boa and so Zondervan has no right to grant permission for anyone to re-print them. In mid-March, I did query Buzzell & Boa as to their copyright ownership of the Leadership Study Bible articles. They replied (in their own words) “Zondervan turned the rights to the material over to the authors” (i.e. Buzzell & Boa). So how can Zondervan grant permission in April 2010 (according to City News) to reprint the articles? In fact, the articles/notes from the Leadership Study Bible have already been re-printed by Buzzell & Boa in other books by other publishing houses. KH’s excellent backup team can ascertain this for themselves.

So many questions to ask over what is a simple copyright issue! Did KH’s team SPECIFICALLY ASK to reprint the articles/notes from the Leadership Study Bible? HOW CAN Zondervan grant permission for the reprint of something they have no copyright to? Is the Buzzell & Boa team MISTAKEN in thinking they have copyright to the articles? Has the Buzzell & Boa team’s publishing houses INFRINGED ON COPYRIGHT by printing the Leadership Study Bible articles in the books of Buzzell & Boa?

I sincerely hope this article will be helpful to KH’s team to make the necessary clarifications. After all, they should try to be sure so as to avoid more legal complications of infringement of copyright should they reprint “Renewing your Spiritual…”

Singapore needs RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act.

Does Singapore need a SG version of RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act? Under US Federal law, RICO enables the law-enforcement officials to take action by providing stronger penalties against organizations that have displayed ongoing criminal activity over a period of time. Wikipedia states that “Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes like tax evasion, bribery, money laundering, embezzlement, theft, fraud, etc. within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering under RICO. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of ‘racketeering activity.’ RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages.”


Currently, those found guilty of such crimes mentioned above are still sentenced as if they have committed the crime individually. This is applied even if it is a group of people who conspire to commit the same crimes like embezzlement and fraud over a period of time. Simply put, racketeering is a group of people working together to carry out a criminal enterprise over a period of time. RICO provides for heavier penalties.


Imagine the charities industry in Singapore. It has to be an industry because of the potential to raise enormous funds by tugging at people’s heartstrings. Imagine a group of people with marketing savvy, organizational acumen and slick PR who are able to address a mass need in society. This could be a need like helping children with vision disorders. After all, who wants a young child to go blind? Or how about children’s cancer since Asians especially cannot bear the thought of children dying. Use emotional appeals through pictures and film which tugs at people’s hearts to give. Why shouldn’t people give? It plays on their guilty conscience since they are healthy while others are sick/dying. Slicker marketing each year, better PR and the money snowballs humongously. Don’t have to take my word for it. Just consider the news on charities for the last five years.


Another need is to be assured of what will happen to you in the afterlife, i.e. salvation. The group addresses the need with slick marketing like ‘giving sacrificially’ and give examples of people who have experienced exponential increase in income after giving until it hurts. They may play on your fears by claiming only such acts of sacrifice will prove you are a real child of God. There may be peer pressure also indicating you are not being faithful if you don’t give playing on your fears of whether you will go Heaven or otherwise. In return, the group offers therapeutic messages and music that make you forget your sorrows or massage your ego for just a little while each weekend and sometimes on a weekday. With slick marketing and PR and more emotional manipulation, the group continues to draw more devotees over the years. And the racket increases in income because they have more people who are giving more and more over the years. After all, everyone is interested in their eternal destiny. Offer it to them on a platter; make it easy for them to believe and soon your devotee numbers increase. Look at the spiritualism (not just Christianity) industry worldwide. Just Google religious scandals and see what happens.


That is why SG also needs a RICO. This will prevent the charity industry from falling into wrong hands such as a charity that commits serial plundering of the funds raised and available for the leadership group’s use. Its not just crime but organized crime since it a group of like-minded criminals out to fleece the people who trust them and get their hands on the charity dollars. I hope the SG government earnestly looks into this.

IS THIS REALLY TRUE!

A poster on KH's blog said this "City News this week explains at length points which show the imbalances in the writeup by both the Straits Times and certain bloggers about Pastor’s devotionals... the publishers had given their permission for the reproduction of the content concerned in the devotionals. So rather than go to the publishers who were the correct people to seek clarifications from, bloggers went straight to the authors (wrong party to look for) and sought their own conclusions from there. Nice one. Shouldn’t the paper and the bloggers therefore apologize as well then, at least for their oversight?"

My response is are the reps of KH still claiming they had permission to reproduce the plagiarised articles? City New is CHC's mouthpiece right? I'd be happy if someone can post the article link here! Why not rebut the papers' reports directly then instead of in your own handouts? That would have a wider circulation and lead to total vindication. Why not show CONCRETE PROOF such permission exists? In fact, I am very interested to know HOW MANY ARTICLES they willingly admit to 'lifting from external sources." I sure would like to know if their number of 'permission-granted' articles correspond with the number of copied articles I have found. Furthermore, if KH, his publishers, etc had permission to print PRIOR TO presstime and circulating online the plagiarised articles, that would have been their first arrow in their salvo against the claims of the bloggers and the press. But has it been? Frankly speaking, I would be happy to apologise if such proof is forthcoming. It gives me no pleasure to find that a man of God (as claimed by his devotees) has fallen short of the standard required. 

So perhaps now KH's reps can claim this word for word copy of Ken Boa's article is also 'permission-granted' for then to reproduce? Call me a legalist if you want to but perhaps it is time to walk the talk and glorify God with action and now with words.

Like someone posted on that same page, "denial is not a river in Egypt."

Whatever...

I wonder if someone can help me understand. Is it only in Christianity that those who stand for the truth and cast light upon darkness are vilified? Or maybe ordinary bloggers make easier target as compared to the government.


Ancient Israel was let astray and cast into captivity simply because their leaders led their followers astray. They even stoned and killed the prophets who warned them of their wrongdoing instead of repenting. What lessons can we in the church learn from this.

I would like to say kudos to our local government for taking the courageous stand to investigate wrongdoing by church leaders. This could have boomeranged on them but they have taken this step for the sake of law and justice, a subject that is close to God's heart.

The Westminster Confession Chapter 23 reminds us "God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers.  

Christians should obey the goverment not because we fear the governement law but because we love God and obey God's commands.

Romans 13:1-4 - Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Attributes "assert" they had right to use plagiarised material

 

The publisher of the book said that after investigation, they discovered that out of the 350 articles in the book, there were about 10 articles which contained similarities with other authors. However, the publisher asserted that KH had used their materials with the permission of the original authors, and therefore it is not a case of plagiarism. He also said that their oversight is in not clearly letting readers know which articles were written by other authors and reproduced with their permission.

The above translation of KH's publishers' "oversight" is taken from http://thelogicalchristian.blogspot.com/2010/06/pastor-kong-hees-publisher-explains-its.html. Thanks Stan. You're an esteeemed man of letters.

Actually I had earlier considered not blogging any response to KH since Stanley had done admirably in showing how HOLEy is KH's 'clarificatiom'. But then the publisher now says its their 'honest mistake'. Really? The game is afoot!

“Contained similarities”. That’s a good spin. Hello, it’s a word for word copy in practically all the articles. There were 350 articles? Looks like even Attributes don’t know the contents of their publishing. The book is called “Renewing…. 90 days”, i.e. one day one articles @ 90 articles/vol. Do the maths Duhhh!

The publisher “asserted”? Why not show hardcopy proof to CONFIRM rather than merely “assert”? If Kong Hee had permission to use the materials, its strange that he did not mention this in his ‘clarification’. Its strange that he did not post a copy of photo of one written permission. That would have shut his detractors up.

Any self-respecting publisher would make sure the author proof-reads and approves the book contents. I know all publishers make their client author or his representative sign against the printed proofs? This is so that they avoid being blamed and sued by the author if there are any legal hassles in the book contents. Attributes did not bother to check and get Kong Hee to approve the contents? It is not their ‘oversight’. The onus is on Kong Hee to provide the material including the crediting of the external sources. So why are they willing to take the fall for Kong Hee’s ‘oversight’?