BACKGROUND: This is an article that I wrote many years ago. I didn't date it so I can only say with certainty that it was written sometime between 1985 and 1988, probably somewhere in the middle of that period. I am presenting the article exactly as it was written then, except for adding the HTML markup for Web page presentation. After that, I have added some additional comments that reflect my thinking on the subject in 1995. I believe that Christians and non-Christians alike should consider some of the concerns that I have raised in this article.

We had a visitor at our church the other night. Perhaps this man has visited your church as well. When one of our ushers greeted him before the service and inquired as to this man's line of work, he would only say that he "travelled a lot." He sat through the entire service, THEN revealed that he had attended only to observe our church for for possible violations of the copyright law.

You may not have realized it, but most Christian songs are copyrighted. If you reproduce them without the permission of the copyright owner, you have broken the copyright law and are subject to a fine. One church in Chicago apparently was fined $5,000 for copyright violations. The most common copyright violation is in the area of music intended for use of the congregation. Many churches use mimeographed song sheets or use an overhead projector to project a handwritten transparency of the song, both of which are illegal (it's legal to use a projector but only if the transparencies you use are obtained from or approved by the copyright holder).

Though most Christians would agree that we should not break the law of the land, one has to wonder about a law that can have the effect of inhibiting men from singing praises to God, or even from understanding the Bible. The Bible? Yes, in case you didn't realize it, all modern English-language versions of the Bible are copyrighted. Only the King James version of the Bible is not copyrighted. Thus, you cannot freely reprint portions of the word of God (in present-day English) without first securing permission from the copyright owner (you CAN quote small portions of text under a doctrine of law called "fair use", but you couldn't legally reproduce, say, the entire Gospel of John to give away as an evangelistic aid).

Of course, it's as likely as not that a copyright owner will NOT give you permission to reprint. Rather, they'll offer to SELL you copies of whatever you need, and will make a profit in the process. Thus, they take the word of God, or a song dedicated to God, and demand that men pay them before it can be used.

This is an issue that you hardly ever see discussed by anyone. Most of the big-time evangelists have books, records, and taped sermons, all of which are copyrighted. Thus, they have a financial incentive not to speak out against copyrights. I'm not saying that all of these men of God are deliberately withholding this from the Christian population (indeed, they may never have given the issue any thought at all, since Christians have been using copyrights for so long) but maybe now is the time to examine the issue, in light of recent attempts to strengthen the protection offered by the copyright law in the face of new technology (copying machines, tape duplicators, etc.).

Have you ever heard a Christian performer say "the Lord gave me this song?" Well, if that's true, then why did that performer probably apply for a copyright on it before the ink was dry on the paper? Did God give the performer that song as a means of praise and worship to Him, or so that the performer could profit by it? It would seem that if the Lord freely gives a song or a sermon to someone to share with God's people, that person has no business putting a price on it!

There are three categories of material that I think should NOT be copyrighted. One is the word of God itself, the Bible. Copyrighting the Bible restricts its use and forces men to pay other men for what rightfully belongs to God. There should NEVER be any restrictions on free distribution of the word of God.

The second category is a song or poem given by God to praise and glorify God. People should not have to pay other men in order to praise God together in an orderly manner, and if the Lord truly inspired the songwriter, doesn't ownership of the song really belong to God anyway?

The final category is anything given by God to edify men or instruct men in the ways of God. In other words, if God directs an author to deliver some message of importance to Christians, it should not be hindered by copyright restrictions.

There are a couple of objections that people usually raise to the above. One is that "the laborer is worthy of his hire", and that anyone who does work for God deserves to be compensated for it. The other is that copyright protection is needed to prevent others (non-Christians) from stealing all or part of the work and possibly perverting it (using the melody of a Christian song with words that promote sensual values, for example).

The first objection is easily answered if we consider the amount of actual effort that is put into writing a song or sermon compared to the possible returns that can be extorted through the use of the copyright. Many songwriters or sermon writers can complete a work in a day or two (especially if the Lord really gave them the work, as is often claimed) and rarely does it take more than a week or two. How much do you make working a week or two at your job? Yet that work may net the writer multiple thousands of dollars in copyright-imposed royalties, thus forcing people to pay much more than the value of the time involved. And the point remains that if God truly inspired the work, authorship belongs to God and the earthly vessel that he uses should be trusting God, not the copyright law, to supply his needs (it should also be pointed out that the phrase "the laborer is worthy of his hire" was used by Paul, who was talking about the "elders that rule well ... especially those who labor in the word and doctrine". See I Timothy 5:17-18 http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?I+Timothy+5:17-18. But that did not mean that they were to charge admission to their sermons! Rather, it meant that they were worthy to receive whatever offerings the people might be led to give them).

Of course, God may assist a writer with a book or some other work that requires lengthy preparation and possibly a real expenditure of money for research. In that case I would say it is between God and that man whether to copyright the book or other work, but I think that if the work is truly one that will be helpful to God's people, it would be better to leave it uncopyrighted. It would be better to offer such a work on a free will or a donation basis and let God take care that the author receives just compensation. But for someone whose faith is weak (that somehow cannot fully trust God to take care that they are not "cheated"), I cannot with full conviction say that it is a sin for them to copyright their book.

I can't see the original authors of the books of the Bible copyrighting and charging others for what they wrote. But I can't see Paul giving away all of the tents that he made, either. Some say that all ideas originate from God, and the work of our hands is the only thing we are entitled to be compensated for. This, again, brings us back to the question of how much research or other real "work" was required to produce the work in question, and whether we are willing to trust God, rather than man, to see that we are compensated properly for that work.

As for the thought that the work may be "stolen" by a non-Christian, such an argument betrays a lack of trust in God. If the work is used in its original form, it may reach people who would not see or hear it otherwise and inspire them to turn to God - and the fact that anyone can use it without making royalty payments may assure it a much wider distribution than it would otherwise have. And if the work is perverted by someone, God is powerful and is able to handle the situation! It may be that God has a reason for allowing that to happen, and it may be that God will use that work to draw the wrongdoer to Him. But if there is any punishment to be meted out, remember that God says, "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge, I will repay,' says the Lord." (Romans 12:19 http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?Romans+12:19)

But probably the best reason for not using copyright protection is that it may put the copyright owner into the position of violating God's law. You see, in order to retain copyright protection, a copyright owner has to enforce it against any known violators or the protection is lost. What that means is that if a violation is discovered, the violator must be forced to pay for the infringement, or be sued in court to recover actual and punitive damages. Now, what happens if the violator is a Christian, but either cannot or will not pay up? You have to take him to a court of law, before worldly judges. This is very strongly and specifically prohibited in I Corinthians 6, verses 1-8 http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?I+Corinthians+6:1-8. These verses should be required reading for any Christian that is considering the use of Copyright protection.

The only case in which I would say that it MAY be all right for a Christian to obtain copyright protection (and I'm not even fully convinced of this in my own mind) is when that work in question is intended for the secular market (i.e. non-Christians) and is not a Christian work (for example, if a Christian writes a book about how to build a backyard barbecue, it would probably be okay to copyright it). The reason for this is that the most likely violators would be worldly people. However, even in this case, the question remains of what to do if a copyright violator professes to be a Christian. You'd have to trust God for wisdom at that time, because there's simply no way you can justify violating God's law to satisfy man's.

As I have said, I doubt that you'll hear this preached from many pulpits, especially in light of the "success syndrome" that has crept into many churches (the book "The Seduction of Christianity" by Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon does a good job of exposing this heresy). And you won't see many books published on the subject, since it would not be in the self-interest of many publishers to do so. I'd love to see a book publisher decide to really trust God for their income, and release some books without copyright notices! And the Christian music industry will probably continue to send Judases into our midst, hoping to catch us in copyright violations and then forcing us to take God's money, which was given in tithes and offerings, and use it to pay them and the courts for their evil deeds. It's about time that some Christian songwriters said "enough!" to this and started placing some of their music in the public domain, so that it could be freely used by God's people to praise Him.

I'd like to hear any comments that others may have on this subject, pro or con, or any scriptures that the Lord may give you that seem to be applicable to this discussion. Please feel free to drop me a line with your thoughts.

As you might expect, THIS article is released to the public domain for the Glory of God, and may be freely reprinted!

Jack Decker

EPILOGUE: At the time I first wrote this I uploaded it to one or two Christian BBS's and in the years since I have probably posted it to two or three conferences on Fidonet and Usenet. Unfortunately, it's always been controversial, since apparently there are many people making their living from exactly the type of "Christian" works described above. What is hard for me to understand about it is that these "Christian" copyright holders are very often people who would look down their noses at others who engage in occupations that they consider "immoral", or that violate earthly law (e.g. pornography, dealing in illegal drugs, selling alcoholic beverages), and they think they are so much better than those people because they are "doing the Lord's work", yet it never occurs to them that they may be in the position of violating God's law by entering into a situation that may require them to take a fellow believer to court. If you make your living by violating God's laws, how can you look down your nose at anyone who violates only the laws of man? They could, after all, also claim that this is just their chosen way of making a living, and that no one else should speak out against it.

Even in the secular world, I think we are seeing the concept of "intellectual property" raised to new levels of absurdity. Recently we've seen situations where works have passed into the public domain due to age, and then new laws have been passed that have once again restored copyright protection to these works. In the computer world, companies have sued other companies because they simply copied the basic "look and feel" of the first company's product, and not any of the actual computer code. If this kind of "intellectual property" protection had been around when automobile were first developed, every brand of car on the road might have the controls that operate the steering, brakes, acceleration, etc. in different places and operated by different methods. Consider for a moment that you can probably drive someone else's car if it's a different make than the one you're used to, but can you operate their computer if it's a different make than the one you're familiar with?

Now that we have the concept of "intellectual property" (which is something I consider a flawed concept from the start - really a legal fiction on the same level as the concept of a corporation being the same as a person), we have to consider how far this concept can be taken. If intellectual property is legally the same as real property, can the government claim the right of eminent domain, as it does with real estate? For those not familiar with eminent domain, it means that in reality the government has ultimate ownership of all property, since it can confiscate property from any citizen for its own use (it also means that the government is supposed to compensate the landowner for the land taken, but as we have seen in recent years, the government doesn't always follow through on that part of it, especially when the land is taken for "environmental" reasons).

How does government exercise "eminent domain" over intellectual property? Well, take for example export controls over certain types of computer software. Ask Phil Zimmerman, the author of "Pretty Good Privacy", who's now in big trouble with the government because someone else sent some of his programs outside of the United States. The encryption routines developed by Phil Zimmerman were his own thoughts, his own "Intellectual Property" if you accept that concept, but because he is a citizen of the United States the U.S. Government feels justified in taking his work (by attempting to prevent him from publishing it in any place where it might be seen by a foreign national, which in today's world effectively equates to not publishing it at all). And this is my point: If you equate thoughts and ideas with property, you have to realize that property can be taken and controlled. The government can exercise its right of "eminent domain" over a person's creativity! And if the government doesn't come after you, some large corporation might if they figure your thoughts are too close to ideas that they've had "protected".

The Constitution of the United States guarantees free speech and a free press, but apparently that doesn't imply freedom to publish ideas or thoughts that someone else could claim as their "property". If the government can claim ownership of certain ideas, that allows them to effectively impose censorship, as is apparently happening in the Zimmerman case. Please understand that I'm not real big on encryption, and at this writing I've never felt the need or desire to use Pretty Good Privacy, or any other means of encryption. But on the other hand, I think that free people should have the right to communicate privately with each other if they wish, without the necessity of making the government privy to every communication they might have.

The ultimate problem with "intellectual property" laws is that, even as they attempt to protect some people, they put others at a disadvantage by inhibiting the free exchange of ideas. For example, suppose that there was a book written forty years ago that I think everyone should read, because it answers many of the more perplexing questions that people have. Were it not for copyright laws, I could put the text of the book on a World Wide Web page on the Internet. Now you might object that this cheats the author out of a just reward for his efforts, but suppose that author died thirty years ago? He's not alive so I can't ask him for permission to re-publish his work, and if the rights have fallen into the hands of some large corporation, they almost certainly aren't going to give me permission. The best I could do is try to paraphrase his book in a book of my own, being careful not to closely copy anything he has written, lest I be sued for infringement. But suppose that the original author had far superior writing and communications skills? No matter how fervently I believe in what he wrote, I might not be able to state it as clearly or persuasively as he did. Therefore, the vast majority of people will never be exposed to the ideas contained in that book, all for the sake of someone's legal right to make a residual income from the work of that author.

One other problem that I feel in inherent in the concept of "intellectual property", which I won't discuss in depth here, is that it allows a person to do work once and then get paid for it again and again. I'm not going to state unequivocally that this is wrong, but the fact is that the vast majority of people in the world only get paid once for work that they have done, and I have difficulty understanding why it should be different for authors, songwriters, and similar artists. Where it gets really ludicrous is when an artist creates a "work for hire", in which the artist is only paid once and then someone else owns the rights and can keep making money off the work. In this case you have someone who did none of the work receiving continuing payments for that work!

So I think that Christians and non-Christians alike ought to give some serious thought as to where all this expansion of "intellectual property rights" is taking us. For a Christian, exercising these "rights" may first mean claiming something as one's own that in reality belongs to God, and it may also mean that someday you'll be required to go to court against a fellow believer, in violation of the scriptures. For a non-Christian, buying into the concept that your thoughts are "property" means that they can be bought or sold, or even taken by the government. It means that you may not be able to use or even share ideas you've had, if your government doesn't want you to, or if someone else claims to have thought of it first.

Finally, I again submit that the reason that this subject is rarely discussed is because so many people believe that they need to have the "protection" of copyright in order to achieve financial gain. Virtually every newspaper, magazine, and television and radio newscast is copyrighted, so who is going to speak out against the encroachment of "intellectual property" legislation on free thought? If ideas can be had for free, then you really don't need to pay someone else for their ideas and thoughts. I think a lot of publishers are a bit worried about the Internet for this very reason, since it allows people to communicate and exchange thoughts and ideas more freely than they have in the past. Who needs to buy a book or magazine on any subject if you can "pick the brains" of several experts who are participating in a computer conferencing area? Not only do you get the information faster, but you'll probably hear several different opinions and if one person states a factual error, it's quite likely that some other knowledgeable person will offer a correction. So I really do not expect any of the conventional news outlets or publishers to stir up the general public about the negative effects of "intellectual property" laws. How or why would anyone who is using these laws to their own advantage speak out against them?

So, dear reader, for once you are hearing an idea that probably isn't going to be repeated or discussed in books or magazine articles. Whether you agree with it or not, and what you do with it if you do agree is up to you. All I ask is that you don't dismiss it out of hand simply because you didn't read it in a major magazine or see it discussed on your favorite TV talk show.

Jack Decker

Epilogue written August 19, 1995

NOTES (these may be changed or deleted if the referenced links change):

For more information on the conflict between the U.S. government and Phil Zimmermann, see the Web page entitled War on the Internet - http://www.netresponse.com/zldf. Please note that I do not necessarily agree with all the views expressed on this page!

I talked above about a book that I think everyone should read. Obviously I believe that the Bible http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible? falls into that category, but if you are not comfortable with "Olde English" then please get a modern translation and use it. A modern translation that is read is far superior to any older version that gathers dust because the owner gets frustrated with the ancient English and puts it on the shelf. I like the New Internation Version, but there are also other good modern translations. However, the book that I more or less had in mind when I wrote the above scenario is called "Mere Christianity", written by C.S. Lewis - http://sleepy.usu.edu/~slq9v/cslewis/index.html - around the time of World War II (1943, to be exact). I honestly don't know what its copyright status is at this point, but I suspect it is still protected. The thing about this book is that it tackles some of the tougher questions asked by those who are not convinced of the existence of God, or who do not understand why some things are in the Bible. I would recommend it!

Added January 1, 1996 - I found a relevent Web page entitled Against Intellectual Property - http://www.duke.edu/~eagle/anarchy/intelprop.html, which is a page of links devoted to the idea that the notion of intellectual property is a flawed doctrine. Some of the links on this page indicate to me that I wouldn't agree with everything these folks believe, but I'm glad that others are starting to see the problem with intellectual property laws. Another page you may wish to visit is entitled "If creativity is a field, copyright is the fence." http://detritus.net/vircomm/projects/anticopy/

Comments? Find a bad or changed link? Send me e-mail jack@novagate.com.

Reproduced from the public domain.  Source taken from http://www.ifla.org/documents/infopol/copyright/decj1.htm by Christopher George, March 20, 2009.