John Calvin supports file/scroll copying and distribution

The wide-scale copying and distribution of the Scriptures is a benefit to our spiritual lives:

The law of Moses was wonderfully preserved by heavenly providence rather than by human effort. And although by priests’ negligence the law lay buried for a short time, after godly King Josiah found it [II Kings 22:8; cf. II Chron. 34:15], it continued to be read age after age. Indeed, Josiah did not put it forward as something unknown or new, but as something that had always been of common knowledge, the memory of which was then famous. The archetypal roll was committed to the Temple; a copy was made from it and designated for the royal archives [Deut. 17:18-19]. What had happened was merely this: the priests had ceased to publish the law itself according to the solemn custom, and the people themselves had also neglected the habit of reading it. Why is it that almost no age goes by in which its sanction is not confirmed and renewed? Was Moses unknown to those who were versed in David? But, to generalize concerning all sacred authors, it is absolutely certain that their writings passed down to posterity in but one way: from hand to hand.

John Calvin, trans. Battles, Institutes of the Christian Religion I.viii.9

Here’s the relevant quote from Deuteronomy 17:18-20:

When he has taken the throne of his kingdom, he shall have a copy of this law written for him in the presence of the levitical priests. ¹⁹It shall remain with him and he shall read in it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, diligently observing all the words of this law and these statutes, ²⁰neither exalting himself above other members of the community nor turning aside from the commandment, either to the right or to the left, so that he and his descendants may reign long over his kingdom in Israel.

Thank God that Moses didn’t copyright the Torah! Without an interest to copy, duplicate and distribute, the scroll Hilkiah found in 2 Kings 22 would have been worm food.

Zondervan sued for NIV translation

Grand Rapids NBC affiliate WOOD-TV reports that Bradley Fowler is suing Zondervan for $60 million. NBC25 online also carries the story.

His complaint? Zondervan sells New International Version (NIV) Bibles that translate the 1 Corinthians 6:9 word arsenokoitai with the word “homosexual.” The NIV was published in 1978 and many churches have adopted it widely. As a result, Fowler expects an apology and the $60 million for the resultant suffering at the hands of his own church and family.

From the article:

He claims the company is misinterpreting the Bible by specifically using the word homosexuals. Fowler admits that every Bible printed is a translation, interpreted in some way, but he says specifically using that word is not a translation but a change.

“These are opinions based on the publishers,” he said. “And they are being embedded in the religious structure as a way of life.”

Fowler says he came across the discrepancy while researching a book. He says Zondervan Bibles published in the 1980s use the word homosexuals in the Corinthian passage in question, but earlier and later ones don’t.

Part of the problem is discerning the responsible party. Zondervan only publishes and sells Bibles, it does not translate them. The list of tranlsations that they publish and sell is an alphabet soup: AMP, KJV, NASB, NIV, NIrV, NRSV, TNIV. The copyright holder for the NIV translation is the International Bible Society and the translation work actually done by the Committee on Bible Translation.

The job of Zondervan is in publication: taking a particular translation, adding commentary notes, appending an index, maps, pictures, etc. These packaged study Bibles are additionally copyright by Zondervan. They do not actually create the translation but they do make it widely available. My suspicion is that the responsibility lies with the translators and not the packager-publisher.

Unfortunately, suing a 1970s-era translation committee can’t really get an apology or $60 million dollars. Going after Zondervan (owned by HaperCollins and, in turn, owned by Fox News Corp.) can get these things.

Has Bradley Fowler suffered “20 years of emotional duress and mental instability?” Without doubt. Can he link it to his church’s and his family’s use of the NIV translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9? It seems so. What’s the best way forward? Perhaps not to go it alone against Zondervan-Harper-Fox, but to take a class-action suit against the translation’s copyright holder (IBS) or the translation committee (CBT). It won’t get the reparation money, but it has a better chance of success and of making a difference.

Greek geek paragraph: When I’m in my office, I’ll check my BDAG lexicon for its sense of arsenokoitai. Other translations, such at the King James Version, the American Standard Bible and the New American Bible do not translate it this way. The NRSV renders it as “sodomites.” The recently-translated TNIV and ESV render it as “practicing homosexuals.”

Update: ThinkChristian has also picked up the story (hi guys!). MetaFilter lists it in a series of other actions taken by gay activists following the California gay marriage fight.

News roundup: The Christian Post has picked up the story also. So has WSMV Nashville, which adds that Thomas Nelson Publishing has been named in the suit for $10 million. Thomas Nelson is based in Tennessee.

Princeton Seminary unites with Microsoft

Princeton Theological Seminary (my alma mater) has partnered with Microsoft to digitize its theological library. At over one million volumes, PTS has the second-largest theological library in the world, bested only by the Vatican.

The effort will begin with pre-1923, out-of-copyright works. In an excellent move, these works will become available to the public on the Internet Archive.

I’m excited to see the seminary provide long out-of-print theological works and make them available again. I’m also excited to see Microsoft partner with the Internet Archive, (as far as I know) an unprecedented step. Freedom is Christian!

Microsoft’s own press release tells the story. From the article:

Princeton Theological Seminary and Microsoft Corp. have entered into an agreement to digitize a large number of materials in the public domain from the collection of the Seminary library. This initiative will enable the library to contribute religion content to Microsoft’s Live Search Books service and thus increase worldwide access to its historic religion collection.

Princeton Seminary President Iain Torrance said, “This seminary exists to serve the church both near and far. Continuity, depth, and access are what make a library great. Microsoft will help us to be accessible as never before. We are really grateful for their partnership.”

This initiative is one of the most significant ventures in the Seminary’s history. Collaboration with Microsoft and its groundbreaking technologies, which are designed to assist discovery and use, continues the Seminary’s investment in enhancing online resources. Microsoft will give the Seminary digital copies of all the materials and allow them to be shared with noncommercial institutions and nonprofit organizations, which will enable the Seminary to advance in a remarkably concrete way the vision of a theological library for the world, and enable students, researchers, and scholars global access to Princeton Theological Seminary books in the public domain.

Please note that this is only follow-up act to Microsoft’s acquisition of the Vatican, a joke so old it’s growing hair.

Amazon, Kindle and Bible copyrights

The ever-strange Washington Times carries commentary on Amazon’s Kindle e-book reader. Fred Reed raises the question about the problems of selling e-book content that is in the public domain. While it’s within Amazon’s business model to sell an “e” edition of a work published by a company, what happens when one charges for a work in the public domain?

From the article:

Kindle is close to being mass marketable. However, the economics seem hazardous for Amazon. The company makes money, legitimately enough, by selling physical books that are out of copyright. If you want your child to read “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer,” Amazon will sell you a copy. I don’t know what proportion of a bookseller’s income derives from the sale of books in the public domain, but it has to be considerable — the Bible, the classics and so on.

Reed glosses over the concept that the Bible is in the public domain. It is not. Particular translations of the Bible have copyrights applied to them. The (New) Revised Standard Version is held in copyright by the National Council of Churches. The English Standard Version is held by a division of Good News Publishers. The New American Bible by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Specific publishings of study Bibles are also held in copyright. My HarperCollins Study Bible is the NRSV. The Biblical text is copyright by the NCC and the support material held by HaperCollins, itself a holding of News Corporation.

In the US, only the King James Version is held in the public domain. For the UK, the King James Version is held in perpetual Crown Copyright and not public domain. I’m no copyright expert and won’t touch this one with a ten-foot pole.
So, don’t worry about Amazon raking in money based on Kindle “e” editions of the Bible. They will be paying out big bucks to the publishers and holding companies for the right to distribute particular translations and editions.

Scientology, Christianity and open technologies

ABC News carries this report of Sunday’s protest against the Phoenix Church of Scientology. Lately Scientology has been the subject of a great deal of ridicule. Much of this is deserved but the attention has been more focused so far in 2008. Anti-scientology protesters throw the word “cult” and scientologists throw the word “terrorist” back.

One of the core definitions of a cult is its focus on secrecy and hidden knowledge. Scientology fits this definition and then some, as did the gnostic cults and the cults of Isis and Mithras in past generations.

This good summary in Diogenes Allen’s Spiritual Theology (p. 41):

Civic religion formed the public worship of gentile people. But alongside civic religion there flourished many mystery cults, whose central feature was the promise of life after death. Each cult claimed to provide its adherents with a secret knowledge (gnosis) that was given only to its members. We know little of these cults, but to turn from one of these to Christianity was to turn from secret rituals to what was freely shared, namely, knowledge of Jesus Christ as savior. Rituals and incantations were not a substitute for moral and spiritual regeneration.

We know so little of these cults primarily because knowledge about them was kept hidden. When the adherents died, so did the secrets. This method might be an acceptable one when considering the recipe for Chartreuse, but it’s a lousy way to have your religion endure the ages.

The transition from mystery cults to the openness and freedom of Christianity changed the world. The desire to publish the Bible widely and to distribute the writing of early bishops and doctors aided the widespread adoption of the codex and later the book.

Christianity stands apart from, say, Mithras, Isis and Scientology on these grounds. All believers should have equal access to Scriptures and theology. As a result Christians ought to have a commitment to technologies such as free software and policies such as net neutrality and copyright reform that further these principles.

H.R. 4137 passes; House to confer with Senate

The EFF blog reports that the House passed H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act. The act has admirable aims of reducing the cost of higher education, expanding Pell grants and retaining the Upward Bound program. Also attached to the bill is Section 494, “Campus-based Digital Theft Prevention.” It’s explicit aim is the elimination of peer-to-peer file sharing, particularly copyrighted materials. You can get HR 4137 from the House website here in PDF format.

The amendment to the original COA Act is 485(a)(1)(P) is the new subparagraph:

“institutional policies and sanctions related to copyright infringement, including—

(i) an annual disclosure that explicitly informs students that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing, may subject the students to civil and criminal liabilities; a summary of the penalties for violation of Federal copyright laws;

(iii) a description of the institution’s policies with respect to unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing, including disciplinary actions that are taken against students who engage in unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials using the institution’s information technology system; and

(iv) a description of actions that the institution takes to prevent and detect unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material on the institution’s information technology system.’’

In order to police digital copyright infringement, all network traffic needs surveillance. There’s not a good way to tell if the movie you are uploading is for a film production class or is an illegal copy of Spiderman 3. What’s that email attachment–an mp3 or photos to your parents? To the network, it’s all zeros and ones and should all be watched for possible infringement.

There are two principal side effects of this policy. One, campus networks and computers are made slower through the analysis of all of their traffic. The policy requires more and faster computers and staff to support itself, hardly intuitive for an “affordability” act. Second, students are put at increasing risk. Not only are they presumed guilty and open to constant internet surveillance, they are risk of a triple threat if caught: academic discipline, civil liabilities and criminal liabilities.

This letter from the American Federation of Musicians speaks in favor of the act, specifically for this amendment. The letter repeats the canard, “Musicians may make music for love, but they also must eat and feed their children.” While true, this does not mean that college students should be condemned to constant internet surveillance, especially when students are responsible for only about 15% of digital theft.

My representative, Carol Shea-Porter co-sponsored the bill (gory details here). My question to her and the many others who supported the bill: how does increased capital cost (computers, infrastructure and buildings to house them) and increased staff costs help reduce the enormous financial burden of higher education?

Two-track copyright policy

Yesterday, the Guardian ran Cory Doctorow’s article, “Copyright law should distinguish between commercial and cultural uses.” He distinguishes between business-copyright and folk-copyright. The former is what happens when, for example, a record label negotiates the rights to a song for a particular TV advertisement. One lawyer calls another, writes a contract, money changes hands and the song “Baba O’Reilly” can get used to sell me auto insurance or something.

The idea of folk-copyright pertains to cultural use. The sort of pedestrian usage of a babysitter bringing DVDs to keep her charge occupied, making mix tapes, covering songs in a garage or a bar, or photocopying a comic strip for your cubicle wall.

Nobody calls the lawyers at United Feature Syndicate to ask if they can duplicate yesterday’s Dilbert for hanging the office fridge. What Doctorow advocates is a more descriptive rather than prescriptive copyright law. To describe the situation: on a folk/person-to-person scale, people are sharing copyright material freely. This use is often a cultural exchange (e.g. teenagers learning guitar by playing copyrighted riffs). Cultural exchange simply isn’t going to stop.

Also coming in yesterday is William Patry’s blog post on copyrighted jokes. It’s a thought-provoking angle on Doctorow’s article. It’s one thing to personally compile David Letterman’s Top Ten Lists and publish, distribute and sell them, making oneself a tidy profit. It seems to be another thing to imitate Robin Williams’s jokes on stage. And it’s a third thing to quote Family Guy to my girlfriend.

Among preachers, the practice of a folk-copyright (“cultural exchange”) is routine. In such an oral medium, I do not find offense at someone using an analogy that they lifted out of my preaching. Once a story, an illustration, a sermon is out into the oral sphere, it is free for the taking. Attribution is only a courtesy. This type of folk-copyright has been known in Christian preaching for centuries and serves as a helpful guide for contemporary policy.

Scientology vs. Christianity on copyright

Jonathan Kay, writing for the National Post, muses on one of the differences between Scientology and Christianity (and Islam for that matter). He opines that Scientology, through its litigious copyright enforcement, closes off its primary texts in serious contrasts to Christianity, which keeps its Bible free and open. Further, he says that one of the marks of a “bona fide” faith is the freedom to criticize it.

From the article:

[Officials in the Church of Scientology] have also tried to get Google to exclude anti-Scientology websites from its search results, and used hardball legal tactics to harass, bankrupt and intimidate their critics — many of them disaffected former members. In the United States, the Church of Scientology also has been a staunch backer of draconian copyright legislation. If you want to know whether Scientology qualifies as a “religion” on par with other bona fide faiths, try to imagine the Catholic Church or the Saudi royal family charging people tens of thousands of dollars to learn their religious tenets, and suing anyone who dared republish the Koran™ or Bible™ on the internet.

Read it here.

Copyright and the Biblical Canon

The New Testament is preserved in about 25,000 ancient manuscripts in many languages (principally Greek, but also Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic and others) found all around the Mediterranean. How did we get 25,000 copies of a text, stored in many diverse (off-site) locations, in any number of media (languages)? By rampant copying and duplication.

Even before the advent of duplicating machinery like photocopiers and computers, Christians spread the New Testament text across Europe, Asia and Africa. Not only that, but they did it so well that the text has can generally be considered reliable.

It’s hard to make an appeal to what the Bible says “in the original” when it is made up of thousands of varying manuscripts like this. However, through the exciting and incredibly nerdy science of textual criticism, that’s the endeavor promises to do: a reliable reconstruction from a diverse set of near-duplicates. (Textual criticism’s methods are not essentially different from making computer backups, CRC’s, or diffs.)

Without the freedom to share and the freedom to back up or to copy, there would be no Bible. If the Church in Rome had decided never to make a copy of Paul’s letter or to share it with nearby churches, we would certainly have no record of it today. If Mark decided that Matthew and Luke had to pay exorbitant royalties to make their derivative gospels, Christians would be poorer for it.

It is notable that Christian Gnostics, who focused on keeping their doctrines and teachings secret, had their documents lost, quite literally, to the sands of time. Only 20th century archaeologists have now been able to find their hidden witness.

To be Christian is to owe a debt to forerunners who duplicated and copied freely and without concern. We owe it to them to be interested in the same causes today.

Rick Falkvinge on the Middle Ages, Copyright and the Bible

Both Slashdot and Boing Boing are reporting this interview with Rick Falkvinge. Falkvinge heads up the Swedish Pirate Party, a political party whose only platform is privacy advocacy and copyright reform. I’m not up on his work, but it’s a good introduction.

The interview is good and summarizes his talk “Copyright regime vs. civil liberties.” If you have an hour, watch this! There’s two notes about this talk and the comments on it that I’ll hightlight.

1. At 12:00 minutes into the talk, Falkvinge brings up the recurring metaphor of the Catholic Church vs. the printing press that is so common among anticopyright folks. I appreciate their using Christian history and culture to help support their points, as I think that their hopes are ultimately supported by Christian values.

However, as I have written before, the view of medieval and Christian culture is ultimately impoverished. The Dark Ages and the Medieval period are not one in the same. Christian culture during the middle ages is surprisingly fecund and bottom-up with folk religion and culture giving a great diversity of expression. Contrast Julian of Norwich’s visionary experiences with Danse Macabe artwork, centralized papal authority with decentralized monastic networks, or the differences in worship between Salisbury and Milan for a taste of this diversity.

If anything, it was the centralizing effect of the printing press that clamped down on cultural expressions. Printed Bibles lost on illuminated artwork, one standard Roman Missal was used throughout the continent, and London spelling became standard English throughout the realm. Centralizing technology, supported by restrictive government policies, suppressed medieval cultural diversity and did little to expand it.

That said, he introduces Queen Mary’s royal support for the London Company of Stationers in 1554 and Queen Anne’s Copyright Act of 1709 that I haven’t heard brought up before.

2. This comment on Slashdot bring up a point that I’ve been making, “[Y]ou want to put on a Shakespeare play – better pay his descendants or some rich corporation. You want to read your bible in the church. Not before you hand over some cash.”

Beware the implications for the Bible. Remember that News Corp. ultimately holds HarperCollins and Zondervan, two major Bible publishers. Perhaps they will let copyright concerns slide some, just because it’s the Bible, but I don’t want to hope for special exemption.