Saturday, September 28, 2013

Copyright for me but not for thee


On the one hand:


On the other hand:

49 comments:

  1. Steve,
    Isn't one of them not copyrighted and belong to fair use (Caner's one, with it being a lecture to the military and can't be copyrighted as a result of being with the DOD) and the other one is James White's intellectual property being sold in their store?
    Maybe I'm missing something (which happens).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unlike you, I don't have a legal opinion. I'm not a copyright lawyer. Is Pierce a copyright lawyer? I'm pretty sure White is not. Same applies to Caner. So I'm curious why folks who have no legal expertise are taking sides on a very specialized branch of law.

      In addition, our current copyright laws are hardly above criticism:

      http://www.frame-poythress.org/copyrights-and-copying-why-the-laws-should-be-changed/

      Unlike White or Caner, I'm not proprietary about my "intellectual property." All the stuff I write and post is free for the taking. So I can't say I'm sympathetic to either party in this kerfuffle.

      Delete
    2. Hey Steve,
      I'm no copyright lawyer, I just hope to avoid friendly fire, that is all.
      By the way, I appreciate all the free intellectual property you put out. You are a beast Steve.

      Delete
    3. I'm with veritas here. Caner, it is alleged, is claiming copyright infringement on material that he does not possess the copyright on (since it was government property); Alpha and Omega, on the other hand, are claiming copyright infringement on material that they do possess the copyright on. I don't think you need to be a copyright lawyer to understand the distinction here.

      Delete
  2. I'd repeat veritasdomain's comment. One case is about the removal of protected fair-use content; the other is about wholesale reproduction of commercial material. Copyright law itself distinguishes between these cases. So Steve needs to clarify why he thinks this is hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you a copyright lawyer?

      Delete
    2. (Sorry for posting this twice - I got it under the wrong comment before).

      No - but the difference is there on the surface. Pierce says people are buying AOMin resources and posting them on YouTube, which damages sales. i.e. He describes wholesale reproduction. In the other link you post to, there's a complaint about an extract used for comment - which is what fair-use is about. If I need to be a lawyer to discern that, prima facie, you've juxtaposed two different things in making the accusation of hypocrisy, then I think it'd be reasonable to ask you the same question, as to how you came to the conclusion that it was reasonable to make the accusation - are you a copyright lawyer?

      I love both your ministries and as I said elsewhere, don't have a dog in this fight. I just don't see the justification for the public accusation.

      Delete
    3. I forgot to add the following to clarify. Surely, before making a public accusation, one needs to have a sufficient level of certainty that one is correct? If Steve believes it needs a copyright lawyer to discern the truth of the matter, then the question comes back to Steve: why is he making a public accusation of double--standards? If it doesn't need a copyright lawyer to discern the truth of the matter, then why is his response to ask people whether they're copyright lawyers or not?

      Delete
  3. 1. I think one issue is Rich Pierce's post doesn't or perhaps isn't able to specify what's on YouTube and what's not. He's attempting to apply the legal injunction to all A&O videos on YouTube without prejudice, isn't he? That's how I read his post.

    However, it's possible some YouTubers are only using short segments of A&O's videos, not the full copyrighted video or somesuch, which would seem to be within the scope of fair use. At least insofar as I understand it, but then again I'm no lawyer. If so, then wouldn't the injunction mean even short clips may have to be removed? I don't mean as a legal matter, but practically speaking isn't that what would happen on YouTube?

    Of course, if all this isn't the case, then it'd be good to have some clarification.

    2. Aren't there A&O folks and supporters who have issues with the DMCA? Who, in fact, think it should be overturned? Just curious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) No.

      2) There are also people who think A&O is evil for selling anything.

      Delete
  4. I don't have a dog in this fight (I just don't like seeing one good ministry accusing another publicly of hypocrisy on such an apparently flimsy basis), but I can't see how you could reasonably read Mr. Pierce's post that way.

    He says: "However, I can’t continue to go back and forth with people to explain how them buying something out of our bookstore and then posting that on YouTube interferes with our ability to provide for our families as well as continue to operate this ministry." That appears to fairly clearly state that the people are posting the entire work - they are "buying something" and then "posting that"; (not "parts of that"). Moreover, the "that" that they post has negative consequences for AOMin's financials - which could hardly apply to short, fair-use clips (how would they jeopardise your bottom line)?

    Given that Mr. Pierce says that he is talking about "copyright violations", it would be charitable to assume that he is talking about copyright violations; the assumption that he's talking about fair-use and doesn't know the difference is rather unfair, isn't it? He also says that he's contacted the people involved, and he wants their material moved; there's no statement that what he is saying applies to everyone. It seems rather unreasonable to assume as a default position that he doesn't know where the boundary of copyright violations lies. We could go further; given that the AOMin bog *has* posted material about fair use, it would be charitable to assume that they have debated and do know about the difference; so a reasonable exegesis would be the opposite of yours.

    At the least, you could email Mr. Pierce and ask him for clarification. But to come out with a public accusation of hypocrisy first? It looks to me like Steve's over-shot the mark here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The whole thing, both this post and Pierce's, are lame. Clarification should have been asked beforehand, and, forgetting the matter of whether it's legal, it's a PR disaster to look like you're chasing after fellow Christians with the law. Everything here should have been done privately, if at all.

      Now, as to Pierce's knowledge, you seem to make certain assumptions about what Pierce knows, which I don't see based in the text, but based on what would be "charitable." In this litigious day and age, we can no longer assume people know what copyright law entails, nor that they will use it appropriately.

      Delete
    2. In the cases I know about, those Mr. Pierce are dealing with have been contacted beforehand, have declined to respond, or responded negatively. Secondly, they are asking Youtube to do the enforcement, not the law. These are DMCA requests that assert ownership of copyright to a third party, namely, YouTube. They are not legal action, they are a request, at this point. I keep seeing talk about "legal action", but that is overstating the case. They are requests that ask YouTube to remove copyrighted material on the strength of a claim to copyright. They are not lawsuits, nor are they "legal action". Caner's suit of Jason Smathers is "legal action" - and followed closely timed DMCA requests to both AOMin and Smathers - both of which are obviously fraudulent - one more so than the other. For instance, AOMin's use of Caner's material was for interaction, under fair use. The material Smathers used did not even belong to Caner, and was obtained under FOIA. However, Smathers was presented with a lawsuit as well - but AOMin was not. AOMin has challenged legal action begun against it in the past, and I'm fairly sure Caner's team found that out. They thought they would pick on the small-time pastor. Unfortunately for them, Jason is very knowledgeable about these things. In short, Mr. Pierce's response is not a first shot, first contact, nor is it about "fair use." It's about wholesale lifting of their material, to their detriment as a ministry. None of the things compared to it are truly comparable. Those of us who have been dealing with the defenders of Caner from the beginning have answered these questions and others like it many, many times previously. You'll find quite a bit of material on the blog about just that, in fact. We also deal with these issues in the live chat channel at well for those who have the same questions I am seeing here. It's one thing to ask whether someone is a copyright lawyer - it's another to speak to the people who have dealt with these issues on a daily basis, and who answer the questions on a daily basis as well. They are common questions, sure. However, anyone who has been around AOMin for a length of time picks up a great deal of information about previous issues in this vein. There have been many. This is just the first post on AOMin specifically about this subject. Ask Covenant Media how many Bahnsen lectures and videos get pirated from them and posted on YouTube. It happens, and it happens frequently. They have to deal with the same issues - and I have seen the exact same things occur there, as well. In my estimation, unfamiliarity with the subject causes most of the misunderstandings and misapprehensions concerning it.

      Delete
  5. In any case, i will basically state that i believe it is contrary to Christian faith to forbid users to copy and share for free and unadulterated, ministry media material, be it preaching, teaching, art or videos. Or even to have to ask permission to do so. If the intent is to spread the word, then why restrict it? We do not see restrictions on what they wrote by the inspired writers in Scripture, and it is Rome that effectively tried to do so.

    Certainly these cost money to produce, and usually much less to reproduce, but if God calls you into the ministry of preaching faith in the risen Lord Jesus then it presupposes that He will provide for what is needed to do His work, if and insofar as we obey Mt. 6:33, and God is gracious beyond that. Normally the janitor does not have to bring his own broom to work.

    So God gave you this sermon, song, picture, etc., but copying and sharing it for free is forbidden, and if you do then you are a criminal (many sermons might be OK, but songs and videos are sacred). And if you think it is a matter of just asking permission, then try it. Let me know if they even get back to you.

    Indeed it would be stealing if this were not ministry material, but accepting that call is accepting a life of faith, trusting God to provide, as the Lord and Paul, etc. exampled, spending and being spent (2Cor. 12:15) more ways then energy, and enduring trials of faith, and seeing His blessings.

    Instead, we can write, preach or make a picture about George Mueller and his faith, and then assure income for ourselves by criminalizing free sharing of our description of that life of faith, so that it can only be bought or borrowed, or even hinder sharing of faith messages by requiring one go thru a process of obtaining permission to reproduce it. And then criticize Rome for having done likewise (though not due to an income issue) .

    Note that i am not against copyrights themselves, or forbidding alteration, which CreativeCommons copyrights provides for, or even putting a price on the work to cover the cost of production (like a DVD), but that even then free sharing ought to be allowed, but if so, those who sell such without permission should normally be strongly prosecuted.

    I have worked in faith ministry, which does not mean sending out fund raising letters or otherwise asking for funds (except rarely, when if an individual asked us to tell them of needs) for 27 years, and never charged (or received a church salary) for this work, and have many stories to tell of God's grace and faithfulness.

    But i have found it very hard to find songs or videos that can be shared, or receive permission to do so. And i think of the impact on the world if freely sharing of such were allowed. Yet this presupposes May i do better myself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you don't think a "workman is worth his wage". Or that they should "make a living" by preaching. Seems Paul disagrees with you.

      Delete
  6. 1. Easy there, David. I don't have a dog in this fight either. At least not any more than you don't.

    2. Keep in mind I was primarily asking honest questions. What's more, I've made qualified statements. Such an approach hardly assumes I'm making accusations or the like. It's not like I'm on some witch hunt.

    3. As an aside, I've benefited from A&O myself. I've attended several of Dr. White's debates, met him in person, and I've bought A&O's materials in the past. I respect Dr. White and his ministry.

    4. I'm not saying it's unclear if people are or aren't posting entire works. That's not an issue. If anything, it's a given. Otherwise why would Rich have to seek legal recourse? Rather I think what's unclear in his post is whether what he's attempting to do would also affect the shorter and presumably fair use clips if they exist on YouTube as well? The fact that "there is a great deal of unauthorized content on various YouTube channels that is protected under our copyright" doesn't necessarily also mean all A&O content on YouTube is "unauthorized" (e.g. debate clips). Hence my queries.

    5. I never claimed posting entire works from A&O doesn't affect A&O's wallets. But it's quite possible to suffer financially from copyright infringement and to have shorter clips on YouTube which don't affect the books. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

    6. Again, I never denied people weren't posting entire works. Rather I suggested it's possible there are at the same time other people posting shorter clips or the like. That "there's no statement that what he is saying applies to everyone" doesn't preclude the possibility.

    7. If this is so, then wouldn't these other people likewise be affected when Rich files his DMCA claims against A&O copyright violations on YouTube? Not legally, per se, but as a practical matter (as I also noted above)? At least to my limited knowledge and experience, YouTube tends to just prefer to want to wash their hands of an entire matter once the copyright infringement option is exercised, which may include lumping in these clips with the rest of the A&O videos if the clips are labeled in a particular way. But, again, as I said, I'm no lawyer, nor do I know what YouTube will do, which is why I'm asking, not asserting.

    8. It's perfectly legitimate to bring up fair use in the context of copyright, and, no, the fact that I bring up fair use doesn't imply Rich or A&O don't know the difference between copyright violations and fair use. Let alone that it's "unfair," "unreasonable," not "charitable," and the rest of what you said. If John is talking about Sabbath violations, and I bring up that it's possible to violate the Sabbath to save someone's life, how would that necessarily imply I don't think John knows the difference between the two? Sure, it may be I don't think John knows the difference. But it may also be I think John does know the difference, and I brought it up for other non-nefarious reasons. For example, I could have brought it up because I suspect John may have forgotten, and so I'd like to remind him. Or because I think it's important to highlight or underscore the point as preparation for a further point I wish to make.

    9. Anyway, I've spilled more ink on this than is probably helpful. So I think I'll end it here for now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Patrick,

      All the possibilities of what might, or might not be, can get quite complicated - granted. But shouldn't the answers to these questions be *known* before someone moves to the stage of publicly accusing someone of hypocrisy?

      I mean, given all the things I do (almost nothing) and don't (practically everything) know about you, it *might* be the case that you've been thrashing your wife senseless on a regular basis. Is it OK if I publicly call you out on that? ;-)

      God bless,
      David

      Delete
    2. Hi David,

      1. Well, I'm not speaking to "possibilities of what might, or might not be" in absolute terms. Rather I'm speaking to Rich's post.

      2. As far as the "publicly accusing someone of hypocrisy" charge goes, and at the risk of being misconstrued for what I'm about to say: Steve hasn't explicitly said anything about hypocrisy, has he? All he's essentially done is post two back to back links with a title. It seems to me you're making an inference from his post to "publicly accusing someone of hypocrisy," but is this "publicly accusing someone of hypocrisy" charge itself a fair conclusion to draw from what he's posted, given (as you might say) how little is "known" at this point? It seems to me "publicly accusing someone of hypocrisy" is itself a strong charge with an implicit moral evaluation (among other things). Why isn't it possible he's pointing out a logical inconsistency for example?

      3. Anyway, my opinion is it'd be wiser to be less categorical in our own conclusions at this point. In fact, I wasn't even sure I should comment any further, because the more comments that are made, the more it risks blowing things out of proportion.

      Delete
    3. You're saying that the title "Copyright for me but not for thee" is not an accusation of double-standards? As the good Bishop Ryle would say, at this point, words appear to have lost their meaning!

      Delete
    4. Hi David,

      No, I'm asking why you don't let Steve and, indeed, AOMin, speak for themselves before barreling down on them with the language of "hypocrisy" and "double-standards" and so forth?

      Delete
    5. Patrick: Given Steve's frequent use of this exact format in an amazing number of posts - I think it's rather obvious that his intent is, as with every other use of this format in the past (to my knowledge), to point out a supposed inconsistency and/or contradiction of some sort. A rather significant portion of the commenters here seem to have gathered that precise meaning from his post. Can you tell us what else we should believe Steve is saying, or should be expected to understand about it, given his frequent usage of this exact format in the past?

      Delete
    6. Hi RazorsKiss,

      Actually, I've already asked about logical inconsistency in contradistinction to hypocrisy. Please see above.

      Delete
  7. White is still going after Caner? It's unfortunate the people like Geisler and Ankerberg still defend the guy, but maybe it's time for a new issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. He should give it a rest.

      Delete
    2. Steve Jackson wrote:

      "It's unfortunate the people like Geisler and Ankerberg still defend the guy, but maybe it's time for a new issue."

      James White addresses a lot of issues, and he has for decades. Only a small minority of his time is spent on Caner. And he's largely concerned, rightly, about the impact Caner's misbehavior has had in Islamic circles (how Muslims perceive Christians, how Muslims are using Caner's behavior against Christianity, etc.). Even as far as White's responses to Evangelicals are concerned (replying to John Ankerberg, etc.), that's partly out of his hands. If other Evangelicals keep raising the issue (by having Caner on their television program, etc.), and White responds, he's only partly responsible for the ongoing discussion of the issue. Other people are involved, and they're often the ones who initiated the situation. I don't see a problem with Rich Pierce's post, and I don't see a problem with the attention James White has given Caner. To the contrary, what he's done in opposing Caner's misbehavior is commendable. That doesn't mean everything White has done in the process has been appropriate, but I see no reason to fault him for the general thrust of what he's been doing.

      Delete
    3. Jason, I'd like to think that by now any informed Moslems would realize that the support Geisler and Ankerberg give to a serial liar like Caner reflects more poorly on them than on Christianity.

      Delete
    4. Steve Jackson,

      You refer to informed Muslims, but few people are informed on the issue in question, and some are in the process of being informed. James White gets new readers and new listeners on a regular basis. Some people will overlook information in his blog or webcast's archives or won't want to consult the archives. The same is true of Triablogue and other ministries. We repeat ourselves sometimes. Bringing an issue up again allows us to add further details to what we said before, reinforce concepts in people's minds, inform people who are new to the subject, etc. Sometimes there's value in repeating what you've said before. Even if Alpha and Omega Ministries, Triablogue, or some other ministry misjudges how much coverage to give an issue, or how much to repeat what they've said before, they ought to be given some leeway when they make mistakes. A lot of these issues (how much coverage to give a subject, etc.) are hard to judge. All of us have benefited from individuals and ministries repeating things they've said many times before. And since Caner continues to deny the accusations against him, continues to hold leadership positions in Christian circles, keeps appearing on Christian television, etc., there's new material to cover.

      Delete
  8. In any case, i will basically state that i believe it is contrary to Christian faith to forbid users to copy and share for free and unadulterated, ministry media material, be it preaching, teaching, art or videos. Or even to have to ask permission to do so. If the intent is to spread the word, then why restrict it? We do not see restrictions on what they wrote by the inspired writers in Scripture, and it is Rome that effectively tried to do so.

    In any case, I will basically state that it is contrary to the Christian faith to forbid Christians from daring to ask that they be reimbursed for ministry media material, be it preaching, teaching, art or videos. Or even to demand people not steal from them in order to do so. If the intent is to spread the word, then why restrict it?

    Here's an idea, PeaceByJesus. You pay for the food, the plane tickets, the audio and/or video recording equipment, the facilities for the debate, the huge amounts of time everyone puts into it, the study materials each opponent will need to prepare, the copies of the debate people will want, and the website to host them. THEN, you can demand those apologists offer those materials for free. Otherwise, go be an ungrateful jerk somewhere else and don't spoil my daily dose of Triablogue. While you're at it, read the Bible and ask yourself if Paul or almost any other Christians were able to just do everything ministry related with zero reimbursement or help from others. Don't muzzle the ox.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prince Asbel, either you misunderstand what i was saying (and i was somewhat rambling), or how faith ministry works. I did not forbid asking to be reimbursed for ministry media material, or their work, and i stated that i allowed for putting a price on the work to cover the cost of production. Paul himself affirmed ministers should be paid for what they do via the giving of those who are blessed, even if he chose to largely support himself at the time with tent-making.

      And because my argument is based on Scripture, i certainly was not saying that Christians were able to just do everything ministry related with zero reimbursement or help from others, as i myself have done so for 27 years.

      What i am saying is that if you accept the call into ministry, then you must do so in faith, trusting God to provide what you need in order to do his work. This translates into not preventing the sharing of God's truth, which presumably you yourself are trying to do, by criminalizing the free sharing of it. Even if you make videos and have a reimbursement price, there should be no penalty for sharing such as under the CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs CC BY-NC-ND license. Certainly they cost money to provide, but as distributors of free gospel tracts and audio files example, God will provide for His work of faith, and in proportion to the scope of outreach. Major works require more major funding, but it also provides a greater amount of potential donors.

      When the Lord sent the 72 out then it was on that premise that God would provide for what was needed to do His work, and while they did not have the expenses of today, or ease of duplication, neither did they have the income of Americans and the material ease by which to reach potential supporters. I simply do not see or can conceive of the NT church ensuring income for themselves by criminalizing the free sharing of God's truth, even if they could have made videos.

      To live by faith however means going without things (voluntarily as a thrifty steward of what God provides, or by circumstance), and sometimes enduring hardness as a good soldier in Christ Jesus, and trials of faith, even now. But it also means seeing blessings of God, as 2 Cor. 1:7 can partly apply to this life, and His mercy and grace even when we fail of faith-fulness. (Gn. 32:10) And i often have or worse.

      We must trust the Lord to provide for what He wants us to do. If He does not, and i am seeking and serving Him, then it normally means that this is something He does not want me to do. And to operate like this, even if it means a reduced scope of work, is better than engaging in the fundraising schemes that prevail today. Quality over quantity is how the church began.

      Delete
    2. PeaceByJesus, if you re-read your reply through, you'll see that it involves a number of qualifications and nuances. Conceivably, another Christian could examine the same issue, and make different conclusions at those forks in the road. Your original post, that AOMin's practice was "contrary to Christian faith" is much too strong, and that is borne out by the qualifications you then had to make.

      Delete
  9. By the way, what a ridiculous thing it is to draw a comparison to prevent people from committing copyright theft of materials that are easily affordable and obtainable to the behavior of Rome in withholding the scriptures from the common man. I'm sure James White would appreciate such a comparison. I mean, you might have to take a pass on, dare I say it, an entire bag of Flaming-Hot Foritos in order to afford the MP3 versions of most of his materials. How dare James be so despicable!

    Pssst, I hear James takes that money to continuously buy more gold to improve upon his shrine to John Calvin.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Regarding legal issues, I don't think Rich Pierce would need to be or consult a lawyer in order to make the comments he's made. But I believe Alpha and Omega Ministries has consulted lawyers in the past (e.g., in their dispute with Barry Lynn about the release of the tape of his debate with James White). White's publishers might provide legal counsel if one of their books is involved. And given how long Alpha and Omega Ministries has been around, how many books White has published, how often he's been on radio and television, etc., there may be people who have offered legal assistance without cost or at a discounted cost. Or Pierce, White, or somebody else involved might be in contact with somebody who's consulted a lawyer on copyright issues. Pierce may have consulted a lawyer, or he may be sufficiently knowledgeable of the subject without having consulted one.

    We'll see what develops. I don't think there's any reason to fault Alpha and Omega Ministries at this point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Jason here. I don't see A&O as doing anything hypocritical here, since it is apples and oranges. Plus, if someone is wrongly sent a DMCA notice, there are challenges you can do (I speak from firsthand knowledge on that part since someone once claimed a copyright violation on one of my band's songs that I had uploaded to YouTube more than two years before I allegedly stole it from their composition).

      So I think that A&O Ministries is on solid ground here from a legal position. From a moral position, I can weigh arguments either way and acknowledge there are strong points on both sides. Despite not caring that much if someone wants to steal a song I wrote or anything like that, it's not like a) what they're stealing is any good anyway, or b) that I need sales to afford food. Ultimately, I think this is one of the few cases that the law actually gets mostly right. If the creator of some content wants to limit its use, as long as it's not violating fair use, then they have that right. If they don't want to enforce that, they don't have to. So I don't think A&O is doing anything immoral either.

      Not that my opinion matters, if it ever went to court or anything like that.

      Delete
  11. By the way, what a ridiculous thing it is to draw a comparison to prevent people from committing copyright theft of materials that are easily affordable and obtainable to the behavior of Rome in withholding the scriptures from the common man.

    Prince Asbel, if you read my reply carefully, you should have seen that i said that Rome's requirement of having to obtain permission to reproduce something was not due to an income issue, but it is similar as both criminalize free sharing of their material, even if Rome's claim that the Scriptures are her material is spurious.

    I'm sure James White would appreciate such a comparison. I mean, you might have to take a pass on, dare I say it, an entire bag of Flaming-Hot Foritos in order to afford the MP3 versions of most of his materials. How dare James be so despicable!

    I did not say he was despicable, or that those who use copyrights as he does were, but i would welcome his defense of NT faith meaning that we should criminalize and prosecute those who freely share what he holds is truth which God gave him to share. However, i do not think he ever prosecuted anyone such free sharing, and likely illegal YouTube videos of him have made him better know, and perhaps increased sales for him.

    As for Flaming-Hot Foritos, i have to call 911 when i eat hot things (must be the genes), and do not want to waste money on chips or the like. But we do believe in supporting Christian ministries that do operate by faith, and to such many donations go, thanks be to God.

    ReplyDelete
  12. While I disagree in principle with the ethics of copyright as such, what AO is doing is quite a bit different than what Caner is/was doing.

    And, as Jason E already said, White doesn't talk about Caner as much as, say, Triablogue talks about homosexuality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or nearly as much as James talks about homosexuality, for that matter.

      Delete
  13. Steve:

    "Unlike you, I don't have a legal opinion. I'm not a copyright lawyer. Is Pierce a copyright lawyer? I'm pretty sure White is not. Same applies to Caner. So I'm curious why folks who have no legal expertise are taking sides on a very specialized branch of law."

    Perhaps the reason for the apparent contradiction is simply your absence of legal expertise and unfamiliarity with copyright law. Given that possibility, I don't see what benefit this post provides. Are you asking for an explanation of why Caner's claims are invalid while Dr. White's are valid?

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  14. "By the way, I appreciate all the free intellectual property you put out. You are a beast Steve." << I echo these sentiments.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Steve, is the purpose of this post to show your ignorance, to cast aspersions on James White, or both?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You sound like you have a diploma from dog obedience school.

      Delete
  16. "By the way, I appreciate all the free intellectual property you put out. You are a beast Steve." << I echo these sentiments.

    I echo Turretinfan's echo of Veritasdomain's sentiments.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I did not forbid asking to be reimbursed for ministry media material, or their work, and i stated that i allowed for putting a price on the work to cover the cost of production.

    On one hand, you say, “If the intent is to spread the word, then why restrict it,” turn around and say, “Note that i am not against(…)putting a price on the work to cover the cost of production (like a DVD),” and THEN turn around and say, “but that even then free sharing ought to be allowed.” You stumble all over yourself, PeaceByJesus. You remind me of a liberal who admits that health care must be paid for, but in the same breath he advertises his M.O. which is to shame conservatives for being big meanies because they deny people free health care. He can say both and contradict himself all day long, but your M.O. is to paint Alpha & Omega Ministries because they require reimbursement and wish to prevent other people from basically taking the bread from their mouth by copying and distributing their ministry materials.

    And because my argument is based on Scripture, i certainly was not saying that Christians were able to just do everything ministry related with zero reimbursement or help from others, as i myself have done so for 27 years.

    Except that your beginning statement said, “it is contrary to Christian faith to forbid users to copy and share for free and unadulterated, ministry media material, be it preaching, teaching, art or videos.” That’s how A&O gets reimbursement for some of its materials, and so you ARE saying they’re acting contrary to the Christian faith.

    Prince Asbel, if you read my reply carefully, you should have seen that i said that Rome's requirement of having to obtain permission to reproduce something was not due to an income issue, but it is similar as both criminalize free sharing of their material, even if Rome's claim that the Scriptures are her material is spurious.

    Don’t be coy, PeaceByJesus. You weren’t simply making some bland statement of similarity. You made a shameful comparison between true Christians getting reimbursed for their honest labor for God and one of the most evil anti-Christian religious sects who literally killed and tortured the common man simply for possessing God’s Word. Just be honest and admit you were way out of line when you said that.

    Even if you make videos and have a reimbursement price, there should be no penalty for sharing such

    Why? If that leads to stealing sales that will reimburse the ministry and enable it to continue to operate, on what rational basis do you then condemn A&O for going after people who are doing just that?

    To illustrate, one YouTube user who uploads a full-length video debate which a hundred people might otherwise have paid for is stealing at least ninety-nine dollars which A&O would have otherwise used to pay James White and Rich Pierce and to finance debates and to pay video photographers, etc. You stop that YouTuber, you might have enough money to do more with your ministry. What principled reason does PeaceByJesus have that says that YouTuber ought to be allowed to do that to Alpha & Omega Ministries?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I simply do not see or can conceive of the NT church ensuring income for themselves by criminalizing the free sharing of God's truth, even if they could have made videos.

    Which is a pointless statement since the NT church wasn’t in a position to criminalize anything.

    To live by faith however means going without things (voluntarily as a thrifty steward of what God provides, or by circumstance), and sometimes enduring hardness as a good soldier in Christ Jesus, and trials of faith, even now.

    Which is also a pointless statement since A&O distributes plenty of free materials. They have hundreds of videos on YouTube, they do in certain circumstances give someone a free copy of a debate or a book without immediate reimbursement (sometimes no promise of any reimbursement), they have articles available, a 24/7 web stream of all the Dividing Lines they’ve ever produced over ten years, and so on and so forth. It’s not as if A&O is a stranger to enduring hardness.

    But we do believe in supporting Christian ministries that do operate by faith, and to such many donations go, thanks be to God.

    No thanks to you, PeaceByJesus. If you had your way, you’d rather A&O get slapped in the face for all their trouble than prevent some YouTuber from taking the bread from A&O’s mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Just looked at the videos in question that contain James White...

    1) There is no watermark.

    2) (or 1b) Any party could have provided them (including the audience)-- so, it might be difficult to prove a video ownership chain.

    3) The Caner situations isn't the same-- however, complaining that $5,000 is too much to buy a video from your opponent is a pretty close situation.

    4) The ethics of the existence of "IP" aside, a ministry selling digital video content to make money is financially questionable. It's probably better to rely on donations (John Piper). The amount of funding AOMin is going to loser over this will definitely be greater than the potential business revenue from a video download.

    5) 1 Corinthians 6.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "a ministry selling digital video content to make money is financially questionable"

      And yet, A&O has been selling video content for years. The issue here is people taking that content and reposting it completely without permission. Notice in the post Rich asked that the videos be taken down first, where there has been no response he's going to file DMCA. Now, how exactly do you think the ministry SHOULD fund ongoing resource production,debates, videos, audio podcasting, books etc? You do realize that donations are a tiny part of their income? Just this week Dr. White is headed to South Africa to debate several Muslim scholars/debaters, do you think this is cheap? Or maybe you don't think it's worthwhile... which is it?

      Delete
    2. On one hand, you say, “If the intent is to spread the word, then why restrict it,” turn around and say, “Note that i am not against(…)putting a price on the work to cover the cost of production (like a DVD),” and THEN turn around and say, “but that even then free sharing ought to be allowed.” You stumble all over yourself, PeaceByJesus. You remind me of a liberal who admits that health care must be paid for, but in the same breath he advertises his M.O. which is to shame conservatives for being big meanies because they deny people free health care. He can say both and contradict himself all day long,

      It is your lack of consideration or unaplogetic miscontruance of what i said, and them justifying it by way of a false dilemma, that is most akin to liberals, or many Catholic RCAs i have dealt with, while the caustic nature of your response is more like that of a militant atheist.

      I did not say it is was contrary to the Christian faith to “forbid Christians from daring to ask that they be reimbursed for ministry media material,” as you had me saying, nor is my affirmation that they could contrary to my advocation that they allow free sharing of it, by not criminalizing doing do.

      A ministry can easily state their costs and ask for that and more from supporters, while not making it unlawful to share material they produced, as per the licensing i mentioned.

      Nor does my protest against restricting free sharing by criminalizing it amount into being "an ungrateful jerk," or mean Christians "just do everything ministry related with zero reimbursement or help from others," for i uphold that those in ministry should be supported, and will be while trusting God to provide for what He calls them to do, without ensuring income by preventing free sharing of God's truth.

      your M.O. is to paint Alpha & Omega Ministries because they require reimbursement

      Contrary to your mind-reading, my intent was not to paint any particular ministry, and my comments pertain to AO only insofar as what i said about copyright for Christians applies to their case. More below.

      wish to prevent other people from basically taking the bread from their mouth by copying and distributing their ministry materials.

      A requirement that forbids free copying and sharing is more than a wish, and while those who are blessed by such certainly should support those who blessed them, yet if God leads you into ministry then do it trusting God to provide for what He wants you to do even when people who should do not. God will provide thru others, and what He does not provide for then you do not do.

      The Lord sent the 72 disciples out with bare essentials under that faith-premise, and while they may not have needed plane fare, etc. (no anything near the standard of living we have in the West) yet the God they serve is just as able.

      And there are ministries today to operate according to that principle, in God's grace, such as one which has sent out billions of tracts for free, via private donations.

      your beginning statement said, “it is contrary to Christian faith to forbid users to copy and share for free and unadulterated, ministry media material, be it preaching, teaching, art or videos.” That’s how A&O gets reimbursement for some of its materials, and so you ARE saying they’re acting contrary to the Christian faith.

      As regarding having Christian faith specifically in the context of support (context), yes, insofar as they rely on income by forbidding free sharing Christian faith. Those who sell such without permission are those who should be criminalized. Again, i believe our attitude should be that if God calls you into the ministry of the word and prayer, then you do not prevent sharing of what God enables you to produce, and He is big and faithful enough to take care of you, as well as try your faith.

      2b contd

      Delete
    3. However, i myself too often think or act contrary to Christian faith, and what i am protesting is the norm in Christianity, and does not mean i do not appreciate AO, or think James White is "despicable," for i think highly of him overall and appreciate much of the work he makes available, and indeed i have directed multitudes to the AO site. Yet i may may be a criminal because i likely have more than one copy of some of his web pages on my Hds. (And i see they changed their site so that my old links to specific pages, such as i often posted, just go the welcome page.)

      Nor am i demanding his ministry make his books, DVD, etc available for free, but if i bought a DVD, i would like to be able to make verbatim copies on my own expense and give them to souls, very few of which would be likely to buy them.


      Don’t be coy, PeaceByJesus. You weren’t simply making some bland statement of similarity. You made a shameful comparison between true Christians getting reimbursed for their honest labor for God and one of the most evil anti-Christian religious sects


      Sir, i perceive you think you are a prophet, again resorting to attempted mind reading. However, It is you who read into my statement more than what it intended or stated, and then insist i am being "coy." What i said was, "If the intent is to spread the word, then why restrict it? We do not see restrictions on what they wrote by the inspired writers in Scripture, and it is Rome that effectively tried to do so." And there the similarity ends, not extending into the reasons or the means by which Rome did so, but its basic effect. It is applicable here because we are known for criticizing Rome for preventing or restricting access to and sharing of God's truth, whether Bible translations or commentary, and criminalizing violations of her restrictions. As does criminalizing free copying of material today. While the famine is not as great today, if you have truth let it get out without hindrance.

      >Even if you make videos and have a reimbursement price, there should be no penalty for sharing such<

      Why? If that leads to stealing sales that will reimburse the ministry and enable it to continue to operate, on what rational basis do you then condemn A&O for going after people who are doing just that?

      By no penalty i mean there is no criminalization of so doing, thus there is no stealing. As for enabling the ministry to continue to operate, this is like the disciples thinking the Lord was criticizing them for not bringing bread. I cannot see Paul copyrighting his letters so as to require purchase and then sending the Romans after Christians for freely copying and distributing them. I think the world would have benefited from such.

      To illustrate, one YouTube user who uploads a full-length video debate which a hundred people might otherwise have paid for is stealing at least ninety-nine dollars which A&O would have otherwise used to pay James White and Rich Pierce and to finance debates and to pay video photographers, etc. You stop that YouTuber, you might have enough money to do more with your ministry. What principled reason does PeaceByJesus have that says that YouTuber ought to be allowed to do that to Alpha & Omega Ministries?

      And tens of thousands more see the debate because it was shared, and truth of God is magnified, which i presume is the intent, and White gains far more followers who support Him after the Biblical model, and his ministry is multiplied as God honors His faith for allowing such copying.

      Principled reason? How do we see Christian ministry supported in the NT? By copyrighting truth so that they gain income from it, criminalizing free sharing of it, or by just producing it in faith that God who called them will provide, and exhorting believers to be "fellowhelpers to the Truth"? (3Jn. 1:7,8)

      Delete
    4. > (And i see they changed their site so that my old links to specific pages, such as i often posted, just go the welcome page.)

      FYI, I know they're working on setting up a redirection system so that people following the old links will still end up at the intended article's new location.

      Delete