Print Page | Close Window

FSI only? What about DLI?

Printed From: FSI Language Courses
Category: Learning Languages
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Discription: Discussion about studying languages using the FSI courses. If you would like to see a specific language forum not listed below, just let us know.
URL: http://fsi-language-courses.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=301
Printed Date: 16 January 2009 at 3:21am


Topic: FSI only? What about DLI?
Posted By: mogscout
Subject: FSI only? What about DLI?
Date Posted: 27 January 2007 at 11:31am
 Are there any restrictions on posting DLI material?  BTW, DLI is the Defense Language Institute.  Are we allowed to post government issued material from DLI?  The reason that I ask is that I have tons of DLI Chinese material that include Chinese characters for all the modules.



Replies:
Posted By: onebir
Date Posted: 27 January 2007 at 12:18pm
There's a bit of discussion about the copyright status of DLI stuff in this thread: http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4977

It'd be helpful to know what it says at the front of your books...

Ultimately of course, it's GDFellows call...


Posted By: eurasia
Date Posted: 18 February 2007 at 7:11am
The posted Mandarin course is DLI so there is already one DLI course available. 


Posted By: TheBigZaboon
Date Posted: 20 February 2007 at 5:16pm
eurasia,
 
The FSI course in Mandarin was sold previously in the DLI catalogue, but I think it was produced by a cooperative effort of the US and Canadian governments. I think it really is an FSI product.
 
In one of the introductory sections of one of the texts, there is an explanation of who was involved, and a DLI guy was on one of the committees, but the writers are some of the same FSI instructors you see on other courses like Cantonese. There are also a couple of East Coast academics among the developers, too. Most of DLI's resources are on the West Coast.
 
I think the involvement of academics is what gave the FSI Standard Chinese course a different design than that of the usual FSI courses.
 
Anyway, this is just my opinion.
 
TBZ


Posted By: inspector
Date Posted: 04 March 2007 at 3:51pm
The posted course is FSI not DLI. They are entirely different but both produced by the US Govt. Neither are copyrighted. FSI and DLI come from different branches of the government. FSI is State Dept related and DLI related to military.

I would love to see this site expanded to include DLI material also. For example, the DLI material for Turkish is massive and far more complete compared with the FSI material.


Posted By: WaterMellon
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 8:54pm
I also am interested ...


Posted By: Chung
Date Posted: 06 March 2007 at 9:44pm
See here: http://fsi-language-courses.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=256&KW=dli&PID=1016#1016 - http://fsi-language-courses.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=256&KW=dli&PID=1016#1016
 
gdfellows is playing it safe and has avoided posting DLI courses here. There are three problems with DLI courses and this site.
 
The first problem is a small one and relates to copyright. Presumably copyright is not a major obstacle since as far as we can tell DLI courses are ultimately part of a federal organization i.e. the US Army. Thus it seems that DLI courses have no copyright protection in the USA.
 
The second problem is a larger one and relates to the observation that some of the DLI courses that we have seen have stamps/markings in the books stating that DLI courses are meant only for authorized personnel. (military personnel? raw recruits?)
 
A third problem is that there is also some confusion since a few contributors have noted that the foreword/introduction of a few DLI courses mention that they can be distributed without hindrance so long as they are not being distributed for a profit. This contradicts those stamps that some of us have seen which indicate that only authorized people may use the courses.
 
For the sake of avoiding misunderstandings (arising especially the confusion surrounding the second and third problems), gdfellows has stated already that he will stay clear from DLI courses because it is not 100% certain if they are eligible for posting. It's far more preferable to stick to what is 100% certain than to take a chance on something that is less than 100% certain. That second case could lead to the entire site being shut down because gdfellows broke some rule or law pertaining to the posting of one unauthorized course.


Posted By: inspector
Date Posted: 07 March 2007 at 3:53pm
It seems that there are various groups assigned to create DLI material for each language and consistency among them is lacking. I have a complete hardcover 14 volume set of Turkish DLI-not the tapes-that was given to me. Created April 1965, revised 1980. There are no warnings. Only the following exists in the front of each volume:

"The Turkish Basic Course, consisting of 112 lessons in 14 volumes, was developed at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center.

The course is designed to train native English language speakers for a Level 3 proficiency in comprehending, speaking, reading, and writing Turkish. The texts and tapes were designed for use in the DLIFLC's intensive programs employing the audiolingual and cognitive approach."

Sales to the public exist of these materials and I do not know of any restrictions. If there is concern about damaging the work done to the FSI body of work, is it possible to consider a completely separate, but essentially parallel site, e.g., "dli-language-courses.com"?

Maybe risk exists, but this seems extremely small. The DLI statements are inconsistent and the materials are already widely available, (commonly used among expats in Turkey.) It is worth considering in my opinion.

The depth of the DLI material exceeds FSI material greatly, even though the FSI is excellent.

I worked for a branch of the government for a number of years and a portion of that time in Washington. As an investigator for that branch I was surprised to see that several companies existed that sent runners to our headquarters to collect the latest updates to our "internal" investigator operations and compliance manuals.

These private companies then reprinted this and mailed it to those in industry and business who subscribed to their service--at unbelievably high prices. However, it is easier and less expensive for big corporations to get up-to-date info this way than send someone to Washington themselves.

The point is, I am not sure of any information that is not publically available from government agencies-short of NSA and CIA top secret material. To my knowledge, government materials paid for taxpayers cannot be copyrighted and can be used as the public chooses--even to the extent of selling it again at a profit to people who choose not to get it directly from the government source.

Love to hear some more on this.


Posted By: Chung
Date Posted: 07 March 2007 at 4:52pm

Inspector, I hear what you're saying about the inconsistency of DLI's notices, but...

Take a look at this exchange. (smoen got a hold of DLI Russian but understands gdfellows' position and hasn't forced the issue. I understand that smoen is digitalizing the DLI Russian course, but it'd be up to him (i.e. smoen) whether he'd want to redistribute it.)
 
http://fsi-language-courses.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=277&PN=2 - http://fsi-language-courses.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=277&PN=2
 
I agree that language learning material hardly seems classified or off-limits to civilians. The thing is that gdfellows has chosen to play it very safely, and it's understandable.
 
On a related note, if a hypothetical website for DLI courses were to appear, it would then be the responsibility of that webmaster. gdfellows has made it clear that he sticks to FSI material that clearly comes directly from NTIS.
 
There is a risk for gdfellows if he were to post something that may not turn out to be eligible for posting after all. It's not a question of "maybe" nor of whether that risk is small or not.
 
We need to remember that it is gdfellows who's holding the bag, not us. If the head of DLI or a lawyer who specializes in copyright/intellectual property can give a 100% guarantee to gdfellows that he can post DLI stuff without threat of penalty, then he may reconsider his decision. It goes back to his decision to stick with what is 100% safe for posting rather than what seems less than 100% safe for posting.
 
Put yourself in gdfellows' shoes:
 
1) "I, gdfellows am hosting a bunch of public-domain courses from FSI and I am holding the bag financially and legally on this website."
 
2) "I, gdfellows can understand the probable frustration that comes from resellers of FSI courses who charge top dollar for the stuff (e.g. Multilingual Books, Audio-Forum, learn-how-to-speak.com, etc.). I'm sure that they would love nothing more than for my website to be shut down. That would be a shame since a lot of people would lose out on a fine resource for learning languages."
 
3) "As much as those resellers can't do anything yet to accuse me of copyright infringement (so long as I stick to what is clearly public-domain and without restrictions on redistribution), I must keep doing everything carefully and err on the side of caution. I don't want to break any rules or laws that could give an opening to private resellers and their lawyers to accuse me of committing some kind of offense (no matter how minor it may seem) and thus act as justification for them to force the closure of this site. Even if my lawyer could prove my innocence in court and get me exonerated, the costs to mount that legal defense, win or lose would still be costly (if not utterly ruinous) and thus is a risk for me all the same."


Posted By: DemiPuppet
Date Posted: 07 March 2007 at 9:17pm
The major problem with DLI works is that we don't know for sure whether they were "prepared by ... an employee of the United  States Government as pert of that person's official duties" or whether they were contracted works of hire. FSI books generally contain a preface that clearly states which employee(s) did the work.  The DLI books are not so explicit.

If a contractor produced the works, they may or may not have assigned the copyright to the government.  Even if they did assign the copyright, it is still not in the public domain (see the court case Schnapper v. Foley).  In fact, one could claim that these should be considered unpublished works. Publication means that they were sold sold or publicly distributed.  Internal use by the DOD would not constitute publication. As unpublished works prior to 1989, they wouldn't need a copyright notice yet would still have a 120 year copyright.  Fortunately this is not a concern with FSI books. Most have a notice on the inside back cover listing sales to the general public.




Posted By: eurasia
Date Posted: 07 March 2007 at 9:22pm
I note the following from the NTIS Foreign Language Training catalogue:
 
This catalog features audio and video self-instructional language training programs produced by the National Foreign Affairs Training Center of the U.S. Department of State, the Defense Language Institute of the U.S. Department of Defense, the Center for the Advancement of Language Learning, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Courses are available from the NTIS’ National Audiovisual Center with or without texts.
 
I note under Standard Chinese:  a Modular Approach
 

Produced by the National Foreign Affairs Training Center and the Defense Language Institute

So just being listed in NTIS doesn't seem to mean that it isn't DLI.  Or is one trying to say that DLI listed in NTIS are OK for posting?



Posted By: Chung
Date Posted: 07 March 2007 at 9:42pm
Because NTIS is the federal government's distributor, that means that it can sell material from federal agencies. It makes no mention on whether all of the material that NTIS sells is exempt from copyright protection. In other words, some of the stuff at NTIS could indeed have copyright protection and we plebes just don't know it.
 
The subtlety is that material from federal agencies can have copyrights but it doesn't occur too often.
 
In most cases, material of the federal government does NOT have copyright protection in the USA. However, Demipuppet does hit on a valid point.
 
If government employees produce something as part of their job duties, then that product will not have copyright protection.
 
If someone gets a contract from the government to produce something, that someone can get still copyright protection for that work, with the government having permission to use that work or sell it.
 
If someone produces something and then gives it to the government, that person can transfer his/her copyright protection of that work so that the government would hold the copyright.


Posted By: DemiPuppet
Date Posted: 07 March 2007 at 9:45pm
The Chinese books are have a weak disclaimer in the introduction stating that copying is permitted for non-profit use.  But it also says that some of the material may be copyright...

BTW, I notice Multilingual books is selling a PDF version of the some of the Chinese course volumes.  Their sample file is missing the copyright disclaimer. I assume they must have received permission from the DLI or don't believe there is a copyright issue with the particular volumes .


Posted By: TheBigZaboon
Date Posted: 07 March 2007 at 9:56pm

I've been following this thread for sometime, and believe me, there is nobody who would like access to DLI materials more than I, but for certain sets of DLI (and FSI materials, for that matter) caution is required. For older DLI materials, those developed solely by DLI, arguments that there are no copyrights involved because it is government  material developed with taxpayer money, may have validity. But newer materials, starting in the 80's, have incorporated materials that are in fact copyrighted by other people or institutions. In the case of DLI materials,  some stuff copyrighted by others is included, and it is so stated. Whether these groups might fight for rights to this stuff is not clear.

 

In the case of FSI materials, the Japanese course is still being modified and improved by the original author and her partners, and marketed by a number of companies. This puts the older versions of the Japanese course in a grey area. It may in fact be legal to post older versions, but if the current developers put up a fuss, it would be quite costly just to defend what may be a perfectly valid right to post the original government version. It really depends on the "personality" of the institutions or individuals involved. I think the Japanese course would be a risk.

 

This site has been active, and garnering a good deal of attention, for some time. The reaction  has been positive, and maybe even tacitly encouraged, as the prevailing sentiment is that more speakers of foreign languages is better. But there are certain materials that may involve a few issues that would not be ignored by individuals. NTIS, etc., are not profit oriented entities, and are not really able to provide proper, wide-scale distribution of materials. I am not so sure about academic presses/publishers, and individual academics, though. They may feel that they can and should be the purveyors of "their" materials.

 

I think caution is necessary.  We all want access to the materials, but I think we also want to protect the rights of those who may have them, even if they are not so obvious at first.

TBZ

 


Posted By: Poetry
Date Posted: 11 March 2007 at 9:18pm
Hi,
I'm new to this forum.  It must be a fairly new forum anyway because I'd swear that I didn't see it 6 months ago when I was crawling all over the web looking for materials.
 
I actually have in hand a complete set of the DLI Modern Standard Arabic books and tapes, July 1981 and revised December 1983.  I also have the Iraqi dialect course books and tapes from that timeframe.  And the Syrian/Lebanese dialect books (but no tapes) from that timeframe.
 
I've been digitizing them myself for my brother who was stationed in Iraq for a year.  However, he came home injured just shortly after I got the tapes and books, so the effort is no where near complete.  I myself was an Arabic linguist for the US Army about two decades ago.  The tapes are in good condition.  So are the books, though the type in these books leaves a lot to be desired.  It's readable once you enlarge the print. 
 
I think a lot of the discussion about copyright/no copyright could be cleared up pretty simply.  I myself got permission from them to digitize and send out the course to the troops in my brother's unit.  The guys in the unit were having a terrible time getting language materials for god knows what reason.  They were absolutely enthusiastic about getting the old DLI course in hand to work with, because while the new DLI courses are much more thorough in training, they require a teacher.  The old DLI courses work very well as stand-alone training materials.  Now, that was for the use and comfort of soldiers, not for civilians.  But I think that since there are newer courses and these were developed for government use, that there's a good argument to present about releasing them for public use. 
 
I think we just need to begin the asking process.  They were pretty good to me when I asked previously.  Though it was for soldiers.  This type of release may need something more formalized.  I can begin that process.  This is an election year, ya know.
 
--Poetry


Posted By: daristani
Date Posted: 12 March 2007 at 3:59pm
Poetry, it seems to me that you've got a real treasure-trove with the DLI Arabic materials, and I think there would be any number of people who would be very grateful to you if you were to find some way to make it available, whether on this site or elsewhere.  The fact that it's a "stand-alone" type product, in particular, makes it extremely attractive for people working on their own.  Accordingly, I think that whatever persuasive efforts you can bring to bear with the military would be very useful.  Your point on this being an election year is also well taken, and if the DLI people should balk at allowing the materials to be made available, it would seem to me that citing the crying need for people trained in Arabic, in the context of raising the issue with your elected representative(s), might help the cause.  I would hope that an organized campaign would not be necessary, but it you should get turned down initially, I speculate that people from this site or elsewhere might be interested in mounting a follow-up effort to try to spring this material loose, along with other such materials.  In any event, I think you could make a tremendous resource available, and hope that you'll give it a shot.

On a totally unrelated matter, I note that "A textbook of Modern Western Armenian", by Bardakjian and Thompson, was copyrighted in 1977 by Harvard College, but says "Copyright is claimed until 1987.  Thereafter all portions covered by copyright will be in the public domain."  I suspect that there are a good many similar cases out there when books/tapes are produced by grants from the Department of Education, and thus that there's considerable potential for posting such stuff if people just pay attention to the copyright data of non-FSI, non-DLI materials.

Finally, I just want to note once again how impressed I am with people like Poetry and the other contributors here, who are so selfless in making materials they have available.  Many times these materials are purchased for no little amount of money, and there's also considerable work involved in scanning, digitizing, etc.  So making them freely available to one and all in this way is truly a tremendous service.   


Posted By: Poetry
Date Posted: 12 March 2007 at 8:27pm
Hi Daristani,
The old 1980s DLI courses are what we used to term "Drill and Kill." That means that it was done by repetition. The Modern Standard Arabic course that I've got was 47 weeks long. There's a box or two of tapes.

We'll see how this conversation with them goes. They were pretty fast with the permission before, but I was doing the copies for soldiers. Soldiers who had the most inept young Captain in charge that didn't want to bother his commanding officer (a bird Colonel, unfortunately, which appears to have intimidated the Capt's initiative) with requests for basic materials.

--Poetry


Posted By: Poetry
Date Posted: 22 March 2007 at 6:32pm
Nothing from the email sent to DLI yet, but I don't know if I really expect that to do it. It's going to take a letter writing campaign, I'm afraid.

However, I did find out that the Mandarin Chinese course used in the 1980s was partially the one taught by Yale University and just licensed to DLI. So, for the Mandarin Chinese course, at least, that is probably not public domain.

The Arabic courses were created there. They were re-recording and recreating parts when I went through, and many of the tapes are the instructors that I had --complete with sounds of throats clearing, swallowing, and various background drec. Therefore, I hold high hopes that they will be cleared eventually.

--Poetry



Print Page | Close Window