A Christian’s Response To Copyright
What does the word “copyright” mean to you? If you’re like most people, you probably just don’t think about it anymore. Because of personal computers and the internet, copyright infringement has become so widespread that it almost feels normal. It almost feels, well, legal.
I’m not sure why, but for whatever reason a large number of Christians have stopped caring about “all that stuff” and decided to depend on their own lines of logic to decide what’s right and what’s wrong. Others, who are more oblivious to the system as a whole, are breaking the law because they see how common it is and truly have no idea that what they are doing is illegal. What I want to do today is make you aware. As Christians we are called to obey the laws of the land, and as Christians, most of us are not doing that in this area.
What Exactly Is “Copyright”
So first let us define our terms. Copyright is defined by “the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc.” Simply put, the pereson who holds the copyright has the legal right to say how the work is copied and distributed. So, if I do not have the copyright for a literary, musical, or artistic work, then I do not have the right to make copies of that work. That’s the law, and it’s pretty cut and dry.
Piracy, therefore, is “the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc.” Piracy is illegal because you are stealing another person’s right to that work. So what is piracy in our every day terms? Copying music files to and from friends, copying DVDs, copying computer software, or using anything that has been illegally copied.
Common Objections to Copyright Law
There are a lot of objections to obeying the law in this area. The most common one I hear is, “It’s not illegal as long as you’re not selling it.” Others say they’re just trying it out to see if they want to buy it, or that it shouldn’t cost that much to begin with, or that it’s just not that big a deal.
Isn’t it?
Let’s take a closer look at those objections and apply a little reason to them:
It’s not illegal as long as you’re not selling it.
Really? What other area of life does that logic apply to? If you came into my house, picked up my TV and started walking out the door I would probably say something like, “Hey, that’s mine! You can’t take that!” Can you honestly say that your answer to me would be, “What? It’s not like I’m gonna sell it!” When we make illegal copies of anybody’s work, we are taking what belongs to them. How does you selling it have anything to do with the fact that it’s mine?
I’m just trying it out to see if I want to buy it.
This still does not change the fact that you have an illegal piece of property in your possession. If your answer to taking my TV was, “I’m just gonna try it out for a while to see if I like it,” I would tell you, “It’s not yours to make that decision, I didn’t tell you that you could do that.” Besides that, almost all software companies give free trials of their programs, and most bands have their stuff online for you to sample. “Just trying it out” doesn’t make much sense, and it is still illegal.
It shouldn’t cost that much to begin with.
This time let’s say I offered to sell my TV to you, but you declined because you thought I was overcharging you. And this time, when you were on your way out the door taking the TV without my permission you just say, “Well you shouldn’t charge that much!” What?! If I own something and want to sell it, I can charge whatever I want. It is your right as the consumer to choose not to buy it. It is not your right to figure out how to get what I’m selling illegally. What does us not thinking a price is fair have anything to do with breaking the law? Go complain about it, but don’t go steal it. (And by the way, software wouldn’t be nearly as expensive as it is if it weren’t for piracy. We have created this problem ourselves.)
It’s just not that big a deal.
This might be everyone’s reaction after reading those last three. A TV is one thing, but who cares about a little song? I believe most of us are a little confused at this because back before Napster it was totally common for a friend to make a copy of a tape for another friend. Even though it was still illegal then, it wasn’t considered a big deal because you making one copy for a friend didn’t hurt the music industry. Today it only takes one person to buy a legal copy of the music, put it online, and hundreds of millions of people don’t have to buy it. The reason the entertainment industry is crying out so loud today is because they are losing a lot of money due to piracy. Not a big deal? Maybe not from your perspective, but that doesn’t mean that, in fact, it is a big deal.
But even more than all that, as Christians we must ask ourselves, Is this a big deal?
What God Thinks
When approaching issues like this it is always important to ask the question, How does God feel about it? Here is a truth we must wrestle with: God either does or does not care about this issue. If we can see from his word that he does, then why in the world would be doing what he doesn’t want us to do?
So does the Bible have anything to say on the matter of copyright infringement? Well not exactly, but it does have some things to say about obeying the law. 1st Peter 2:13-17 says we are to submit to every authority that has been instituted among men, and that submitting is “doing good.” So the obvious question for the Christian proponents of “Copyright Doesn’t Matter” is, Am I submitting to every authority that has been instituted among men? If your answer is no, then my question to you is, Why would you deliberately be doing what God told you not to do?
Also in Romans 13:1-7, Paul says to be subject to authorities because they have been appointed by God. That is, resisting authorities is resisting God. Humbling? It had better be. In verse five he says that it’s not just to avoid punishment, but that it is for the sake of our consciences. I like that point because for most of us, no one is going to jail for breaking a copyright infringement law. But God calls our consciences to a higher standard. Do we only keeping the rules so we don’t get caught or because we are after the heart of God? (And if that isn’t enough for Paul to convince us to obey the law, historians place the writing of Romans during the time of Nero. Nero. The guy who went down in history as a persecutor of Christians. If Paul can make the case to obey our government during Nero’s day, then we should have no problem obeying it during our day of peace right now.)
So does God care about copyright? Well considering he established the government which set up the law, I think that he does. If God wants his children to obey the laws of the land they live in, then we must obey this law too.
In Conclusion
Part of my own personal frustration in this area is that because of the changing world we live in, many of these laws are outdated or don’t seem to be protecting what they were meant to in the first place. Thankfully, things are slowly adapting, but until the laws officially change, I cannot, as a Christian, knowingly break them.
As Christians, we have zero excuse to be breaking the law in this area. Our Father calls us to a higher standard, and when we insist on breaking the rules that he set up, we are insisting on breaking his heart.
My dear bradon…..
you wrote down everything i always wanted to share with people in US, but couldn’t because of my english…
we strugle a lot with copyright stuff here in Brazil. As you probably saw in Mexico.. there are a lot of little markets selling pirate movies, games, cds….
i pass by one of these markets a week ago and couldn’t believe what i saw there…. a wii game for a 1.50 dolar…. that was ridiculous…. Also they sell movies that are still on the theaters….
The sad thing though is that you hear people, including Christians, saying: “Well, if they are illegal, why the government doesn’t get them? why don’t the cops take them to the prison?”
well, even the government and the cops here are corrupted….
other people will say: “i would buy the original if it wasn’t so much expensive… i buy this copy to make them lower the prices….”
thanks for having the courage to share your thoughts
God bless
If you don’t mind, I’m posting this to my facebook. I agree with you 100% and have fought this amongst my friends for a long time. Thank you!
Thank you, Brandon. I thought I was the only one out there with views on this topic. It seems to have become so commonplace to copy something from T.V. or to copy movies, etc. I would like to see all Christians unite on this topic. The law is the law and if we really think a movie, t.v. program or song is that important (these all, by the way, pale in comparison with the surpassing richness of God’s love), we should be willing to pay the asking price for it and not get pulled down by the world’s desires.
Thank you so much for the eloquent words on an important subject.
Being copyright compliant is much easier than it used to be. There is no excuse not to do it.
Part 1:
I really like that you’re calling people out for copyright infrigement, and I think you might want to clarify “stealing” a little more.
If I take your TV, you no longer have that TV. But that’s not exactly the same thing as when someone violates a copyright or patent. The song that you downloaded illegally or the video you watched that was uploaded illegally on YouTube still exists in the recording archives of the studio. What’s been “taken” when you make an illegal copy or view an illegal film is the potential for owner of that copyright to make money off of it.
Copyrights are designed to protect the owner’s future earnings, which is less tangible than something physical that’s owned.
Regardless, I think you’re on the right track and you’ve definitely made headway here on a topic that’s really important for Christians to discuss. I just wanted to make that suggestion because it’s often hard for people to understand the correlation between copyright infringement and stealing because of what I outlined earlier (that the product still exists in the hands of the owner, even if I reproduce it myself).
Part 2.
Three Examples of Bad Copyrights- and what should our response be?
Example 1: I just got done watching Food, Inc. In the film they reference a Soybean Manufacturer who owns a patent (in essence copyright) on a soybean they’ve genetically altered. Because of this, they are suing a bunch of farmers who sow seeds from the plants they’ve grown. Since this company owns the genetic license for the plants, sowing the seeds that are produced by the plants the farmers grow apparently breech patent/copyright law.
Example 2: There have been oil companies who have purchased the copyright/patent of electric vehicles, not to produce them, but to squelch them. In essence, they’ve optioned the rights to produce a particular product so that they can maintain dominance in the market and eliminate their competitors.
Example 3: There have been artists who have been entered into bad contracts where the label rather than the musician owns the copyright to the music they perform. The artist, due to their ignorance to the law, ise no longer able to make a living performing what he, himself/herself, created.
So, based on these three examples, while I agree that as Christians we need to work within the law and be obedient to the legal authorities; when copyrights fail to protect and end up harming instead- what should our response be?
You protest, and or boycott the offender, even organize the protest/boycott. Be and activist.
You work within the constraints of the law to get the bad law changed. It may not be possible to redress all particular wrongs, so on that score you leave justice to God and do what can be done to prevent future wrongs.
“Stealing” – Taking something that is not yours without permission. From David’s Dictionary
Brandon, great article. As you know its a big problem here in Ukraine as well.
We would not have The Bible today if copyright had existed thousands of years ago. In the time before the printing press, scribes had to hand write, copying from one piece of parchment to another to preserve The Word. The only reason The Bible exists the way it does today is because the versions of the manuscripts that existed and were popular at the time of the golden age of the printing press is the one that was reprinted on a massive scale.
Not to mention hymns that were handed down throughout the centuries, etc. Back then, people had to memorize it or write it down. Today’s technology available to everyone would keep that from happening just because some parties have commercialized the process and have copyright on certain media.
I think Jesus would have a different view on copyright than the author of this post. Matthew 14:13–21 aka “The Feeding the multitude” can be interpreted as supporting copying and p2p technology. Matthew 28:19-20: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Surely a call for people to share The Word. And today, that may mean pointing people to digital copies of The Bible, teaching people songs, sharing Christian music. Copyright is in direct opposition to this aspect of Christianity.
Jesus did not like selling in The Church as shown in Matthew 21:12-13. He probably would condemn the over capitalization in Christianity today (crazy fees to hear superstar preachers, televangelists, etc). The author of this post is trying to reconcile his guilt in his or her possible business dealings regarding the sale of Christian merchandise or services that relies on copyright for its business model.
Christian Music business is one of the most profitable music genres. I have not doubt that Christians are making CDs or tape for each other, and helping to spread the Gospel.
Bishops have condemned aggressive capitalization, and intellectual monopoly (aka copyright) is one form of this.
I can go on and on, but I’ll stop here.
As a songwriter of “Christian” songs, I must reply to your loose use of scripture. Do you object to the Christian music industry being profitable? I have witnessed that for some reason, Christian music audiences expect to be entertained at a discount rate by Christian musicians, but pay full pop to see secular artists. Go back to the article and refute Paul’s words. You cannot do it with all honesty. The law is the law, no matter how you rationalize “helping spread the Gospel”. The NIV is copyrighted material, BTW.
I personally allow people to copy my material for personal use, but they need to have permission from me to do it. If I were to catch someone making money with my songs for themselves or their particular cause, valid or not, they would be in a heap of trouble.
Don’t break the law, and for Heaven’s sake, don’t rationalize breaking the law or use Jesus’ teaching to circumnavigate the law.
Brandon, once again I applaud you honesty on an issue that has been oftentimes overlooked. I’m really going to try in my life to live up to this. It’s kind of hard to bring it up to others, though, because I have gotten the Romans 14 issue that it just isn’t violating their consciences to practice this stuff. What do I say to that, if anything at all?
@Nathan, thanks for those additional thoughts. You are definitely right about how people feel differently about the TV versus a song. As far as what to do with unjust copyright laws, personally I always come back to the thought of whether it is violating my beliefs as a Christian (much like the apostles asked, “Should we obey God or men?”). Yes, it is awful that musicians get tricked into album deals or that oil companies have made it difficult for innovation, but that has nothing to do with me obeying the law. Just because I don’t like it doesn’t give me the right to break the law. Now if those same companies somehow created a law that banned Christians from teaching the gospel, we would have to “obey God rather than men.” Thanks for you rcomments, though, and I hope to see you stop by again!
@Nick, wow. That’s really all I can say after a comment like that. First of all, I didn’t mention Christian music or copyright, you did. (Though where the line is drawn for me has to do with what I said to @Nathan in the first paragraph.) Second, you said, “The author of this post is trying to reconcile his guilt in his or her possible business dealings regarding the sale of Christian merchandise or services that relies on copyright for its business model.” Seriously, brother? Why would you make a judgmental statement like that? For the record (as this website is full of proof that) I am a full-time minister and have never had anything to do with the business of selling Christian merchandise. (And again, you brought up the Christian aspect of this whole thing, not me.)
And calling the feeding of the 5,000 an example of “supporting copying and p2p technology”? Seriously? I’m talking about breaking the law, you are talking about the creator of the universe doing miracles. Back then there were no copyrights on this stuff, so the basis for your argument can’t hold water.
Finally, as Paul charged Timothy to “watch his life and doctrine closely” (1st Tim. 4:16), you too should watch the dangers of this line of thinking. Let’s say you are involved with converting somebody and they are reading their Bible like crazy and they get to these verses about obeying the government and they ask you how it reconciles with breaking the law in this way. At that point you are either going to make scripture say something it does not say, or you will lose whatever influence you had over that young Christian. So, Nick, please watch your life and doctrine closely.
@John McCoy, thanks for your thoughts. The Romans 14 argument is weak. That had to do with things that had nothing to do with the law, they were traditions that weren’t clear to the first century Christians. With that line of logic you could justify any sin and simply say, “Well it doesn’t violate my conscience.” (Run that through my TV example. It doesn’t make much sense.)
I think a better verse to consider is James 4:17: “He who knows the good he ought to do, and doesn’t do it, sins.” It would be good to ask, “If you know you shouldn’t be doing this—that it is against what God wants you to do—how are you alright doing it?”
@Brandon- I’ll definitely be back. I love a good lesson in “applied ethics” like you’ve outlined here.
@Brandon
Sorry for the incorrect guess at your profession. I apologize.
Jesus had the ability to share food, and so he did. What if there were a law back in Jesus’s time that made it illegal to share food with the poor? Today we share info with the underprivileged through digital technology; and I have no doubt that this would be seen as a miracle in the time of Jesus. Jesus respected authority when it was deserved, but disobeyed authority when it was not deserved. So I would not equate legality to morality. I know of plenty of things that are leagal that Christians do not agree with. Does that make them right?
The reason I bring up Christian music is because is is the best peice of Christian culture I can think of that has intellectual property attached to it. Music or any other piece of culture that existed before copyright is an example of humankind’s need to communicate and share ideas. People may be breaking the law and not even know it. Church musicians may be photocopying sheet music so they can aid each other in praise, and this technically illegal (unless the songs are in the public domain, and even then, some publishers have probably laid claim to hymns that are 100s of years old). This amount of lawlessness is bad for society, and so the laws are not longer justified. Strict copyright conflicts with culture, and there are times when disregarding it (yes, breaking the law) should be allowed, and should not be immoral. Laws are manmade, and they can be changed.
@Nick
I really think you’re missing the point. It’s really simple. If you know the law, and the law doesn’t violate God’s law, then you are biblically bound to obey it. If you KNOW it. Of course, even if you don’t know it, and the intellectual owner of that property decides to sue you for illegally distributint said property, you are still going to be held legally liable. At the point at which you KNOW, if you decide to disobey, then it is sin. You may not like the law, but that doesn’t really matter. Jesus did have the ability to share food, only one difference, He is the owner of ALL. He could do as he pleased. Brandon’s point is not complicated to understand. There are many laws that we as American citizens don’t like, but we must follow them or be willing to pay the consequences should we get caught. As far as there being times when disregarding the copyright should be allowed, I think that should be up to the owner of the property, not someone else.
Small time song writers are the ones being hurt the most by the stealing/sharing of their copyrighted material. They have always been taken advantage of by big corporations as well. The writer only receives $ .09 cents for per CD for each song sold. Nick – say you own a grocery store – if it’s okay to situationally justify disregarding copyrights “yes breaking the law” then using your logic – you won’t mind when I come into your grocery store, load up my cart and “disregard” paying for the groceries when I leave ! Using your logic- how long could you keep your store open ?
And how much longer will I be able to keep writing the music you like to listen when
I get paid nothing ?
“Laws are manmade, and they can be changed.”
Then get the law changed, don’t break it just because you “feel” it is irrelevant. Better yet, ask or pay for permission to use copyrighted material or just don’t use it.
Rock on you! I couldn’t believe it- you’re featured in ASCAP’s Daily Brief- I had to double check I opened that email! This is so awesome. Thanks for sharing God’s light in an applicable way- especially as a musician! But Mostly as a Christian. I’m so proud of you! I’ll forward you the email. Love and miss you guys!God is so cool!
Small time song writers are the ones being hurt the most by the stealing/sharing of their copyrighted material. They have always been taken advantage of by big corporations as well. The writer only receives $ .09 cents for per CD for each song sold. Nick – say you own a grocery store – if it’s okay to situationally justify disregarding copyrights “yes breaking the law” then using your logic – you won’t mind when I come into your grocery store, load up my cart and “disregard” paying for the groceries when I leave ! Using your logic- how long could you keep your store open ?
And how much longer will I be able to keep writing the music you like to listen when
I get paid nothing ?
Also, for all those trying to clarify “Stealing” and the difference. Perhaps ask yourself is it b/c you want to justify something that you know in your heart is wrong. Just because you may believe differently than our laws- the bible says that we are to “obey the laws of the land” so if you are following God’s word- then we need to follow the laws of the land- no matter how small.
And just so you know- all the illegal downloading has cost not only musicians they’re income and ability to make money from their talent- but also the people making it possible for all of us to hear about our favorite acts. I think the golden rule also comes up here “Do to others as you’d have them do to you.”
We don’t get groceries for free, or go to a movie for free, or even have ice-cream for free. We need to respect if we want to listen to our favorite song- that it is worth the .99 cents to buy it. And just like anything else, sometimes an album may not be within budget- and like every other thing- we’ll need to prioritize our budget in music to what we can afford, just like when we go to the grocery store and perhaps can’t get the whole steak for dinner- but just the corn tonight! :)
Let’s all just respect and love each other’s crafts/arts/jobs and follow the laws of the land. I won’t steal your corn, please don’t steal my song- :) But if you’re interested- I do have some free downloads available at http://www.reverbnation.com/tianastar and you can also buy my songs on I-tunes by searching “Tiana Star”.
:) ha ha. Lots of love.
Tianastar.com
One other thing. Just to be clear. We’ve all done it and it is, imo, the single biggest reason the music industry is where it is today. The “I want everything for free” culture is ruining the artist’s ability to make a living doing what he/she loves. Following the law is actually the only way to fix it.
I want to be careful to not be misunderstood; I do believe in fair copyright law and in the composers’/artists’ right to earn money for their work. However, the losses the music industry is having and that the movie industry is claiming are not due to theft but rather to failure to adapt to a business model that fits the new and changing paradigm. The Federal GAO is looking into this at this time. Neil’s reference to “Fair Use” is very relevant and important; otherwise we would be required by law to close all public libraries. Oh, and I’d like to be able to copy this thread to show some friends, but copyright law prevents me.
Hi Brandon!
I found this link from ASCAP
Thanks for a great article.
If it is okay with you, I would like to post this link on some forums I frequent.
Blessings
ang
(AND…..keeping your name on it!)
@Brandon –
Nice to run into a minister that is vocal on copyright law. As Tiana said, this post is featured on the top of ASCAP’s Daily Brief.
Some hard-hitting thought-provoking words. I think each of us violate this in some form or fashion, for instance, is it infringement to rip your own CD to your computer and synch it with your MP3 player? Or DVR a show you weren’t at home to watch on TV? Lots of food for thought, but these two, more than any other, make me want to ask you, ‘well, but what about this?’
@Diego – Man, I didn’t know it was that bad outside the US. Guess I should have known, as most of the software I buy says ‘not for sale outside the US and Canada’.
@Nick – Dude, I’m a Christian musician. I give away a lot of my music. If I want to give it away for the furtherance of the gospel, that’s cool. But for someone to tell me it’s not RIGHT to expect compensation, or that for some reason I’m wrong to charge a fair price for the songs I’ve written, as opposed to a non-Christian artist, I gotta ask, where’s the fairness in that?
Is it RIGHT to expect Christian artists to give their songs away, because they are promoting the gospel, and to force them to have a ‘day job’ to support themselves?
I know that Paul came to one town and set himself up as a tentmaker because the church could not support him, but in Acts the apostles set themselves aside to their work full-time and expected the church to support them.
This logic holds true for ministers and their time as well. If a minister in doing good and spreading the gospel, ministering to the sick and feeding his flock on God’s Word should be expected to do all that ‘pro bono’, or for free, then his church suffers at least 40 hours of non-pastor time because he would have to have a full-time job to support his family.
in Luke 10:17, Jesus said that’The laborer is worthy of his hire’. Meaning that the apostles were to be supported in their work, and their support was expected.
1Tim 5:18 repeats it, while comparing it to an old testament passage about not muzzling the ox that grinds the grain.
I think this holds true for Christian musicians. Certainly many have made a living at it, some a killing at it. Those superstar Christian musicians that last and that are true and faithful servants realize that ALL that money is God’s anyway (which, when it comes down to it, is true of all the money I make in my day job too) – they give a lot of it away to charity, invest in God’s kingdom. The money doesn’t sit idly by.
And for the store-bought, studio produced albums, who pays the engineers, the studio musicians, the producers, the label, the graphic artists, the CD Duplication company, the managers, the band members? They aren’t all doing it for free, and shouldn’t be expected to.
Sorry for the long ‘rant’, but it’s important to realize that measuring Christian musicians and other servants by a ‘should be free’ yardstick would eventually mean no produced Christian music, and all you’d be left with is the Indie artist that produces music out of his garage and gives it away because he’s compelled by the Spirit to. And the Sunday only pastor whose commitment to the church is a message from the pulpit.
Does this mean clicking the “share” button on YouTube is illegal? Or, hyper-linking a musical feature to someone else is wrong also?
When someone who does not have the copyright on a video uploads it to YouTube, that person is guilty of copyright infringement. That person has copied content and then distributed it via the internet. When I watch that video, I support the practice. When I forward a link to the video, I’m supporting the illegal behavior and assisting others to do the same. Clicking the “share” button isn’t illegal in this circumstance but it is unethical because I’m supporting and encouraging illegal behavior.
It’s a different matter when the copyright holder has a “share” feature.
How do you know if someone has the copyright on specific content on YouTube? Generally speaking, those with the copyright declare it in some manner. Those without the copyright don’t usually declare that they don’t have it. If in doubt, move on.
I am not saying that people should not work for free. I am not saying that Christian musicians should not get paid. I am just saying that there may be times when it is appropriate to share. And when you make it a black or white issue, poor souls like Sue get confused.
Please do not compare scares, physical goods with abundant, intangible goods. Intellectual Proper can be copied infinitely at no additional cost. This is why many people do not have a problem sharing. Scarce goods like food cannot be duplicated unless you are Jesus. It takes time and resources to grow more and more food. If I take the time and talent to make one song, I can copy it an infinite number of times and share it with the world just by putting it out on the internet, and at little to no cost. Sure, it takes time to create both food and music, but please understand the point I am making about the differences.
There is more music being made today than in any other time in history, and there are more opportunities to head your music heard. It is on you to leverage this new ability. And if you cannot make a living as a musician, you are not staying competitive with your business model. You need to give people a reason to buy something. You need to be a business strategist, a marketer, and a musician. Sorry, that is just the way it is in today’s music market. Check out Derek Siver’s ebook “How to Call Attention to Your Music” http://sivers.org/pdf It does not require the evils of copyright.
Getting back on the topic of obeying Copyright law and Christianity, if breaking the law of the land is a sin, so be it. I just ask you to question authority. The misguided music and movie industries lobbying for stronger even copyright laws that would interfere with our basic liberty.
As an attorney with some experience in intellectual property, I feel obligated to point out that you forgot about a whole other section of the “law of the land” that we as Christians are supposed to follow called “fair use”.
“Simply put, the person who holds the copyright has the legal right to say how the work is copied and distributed. So, if I do not have the copyright for a literary, musical, or artistic work, then I do not have the right to make copies of that work. That’s the law, and it’s pretty cut and dry.”
This statement of the law is actually, and substantially, wrong. Check out this page http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php for a better analysis of the balancing act between current creators and future creators that is embodied in U.S. copyright law.
Well I am quite surprised to see the attention this article has gotten over the last twenty-four hours — a featured link in the ASCAP’s “Daily Brief” is much more press than this little blog is used to. Thank you all for your interest, and thank you all for your participation.
There have been some interesting points brought up, and some have been thought-provoking indeed. Neil Chilson definitely has some good stuff going with mentioning Fair Use and I encourage everyone to follow that up. Though, just to clarify, Fair Use was not the kind of copyright perspective I was writing from. (Sorry for the overgeneralization, Neil.)
I invite everyone to keep the discussion going, but unfortunately I cannot continue to participate. Tomorrow morning my wife and I leave for a week and I will not have time to spend here—I will be lucky if I can get any new content up while I am gone. However, I will continue to read every comment that comes through and will moderate if need be. Keep it clean and keep it respectful please.
I also invite everyone to check out our About Page and learn a little bit about who we are and what we are doing (writing about controversial Christian issues is my not full-time occupation). If anyone (or any congregation) would be able to help in getting my wife and I to Ukraine for mission work, we would love to talk with you.
Again, thank you. I hope more than anything that this post has challenged you to check your own hearts and actions before God. I only want for each of us that we would be holy as our heavenly Father is holy, because holiness is what we have been called to.
Sincerely,
Brandon Price
I pray for your and Katie’s safe journey, Brandon. To everyone out there, I would like to bring up the a very pertinent topic of the speeding laws. While this is not related per se to “stealing,” it does have to do with obedience to the law. How many of us speed on a daily basis? That is one area where I do transgress daily. Other Christians have told me that speeding is a “gray area of the law.” Is it really? or is it true that the small transgressions will harder our heart just as easily as the large transgressions? Luke 16:10: “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.”
There’s a lot to discuss here – the fact that Romans is not a command to obey an evil government (the govt is also accountable to God to do the right thing – we are not supposed to obey an evil law); because a law exists does not make it biblically acceptable – case in point, Federal Income Tax. I think scripture supports an individual keeping what is rightfully his or hers (payment for work is not profit) more than it does our misreadings of “render unto Caesar.” I pay my taxes because it’s “the law,” but I don’t belive it’s right.
Man’s law is arbitrary and can always be changed – God’s law is not. When mixing business with the Gospel, there is no perfect answer – one is holy, the other (while not necessarily wrong) is not.
The Protestant church might not exist if copyright laws had existed when Martin Luther nailed his treaty to the door – printing and distribution is what got the message out, and made Martin Luther very well known. (he then wrote more pamphlets)
While maybe not the case today, the origin of copyright law started as government censorship – printing presses could print dissenting views as well as propaganda, and governments granted licenses to those who would only print its p-o-v.
A lot of product sits in warehouses and will never see the light of day because the copyright holder will not print it, nor will they allow anyone else to do so either. How is that beneficial to the consumer? Or does that not matter?
On the flip side, many books – new as well as those no longer under copyright – are showing up online for free. You can either read it online – or pay for the traditional form of the book. Many allow their “product” to be copied for free – as long as it’s in its entirity (no changes), and/or credit is given. Rather than losing money, more people are being reached, with the potential of more books being sold… precisly because they are no longer under copyright.
Which leads to this thought – isn’t a book, lyric, poem, etc trying to communicate a message? Or is it just a way to make money? If the former, how can the message be communicated to the most people if it has limitations on it? Can’t a musician make money off their songs without copyright protection? And are years of product going to be buried or lost because they are protected by copyright, and not easily accessible by the public?
Techonology and the internet are causing all the arbitrary rules to be broken. Websites that prosper offer free content, which if enjoyed by the customer, induces them into paying for a premium product. Radio is doing this – reports are that some are making 50% of their income online (non-traditional revenue) either through premium offers, or ads sold based on hits on their website. Radio has always been big on giveaways as enticement. Now many of those freebies are online, accessible to the consumer when they want to access it, not just when the radio station does their contest, etc.
Are artists doing this? Providing free content in hopes that the customer will pay to see them in concert? Buy merchandise? Tell others who would then support the band? Does passing along a song cause an artist to lose money, or gain a new fan (possibly paying fan) who never would have heard of them otherwise? Some artists have already said that their songs will soon be no more than ads to find new fans.
Does this devalue the music – or – does it increase the size of the audience that hears your message?
One other thought having to do with Intellectual Property. A book was released a few years ago debunking the idea of IP. It might be a book worth reading… and yes, it is free to read online.
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm
one other thought, that may or may not be applicable… may or may not be true. But should possibly be considered (especially as believers).
Everything belongs to God. Nothing belongs to us. The law of Jubilee always returns property back to the original owner. It also erases the debt someone owes. I just wonder how much of this “it belongs to me” mentality that can come about in the copyright debate reveals something idolatrous in us, rather than a pure heart?
Interesting article but there are several problems with your “TV” and other arguments.
1) TV manufacturers don’t take the same TV and package the exact same product in multiple forms and expect you to repurchase it once you have already purchased that product once. For example, the same album or song released on mp3, cd, vinyl, cassette etc. If it were up to record labels, no one would own any physical product. You would pay everytime you listened to something. If a TV manufacturer or other company did this, it would be unacceptable to the public.
2) TV manufacturers don’t create products designed to copy or duplicate their TV. For example, blank CD’s, DVD’s, cassettes etc. for copying music. The very companies that release the music are the same that create the products to copy and duplicate their product. They make tons of money from it then complain about it.
3) TV manufacturers don’t intentionally leak their TV’s on the open market for people to grab for free. It is a known fact that many artists and record labels leak their own product onto the internet and other places for people to download or use. For example, internet song/album leaks, free mp3 downloads, promo cd’s, videos etc.
4) The electronics industry don’t intentionally rip off, take advantage of or lock TV manufacturers into unfair contracts to obtain their products. The music industry pays an artist on average 30-60 cents per CD sold. This is on a $15.98 retail price. This is essentially stealing from the artists that create the music. Not to mention all of the bogus fees that record labels take from their artists before they pay out or deduct from their royalties such as “returns”, “CD development” and the fact that artists have to pay back every penny the record label gave them before they even see a dime for their work. I suspect that most consumers would be more than willing to pay a fair price for music if they knew most of their money was going directly to the artists and not all to the greedy labels.
5) The Christian argument that all Christians should just blindly follow and approve of every government action and law is a complete misunderstanding of the bible. The bible is full of instances of people fighting the government and is found perfectly acceptable in most instances. Keep in mind that America was founded on Christian principles so therefore by your argument you can make a case that most or all of the laws should be as well. They clearly aren’t.
6) Legality is also a grey area. I am a DJ, remixer, musician etc. I get music sent to me via legal record pools, DJ services, record labels etc. weeks or months before they are available to the general public. So what is legal for me to have and for the average consumer is often very different. There is also the point of artists and record labels leaking their own copywritten material for free download that is later sold as an mp3 or CD product. If they give something away for free and someone then shares that same free product with someone else, is that illegal? No.
As Christians, we are to be treated fairly under the law but as a Christian I know that it has been open season on ridiculing, persecuting and discriminating against Christians in the legal, cultural and other arenas for centuries. If you have a clear understanding of history, you would know this is true both literally and figuratively.
I don’t see anyone advocating that Christians should blindly obey the government. In fact, it’s apparent from the other comments that folks are thinking (praying?) about this issue to some degree.
Brandon’s point still stands: the issue at hand is not the morality of copyright law, but whether or not Christians must obey the law. Since copyright law doesn’t violate God’s law, copyright ought to be obeyed by Christians.
The question, “Must Christians obey a law that is immoral?” is a wider question worthy of discussion.
The point is not that copyright did not exist therefore Christianity was allowed to spread. The point is that copyright does exist now. God will spread his message using whatever and whomever suits his purpose. Television wasn’t available in Jesus’ day, but His disciples managed to spread the word over the earth. One does not need a bootleg copy of a Christian CD to spread the gospel. You should get a Bible. If you walked into any church office and said, “I have a friend who needs a copy of the Bible, but I can’t afford to buy them one.” They will give you a Bible.
Ask a Christian artist or song writer if they mind piracy for the sake of spreading the word. They’ll tell you that they need to live in this world too; that they need to eat and to provide for their families. So logically and Biblically, piracy is just wrong. Don’t bootleg Christian or any other copyrighted material for the sake of spreading the gospel. Can you imagine the Father’s reaction to that? You want to spread the gospel? Send Brandon and Katie the cost of a CD a month and help them get to Ukraine.
Good article, Brandon. I’m glad it got some outside attention. Good for you.
There have been a few comments made on here (mostly in opposition to the post) that make it sound like copyright is somehow obligatory on the creator of the work. Someone has said that the gospel/Bible would not have spread like it did if copyright had existed in earlier times. This completely ignores the fact that (in today’s terms) the creator of a work has the choice to forgo his rights to the work and allow it to be shared/copied/distributed without his control or consent. Some copyright holders do that today; in fact, I think it’s getting more common. And the Creative Commons licensing system (which is also increasingly common as an alternative to traditional copyright that content creators can choose to use instead) makes this very feasible, flexible, and clear.
I can’t imagine anyone involved in the writing and distribution (and later printing) of the Bible would have wanted to maintain their copyright on it, had one been available. They wanted the word of God to be as widely available as possible. I’m guessing that few if any of them considered themselves to be “creating” any new work, because throughout history it has been understood that the author of Scripture is God Himself through the work of the Holy Spirit.
That being said, in modern times the groups and organizations that have sunk enormous amounts of time, effort, and money into producing specific translations have retained copyright on that. I can’t comment on their judgment in that regard, only that in earlier times when copies of the Bible were scarcer (and the concept of dozens of translations in a single language might have sounded absurd), copyright was not an issue and, had it actually existed in the laws of the lands where the Bible was written and copied, I think it’s common sense to acknowledge that it wouldn’t have been an issue.
Just read an article that talks about how song and albume sales continue to plummet. At the same time, they said concerts – in particular festivals – are as successful, if not more so, as they’ve ever been.
You think it’s possible the two are connected? That while many may be accessing music for free, it means more and more people looking to pay to enjoy the music live?
This isn’t a question about whether copyright is the law now. It’s a thought on whether copyright as we know it now will soon be irrelevant.
“I also invite everyone to check out our About Page and learn a little bit about who we are and what we are doing (writing about controversial Christian issues is my not full-time occupation). If anyone (or any congregation) would be able to help in getting my wife and I to Ukraine for mission work, we would love to talk with you.”
Brandon & Katie, we met face to face last night at the DFW Missions Benefit Dinner – you have really hit on an important topic and I know that this will lead you both to financial supporters for your Ukraine Missions Program that you didn’t even know existed prior to publishing the article – God works in mysterious ways !
Love In Christ, Fred and Carol Cawyer / Saturn Road Church of Christ / Garland, TX.
Dear Brandon,
Many thanks for your very moral and reasoned response to a problem that has enormous implications for all creative people — musicians, artists, writers, photographers, and filmmakers, alike. I refused to release my 2nd CD for the very reasons you described, in sympathy with — and in support of — all people whose work is their ideas, and for whom copyright remains our only protection in our attempt to earn a living.
Now, with the additional support of the government, working more stringently to protect copyright and IP (intellectual property) rights, I am finally releasing the CD — but I still network constantly with all people of good will around the world who understand that the prototype set up by websites that once provided for (and encouraged) the theft of work by piracy was in violation of both man’s law (against copyright infringement) and God’s law (Thou shalt not steal).
I will be adding a link to you on the “Copyright Protection” page of my website shortly, and I thank you again for your work on our behalf.
Sincerely,
Leigh Harrison
Happened to see an old Underdog cartoon today. In today’s copyright-crazed world, Underdog would be infringing on Superman’s copyright. In other words, there wouldn’t be an Underdog.
It seems like we used to recognize that every “new” idea was just built upon an existing idea.
The law of the land is copyright. My questions go towards whether copyright is correct to start with, and whether it needs to be changed.
Question – if theft is taking something from someone (e.g. I take your TV, you no longer have one), is copying actually theft? Who owns the CD – the person who made it, or the person who bought it?
Again, we are used to current copyright laws. That doesn’t make them right or wrong – just the law today. As things change, we may see these laws change.
Another website that looks worth checking out – http://questioncopyright.org/
The problem is, it doesn’t make any sense to talk about copyright without talking about fair use. That’s a central part of copyright—it isn’t absolute.
As Nick pointed out, people often break the law without even knowing it. This is directly related to the issue of fair use, and copyright not being absolute. Copyright infringement is not like stealing; it’s not rooted in natural law. Our consciences can tell us that breaking into someone’s house and taking their television is not only illegal but also intrinsically morally wrong. Yet, copyright infringement is rarely so clear cut.
Anyone using a computer, or doing any kind of research, or any kind of creative work is pretty much guaranteed to brush against the boundaries of the law on a regular basis.
ps “I’m sorry, Mr. Christ. You’re only licensed for five loaves of bread and two fish.” http://en.windows7sins.org/i/jesus.jpg
Oops, that first paragraph was supposed to be a quote but the HTML was stripped.
“Question – if theft is taking something from someone (e.g. I take your TV, you no longer have one), is copying actually theft?”
Yes it is. If you take something without the owner’s permission without paying for it, that is stealing.
“Who owns the CD – the person who made it, or the person who bought it?”
You own the CD along with permission to play it back in private settings. You are granted permission to make a small number of copies for personal use, not distribution.
This is not a matter of opinion, this a matter of settled law. You can argue the righteousness of the law, but it is indisputable that you are breaking the law when you do not honor copyright.
I personally don’t want my church breaking the law. I just won’t use music that we don’t want to pay for.
Robert,
In response to, “is copying theft,” you said:
“Yes it is. If you take something without the owner’s permission without paying for it, that is stealing.”
I doubt that you meant to do this, but it was a cleverly subconscious slight of hand. You responded to a question about *copying* by talking about *taking*, thus ignoring the very difference between copyright infringmenet and theft (two, separate illegal activities) that was being highlighted.
Copying something is not taking something; it’s duplicating something. The owner is not deprived of her copy, because nothing is taken away from the owner.
You made a second switch later in your comment by talking about breaking the law. Copyright infringement is most certainly against the law, but in no way shape or form is it theft. It is not theft legally, ethically, conceptually, etymologically, practically, socially, or in any way. The settled law in many countries includes supreme court acknolwedgements of this.
Yes, copyright infringement is against the law, but it’s something entirely separate from theft. To call it theft is to merely invoke a weak metaphor, in which there are more difference than similarities.
This may seem like semantics, but it’s essential to the debate, especially in a Christian context. Theft is a natural law issue. Copyright infringement isn’t. Stealing is intrinsically wrong (i.e. thou shalt not steal), but copying is only wrong insofar as it’s illegal.
There is no commandment, “thou shalt not copy,” or, “thou shalt not share,” or, “thou shalt not format shift digital media if it involves the unauthorized circumvention of a digital lock until 75 years after the death of the last remaining author or 100-some-odd years if the author is a corproation.”
Thus, there’s a legitimate debate to be had over the relevance and fairness of copyright laws, even if as Christians we ought to maintain respect for civi authority over civil matters.
Nevermind when copyright law comes into conflict with natural rights (e.g. freedo of speech) or human goods (e.g. personal property, artistic expression), or the fact that’s it’s essentially impossible to live a non-Luddite life and not infringe copyright on a regular basis, however inadvertently…
I woke up today contemplating the issue of copyright and Christian publishers. I thought about it for a good portion of the day and weighed in on a few issues. The post Blaise made was good, in contrasting stealing and copying. The two are not the same. I wouldn’t steal a car, but I would download one if I could… right?
Even so, the contribution I want to make is more geared towards Christian books. Are we really supposed to be taking bread from above, that is … insight, revelation, and locking it down and forbidding other people to share that knowledge too? There was an age where information itself was a commodity, and directly purchased in scrolls — thus keeping information to the rich.
This is not biblical Christianity. Paul’s letters were never a commodity. To the contrary, Paul’s letters were immediately duplicated and shared with the next church down. This is a far cry to the abuse of copyright law we’re seeing today.
Copyright law was never intended to scold the individual, rather it was to restrict other publishers from mass producing a book and selling the same book. Think about the times and context copyright law was written. It was also /enforceable/ when it was drafted. Now, we’re trying to stretch copyright law far beyond what its original intention was (to stop other publishers) into a bastardization of criminalizing everyone for duplicating a pen stroke, or songs (I certainly hope recorded worship of the Lord isn’t being criminalized — by ANYONE, regardless of what the copyright owner says.)
I searched for what other Christians feel about copyright, and stumbled to this page — after going through pages and pages of “christian” businesses dedicated to nothing more than copyright/enforcement in His name.
The idea that Paul’s were never commodity doesn’t really advance your point. His letters were personal correspondence. Even under today’s copyright laws, personal correspondence isn’t really in view and so wouldn’t be applied. If I wrote a letter to my wife and she photocopied and shared with everyone in the homeschooling coop, she wouldn’t be guilty of breaking a law. She might be guilty of a breech of trust, but she wouldn’t be accountable before a court of law…as far as I know.
I think you’ve put your finger on a very serious issue: the commoditization of the gospel. (I hold a degree English-I’m allowed to make up new words. :) ) Christian artists need to think about this and the rest of us need to accept that ultimately it’s a matter of the artist’s conscience and we can’t bind our views on them.
appreciated lots, I am obliged to comment that your website is excellent!
As both a photographer & musician, I am baffled at the attempt to disregard the protection of the copyright from a Christian or secular position. I agree that the copyright laws are extreme in some instances, but does this make it okay to just ignore a law that we don’t agree with? There are MANY man-made laws that I object to, but because I am commanded to obey the laws of the land unless they conflict with God’s laws…I obey them. If we don’t, then we ARE breaking God’s law. If we don’t pay for intangible goods then we shouldn’t feel it necessary to pay lawyers for their advice, doctors for their diagnostic expertise, athletes for their sports abilities, models for their looks, authors for their words, artists for their skill, maids for their cleaning, preachers for their wisdom & the list goes on and on. With this line of thinking, no one would get paid for a service. Many of my photo customers wonder why I charge $19 for a photo that would only cost them 9 cents. That would be like asking why do I pay thousands of dollars for a work of Van Gough, when the canvas & paints only cost him a few dollars? We aren’t paying for the tangible good…we are paying for the artistic creation that ONLY that person was able to do…thus we pay for the “intangible” good. If you want to take your child’s senior pictures and go have them printed for 9 cents, you are more than free to do so. But please don’t take my time, expertise & talent and then go print up the pictures for 9 cents because you think I charge too much. The reason you want to come to me is because of my skill in photography, that I have had to spend a LOT of money to perfect. I believe my viewpoint covers ALL areas of artistic expression. My business is barely keeping its head above water as MOST people in my profession are struggling due to the dishonest, self-righteous people who think they shouldn’t have to follow this law because “intangible” goods should not be “owned.”
I had to come back and post this mashup someone made about the about the Feeding of the Multitude being like P2P as I pointed out in this thread.
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/14/piracy-jesus-did-it.html
http://amtog.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/lying-theiving-christians/
Here’s a somewhat related topic. I suspect that Brandon and his team will come up against this once they move to Ukraine…provided that they’ve got an internet connection.
Brandon,
Thank you for a well-written article. I will reference it when explaining to friends the very issues you have identified and provided. – It was exciting and refreshing to see the post.
Ironically, my eyes caught a twitter feed on the right side of the article: “@TobyRyan Hey man, I’m needing to jailbreak my 3G so I can unlock it to use in Ukraine. Have any helpful tips or sites to use? I’m lost. 1 day ago”
Do you think that the same responsibilities that you wrote about regarding copyright stewardship for printed materials, cd’s, dvd’s and internet material do not apply to intellectual work of others – like cell phone carriers and manufacturers? Jailbreaking’s main purpose is to do exactly what you have been preaching about – stealing the property of others. It allows features to be opened up or exploited that are not otherwise paid for.
Be careful – our actions speak so much louder than words on a page, and it is really unfortunate that many persons half my age will see your wonderful article on copyright stewardship on one hand, but see that you are trying to break someone else’s trademarked, patented, copyrighted ir otherwise protected intellectual work by jailbreaking a phone.
@Tracy S,
I suppose it would look a little funny to read my article and see that post on Twitter at the same time. I can certainly appreciate your question for how I see that one is justified and the other is not. I hope my answer is satisfactory for you.
First and foremost, in a matter of days, my two-year contract with AT&T is up. Once I am no longer under contract with them, the phone is officially mine and I am free to do with it as I please. By the letter of the law, I am not breaking the rules of a contract when I am not under said contract.
Secondly, as of July 26, 2010, it is actually no longer illegal to jailbreak or unlock your phone. The U.S. government ruled that customers should be free to make those choices themselves. (Now, none of this keeps Apple from voiding your warranty when you mess with their product, but that’s something else entirely: If I choose to use my product in a way the manufacture advised me not to, then of course they will not cover any damages I caused to the device.)
And since we’re talking about it, let me just throw in the why I’m wanting to unlock my phone. My wife and I are leaving to live and work in Ukraine in just nine days, and we want to be able to use our phones when we are there. Since they are locked to AT&T, they must be unlocked so we can use them with a carrier overseas. Though this would be no excuse if the law said otherwise, but I just thought I’d let you know.
So, to recap, unlocking my phone is not illegal because I am under no contract which says otherwise and, even if I were, the U.S. government has determined such contracts are not binding.
Hope that helped.
Howdy just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The words in your article seem to be running off the screen in Chrome. I’m not sure if this is a format issue or something to do with web browser compatibility but I thought I’d post to let you know. The design look great though! Hope you get the problem fixed soon. Cheers