Dawnsinger: How wrong is Christian 'piracy'?

About

Media/writing resources

News media

Blogs I'm reading

Pals

Cory Tolbert Haik
I am a journalist living in New Orleans with my husband and two daughters.

« Metaphors that hurt | Main | Medals, ribbons & symbols »

2004.04.24

How wrong is Christian 'piracy'?

This is an interesting story about online music piracy from the Dallas Morning News . . . ironic in that the music being pirated is Christian music.

Read the story . . .

To me, this raises a number of issues. First, just so the RIAA doesn't show up at my doorstep, I buy my music online at iTunes, and am very happy with such services. For many of people, the issue was never about stealing music, but about the music industry forcing us to buy overpriced albums for the one decent song we wanted to hear. Christian music, by the way, is vastly underrepresented in online sales services, so the more quickly that changes, the more quickly there will be a legal outlet for those who want to obtain music this way. It's not about money, it's about access. Nuff said.

But two main issues I'd raise about this story - the first dealing with the whole concept of intellectual property as it applies to today's youth . . . and the second dealing with the concept of intellectual property as it applies to the gospel.

Read on . . .

In my experience - which is considerable, in that I'm a father of seven teens and the extended exposure to teens that implies - today's youth does not have the concept of personal property that our elder generation does. Books, movies, clothing . . . almost anything . . . goes into a sort of communal pool, constantly circulating. Keeping my OWN stuff out of this lending library is a major effort. It's not that the kids have an intention to steal . . . they just really question the whole concept of private property. I'm not sure whether that makes them nascent communists or just good sharers . . . or perhaps they just have a very high threshhold for setting aside things that they don't want to share.

And they have been raised on an internet whose core foundation is sharing. One of the big challenges in my job is trying to explain to even college-educated youth that taking a photo from our web site is stealing . . . and that adding a credit line, as they were taught in college, doesn't make it OK. So it's not really surprising that Christian youth are pirating Christian music, because that's the culture they live in. Theft of intellectual property is a difficult concept to explain to the college-educated . . . much less to a generation to whom intellectuality itself is a difficult concept.

And to be honest, the second, and more serious thorny point for ME, is the whole concept of intellectual property as applied to Christianity. I understand the law . . . and I understand the law applies to the Christian music industry . . . but from a religious perspective, can such an animal exist? Speaking to those who buy into the idea that any talent for spreading the gospel is a gift of the Holy Spirit - whether that be in music, writing, acting or otherwise - I have to question the existence of a "Christian Music Industry" that operates by the same rules as the "Music Industry." I make a living on the written word and communications, protected by copyrights, so don't get me wrong . . . I believe that Christian artists should make a living. But my question is this: if this is a gift of the Holy Spirit . . . to be used to spread the gospel of Christ . . . where do we draw the line?

This subject comes up as our church pays the fees to flash the lyrics to our worship songs on the overhead projectors during service. If you aren't familiar with this, under copyright laws, churches are required to pay a fee to print music lyrics passed out during services, or displayed in any way for the congregation. All very legal. So my question is . . . is a poor church not allowed to sing the song given by God for the edification of the Church, because it doesn't have enough money to pay the fee? I have seen teens moved to a relationship with God through the music given as a spiritual gift to Christian musicians. Do those Christian musicians really want the price of an album to stand between a teen and salvation? If we weren't way past the copyright period, would we be paying royalties to the Beloved Disciples each time we flashed John 3:16 on the overhead?

I'm only preaching to part of the choir here, of course. I suspect a number of Christian artists agonize over this themselves. Others, however, run businesses and lives that are indistinguishable from those of secular artists . . . some cases worse. One well-known Christian musician sells albums, but gives free concerts packed with youth, taking up offerings during the concerts and asking those Christians who have been blessed with money to support his free ministry to those who haven't. Other "Christian" artists sweep into town charging concert tickets at prices rivalling George Strait & Madonna. Honestly, is this really ministry . . . or just show business?

2004.04.24 in Current Affairs, Music, Religion, Web/Tech, Writing & media | Permalink

Comments

Posted by: Brisleple | 2012.01.31 at 02:53

http://buyativancheap.com/ cheap ativan click here cheap lorazepam ativan online online consultation http://klonopincheap.com/ railing klonopin order klonopin intravenous klonopin package insert

Posted by: Cheap Xanax | 2012.01.28 at 02:20

http://itcialisgenerico.com/ cialis generico in italia ГЁ comprare cialis mezza cialis 20 mg
http://propecianet.com/ boots propecia price cheap propecia comprare propecia cost
http://cialisnet.com/ mixing cialis generic viagra Cialis Generic non generic cialis
http://frcialisgenerique.com/ capsules cialis generique le cialis cialis tadalafil pfizer

Posted by: Cialis | 2012.01.26 at 03:27

http://cialistadalafilpharmacy.com/ buy tadalafil china cialis pills viagra levitra cialis generic drugs
generic cialis free shipping

Posted by: Tadalafil | 2012.01.19 at 02:58

cefixime thailand , suprax with food ... suprax 400 mg gonorrhea !
cefixime ofloxacin combination : buy cefixime no prescription schott suprax germany
cefixime xl : cefixime 200 - buy cefixime no prescription overnight .
mode of action cefixime : buy cefixime no prescription , cefixime names - cefixime with ofloxacin combination , suprax suspension price !
cefixime yeast infection , cefixime dosage for children : purchase cefixime Cefixime zifi , suprax viral
cefixime azithromycin ... cefixime 200 mg , Cefixime ultraxime : purchase cefixime online suprax label suprax 400 side effects - cefixime for typhoid fever
cefixime 200mg correct dose
cefixime liquid

Posted by: Cefixime Suprax | 2011.12.31 at 03:04

The drayman is putting the brakes on data Самые действующие препараты для похудения
Дешевый деревенский метод похудения
Реалекс препарат для похудения отзывы
Народные заговоры для похудения
Калькулятор ожирения
users in the top 5 percent. This comes as AT&T says it's on gage for the benefit of register smartphone sales

Posted by: abramkovich | 2011.12.10 at 02:58

Thanks on your marvelous posting! I really enjoyed reading it, you could be a great author.I will ensure that I bookmark your blog and may come back sometime soon. I want to encourage continue your great posts, have a nice morning!

Posted by: adult chat | 2011.05.29 at 03:55

Let my sincere blessings like flowers, blooming in this warm forever, with a sincere heart ornament gives joy and happiness, I deeply tianya-haijiao blessing you - my friend, wish you good luck and happiness!

Posted by: Nike Shox Navina | 2010.09.26 at 22:26

This business issue has gone a long way and it will be very hard to cure this one.

Ben

Posted by: Business Answering Service | 2010.08.22 at 03:31

Good article. It was enjoyable to read and thought provoking.

Posted by: Rolloffle | 2007.11.22 at 15:02

I'd like to clarify my example (which, I suppose, means it wasn't a good one), and then discuss copyright law, which I do have to be versed in during my "day job."

But first, I'd like to thank you for broadening my horizons a little. I was considering this topic in a purely Christian perspective - partially because so much public "Christianity" is so commercialized (can we get a moratorium on fish, please?) - and of course that just rubs me the wrong way.

But I'd never considered that Muslims - English-speaking Muslims - would have some of the same translation issues. And I think the core religious issue is probably common for Christians, Muslims and Jews. All three major religions believe that a personal all-powerful God (as opposed to a life-force or some such), deliberately communicated a body of truth to select individuals, with the intention that this truth should be then communicated to all mankind. So for all three major religions, the idea that anyone should set up "tollbooths" on the delivery of this truth to mankind is a serious issue.

To answer your particular question, it depends on the translation of the Bible you were using. This is, in a way, a particularly modern quandary. When I was a child, most available translations of the Bible were already out of copyright (those that were ever copyrighted to begin with), and many American Protestants at least unofficially accepted the King James Bible as the only "true" Bible. As a completely public domain publication, the King James Bible can be cited in its entirity . . . and the only reason for a citation at all is to ensure that people understand the source.

Modern translations generally include a page with citation rules right up front. The current "gold standard" of American Protestants is arguably the New International Version. The citation rules for this translation are posted on its copyright page. It's a pretty generous set of rules . . . much more so than standard copyrights. For your particular use . . . one verse in a non-commercial usage, the only requirement of the publisher would have been the inclusion of the initials "NIV" at the end of the verse in any media you produced. Again, just from a writer's point of view, including such attribution would be important for the audience's understanding of the source.

On the broader question of copyright and my example, I was specifically addressing a problem that often crops up among college kids or recent graduates. It is helpful to review copyright law to explain the illustration. You are partially right in raising the "corporate" demon . . . but copyright is specifically owned by the creator of a work, until assigned to a commercial enterprise.

First, to keep it simple, under U.S. law, any work is copyrighted as soon as it is created. This copyright does not require notice, nor does it require filing with the Copyright Office. It just exists. My original post was copyrighted as soon as I wrote it. So was your comment. And so is this post. The only question is what value this copyright has, and how well it can be enforced.

A copyright basically means that no one else can copy or re-use your creation unless you give them permission. There is a small loophole in this, known as "fair use." This is where academic influence comes into play. One of the "fair uses" of copyrighted work is in academic works. There are limits on the amount of a work that can be copied, and how it should be attributed, but in general, it's safe to say that properly credited material presented in an a college report, for example, is going to be safe. And even the citation has more to do with academic requirements to combat plaigiarism than with copyright.

(This is also a critical issue in journalism, by the way. "Fair use" also covers news reporting, and attribution is key to a story's credibility. The failure to properly credit sources has created many recent scandals in journalism.)

At root, copyright has two main functions. The most important is commercial. The person who creates this "intellectual property" should have the right to the payoff for it. He may do this directly, or he may sell the right to capitalize on the copyrighted material to a third party - a publisher. The second function is control over the quality of the product. In the case of the Bible, for example, there is at least one glaring example of a re-editing of the King James version of the Bible that changes an important point about the divinity of Jesus. But the miniscule change by an offshoot group was needed to support an entirely different view of God and salvation. Just a couple of words in a few key verses.

To clarify my example about college kids, let me make sure you understand. We are not talking about a religious matter, but a secular one . . . a clear violation of copyright law in a secular context. This involves students who have spent years in an academic culture in which they have lived in a "fair use" universe, as well as an "information wants to be free" internet culture. When they leave academia, they carry this over into the "real world," the problems begin. What is OK . . . or at least ignored in the academic world is not applicable or overlooked in the real world. A typical copyright violation we would handle would be a recent graduate who is now running a commercial web site. He copies a photograph that is posted on NOLA.com . . . a photograph licensed by The New Orleans Times-Picayune for use on our web site. His misunderstanding of copyright law is that if he cites the source - the Times-Picayune - that he is free, without permission, to post the photo on his site. This is manifestly illegal. No citation can make it OK. At the very least, he would need permission from the copyright holder, in this case, the Times-Picayune. We do, in fact frequently receive requests from non-profit or niche web sites to reprint articles or photos from NOLA.com. While we rarely deny such use, it's generally because there's no way that it costs us anything. If you really want a lesson in copyright law, here's a good experiment: Place an image of Mickey Mouse on your web site, with full credit to the Disney corporation. The Disney lawyers will give you an education.

As I said earlier, copyright law has two facets. The first is pretty absolute. You write it, you own it. The second has to do with enforcement. Assuming you can show in any way that you wrote it first, you're clear on the first facet. But the second facet has to do with commercial value: assuming someone has violated your copyright, has it robbed you of money, or benefited them? This is key to how serious someone is going to be about going after you for copyright violations. It's one thing to get a judge to force a violator to quit using your copyrighted material. It's quite another to get him to levy a fine . . . you need to put a price tag on the violation. So going after minor violators of copyright makes no sense . . . if they're just using your material without permission, but you can't really prove it's costing you anything or making them money, about all you can do is spend a lot of money on lawyers to make them stop.

None of this really has anything to do with the question of people capitalizing on the Christian gospel, of course (or as noted above, the Jewish or Muslim messages). One is a legal matter . . . the other a moral matter.

Since my Muslim correspondent specifically brought up the issue of translations, I would just offer the following for thought. Just about 500 years ago, the Bible was only supposed to be available to priests. The Latin Vulgate was the "gold standard," and it was unintelligible to the mass of worshipers. The men who dared to translate the Bible into the common language of the day . . . who made the gospel available to the people . . . were burned alive and tortured in unspeakable ways. If you think "The Passion of The Christ" was hard to stomach, try "Fox's Book of Martyrs." Slow roasting was the penalty for translating, owning or preaching from an English Bible. But those early translators put their lives on the line to get the word to the people.

Contrast that to the controlled copyrights of today's modern translations. Nuff said.

Posted by: Jon Donley | 2004.04.25 at 03:01

You're right that the new digital copyright rules are confusing, even for those supposedly educated to avoid intellectual theft/plagiarism. However, I'm not sure I follow this point:

"that taking a photo from our web site is stealing . . . and that adding a credit line, as they were taught in college, doesn't make it OK"

Are you talking in re-use a fully cited image is not legally reproducible? Or in citation? What is the fair use limit?

The difficulty with current copyright regulations is that they are distribution and corporate oriented, not used, and in most cases not producer, oriented. The Islamic tradition faces something similar. The Arabic of the Qur'an is considered the word of God as given to man, so even in translation, it's standard to have the parallel Arabic text. The copyright is applied to the translation, a practice which many Muslim translators find difficulty, but what about the Arabic? The law, as I understand it, prohibits the reproduction or use of that text, even thought it's 1400 years old, because of the use of the entirety of the text. So the distributor can use the Arabic because it's out of copyright, but once I buy the translation, I can no longer use the Arabic text.

On the subject of the Gospels, we have a similar concern as well, since the Bible (Hebrew Bible and New Testament) are respected by Muslims. I gave a presentation recently on intercession in the Muslim tradition and used John 3:17 to discuss the concept in Christianity. How was I supposed to cite it?

Posted by: islamoyankee | 2004.04.24 at 21:29

The comments to this entry are closed.

Dawnsinger

Gliding through the darkness, but reaching toward the light

About

Media/writing resources

News media

Blogs I'm reading

Categories

Pals

2004.04.24

How wrong is Christian 'piracy'?

Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Recently Updated Weblogs