Christians and copyright

[John of Japan]

One thing that has not been said yet is that copyright keeps control of the created item in the hands of the author.

This means that (1) Everyone knows whose to blame if it is a bad piece of work. (2) Everyone knows who to praise if it is a blessing. "Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." (Rom. 13:7) (3) No one can just steal the work and put their own name on it. This happens more than you might think.

Think of writing a book. If it is a good one, it may take 100's of hours to write. What would you get paid for 100 hours on your job?

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by AresMan:
What about most of the new Bible versions that have fully enforced copyright restrictions. If some of these are supposed to be better translations, why hold back production of what you believe would benefit more people?
What about Christian music artists who may make good music, but do not allow unauthorized redistribution of even the words to their songs? And it seems to me that the more conservative artists are stricter on copyright than the more liberal ones. Once we learn these songs and get them stuck in our heads we then lose some freedom in how we can praise God by having to worry about copyright infringement.

Does anyone else ever think about the excessive enforcement of copyright by many Christian individuals and organizations today as a hindrance to the ministry?

Here is where I have a problem, not with the copyright laws but with how Christians use them, especially when putting out a Bible. I realize that the translators have every right to profit from their work, humanly speaking. It takes literally 1000s of hours to translate just the New Testament. However, if they asked the original Author of the Bible, wouldn't He have a problem with the limitations they put on printing it?

The Lockman Foundation (NASV) is especially restrictive, and I think that is wrong. Here in Japan we use the Shinkaiyaku, based on the NASV translation principles and supported by the Lockman Foundation. (Sorry, KJVO people, we have no KJV-type Bible in print in Japanese.) My co-worker and I once tried to get permission to print the book of John, and they put so many restrictions on us that we gave up. Worse yet, according to some reports, in recent years the Lockman Foundation in America sued the Japanese organization. So yes, I believe that the ministry here in Japan has been hindered by the Lockman Foundation.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Since there are copyright laws they must be obeyed. Simple enough. We can't pick and choose which laws we like and don't like.

 

[AresMan]

One thing that has not been said yet is that copyright keeps control of the created item in the hands of the author.

This means that (1) Everyone knows whose to blame if it is a bad piece of work. (2) Everyone knows who to praise if it is a blessing. "Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." (Rom. 13:7) (3) No one can just steal the work and put their own name on it. This happens more than you might think.

Think of writing a book. If it is a good one, it may take 100's of hours to write. What would you get paid for 100 hours on your job? [Smile]

Remember, integrity is not the only part of copyright law. I am all for integrity. Someone could release a work under the Creative Commons Attribution (must give author credit and include full printed license with work), No-derivatives (cannot change any of the content) license. This maintains the integrity of the author, yet still allows the freedom the redistribute.
I would favor attaching the Noncomercial clause to the license as in my above scenario to gaurantee that the original author is the only one that can legally sell the work.

If a work is presented as something for sell, then taking it and making 500 copies of it without paying for it or asking permission to do it is theft. Churches should not participate in theft. So of the two "greater crimes" I would think "theft" was the bigger crime.

I would call it "unauthorized redistribution" or "copyright infringement" rather than "theft", but still absolutely wrong and illegal nonetheless. Theft implies removing an asset from someone wherein that person then no longer has that asset. Copyright infringement dips into the intellectual potential for profitability, but no tangible property has changed hands. Copyright infringement and theft are two different crimes that are handled by two different laws.

If a choir/artist sings for Christ is it good to grab their mp3 from the Internet?

If they allow it, then yes it would be

. In fact, every time you view a copyrighted web page on the World Wide Web, your web browser makes two copies: one in your browsers cache on disk and the other in RAM memory. Double copyright infringement! Well, seriously, because of computer-related concerns, special clauses had to be added to copyright law with the advent of computers, because things like RAM memory technically would have constituted copyright infringement. Even installing purchased software on your computer would have been copyright infringement; therefore most software developers had to explicitly allow such in their licensed.

I know that even with the Internet around, we are still mostly stuck in the idea of traditional publishing companies. These companies, of course, only exercise copyright the traditional way. Now that we have the Internet, anyone can be a publisher. We don't technically need a publisher to get our works out to people. I just hope some Christians can study this out, become knowledgeable of our own laws, and search for way to utilize the Internet for what it is designed for, and find ways to make money in the process. Copyright is a template law: there is more than one way to make money from your work.

 

[tenor]

When Christians violate copyright laws, either intentionally or not, our witness is compromised.

The main thing with copyright is getting permission. Many, if not most, Christian copyright holders will grant permission for the use of their work.

Infringement of these laws is nothing short of theft!!!!

Yes, there are grey areas. Yes, there is confusion.

Some areas of violation incude showing a video licensed for home use (MOST videos and movies) to a large group. However, most Christian companies will not presecute this.

AS Christians, we need to above board in all our dealings with people and companies. Copyright law, legalistic? yes and no. The key point is to get permission..

Tim

 

[Artimaeus]

Here is a good site to get a lot of information about Christians and copyright issues.

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by C4K:
Since there are copyright laws they must be obeyed. Simple enough. We can't pick and choose which laws we like and don't like.

Here is the official government copyright website.

 

[AresMan]

Of course, I am all for obeying copyright laws and not for infringing them. I do wish to inform authors that there are countless other ways to utilize copyright law than the traditional means through a publishing company (which was necessary before electronic media). Please don't take anything I have said as encouraging people to break the law. God forbid! I am only trying to (1)educate people about how the copyright system works, and what powers they really have under these laws, and (2) encourage (Christian) authors to see other financially beneficial ways of legalizing more freedoms for users.
It is not illegal to download that MP3 from the Internet if the author allows and encourages it. That is what I am trying to get across and hope to present business models for Christian authors that take advantage of the easy dissemination of information via the Internet instead of the great technology of Internet becoming a financial curse. Do you see my point?

 

[Brother Ian]

There are people printing all sorts of "Christian" material that are not saved. Too many Christians I know burn CDs of their favorite artists and give them to their friends which takes money out of the artist's pocket. They reason this by saying, "Its only one CD for heaven's sake." Many people make money in the service to God. This is not limited to Christian artists/singers, but also pastors, denominational staffers, church staff, etc. I hope these folks are answering a call from God and would do it whether they were paid or not.

Many people that own the copyright to certain material would be happy to allow you to use their stuff if you'd simply obey the law and ask first.

It is a poor testimony for Christians to break the law when it comes to copyright infringement.

 

[AresMan]

Of course, it makes it easier if some artists had some permissions present in their license up front, so that those feeling the need to copy know what the author has explicitly allowed, and if the author knew about all his options under copyright.

 

[Pete]

"God" on pedestal...

...and people in worship...

 

[TexasSky]

Remember, copyright law includes "fair use".

You can usually use "pieces" of a work in small ways. (For example, copying one article out of a magazine for one classroom of students, as long as you site the source). You cannot, however, make 500 copies of it, or copy the entire magazine. Some magazines or texts do not permit the copying of entire articles.

The same is true of most Christian literature. I have been allowed to use whole sections of documents in mass production for various uses, but it required contacting publishers first, and ensuring them that I was not profiting from the use, nor was the use going to seriously cut into their potential profits.

 

[AresMan]

Copyright law is not the same in all countries and not all countries have as broad a "fair use" specification as the U.S. Remember, copyright is not a "divine right" or even a "natural right." It is a social contract granted by a government between authors and users to keep more knowledge and creativity flowing into the public domain by securing an author's exclusive right to his work for a limited time.
Now, where would we be if the "perpetual copyright" lobbyists of today were around back in the day of John Newton, where when he died, some publisher continued to perpetually own the copyright on "Amazing Grace" and continued to exercise it through the centuries, being successful at lobbying the government to extend copyright terms because the copyright holder--the current publisher--is still alive, effecting a "perpetual copyright" on "Amazing Grace". Disney lobbied the government to extend the copyright to Mickey Mouse even though it was going to expire and Walt Disney was dead, but because Disney still saw some profit possibilities, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act was passed and Disney apparently can keep a perpetual copyright as long as they keep applying for extensions.
What would happen if the King James Bible were still under copyright (it was actually the Crowne Copyright; not really the same thing) because some publishers could get the goverment to extend copyright as this asset was bought and transferred by various acquisitions, and the author (I mean the copyright holder) could never really die.
I love my King James Bible. I can teach it, preach it, copy it, and spread it to the far reaches of the globe. I am KJVP (not KJVO as defined by critics), and this is one of the many reasons why I strongly prefer the KJV. Although the KJV is in the public domain many publishers still continue to print it, and many people still continue to make lots of money, too.

Let us remember that copyright is not an end in and of itself, it is a means to and end--the progress of science and the useful arts. It is a necessary social contract based on the depravity of man: motivation to create for more than spite.

Shouldn't we as Christians have a much higher view of our duties to God than the world? I don't mean eliminate copyright--please don't. I mean take advantage of copyright and use it spread God's message in a way that promotes freedom and provides a revenue stream.

 

[exscentric]

"I mean take advantage of copyright and use it spread God's message in a way that promotes freedom and provides a revenue stream."

Some do provide wide latitude, and some take no profit, why not give them credit for what they do and personally contact the others to air your complaint where it might do more good?