Copyright...Copywrong - Part II

Foreword

Just like my first blog on "FOSS in the Church" this second one has hit a nerve, although in a much more negative way. I shouldn't be surprised, and indeed I'm not because people are very passionate about the issue of copyright, especially when it comes to the FOSS movement as a community. Perhaps I can clarify some of my views here. Note: I am working on a more extensive treatment of this subject to come out after the first of the year along with the continuation of my "FOSS in the Church" posts.

To start...

I am a pragmatic FOSS user, I develop and use FOSS because I believe the process to be the best model for software development. When I can't contribute by development time I give my money to the FSF, OSI and various individual projects. However I am not a Free Software purist by any stretch of the imagination. I prefer Free Software and its emphasis on the "four freedoms" much more than proprietary software systems but I do not moralize the issue.

Copyright...its purpose

In my first posting on this subject I cited the Statute of Anne as being the first "modern" copyright law, and based on what I have found, that is true so I will continue to work from it as a base. This statute effectively identified the three roles that individuals and companies can fit into in regards to copyright. They can either be creators, publishers or consumers. Lets take a moment to define those roles a little:

• Creators - These are the people who through skill, originality and work have produced something original and potentially of value.


• Publishers - These individuals or companies have the ability and will to duplicate and redistribute a created work.


• Consumers - These are the individuals that for whatever reason wish to obtain a particular work.

These definitions are simple but should suffice for this discussion. By examining the Statute of Anne we see that there are two concerns involved, (1) protection of the authors livelihood and (2) protection of the consumers rights to use. The statute granted for a limited time exclusive rights regarding the distribution of their work. The statute also sought to protect consumer's rights to do anything with what they had purchased. But this was in the days of the printing press and was specific to authors, so what value does this have for us today? It gives us the basic premise of copyright, protection of the author for a limited time with certain protections also to be granted to the consumer.

Now that we have this as a base I can explain my basic presupposition or premise: Creators deserve to be compensated for their work if their work is deemed to have value. Now before folks start jumping on me again, let me clarify: compensation should only come from those who deem the work of value and who wish to obtain it, don't want to give the impression that I support artistic socialism or anything like that. Some people will still disagree but the truth is we don't question a creators right to be compensated if their work is deemed of value anywhere except in the realm of "creative" works.

The problem that arises now is how to assign value and thus cost and how best to ensure the creator is compensated fairly. Who has the right to determine the value, well that should be mutually decided between the creator and the consumer but we aren't in an economic framework that permits much bartering so
usually the price is set by the creator. But how should the author collect what they wish? Well in software usually it is done by building all the factors of production into a price that is attached to the software itself, either in physically distributable form or in some other manner that is attached to the distribution of the work. The factors that are considered in determining the value of software usually include the following:

• Development costs (time spent in development)


• Distribution costs (price of packaging or possibly factoring in bandwidth costs for downloads)


• A margin of profit (Usually based off the percieved continuing value of the software)


• Ongoing support - Ocassionally the on-going cost associated with included services or other additions to the basic software are factored in.

With these in mind how do we determine the best method for the creator to be compensated. Well here we encounter another tough area. There is no right to profit, income in excess of necessity, protected in copyright law. And some will argue that development costs have already been paid by the time software is
released and thus should be made Free. Well this latter scenario is only partially true, in some cases like Webmin, the code is held "hostage" and this indeed is the case and when development costs are met the product is Freed. But in the corporate world it is usually venture capital and investments that fund initial development and that has to get paid back, plus interest, in many cases so development costs are not always paid in full at the time software is released. Profit is not a guarantee so I will not argue its merits but it is usually tied to the last factor I listed above as well as being associated with the percieved ongoing use value of the product. So if we focus now of development and distribution costs which I hope no one will protest we can get closer to an answer.

A brief aside...

Currently, and hopefully always, participation in the FOSS method and community is entirely voluntary with creators deciding whether or not to participate. This is a great thing and ensures that their is no compulsion to give away rights creators might otherwise claim. But the method and community only remain strong as long as this is voluntary. If at any point the FOSS method becomes the sole way to do things I forsee problems that will dampen innovation in many areas; this is my opinion but it still should be considered.

Back on track...

Assuming that we want developers to recieve compensation for their development and distribution costs in a fair manner, how can this be done? Well distribution costs should be nearly fixed and thus establish the base price for which something is offered. In the case of physical distribution you have costs of materials and in electronic distribution their is cost of bandwidth, in the latter situation many times the bandwidth is either shared or multi-purposed so establishing a firm cost for this form of distribution may be difficult. But that was easy, distribition costs are usually handled by a publisher, not necessarily by the author directly, so the only cost we will concern ourselves with is the development cost.

Development cost is still rather difficult to define because the creator has to account for time spent, the value of that time and other factors. In the case of Webmin development costs are recouped up front, prior to Freeing the product. In many FOSS projects the development time is donated and thus has no cost which is passed on, but what about developers who do wish to be compensated for the time? Well they could do like Webmin, but it is doubtful that would work in every possible situation. So what are the options, well in Free Software the right to redistribution is given away so that channel of potential gain is limited or non-existent except where customers are buying purely to support, which does happen, but like Webmin's method may not always be optimal. So what else is there? non-Free licensing. In our current world non-Free licensing provides a solution for those developers who want to maintain this channel of gain.

The point of my argument is not that FOSS is bad or what not, if I thought that I wouldn't use, contribute and support it. My point is that it is on no more moral ground than non-FOSS development. The problem we have is a screwed up system that is in serious need of reform. So what should be done to fix the system. Well I don't think Free Software is the answer because it is too extreme in my opinion. I would like to propose a potential middle ground.

Fixing a broken system

First lets look at the four freedoms associated with Free Software:

• Freedom 0 - Freedom to run the program for any purpose


• Freedom 1 - Freedom to study and modify the program


• Freedom 2 - Freedom to copy the program so you can help your neighbor


• Freedom 3 - The freedom to improve the progam, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

I choose to clasify these freedoms this way:

• Freedom of use


• Freedom of private derivation


• Freedom of distribution


• Freedom of public derivation

The first part of my solution would be to make Freedoms 0 and 1 a part of copyright law that is explicitly and unwaveringly protected as a right of the consumer. This of course would mean that all software would have to make its source code available for those who wished to exercise Freedom 1. I would however leave Freedoms 2 and 3 up to the creators to decide in order to preserve every channel they may wish to use for recouping costs and deriving benefit from their work. I know this is not far enough for some but it would constitute a major step in correcting the horrible mess we have today. Of course I would also make any attempt by creators or publishers to thwart Freedoms 0 or 1 a criminal act reversing the DMCA and other such repressive things. That would be my solution.

Final words

Boy did I ever kick a hornets nest with my first post on this topic, but I avoided getting hurt and have put this out there to hopefully clarify my position. I still have every intention of publishing my more extensive and, what is looking like, heavily researched treatment of this subject after the first of the year. I hope this puts some of the more stirred up folks at ease now that you know I am not trying to come out against FOSS but rather keep all options open for protecting both creators and consumers. I hope this helps everyone.

The first copyright law, in the modern sense, was the English Statute of Anne, enacted in 1709. It granted exclusive rights to authors, rather than publishers, and it included protections for consumers of printed works, ensuring that publishers could not control their use after sale. It also limited the duration of such exclusive rights to 28 years (14 years with an optional renewal), after which all works would pass into the public domain.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright

I think that for too long we have ignored something that I didn't realize until today regarding copyright. Copyright is intended to protect authors and consumers from profiteering publishers. But what happens when in a digital age every consumer is a publisher and their profiteeting is not seeking to make themselves wealthy but instead to simply deny authors consideration and compensation in respect to their works. Along with my examination of FOSS in the church I am going to do some more studying and try to examine this new issue of what happens when consumers become publishers and the impact that has on copyright and FOSS at large.

• Part 2 - Comparing FOSS and "Traditional" software from the church's point of view


• Part 3 - Identifying the church's unique and common needs


• Part 4 - Meeting the church's needs with FOSS


• Part 5 - Where to go from here

The problem within...

The church is in a tough state right now, trying to reestablish its identity in a post-modern thinking and increasingly fast paced world. Technology has jumped by leaps and bounds yet the average church is probably in the early to mid ninety's at best technology wise. And on top of that there exist many problems in many churches relating to how they are using the technology they do have.

For an example: I have heard of one church that has no less that twelve computers between secretaries, ministers and other locations in the church as well as two servers. But of the operating system and application software they use on a daily basis only one of the licenses is legal. And I can't imagine this situation is too atypical.

The truth is that this church doesn't operate this way because they want to, it is because they have to, at least in their mind. They have a budget for IT of a few hundred dollars a year and with the age of their systems that is barely enough to cover repair costs. There is no way this church with its current mindset and budgetary restrictions could handle becoming legal in terms of software licensing. But even if they could, would that really be the best thing? I mean their accounting software releases a new version every year, Windows; which is the OS in use, is updated every few years and other bits of their software are updated on varying schedules. There is no feasible way they could keep up to date and remain legal in terms of licensing, so instead they steal the software. YES, I am going to say it, even though I hate everything about proprietary software licensing practices they are stealing according to the letter of the law, and yet there are those in the church who will try to justify it. I will not bother discussing their justifications because they are idiotic at best.

I have to ask myself, what kind of an example is this setting? Church leaders stand in the pulpit and preach against sin and that people need to get right with God and all the while, every day the church is using software that is stolen? That is hypocrisy and blatant, and in many cases unashamed and unrepentant hypocrisy! It is a tragedy that our churches are like this.

Now please hear me, unchurched skeptic, not all churches are ripe with this and other forms of hypocrisy but there are enough out there that you should be suspicious of the message they preach. But I implore you to not abandon the teachings of God because fallen, sinful men can't live up to what they preach. If we could live up to every bit of our preaching we would have no need of the Grace of God but because of our sinfulness we still have to rely on His mercy, so please don't misunderstand my message here. Also, not all churches knowingly engage in piracy, some are simply naive and don't know what they are doing is illegal. Also remember that although I am chiefly concerned with these practices in the church, they are no less common in secular institutions.

It is a tragedy and a systemic problem that our churches are in such a condition. But what is the answer, what is the way to turn this around? Well there are multiple answers, depending on how the church wants to go.

The options...

• First, the most drastic response is that the church could abandon technology that they can't legitimately afford and instead take a step back. This is dangerous because the church risks becoming disengaged from the world they so desperately need to reach out to by become irrelevant in the eyes of our increasingly tech-oriented society. But even though this option is not a particularly good one, it is still a viable option.


• Second, the church could "suck it up," cut the checks and make technology spending a priority. This is not a good option either however because most churches are doing good just making budget to pay staff and fund essential ministries. And because of these budgetary strains this option would either require reduction in ministries or reduction in ministerial staffing that would lead to the same thing as the first option, a disengagement from the world due to lack of ability to minister rather than a potential lack of relevance.


• Thirdly, the church could actively seek out an alternative to the traditional way they think of technology. Change their mindset and look for a better solution. Thanks to the FOSS movement this is becoming more of a viable option every day and it is my goal over the next few weeks to begin examining this new and exciting option and offering my suggestions for how churches can begin to rethink the role and acquisition of technology in the church.

Final Thoughts

I hope this little teaser has piqued your interest and will bring you back over the next few weeks to see what I am going to be putting together. Next time I will discuss the differences between our traditional software monoculture as it exists in many churches today and the intriguing possibilities offered by the FOSS opportunities and products out there.

Come back next time!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License by James W. Thompson, II.

Before I say anything else...

FOSS has seen many advances in many areas over the last few years, major media has started talking about it and big companies like MS and Sun are trying to figure out how exactly to deal with it. In my experience though I have been somewhat saddened that the church has not picked up FOSS as a way to do ministry better and more cost effectively. The focus of my blogging will mostly focuson the areas where I think the church could use FOSS in creative ways that would enhance ministry.

Since this is my first blog entry I'm going to resist the temptation to dive right into the issues and instead talk about myself and my background so everyone who cares knows where I'm coming from. First off I am 22 years old married for almost a year and a half to my wife Pamela. We have a daughter named Marissa who was born in June of this year, 2004. We are both undergraduate students at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary [ nobts.edu ] where I am the full-time Web Administrator. I consider myself a geek who is interested in pretty much all things computer related. I got my start on an Apple IIe programming BASIC thanks to an innovative class taught by my Private Elementary school. I have always loved technology and computers specifically and spent much of my middle school and high school years working on hardware troubleshooting and learning programming languages. I started doing Web Design and Development in 1999 and have honed in on that more than anything else since then. I still try to keep myself up on other areas and love playing with new stuff that I don't understand just to see what I can do.

My present studies are in the area of Chrisitian Education and I hope to go on to Master's studies in that same area as well as Biblical Studies, particularly Greek. Eventually I would like to do Doctoral work and teach at either a Christian College or Seminary.

I have a keen interest in the role of technology as well as copyright and other "intellectual property" issues as they relate to the church. I am particularly interested in trying to encourage adoption of FOSS in the church context because I see a great opportunity to overcome issues the church struggles with in terms of technology.

As for my particular beliefs, being as I say I am so interested in the church; I am unashamedly a Southern Baptist and have no intentions of changing that denominational affiliation. Some my consider me more socially progressive though because I don't tow the party line when it comes to many things. I am however theologically conservative and evangelical/missions minded. I try not to prostletize where it is not welcomed but if you push the buttons or ask for it I'll chime in. I hope most of all that my contributions to the church and society as a whole will have a lasting impact and bring people closer to Jesus Christ the Lord.