Coordinates	28°36′50″N77°12′32″N
Fullname	To amend title 17, United States Code, to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and for other purposes.
Acronym	DMCA
Enacted by	105th
Effective date	October 28, 1998
Cite public law	Pub. L. 105-304
Public law url	http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/toGPO/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname105_cong_public_laws&docidf;:publ304.105.pdf
Cite statutes at large	112 Stat. 2860 (1998)
Acts amended	Copyright Act of 1976
Title amended	5 (Government Organization and Employees); 17 (Copyrights); 28 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure); 35 (Patents)
Sections created	17 U.S.C. §§ 512, 1201–1205, 1301–1332; 28 U.S.C. § 4001
Sections amended	17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 104, 104A, 108, 112, 114, 117, 701
Leghisturl	http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR02281:@@@X
Introducedin	House of Representatives
Introducedbill	H.R. 2281
Introducedby	Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC)
Introduceddate	July 29, 1997
Committees	House Judiciary Committee (Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property); House Commerce Committee (Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection)
Passedbody1	House
Passeddate1	August 4, 1998
Passedvote1	voice vote
Passedbody2	Senate
Passeddate2	September 17, 1998
Passedvote2	unanimous consent
Conferencedate	October 8, 1998
Passedbody3	Senate
Passeddate3	October 8, 1998
Passedvote3	unanimous consent
Passedbody4	House
Passeddate4	October 12, 1998
Passedvote4	voice vote
Signedpresident	Clinton
Signeddate	October 28, 1998
Amendments	None }}

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of on-line services for copyright infringement by their users.

On May 22, 2001, the European Union passed the Copyright Directive or EUCD, which addresses some of the same issues as the DMCA. The DMCA's principal innovation in the field of copyright, the exemption from direct and indirect liability of internet service providers and other intermediaries (Title II of the DMCA), was separately addressed, and largely followed, in Europe by means of the separate Electronic Commerce Directive. (Unlike U.S. federal laws and regulations, the execution of European Union directives usually requires separate legislation by or within each of the Union's member states.)

Provisions

Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act

DMCA Title I, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act, amends U.S. copyright law to comply with the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, adopted at the WIPO Diplomatic Conference in December 1996. The treaties have two major portions. One portion includes works covered by several treaties in U.S. copy prevention laws and gave the title its name. For further analysis of this portion of the Act and of cases under it, see WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act.

The second portion is often known as the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. These provisions changed the remedies for the circumvention of copy-prevention systems (also called "technical protection measures") and required that all analog video recorders have support for a specific form of copy prevention created by Macrovision (now Rovi Corporation) built in, giving Macrovision an effective monopoly on the analog video-recording copy-prevention market. However, section 1201(c) of the title clarified that the title does not change the underlying substantive copyright infringement rights, remedies, or defenses. The title contains other limitations and exemptions, including for research and reverse engineering in specified situations.

Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act

DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA"), creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright liability if they adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to allegedly infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) if they receive a notification claiming infringement from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent. OCILLA also includes a counternotification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users upon notice from such users claiming that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing. OCILLA also provides for subpoenas to OSPs to provide their users' identity.

Title III: Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act

DMCA Title III modified section 117 of the copyright title so that those repairing computers could make certain temporary, limited copies while working on a computer. It reversed the precedent set in ''MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.'', 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993).

Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions

DMCA Title IV contains an assortment of provisions:

Clarified and added to the duties of the Copyright Office.

Added ephemeral copy for broadcasters provisions, including certain statutory licenses.

Added provisions to facilitate distance education.

Added provisions to assist libraries with keeping phonorecords of sound recordings.

Added provisions relating to collective bargaining and the transfer of movie rights.

Title V: Vessel Hull Design Protection Act

DMCA Title V added sections 1301 through 1332 to add a ''sui generis'' protection for boat hull designs. Boat hull designs were not considered covered under copyright law because they are useful articles whose form cannot be cleanly separated from their function.

Anti-circumvention exemptions

In addition to the safe harbors and exemptions the statute explicitly provides, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1) requires that the Librarian of Congress issue exemptions from the prohibition against circumvention of access-control technology. Exemptions are granted when it is shown that access-control technology has had a substantial adverse effect on the ability of people to make non-infringing uses of copyrighted works.

The exemption rules are revised every three years. Exemption proposals are submitted by the public to the Registrar of Copyrights, and after a process of hearings and public comments, the final rule is recommended by the Registrar and issued by the Librarian. Exemptions expire after three years and must be resubmitted for the next rulemaking cycle. Consequently, the exemptions issued in the prior rulemakings, in 2000, 2003 and 2006 are no longer valid.

The current administratively-created exemptions, issued in July 2010, are:

Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:

*Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;

*Documentary filmmaking;

*Noncommercial videos. (A new exemption in 2010, similar to a previous educational exemption.)

Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset. (A new exemption in 2010.)

Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network. (Revised from a similar exemption approved in 2006.)

Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:

*The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and

*The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law. (A new exemption in 2010.)

Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. (A renewed exemption from 2006, based on a similar exemption approved in 2003.)

Literary works distributed in e-book format when all existing e-book editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format. (A renewed exemption from 2006, based on a similar exemption approved in 2003.)

The Copyright Office approved two exemptions in 2000; four in 2003; six in 2006 and 2010. In 2000, the Office exempted (a) "Compilations consisting of lists of websites blocked by filtering software applications" (renewed in 2003 but not renewed in 2006); and (b) "Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage, or obsoleteness." (revised and limited in 2003 and again in 2006). In 2003, the 2000 "literary works including computer programs" exemption was limited to "Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete" and this exemption was renewed in both 2006 and 2010. The 2003 exemption for text readers of ebooks was renewed in both 2006 and 2010. The 2003 exemption for obsolete software and video game formats was renewed in 2006 but was not renewed in 2010. The 2000 filtering exemption was revised and renewed in 2003, but was not renewed in 2006. The 2006 exemption for sound recordings allowed after security flaws were found in a copy protection system on some Sony CDs was not renewed in 2010. An exemption covering the audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university’s film or media studies department was not renewed in 2010. This exemption was replaced with an exemption on DVDs protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is for the purpose of criticism or comment using short sections, for educational, documentary or non-profit use. The 2006 exemption for wireless handsets connecting to wireless networks was revised in 2010 to specify used handsets and require authorization from the wireless network operator. Another exemption for wireless handsets was introduced in 2010 specific to interoperability software on the phone itself.

Linking to infringing content

The law is currently unsettled with regard to websites that contain links to infringing material; however, there have been a few lower-court decisions which have ruled against linking in some narrowly prescribed circumstances. One is when the owner of a website has already been issued an injunction against posting infringing material on their website and then links to the same material in an attempt to circumvent the injunction. Another area involves linking to software or devices which are designed to circumvent DRM (digital rights management) devices, or links from websites whose sole purpose is to circumvent copyright protection by linking to copyrighted material.

There have been no cases in the US where a website owner has been found liable for linking to copyrighted material outside of the above narrow circumstances.

Notable court cases

Edelman v. N2H2

In July 2002, American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on the behalf of Benjamin Edelman, a computer researcher at Berkman Center for Internet and Society, seeking a Declaratory judgment to affirm his first amendment rights when reverse engineering the censorware product of defendant N2H2 in case he intended to publish the finding. N2H2 filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted.

RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc.

In August 2009, the DVD Copy Control Association won a lawsuit against RealNetworks for violating copyright law in selling its RealDVD software, allowing users to copy DVDs and store them on a harddrive. The DVD Copy Control Association claimed that Real violated the DMCA by circumventing anti-piracy measures ARccOS Protection and RipGuard, as well as breaking Real's licensing agreement with the MPAA's Content Scrambling System.

Viacom Inc. v. YouTube, Google Inc.

On March 13, 2007, Viacom filed a lawsuit against YouTube and its corporate parent Google for copyright infringement seeking more than $1 billion in damages. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Viacom claims the popular video-sharing site was engaging in "massive intentional copyright infringement" for making available a contended 160,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom's entertainment programming. Google lawyers say they are relying on the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act to shield them from liability.

On June 23, 2010, U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton granted summary judgment in favor of YouTube. The court held that YouTube is protected by the safe harbor of the DMCA. Viacom has said that it will appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible.

IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.

On June 23, 2006 IO Group, Inc. filed a complaint against Veoh Networks, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for California's Northern District. IO Group alleged that Veoh was responsible for copyright infringement by allowing videos owned by Io Group to be accessed through Veoh's online service without permission over 40,000 times between the dates June 1 and June 22.

Veoh is a Flash video site relying on user contributed content. IO Group argued that since Veoh transcoded user uploaded videos to Flash format it became a direct infringer and the materials were under their direct control, thereby disqualifying them for DMCA safe harbor protection.

The ruling judge disagreed with the argument, stating that "Veoh has simply established a system whereby software automatically processes user-submitted content and recasts it in a format that is readily accessible to its users. Veoh preselects the software parameters for the process from a range of default values set by the thirdparty software... But Veoh does not itself actively participate or supervise the uploading of files. Nor does it preview or select the files before the upload is completed. Instead, video files are uploaded through an automated process which is initiated entirely at the volition of Veoh's users." The Court has granted the Veoh's motion for summary judgment, on the basis of the DMCA, holding that the defendant's video-sharing web site complied and was entitled to the protection of the statute's "safe harbor" provision. Even though Veoh won the court case, it blamed the litigation as one of the causes of its preparing to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy and its subsequent sale to Qlipso.

Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.

After numerous DMCA takedown notices in response to his eBay listings, Timothy S. Vernor sued Autodesk in August 2007 alleging that Autodesk abused the DMCA and disrupted his right to sell used software he bought at a garage sale. In May 2008, a federal district judge in Washington State dismissed Autodesk's argument that the software's license agreement preempted the seller from his rights under the first-sale doctrine. In September 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that "a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions."

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.

In 2007, Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pennsylvania made a home video of her 13-month-old son dancing to "Let's Go Crazy" and posted a 29-second video on the video-sharing site YouTube. Four months after the video was originally uploaded, Universal Music Group, which owned the copyrights to the song, ordered YouTube to remove the video enforcing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Lenz notified YouTube immediately that her video was within the scope of fair use, and demanded that it be restored. YouTube complied after six weeks—not two weeks, as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act—to see whether Universal planned to sue Lenz for infringement. Lenz then sued Universal Music in California for her legal costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that represented fair use of the song.

In August 2008, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, California ruled that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material.

On February 25, 2010, Judge Fogel issued a ruling rejecting several of Universal's affirmative defenses, including the defense that Lenz suffered no damages.

Criticisms

Takedown Notice

The DMCA has been criticized for making it too easy for copyright owners to encourage website owners to take down allegedly infringing content and links which may in fact not be infringing. When website owners receive a takedown notice it is in their interest not to challenge it, even if it is not clear if infringement is taking place, because if the potentially infringing content is taken down the website will not be held liable. The Electronic Frontier Foundation senior IP attorney Fred von Lohmann has said this is one of the problems with the DMCA.

Google asserted misuse of the DMCA in a filing concerning New Zealand's copyright act, quoting results from a 2005 study by Californian academics Laura Quilter and Jennifer Urban based on data from the Chilling Effects clearinghouse. Takedown notices targeting a competing business made up over half (57%) of the notices Google has received, the company said, and more than one-third (37%), "were not valid copyright claims."

Effect on Analog Video Equipment

Analog Copy Protection (ACP), the encryption technology created by Rovi Corporation (Formerly Macrovision), is designed to thwart users' attempts to reproduce content via analog cables. When a DVD is played through an analog video cable and recorded using a VCR, Rovi’s ACP technology will distort the copy partially or completely.

The technology works by adding additional lines to the video signal. In the NTSC video standard, blank lines (vertical blanking intervals) that the user cannot see are used for functions like closed captioning. Rovi Corporation uses these blank lines to implement its ACP technology.

The implementation of ACP has been ill-regarded by some video enthusiasts. Many claim that the technology has led to signal issues with VCRs and analog video equipment. Some VCRs misread the encryption used to prevent copying, distorting the video image regardless of whether the recording is original or a copy.

The DMCA has been criticized for forcing all producers of analog video equipment to support the proprietary copy protection technology of Rovi Corporation, a commercial firm. The producers of video equipment are forced by law to support and implement the corporation's proprietary technology. This benefits Rovi Corporation financially, whereas those forced to implement it receive neither profit nor receive compensation.

Additionally, some criticize the implementation of ACP as a violation of their fair use rights. A recently developed TV-streaming product called the Slingbox uses analog signals to convey video from television to a mobile device. However, the encryption used by ACP blocks analog transmission, rendering the Slingbox unusable. Additionally ACP blocks the use of recording for educational purposes. On one or more accounts, students have not been able to cite and record cable sources properly due to ACP restrictions.

Effect on research

The DMCA has had an impact on the worldwide cryptography research community, since an argument can be made that any cryptanalytic research violates, or might violate, the DMCA. The arrest of Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov in 2001, for alleged infringement of the DMCA, was a highly publicized example of the law's use to prevent or penalize development of anti-DRM measures. While working for ElcomSoft in Russia, he developed ''The Advanced eBook Processor'', a software application allowing users to strip usage restriction information from restricted e-books, an activity legal in both Russia and the United States. Paradoxically, under the DMCA, it is not legal in the United States to provide such a tool. Sklyarov was arrested in the United States after presenting a speech at DEF CON and subsequently spent nearly a month in jail. The DMCA has also been cited as chilling to legitimate users, such as students of cryptanalysis (including, in a well-known instance, Professor Edward Felten and students at Princeton), and security consultants such as Niels Ferguson, who has declined to publish information about vulnerabilities he discovered in an Intel secure-computing scheme because of his concern about being arrested under the DMCA when he travels to the US.

Effect on innovation and competition

In at least one court case, the DMCA has been used by Open Source software projects to defend against conversion of software (i.e. license violations) that involved removal of copyright notices. This defense can be used even without timely copyright registration, and can generate attorney fee awards, which together make it a useful strategy for Open Source organizations.

Reform and opposition

There are efforts in Congress to modify the Act. Rick Boucher, a Democratic congressman from Virginia, is leading one of these efforts by introducing the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA).

A prominent bill related to the DMCA is the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), known in early drafts as the Security Systems and Standards Certification Act (SSSCA). This bill, if it had passed, would have dealt with the devices used to access digital content and would have been even more restrictive than the DMCA.

On the tenth anniversary of the DMCA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation documented harmful consequences of the anti-circumvention provisions. They document that the DMCA:

# stifles free expression, such as in its use against Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov, Princeton Professor Edward Felten, and journalists; # jeopardizes fair use; # impedes competition, such as blocking aftermarket competition in toner cartridges, garage door openers, and enforcing walled gardens around the iPod; and # interferes with computer intrusion laws.

See also

;Economic concepts

Protectionism

;Related US laws

Copyright Term Extension Act (1998)

Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (1995)

Inducement rule

NET Act, the "No Electronic Theft"

;Proposed US legislation

BALANCE Act, Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations Act of 2003

Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (INDUCE) (introduced 2004)

Pirate Act (introduced 2004)

Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (introduced 2003 & 2005)

Digital Transition Content Security Act (introduced 2005)

FAIR USE Act (introduced in 2007)

;Related international law

Bill C-60 (Canada — ''proposed'')

Bill C-61 (Canada — ''proposed'')

DADVSI (France — ''Loi sur le Droit d'Auteur et les Droits Voisins dans la Société de l'Information'')

Digital Economy Act 2010 (United Kingdom)

EU Copyright Directive (European Union)

Protection of Broadcasts and Broadcasting Organizations Treaty (''proposed'')

;Proposed international law

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

;DMCA anti-circumvention cases

''Chamberlain v. Skylink''

''Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.''

''Universal v. Reimerdes''

Dmitry Sklyarov in United States v. ElcomSoft and Sklyarov

''Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components''

''321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc.''

;DMCA damages cases

''Stockwire Research Group, Inc., et al. v. Lebed, et al.''

;DMCA notice-and-takedown issues

Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) (more information about the DMCA 512 takedown provisions)

''Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.''

References

:

External links

, DMCA

U.S. Copyright Office summary of the DMCA (PDF format)

Title 17 of the U.S. Code, Cornell Law School

Cybertelecom's DMCA information and background material

A citizen's guide to the DMCA

ChillingEffects.org, a clearinghouse of DMCA 512 notices and cease and desist letters

Info on Dealing with Digital Copyrights Infringement including filing DMCA Notices

Interview of Marcia Hoffman from the EFF on Lenz v. Universal DMCA lawsuit

Seth Finkelstein, ''How To Win (DMCA) Exemptions And Influence Policy''.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) page on the DMCA

Unintended Consequences: Ten Years under the DMCA - EFF

Category:1998 in law Category:1998 in the United States Category:Computer law Category:United States federal copyright legislation Category:United States federal criminal legislation Category:105th United States Congress Category:History of the Internet Category:Internet in the United States Category:Article Feedback Pilot

cs:Digital Millennium Copyright Act de:Digital Millennium Copyright Act es:Digital Millennium Copyright Act eu:DMCA fr:Digital Millennium Copyright Act ko:디지털 밀레니엄 저작권법 it:Digital Millennium Copyright Act hu:Digital Millennium Copyright Act nl:Digital Millennium Copyright Act ja:デジタルミレニアム著作権法 no:Digital Millennium Copyright Act pl:DMCA pt:Digital Millennium Copyright Act ru:DMCA fi:Digital Millennium Copyright Act sv:Digital Millennium Copyright Act zh:數字千年版權法

Coordinates	28°36′50″N77°12′32″N
Region	Western Philosophy
Era	21st-century philosophy
Color	#B0C4DE
Name	William Lane Craig
Birth date	August 23, 1949
Birth place	Peoria, Illinois
School tradition	Analytic Philosophy
Main interests	Philosophy of religion, Natural theology, Philosophy of time, Christian Apologetics
Notable ideas	Kalam cosmological argument
Influences	Alvin Plantinga, Francis Schaeffer, Edward John Carnell, Stuart Hackett, John Hick, Wolfhart Pannenberg
Influenced	J. P. Moreland, Francis Beckwith }}

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American Evangelical Christian apologist in the evidentialist tradition. Craig is a prolific debater, philosophical theologian, and analytic philosopher known for his work on the existence of God, defense of Christian theism, philosophy of religion, historicity of Jesus and the philosophy of time. In 1979, he authored ''The Kalam Cosmological Argument'', a defense of the argument of the same name. He is currently a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University.

Biography

Craig received a BA in Communications from Wheaton College, Illinois in 1971 and two MA degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, in 1975, in philosophy of religion and church history. He earned a Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England in 1977 and Th.D. under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in 1984.

From 1980 to 1986 he was an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He briefly held the position of associate professor of Religious Studies at Westmont College, Santa Barbara, California in 1986-1987. Between 1987 and 1994 Craig pursued further research at the University of Leuven, Belgium. Since 1996 he has been a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, California.

Career

He is a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, which is the hub of the intelligent design movement, and a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design(ISCID).

Craig is a Molinist who embraces a Reformed epistemology and in regard to biological origins is inclined towards progressive creationism, although he concedes the possibility of theistic evolution. He has published on the historicity of the resurrection accounts of Jesus and the philosophy of time for which he advocates a tensed or A-theory of time and a Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of the theory of relativity. He argues for a finely tuned theistic universe, a personal cause of the universe and a theistic objective morality. His work in Christian apologetics includes advocacy of intelligent design, and critiques of "New Atheism," liberal theology, metaphysical naturalism, logical positivism and scientism, postmodernism, anti-realism, moral relativism and subjectivism, Mormonism, Islam, and the methodology and conclusions of the Jesus Seminar.

Bibliography

''The Kalam Cosmological Argument''. London: MacMillan. 1979. ISBN 157910438X / ISBN 978-1579104382

''The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz''. London: MacMillan. 1980. ISBN 1579107877 / ISBN 978-1579107871

''The Son Rises: Historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus''. Chicago: Moody Press. 1981. ISBN 9781579104641 / ISBN 978-1579104641

''Apologetics: An Introduction''. Chicago: Moody Press. 1984. ISBN 0802404057

''The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist Controversy''. Toronto: Edwin Mellen. 1985. ISBN 0-88946-811-7

''The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom''. Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse. 1987. ISBN 1579103162 / ISBN 978-1579103163

''The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge and Future Contingents from Aristotle to Suarez''. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 1988. ISBN 9004085165 / ISBN 978-9004085169

''Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection''. Ann Arbor: Servant. 1988. ISBN 089283384X / ISBN 978-0892833849

''Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus''. Toronto: Edwin Mellen Press. 1989. ISBN 0889466165/ ISBN 978-0889466166

''Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom: The Coherence of Theism I: Omniscience''. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 1990. ISBN 9004092501 / ISBN 978-9004092501

''No Easy Answers''. Chicago: Moody Press. 1990. ISBN 0802422837 / ISBN 978-0802422835

''Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology'' (with Quentin Smith). Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1993. ISBN 978-0198263838

''The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination''. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 0792366344 / ISBN 978-0792366348

''Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan''. Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse. 1998.

''God, Are You There?''. Atlanta: RZIM. 1999. ISBN 1930107005 / ISBN 978-1930107007

''The Tenseless Theory of Time: A Critical Examination''. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2000. ISBN 9780792366355 / ISBN 978-0792366355

''God, Time and Eternity''. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2001. ISBN 9781581342413 / ISBN 978-1581342413

''Time and The Metaphysics of Relativity''. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2001. ISBN 0 7923 6668 9

''Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time''. Wheaton: Crossway. 2001. ISBN 9781581342413 / ISBN 978-1581342413

''What Does God Know?'' Atlanta: RZIM. 2002. ISBN 9781930107052

''Hard Questions, Real Answers''. Wheaton: Crossway Books. 2003. ISBN 9781581344875 / ISBN 978-1581344875

''God?: A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist''(with Walter Sinnot-Armstrong). New York: Oxford University Press. 2003.

''Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview'' (with J.P. Moreland). Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 2003.

''Creation out of Nothing: Its Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration'' (with Paul Copan). Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse. 2004. ISBN 0801027330

''Reasonable Faith''. Wheaton: Crossway. 1994. rev. 3rd ed. 2008. ISBN 0891077642 / ISBN 978-0891077640

''On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision''. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook. 2010. ISBN 1434764885 / ISBN 978-1434764881

See also

List of American philosophers

References

External links

Faculty webpage

Comprehensive Debate list

Interviews from the program Closer to Truth

Category:1949 births Category:Living people Category:Alumni of the University of Birmingham Category:Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich alumni Category:American philosophers Category:American religion academics Category:American theologians Category:Analytic philosophers Category:Biblical scholars Category:Biola University faculty Category:Intelligent design advocates Category:Christian philosophers Category:Christian apologists Category:Christian writers Category:Christian scholars Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors Category:Fellows of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design Category:Philosophers of religion Category:People from Keokuk, Iowa Category:American Christians Category:Trinity Evangelical Divinity School alumni Category:Wheaton College (Illinois) alumni

de:William Lane Craig es:William Lane Craig fr:William Lane Craig no:William Lane Craig pl:William Lane Craig pt:William Lane Craig fi:William Lane Craig sv:William Lane Craig

William Lane (6 September 1861 – 26 August 1917) was a journalist, advocate of Australian labour politics and a utopian.

Early life

Lane was born in Bristol, England, eldest son of James Lane, a Protestant Irishman and landscape gardener, and his English wife Caroline, ''née'' Hall. When Lane was born his father was earning a miserable wage, but later his circumstances improved and he became an employer. The boy was educated at Bristol Grammar School and showed ability, but he was sent early to work as an office boy. Lane's mother died when he was 14 years of age, and at age 16 he migrated to Canada, then to the United States, where he worked first as a printer, then as a reporter for the Detroit Free Press (1881), there meeting his future wife Ann MacGuire. In 1885 they migrated to Brisbane, Australia, where Lane immediately got work as a feature writer for the weekly newspaper ''Queensland Figaro'', then as a columnist for the newspapers Brisbane Courier and Evening Telegraph, using a number of pseudonyms ("Lucinda Sharpe", which some consider to be the work of Annie Lane, "John Miller" and "Sketcher").

A life-long abstainer from alcohol, in 1886 he created an Australia-wide sensation by spending a night in the Brisbane lock-up disguised as a drunk, and subsequently reporting the conditions of the cells as "Henry Harris". Lane's father was a drunk who impoverished the family.

With the growth of the Australian labour movement, "Sketcher"'s columns, especially his "Labour Notes" in the ''Evening Telegraph'', increasingly promoted labourist philosophy, and Lane himself attended meetings supporting all manner of popular causes, speaking with his "American twang" against repressive laws and practices and Chinese immigrants.

After becoming the de facto editor of the Courier, Lane departed during November 1887 to found the weekly ''The Boomerang'', "a live newspaper, racy, of the soil", in which pro-worker themes and lurid racism were brought to a fever-pitch by both "Sketcher" and "Lucinda Sharpe". He became a powerful supporter of Emma Miller and Women's suffrage. A strong proponent of Henry George's Single Tax Movement, Lane became increasingly committed to a radically alternative society, and ended his relationship with the ''Boomerang'' due to its private ownership.

In May 1890 he began the community-funded Brisbane weekly ''The Worker'', the rhetoric of which became increasingly threatening towards the employers, the government, and the British Empire itself. The defeat of the 1891 Australian shearers' strike convinced Lane that there would be no real social change without a completely new society, and ''The Worker'' became increasingly devoted to his New Australia utopian idea.

''The Workingman's Paradise'', an allegorical novel written in sympathy with the shearers involved in the 1891 Shearer's Strike, was published under his pseudonym ''John Miller'' in early 1892. In the novel Lane articulated the belief that anarchism is the noblest social philosophy of all. Through the novel's philosopher and main protagonist he relates his belief that society may have to experience a period of State socialism to achieve the ideal of Communist anarchism. Mary Gilmore, later a celebrated Australian writer, said in one of her letters ''"the whole book is true and of historical value as Lane transcribed our conversations as well as those of others"''.

New Australia Colony

Contriving a division among Australian labour activists between the permanently disaffected and those who later formed the Australian Labor Party, Lane refused the Queensland Government's offer of a grant of land on which to create a utopian settlement, and began an Australia-wide campaign for the creation of a new society elsewhere on the globe, peopled by rugged and sober Australian bushmen and their proud wives.

Eventually Paraguay was decided upon, and Lane and his family and several hundred acolytes from New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia departed Mort Bay in Sydney in the ship ''Royal Tar'' on 1 July 1893.

New Australia soon had its crisis, brought on by the issues of inter-racial relationships (Lane singled out the Guarani as racially taboo) and alcohol. Lane's dictatorial manner soon alienated many in the community, and by the time the second boat-load of utopians arrived from Adelaide a year later, Lane had left with a core of devotees to form a new colony nearby named Cosme.

Eventually Lane became disillusioned with the process, and returned to Australia in 1899.

Later life

Lane then went with his family to New Zealand. After initial melancholia, he soon refound his old verve as a pseudonymous feature-writer from 1900 for the newspaper ''New Zealand Herald'' ("Tohunga"), only this time as ultra-conservative and pro-Empire. He had strong racial antipathy toward East Asians, and during World War I he developed extreme anti-German sentiments. He died on 26 August 1917 in Auckland, New Zealand, having been editor of the ''Herald'' from 1913 to 1917, much admired, having lost one son Charles at a cricket match in Cosme in Paraguay, and another Donald on the first day of the ANZAC landings (25 April 1915) on the beaches of Gallipoli.

References

Gavin Souter's account of Lane and New Australia in his ''A Peculiar People''

Peter Bruce's thesis (Univ Sydney) ''The Journalistic Career of William Lane''.

''Larry Petrie (1859-1901) - Australian Revolutionist?'' by Bob James

Whitehead, Anne (1997) ''Paradise Mislaid — in Search of the Australian Tribe of Paraguay'' University of Queensland Press, St. Lucia

External links

''Workingman's Paradise'', Pdf at University of Sydney

Category:1861 births Category:1917 deaths Category:Australian anarchists Category:Australian trade unionists Category:Australian journalists Category:New Zealand journalists Category:Old Bristolians Category:People from Bristol Category:Georgists

de:William Lane (Utopist) it:William Lane pl:William Lane