A few weeks ago, I got an email asking about my RSS feeds for the daily bible reading provided by the USCCB. (The USCCB is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.) I said that I hadn't heard back from the USCCB since I last tried to contact them in June and they stopped returning my emails (though they seemed to be interested in providing RSS).
My correspondent thanked me for the copy of the ad hoc Perl script I've been using to make my own RSS feed, and then pointed me at a podcast of the daily readings. How neat!
As of today, though, the feed has been suspended, possibly temporarily. Apparently the USCCB has asked them to stop so they can review copyright permissions on the Catholic lectionary being read. The USCCB wants to restrict access to the Gospel, apparently.
I'm just so angry about this! Whom is the USCCB helping by acting this way? I think I'll send them a letter and see if I can't find out. Perhaps I'll talk to Father Bobbin, too. If all else fails, maybe I'll go on the trip to the National Shrine just so's I can wreck the place up while they're sleeping, Nixon style.
I hate situations like this. Copyright on the Bible was controversial the first time it happened (some time around 1901, with the American Standard Version). Somewhere along the line, we rolled over and accepted it.
Then I grew up and started questioning everything, and decided I couldn't agree with that policy. I follow it, because it is the law, though if a soul hangs in the balance, I'm going to flagrantly disregard it, and with pleasure. (Of course, I don't agree with copyright at all, any more.)
If you really want a text most widely disseminated (for religious or other reasons), you need to have a permissive license of some sort. The old crock about needing copyright to obtain the revenues to fund distribution no longer flies in this digital age (and in retrospect I don't believe it flew in the paper age). The idea of copyright to "ensure purity of text" doesn't work, either, especially now that we have the technology to do a diff. Clearly the Bible's purity of text got preserved somehow for 1800 years. The only defense needed against an heretical derived work is publicity of the fact, and this method worked for centuries.
Finally, the idea that this is the only way the translation process can be funded is similarly ludicrous. Do these people really not believe enough in the Text they are translating to work for any reason other than a profit motive? Surely they need to earn a living, but are there not enough people out there who believe in the importance of this Text enough to fund the workers so they can dedicate themselves to this great Work? How is it that churches and preachers can be supported entirely through voluntary donations, but the work of the translation of the Bible cannot?
There's at least one public domain modern speech English Bible out there, though the quality is not yet stellar. I look forward to more of these.
As for the specific issue you brought up, copyrighting a lectionary, again, should not the highest purpose be to encourage the maximum dissemination of this kind of work?
If you want, I'll make you a Bible reading schedule and release it under a Creative Commons sharealike license. I'll even include the Deuterocanonicals, though I know nothing about them.
Re:Bible copyright
rjbs on 2005-09-08T12:38:17
Heh, thanks. Actually, the guy has said he'll switch to another translation soon, if he has to... which he probably will.
Dear USCCB: Thanks for the bushel. It hides that lantern really well.Re:Bible copyright
jdavidb on 2005-09-08T15:20:42
Heh. I like that comment.
:) Re:Bible copyright
pudge on 2005-09-16T20:16:36
The people who make the NASB are constantly trying to put out the best version of the Bible they can, in many languages. That requires money. Without the royalties, they will have not enough to do the work they want to do.
If there were not many good and freely available version of the Bible, that would be one thing. But that's not the case. Yes, it's annoying, but I have no problem with it.
Re:NIV?
sigzero on 2005-09-09T00:31:51
While I am not a proponent of "there is only one version" of the Bible I do believe that a believer should be careful on the translation he or she uses. The NIV is good for getting a good idea about what is being said because it is a paraphrase but the KJV, NKJV or NASB are closer to the original manuscripts.
YMMV
Re:It could be worse!
jdavidb on 2005-09-08T21:13:29
Yes, but since God died on a cross in 33 A.D., we might have a case.
:) Re:It could be worse!
sigzero on 2005-09-09T00:21:33
Did he? Then who raised him from the dead?;) Re:It could be worse!
rjbs on 2005-09-09T00:29:43
cron jobRe:It could be worse!
AZAudio on 2005-12-01T07:39:22
Does His resurrection change the copyright interpretation?Re:It could be worse!
AZAudio on 2005-12-01T07:38:10
Yeah, but since He rose again on the third day, does this change the way we interpret copyright in this particular instance?Re:It could be worse!
yudel on 2005-12-04T04:54:42
IANAL, but I've been reading a lot of copyright law lately.
Given the way copyright terms operate, I can imagine a strong case to be made that the author's failure to stay dead until the end of the calendar year would make the death irrelevant for copyright purposes.
