Below is a guest post by a friend and colleague at Free Software Magazine – Terry Hancock.

Like me, Terry is interested in the subjects of free (as in freedom) software and free culture. With regards the latter (and unlike me) he has got off his backside and started to do something. This post describes Terry’s project to produce a science fiction “TV” series and release it under Creative Commons licences. This is both ambitious and encouraging. As you know I have focussed [my own attempts](http://www.crimperman.org/tag/freedom/] at free culture onto the church and the way “worship” resources are locked down and restricted by archaic copyright and “intellectual property” laws. One obstacle I have come across is that if resource producers do not release the material under free licences then any attempt to bring freedom back into our media and other cultural elements will fail. Terry has encountered this and “Lunatics” is an admirable response.

Right now the issue – as ever – is financial. This project is – by nature – on a much smaller budget than mainstream productions but – like the Blender open movie projects before it – it still requires some cash to get started. Also like the Blender open movies, backers get rewarded for their donation.

You may not like science fiction, you may not like the concept of Lunatics but you may know people who do. If you like the idea of free culture and are fed up with the ever-increasing tide of restrictive actions by media companies – try supporting one of the good guys.

Update

The target funding has now been reached. This is exciting news as it means there is support for such a great venture. You can still find out about the project and catch up with the latest news at the project website lunatics.tv.

Guest post – Terry Hancock

Lunatics - somebody's got to be crazy enough to go first!

Support this project

Lunatics is a story about the first permanent settlement on the Moon. Politics are inevitable, physics is implacable, and the colonists are indomitable fanatics. After all, normal people don’t really colonize new worlds, do they?

“Lunatics” itself is largely based on character comedy, but we take the science and technology very seriously. Much of the technology in planned Lunatics scripts is not only real and relatively new, but also largely ignored in prior science fiction. Perhaps the greatest realism, though, is in the way the characters are presented.

The series and all the original source material will be released under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, and it will be created using (mainly) the free software Blender 3D application on GNU/Linux workstations. It is a free-culture production from end-to-end. We are taking advantage of the massive body of existing free-culture work (music, sound effect, graphics, and so on) to help make all of this possible. And once we get our series up and running (we plan to do 18 episodes a year, of about 30 minutes length each) we will be one of the biggest free culture film projects going!

What makes this possible is a fan-financed business model which has been pioneered by only a handful of free-culture projects. But it’s enough to show that it can be done.

This project will require a lot of innovation on everything from merchandising business models to real-time animation techniques.

Right now, we are trying to raise $2400 through a Kickstarter project to support pre-production work — especially paying artist Daniel Fu a commission for creating character design drawings which will be used to create the 3D characters for the series.

Backers at any level will get early access, and for those who pay just $15 or more, we have a variety of “rewards” — ranging from character art posters to the complete “Character Art Book and Writer’s Guide”.

We also have corporate sponsorship levels if you know someone who’d be interested — for $400, you can get your company logo printed prominently on our pre-production materials, and featured on the website. Needless to say, a couple of such sponsorships would go a long way towards meeting our goal (these are limited to just 4 slots to make sure we have room for your logo).

Like all projects, we have to start small and work our way up. I don’t have a fan-base of thousands to draw on yet, because Lunatics doesn’t exist… yet. But with your help, we can get there!

Thanks!

Regular readers of this blog (if there exists such a beast) will know I am quite passionate about the ideas of freedom in church. To be more specific I really dislike the idea of restricting people through draconian copyright from worshipping and journeying with God. Recently I’ve noticed some a increase in some quarters at releasing some of the restrictions usually associated with copyright symbols. Music and other resource books are increasingly appearing with “photocopy permissions”. At face value this sounds wonderful and you’d be forgiven for believing it is generous on the part of the publisher. I’m sure the author/publisher/editor thinks they are being generous too – except they aren’t really. They’re just being confusing.

As an example let’s take a recent resource book I bought. “Free Photocopying included!” shouts the red splash logo on the front cover. “Great!” you think and you begin copying to use in your church. You do this because nobody usually reads the small print when the big print is so unambiguous. The problem here is that the standard copyright terms inside the front cover include the words..

“All rights reserved. It is illegal to reproduce or transmit in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, any part of this copyrighted file without permission in writing from the author” (emphasis mine)

Note that it says “including photocopying” there but hang-on the front cover says I can copy it. The introduction tries to clarify things by mentioning that “This book includes a licence which permits you to photocopy it but – for obvious reasons – for use within your group only”. So that’s clear then. There’s is your permission in writing.

Except it’s still not clear. What is my group, how often can I copy this and what if I am responsible for several “groups”? I know it sounds like I’m being pedantic here but believe me an “Intellectual Property” Lawyer would be even more so. Suppose I use this book for ten years. During that time I need to give copies to several people in two groups. Over time copies get lost, fade or people leave the group. Do I have to get the copies back off the people who leave? How many times can I copy it? If the people I give it to, copy their copies am I responsible or them? How big does the author expect a group to be before they expect me to buy a new book?

“Oh you’re being silly Ryan” I hear you say. “Nobody is really going to care about such trivial details – least of all a Christian author.” Except we’ve had cases where Christian organisations sue other ones because they have similar sounding names. We have Christian CDs with copy protection on them and we’ve had situations where Churches receive threatening letters for putting something they believed to be public domain in their newsletter. Sadly the fact is that if you’re not prepared to sue and you don’t really care then you don’t include the copying restriction text in the first place. A Christian (or any) Author may not intend to sue a copyright infringement but you can bet the publisher will. The publishing industry has even popularised it as a “crime” (it’s not it’s a civil not a legal infringement). And again to my eye it looks more like the Church is intent on copying (if you’ll pardon the pun) the way the rest of the world does this kind of stuff.

A Better way

I know there’ll be arguments of “People have to be paid” and “You can’t get everything for free” coming about now. I’ve heard them and I’ve answered them before. I won’t bother doing so again here but there is a better way to give people the freedom to photocopy without leaving all these legal holes for them to fall into. How about putting a specific licence on the work. One which might say: “You can copy this and pass those copies around. You cannot sell it and you have to say where you got the original”. That’s the essence of the Creative Commons licences. Specifically it’s a Attribution-Non-Commercial one. Some people familiar with CC will balk at my use of NC in there but in this context it works. You can add bits like “It has to be copied unaltered” (No-derivatives) and “You can’t restrict the way anybody uses the copies” (Share-alike) but these licences are specific. They tell you what you can and can’t do and they do so in plain English (or whatever language you prefer). Suddenly all my questions above are answered:

What is my group? group size and number is irrelevant, make as any copes as you need
How often can I copy this? As often as you like – just don’t sell the copies and say where you got it.
What if I am responsible for several “groups”? doesn’t matter
Do I have to get the copies back off the people who leave? no
How many times can I copy it? As many times as you need
If the people I give it to, copy their copies am I responsible or them? neither, it’s fine
How big does the author expect a group to be before they expect me to buy a new book? doesn’t matter

Right now I imagine any authors reading this (if they have got this far) will be shaking their heads and dismissing me and mad. How can I possibly suggest removing their income like this. But I’m not. I can’t think of a Christian book I have read in the last twenty or thirty years that was written or compiled by somebody whose sole job was an author. Most of the authors are involved ins some kind of ministry or job which gives their writing on that subject a certain weight. In short they are already receiving an income, the royalties from books (which is but a small percentage of the price you and I pay) are n top of their salary. But they have expenses? Which can probably be met by the sales of the book anyway quite early on. It’s common to presume that what I am suggesting here will result in fewer book sales because everyone will copy the one book. That’s not borne out by evidence elsewhere. Some authors have seen their book sales increase when they released the text elsewhere under Creative Commons. The thing is this happens now. People photocopies some pages from a book, the recipient likes it and then buys the book. Some people prefer to buy physical books as well. Yes the profit from sales may drop but not as much as you think and mostly that will hit the publishing company not the author.

Nothing will happen

That sounds a bit defeatist but I am not expecting anything much to happen immediately following this post. Firstly I’m not that popular so I doubt many people will read it. Secondly people are not generally inclined to share these days. That’s funny because we all tell our kids too and our faith is based on free gifts that must be shared with others. One day maybe the Church will get this. Certainly a small pocket of it does now but right now, sadly, the Church seems to be quite merrily following the example set by the selfish and greedy parts of the world around us.

If you want to read more on this subject here are some of my blog posts on it:

• Authorised (KJ) version – not so free then
• Christians and copyright: why can’t we share?
• m108, document freedom and the church
• Announcing m108: the next step on freeing the Church
• Taking risks and freeingup worship
• Christianity that doesn’t spread straight from the fridge
• Human rights vs Human responsibility

If you want to reproduce the KJV text in the UK you have to ask the Queen.

This year, Christians are celebrating the 400th anniversary of the first publication of the Authorised or King James version of the Bible. As an example the popular Spring Harvest festival has rightly chosen the Bible as it’s theme for this year’s event. It’s not just Christians either. Certainly here in the UK I have seen and heard of a lot of events and media productions based around the importance of the publication of one of the most popular translations of the Bible. Part of the enduring popularity is down to tradition, part of it will be down to the fact that a lot of Christians consider this to be the “only” version of the Bible and part of it – especially in recent times – will be because it is one of the few recognised translations outside of copyright control. Hey it was published in 1611 so any copyright on it must have expired by now – right?

Freedom in the UK

Not in the UK it seems. I hadn’t realised this before and I am indebted to an identica/twitter friend @artsyhonker for highlighting it. The King James version of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer are under Crown copyright in the UK. So far so good, the 1988 act brought Crown copyright into line with other copyright holders but both these publications are covered by Royal perogative. This peculiarity means that publishing of these texts in the UK can only occur under licence from the Queen’s Printer. Here’s an extract from the Wikipedia page on the BCP (emphasis mine):

In the United Kingdom, the British Crown holds the rights to the Book of Common Prayer. The rights fall outside the scope of copyright as defined in statute law. Instead, they fall under the purview of the royal prerogative and as such, they are perpetual in subsistence. Publishers are licensed to reproduce the Book of Common Prayer under letters patent. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the letters patent are held by the Queen’s Printer, and in Scotland by the Scottish Bible Board. The office of Queen’s Printer has been associated with the right to reproduce the Bible for many years, with the earliest known reference coming in 1577. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the Queen’s Printer is Cambridge University Press. CUP inherited the right of being Queen’s Printer when they took over the firm of Eyre & Spottiswoode in the late 20th century. Eyre & Spottiswoode had been Queen’s Printer since 1901. Other letters patent of similar antiquity grant Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press the right to produce the Book of Common Prayer independently of the Queen’s Printer.

The terms of the letters patent prohibit those other than the holders, or those authorized by the holders from printing, publishing or importing the Book of Common Prayer into the United Kingdom. The protection that the Book of Common Prayer, and the Authorized version, enjoy is the last remnant of the time when the Crown held a monopoly over all printing and publishing in the United Kingdom.

This protection should not be confused with Crown copyright, or copyright in works of the United Kingdom’s government; that is part of modern UK copyright law. Like other copyrights, Crown copyright is time-limited and potentially enforceable worldwide. The non-copyright Royal Prerogative is perpetual, but applies only to the UK; though many other Royal Prerogatives apply to the other Commonwealth realms, this one does not.

I’d imagine there is – as ever – a grey area with regards what constitutes “publication” and I’m guessing the legislation doesn’t allow for such things as the web but what this means is that in the UK where the King James version was first published, we cannot legally reproduce any of the text without letters patent (a licence).

Freedom

Those who read this blog (both of you) will know that I am particularly fond of writing about freedom, particularly when it comes to resources for Christians to use in worshipping God – and by worship I mean all its forms including just living. It seems I now have to correct something I said a few years ago whereby I referred to the KJV as public domain. Restrictive licencing on any Christian resource saddens me – more so when that resource is the Bible which is intended to free people.

You might be thinking that the Royal prerogative thing is a bit superfluous as the Crown is unlikely to prosecute an individual UK blogger (say) for reproducing ten verses of the KJV on a website. You might be thinking that anybody worth their salt would probably read a more modern translation (with the copyright issues surrounding that). You might be thinking that you can just get a copy from another country (any importer must be licenced also). In short: it’s easy for us to think this doesn’t matter. Except it does matter and it should matter. It should matter to all UK Christians that 400 years after publication such an important text remains under tight publication controls. It should matter that while almost every other government and Crown text will eventually enter the public domain – for all to freely enjoy – two texts intended to bring people into closer fellowship with God will always have restrictions upon them. If a UK church wishes to publish some verses from the KJV in it’s bulletin, it should be able to do so without fear of breaking the law. Being in a situation where “it’s okay because they won’t prosecute” is unhelpful. If nobody will be prosecuted then the law is irrelevant. If we are reserving the law for cases where somebody may print off ten thousand copies then the law is pointless. Copyright exists to create a monopoly for the author (or copyright holder) of the work. If somebody prints 10,000 bibles and sells them who exactly is missing out here? After 400 years won’t the Crown (not the government in this case) have made enough money off the KJV in the past 400 years?

This year – of all years – the Royal prerogative on the KJV and the BCP should be surrendered. Place these texts in the public domain where they should be!

image (c) Ryan Cartwright CC:By-SA

As you probably know I can be found on Twitter – actually I have multiple accounts on there for personal, work and church reasons. I also have an Android-based phone and to help me manage those multiple accounts I use a Twitter client/app called Twidroyd. It’s very nice and does what I need it to. On Friday however it stopped being able to do anything on Twitter because Twitter blocked it – along with other clients made by the same company. Apparently these applications had violated Twitter’s policies. I have no real qualms with Twitter taking action if somebody violates their policy – it’s their policy after all. What worries me though is the apparent lack of notice given to Twidroyd users and the oh-so-coincidental appearance of a advert for Twitter’s Android client in the stream for Twidroyd users.

It’s not illegal or even immoral really but something sticks in my throat about the fact that the ability to cut people off from such a useful service rests with a handful of business folk. I know, I know we don’t have to use it and yes it is indeed Twitter’s service so they can do what they want but still when something gets this popular it moves beyond a mere business-arrangement type service and becomes something bigger. But what can we do eh? We use Twitter for lots of reasons but one of the most common will be because people we know/want to follow are on there. It’s the same catch-22 as Facebook to be honest and it comes down to security/privacy being overruled by convenience.

There are alternatives to Twitter, one of the most popular probably being Identica. I wrote an article on it for Free Software Magazine a while back but in brief this is micro-blogging with freedom. I can’t say that StatusNet (the people behind Identi.ca) would not block some app which breaks their policy but I can be pretty sure they wouldn’t act in the way Twitter has here. Identi.ca is designed around freedom. The software it (the server) runs on is free software and you can (and some companies do) download and run your own version of it. Most of us won’t have to and can use Identi.ca often with the same apps we use now. Twidroyd certainly has Identi.ca support and throughout this debacle it kept happily updating my timeline with Dents from Identi.ca.

In brief: Identi.ca is micro-blogging with freedom

You use Identi.ca exactly as you would Twitter and it has some extra features like groups (which predates and is better than Twitter’s lists) and In context (conversations) on the standard web interface (which is much better than new Twitter) – see my Free Software Magazine article for more. I’ve used it for work for nearly two years now and it’s really good. It also bridges to Twitter, you can find your Twitter friends on Identi.ca and set up a cross denting feature which will see your dents posted to your Twitter account. I’ve got a personal Identi.ca account but mostly it’s a place-holder.

Privacy

There is one caveat here though: Identi.ca doesn’t have a protected mode (where people have to request to follow you). For some, I know this will be a privacy issue for others not so much. The thing is that Identi.ca is about freedom and that means not restricting access to content. For this reason all Identi.ca users agree that their posts will be published under a Creative Commons Attribution licence. Once you take that into account there’s really no requirement for a “protect my dents” feature. In the end it means you shouldn’t post something you wouldn’t shout through a megaphone. Is this less private that Twitter? I’m not so sure. I started protecting my tweets a while back and then noticed people were RTing them anyway (some asked first which was polite – thanks). By the way the Press Complaints Commission recently ruled even protected tweets can be considered public domain because your followers may RT them.

So it would seem prudent to consider all your tweets as being broadcasted regardless of your privacy issues. If you are going to do that why protect them at all? So we come to Identi.ca’s stance of make them public but make sure they are attributed if they get repeated. Once you know that something you say has the potential to go public you change what you say. Many people tweet “Child1″ or “Son/Daughter” in reference to the child on Twitter but will use the child’s name on Facebook because they consider Facebook to be more private and yet we keep reading story after story of how Facebook has neglected user’s privacy and where supposed “private” status updates end up in the media. In the end privacy on the web is like car security – all you can really do is make your stuff less attractive to get and hope they go for the least path of resistance.

Using Identi.ca

So I’m going to start using Identi.ca in a personal capacity more now. Of course I will have to refer back to Twitter to keep up with people who are not on Identi.ca. So here’s what I’m going to try:

• new dents/tweets will be posted on Identi.ca and cross posted to Twitter
• replies will be made on whichever service I received the original
• replies will not be cross-posted

Of course to manage this I need some software which will make it easier. Fortunately Twidroyd has multiple accounts and support for both Identi.ca and Twitter and will show both streams as a single feed with smart-replying. On the desktop I use Choqok on KDE (more free software) and that also supports multiple accounts and both Twitter and Identi.ca. Of course I could find myself alone but if Twitter has annoyed you lately why not give this a try too? Signing up is about as easy as it can get and you can register using your Twitter account and Identi.ca will create an account with the same name (if it’s available) and create the bridge for you.

You can (or will be able to)¹ find me on Identi.ca at http://identi.ca/crimperman but right now there’s nothing there because I’ve not been using it and I can’t log in (I’ve forgotten my password and the password reminder system is being fixed as I speak). Watch this space though. In a professional capacity you’ll find me at http://identic.ca/equitas

¹ Update 22 Feb 2011 07:56 – the password reminder issue was fixed shortly after this was posted

(c) Nevine Zaki http://twitter.com/NevineZaki

Dear Christians around the world: this is a photo of Egyptian Christians standing in a human chain around Muslims in order to protect them while they pray. It was taken by Nevine Zeki. If you want to send a message to Muslims around the world, how about more like this rather than threatening to burn the Qu’ran, calling them names or lumping them altogether. We often read of how Jesus associated with those who he was “not supposed to”. It seems the Christians in this picture are following the same pattern and I am proud to think that I am part of their family.

Recently a phrase I hadn’t heard for a while has popped into my “life stream” again. (By which I mean I’ve heard it a few times recently). It is “the wisdom of the crowd” and it refers (usually) to the way that online forums and social media allows many people to share “wisdom”. Often this will be where one person can ask a question and get several answers with the best one normally floating to the top via some kind of peer review. This review will be a function of the interface or quite often just indicated by contributors saying “I agree with them”.

But are crowds really all that wise?

You can buy these posters from Despair.com

There has existed for some time a series of de-motivator posters which are intended to be a humourous counter to the often cheesy motivation posters that once (and maybe still) adorned office walls. One of my favourites is the one to the right. The caption reads “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups”. Sometimes the wisdom of the crowd is not only found to be lacking but that lack is amplified by being within a crowd. A good example of this, as others have said, is the Facebook cartoon picture chain.

Someone – nobody knows who but best guess is that it started in Greece in November – started a chain by suggesting everyone on Facebook change their profile picture to a cartoon character from their childhood. Not only was this bringing a warm glow of nostalgia to Facebook but – the chain said – it was supporting the NSPCC in its campaign against child abuse. Of course the problem was that not only did NSPCC have no idea about this but that simply changing your picture in no way supported their cause. Many, including myself, advocated also donating to NSPCC. And yet the “wisdom of the crowd” meant that people were copying the status text verbatim and changing their picture without stopping to think if or how this was going to help stop child abuse.

Skip forward a few days and a second chain began going around. This one decried the first chain claiming that the people behind it were in fact a paedophile ring and that this was confirmed on “Tonight’s news”. No link or reference was given to the news item or even which night it was on. And yet again the “wisdom of the crowd” meant people began copying this new status verbatim and swiftly removing their cartoon profile pictures. Once it gained enough traction it was picked up by the Daily Mail and the circle was complete.

So I ask again are crowds all that wise?

All is not lost

To be honest that’s a rhetorical question. The answer is to be found just a day or so later. Despairing as others have at the speed at which particularly the latter chain propagated I was pleasantly surprised to see a number of comments appearing against the “it’s all run by paedophiles” status updates. Suddenly people were asking pertinent questions: “Which news program was this on?”, “Did you actually see it?” for example. Others suggested using well known hoax websites such as Snopes.com. Others highlighted the tell-tale signs that both of the chains were probably not founded on any real truth. Slowly, much slower than the original chains though, the wisdom of the crowd is percolating through.

So it seems the crowd can be wise if you give it time. Perhaps the issue is how fast we expect the online — and thus the offline — world to move these days. Instant updates on our mobiles, feeds to our laptop, netbooks, desktops and tablets all drive us towards a dangerous tendency to knee jerk reactions. Even those of us who would consider ourselves above falling for such urban legends could still do with applying some patience before we fly off on a rant about other well-meaning souls. I lose track of how often I have seen (and sometimes joined in) the ridiculing of Facebook users by those on Twitter. And yet Twitter has it’s own variety of such chains. Every now and then you’ll see a flurry of auto tweets from some wunder-app which promises convenience and delivers annoyance. “I’ve found the greatest…” the tweets start and sometime later are followed by “Remove that app – it’s a spambot” or similar.

The truth is that crowds — like the people they consist of — have both wisdom and foolishness, common sense and little sense and can be incredibly annoying and uplifting. Often these things occur shortly after each other or even simultaneously. People, whether on their own or in a crowd are remarkable things and the world is frequently both better off and worse off for having them in it. “People” is also a term that includes me, in all my stupidity and (somewhat rarer) wisdom. I would like to apologise to anyone I have upset or offended with any outburst or ill-thought out flippant remark. I should remember that I everyone is still learning (and that includes me) and that my time would be better spent trying to help rather than ranting.

So here’s the idea: why don’t we all start taking a moment to wait, reflect and consider before posting any tweet, facebook status update, blog post or even opening our mouths. For the Christians among us it is worth noting that patience is a fruit of the Spirit. Wisdom is not in that list.

As usual the Daily Mail is leading the war on the (non-existent) "ban Christmas brigade" and look they'll even give you a Cliff DVD

Well it took a little longer than I thought but the silly season is upon us. I refer of course to the myriad of complaints I see about Christmas. Not the “it’s all so commercialised” ones or even the “it’s based on a pagan festival” ones but the “It’s PC gone mad” nonsense.

Today I came across an “article” entitled Christmas Cracker falls flat at Christmas.org.uk. I quote…

When a mother allowed her daughter to carry a box of Christmas crackers up to a supermarket till in Stowmarket, Suffolk, she was told that her daughter had just been breaking the law. The staff member on the till told Lisa Innes, 36, that crackers are classed as explosives and could not be carried around by her daughter, Tia-Rose. It was only when Lisa took the box and handed it to the staff member herself, that she was allowed to buy them.

This was a reworking of a fuller article at the Daily Telegraph which had more depth and pointed out that the shop assistant was simply trying not to fall foul of the law. A recent change in the law means anyone selling “explosives” to an under 16yr old could be imprisoned or fined up to £5000 and yes Christmas Craksers contains explosives. So maybe the law is (again) the ass here and the shop assistant was just making sure he didn’t break it. Incidentally the issue was not the child carrying the crackers but that by taking them off her the shop assistant could have been prosecuted by trading standards for selling them to a child.

What concerns me here though is that this made it to a national newspaper. Why is this kind of thing suddenly news? People have been refusing to do certain things because they were worried about getting in trouble for many years. Long before it was called “political correctness”. Incidentally why is it that the only time I hear that term it is in a complaint about it? I’ve never heard someone saying “We are just trying to be politically correct” only the accusatory “They are just being political correct” or the more customary “gone mad” whinge. Yes it’s a ridiculous situation and call me an old fart but what happened to just shrugging, dismissing it as ridiculous, moaning to your neighbours and getting on with your life?

There’ll be more where that came from

I’m also bracing myself for the usual yuletide suspects to arrive as well. You know “Christmas is banned”, “Winterfest”, “Decorations not allowed”, “Cliff Richard song banned” etc.

Cobblers! It’s all cobblers. I refuse to believe there is a conspiracy to remove “our culture”. I can even find a real definition of who “we” are or what “our culture” is. For the main part I can’t see what would be gained by such a conspiracy. Money? Doubt it – Christmas is boomtime for the retail sector. Perhaps it’s some spiritual attack? Except the stuff that is allegedly being “eroded” is also denounced as part of the “increasing secularisation” of Christmas. If a child is unable to buy crackers does that mean said child and their family will not attend a church?

The truth is that Christmas has only once been banned in this country – during the only time we were not a monarchy when Oliver Cromwell was in charge. Winterfest, Winterval et al were marketing terms used to describe a three month long period between November and January. I often find the same people who complain about the use of “Winterfest” also moan that “Christmas is starting earlier and earlier these days”. Decorations are usually not allowed because they were draped across a staircase or something or worse it turns out to be just a piece of tinsel was moved away from a lightbulb. I’m sure the same people who moan about this would moan if their workplace caught fire or they tripped and fell down the stairs. And I for one am quite happy that twee “Christmas” songs are not played (as opposed to “banned”) on the radio – regardless of who the singer is. I like Cliff as a person and he’s made some good songs but it doesn’t give him a right to being number 1 in the big marketing exercise that is the charts. Again there is some irony that those who moan about the over-commercialisation of Christmas will also complain that a musician’s attempt to sell lots of records on the back of the season is being foiled. Even if the record is for charity being the Christmas number one instead of three weeks at number two will not necessarily raise more funds for it.

Pot, kettle, black

Yeah I know I’m moaning as much as the people I’m moaning about but this constant “Out culture is being eroded” and “It’s a nanny state” rubbish gets me down. Here’s some advice – if someone refuses to sell your child some Christmas Crackers or asks you to move some tinsel or suggests your oh-so-funny musical “Santa” hat with the flashing lights is inappropriate for the workplace: don’t go to the papers, just buy the crackers yourself, move the tinsel and leave the hat at home. Cries of jobsworth-killjoys could easily be aimed at those who insist everyone must enjoy Christmas the same way they do – however that is. How about we focus on the stuff we enjoy, ignore the stuff we don’t and get on with more important stuff (he says after writing a blog post about it all – no lost sense of irony here you know!)

Bottom line? If you feel like Christmas is not what you wanted or expected it to be then in the words of Jean-Luc Picard it’s up to you to make it so.

Twitter - no longer the place to make jokes that could be taken the wrong way it seems

What a ridiculous state the UK has become. By now many of you will now of poor Paul Chamber’s plight. Back in Snow-laden January he tweeted a message which read

“Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your s**t together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!”

He was arrested, prosecuted, convicted and fined for that. He claims he was joking our of frustration and it would be hard not to realise that he didn’t really mean to act upon it. The police officers involved branded the tweet a “foolish comment posted on Twitter as a joke for only his close friends to see”. But yesterday not only did Paul lose his appeal against the conviction but his costs were raised to over £2000. The judge felt that given the current climate in the UK, the tweet could be taken as a real threat. Well clearly it wasn’t by the police but he was prosecuted anyway. Surely if ever there was a case for somebody to be rapped on the knuckles, apologise and not do it again, this was it.

Coincidentally another debacle unfolded on Twitter on the same day as Chambers lost his appeal. In a BBC Radio interview Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a muslim writer, said that she felt it hypocritical for British politicians to lecture countries like Iran on human rights issues such as stoning given the Iraq war and the treatment of prisoners by British soldiers. Gavin Compton , a local government councillor in Birmingham then tweeted

; “Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death. I shan’t tell Amnesty if you don’t. It would be a blessing, really.”

Following complaints he was then arrested and like Paul Chambers he claims it was a joke.

Much has been made of these two tweets and the similarity between the two cases. Whilst I would say it seems likely that neither person wanted the action they described to happen I would say that the major difference between them is that Paul Chambers’ “threat” was that he himself would carry it out. Gavin Compton was asking for somebody else to carry it out. Again I will say that I don’t believe either of them actually wanted the result they were speaking of but it does strike me that Mr Compton, a councillor and a barrister, should have known a lot better. Maybe Mr Chambers should have too but given the publicity over that case and the fact that Gavin Compton was writing about a single person it does strike me as odd that it did not occur to Compton that it could lead to his arrest. Personally I think they are both not to be taken seriously and that is obvious but of the two it seems to me that Compton’s is the more likely to cause harm because another person of questionable political leanings and perhaps somewhat less stable could carry out what appears to be a request.

The real problem is that now that Chambers has been convicted and his appeal has been turned down, the UK justice system has set a precedent. Whereas Compton might have been able to confess to lack of forethought and got away with some public berating, now he must be prosecuted if only on the grounds that taken out of context his tweet has the greater threat level to life. It’s extremely sad that what could be perceived as a terrorist act and a death threat respectively could not have been given greater thought before posting. But it is ridiculous that this is the kind of timewasting nonsense that makes it to a courtroom. In both cases it’s likely an example either is or will be made of the “perpetrator” but I have to ask: was one required at all?

Those who know me will know I care about freedom – a lot. I use it in my work and I have written about it here. I am particularly concerned about freedom within the Church. For too long now there has been a growing trend of possessiveness within the Church. Driven by some kind of mimicry of the way some businesses act, Christians have been placing higher and higher importance on protecting “their” works. The collective name for these works is the mythical Intellectual Property. Mythical because try as I might I can find nobody giving a legal definition of what it is or what its limits are. So we have draconian copy protection and threatening remarks placed upon Christian music and resources – resources which as I have said before surely should be permitted to be used to equip and encourage the rest of the family? In an earlier post I said:

It seems frankly daft that those who are using God given gifts to create wonderful ways to give him glory would seriously want to sue a fellow Christian for making an additional photocopy

Albert Einstein said “There are only two things that are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I am not that sure about the former”. It seems Einstein was right and my remark that it would be daft for Christians to sue each other over such things did not mean it wouldn’t happen. I have recently heard about two incidents where a Christian group is suing (or threatening to sue) another one because they feel their “Intellectual Property” is being infringed.

Absence of grace

How about practising what you preach?

The first one is the SteelRoots debacle. A UK Christian youth ministry has been threatened with legal action by a large US Christian media company – “The Inspirational Network Inc” (INI). Their crime? They use the same name for their ministry as one of the media company’s “ministries”. Looking close shows that other than Christian and Youth there is very little similarity between the two. The chances of somebody mistaking the UK ministry (which is a combined effort from local churches and Christian groups) for a US-based (e.g. not a UK company) TV station is pretty remote. And yet the big company has seen fit to bully the smaller ground-level ministry because they have the same name. INI claim that their broadcasts are sent to “98% of all UK households”. I call cowdung. Most estimates say there are around 22million households in the uk. At the best estimate there are around 10 million Sky customers. Take off some for pubs, clubs etc. add some for cable customers and you’ll end up with around the same number so that would be about 50% of UK households.

But facts and figures aside, this is a ridiculous situation! As ChurchSofa has said: what if no two churches were allowed to have the same name. SteelRoots UK has not sought to “trade” off the name, reputation or any other part of it’s US namesake and yet the threats have been sent. This action is entirely lacking in grace, love and adds nothing to the already tarnished name of Christianity. I bet nobody will be saying “See how these Christians love each other” upon reading this! In a final twist the SteelRoots·com website has a set of devotionals, one of the ones for today has this memorable quote:

“What if everyone around you watched your life to see if you were really a Christian? Would you pass the test? What if our actions can mean the difference in someone’s decision for Christ?…” (emphasis mine)

What indeed.

Absence of grace 2

The second incident has grabbed fewer headlines but is no less ridiculous or infuriating. A UK church published a poem it thought might encourage their members in the church newsletter. A copy of the newsletter was put on their website. It turns out the poem – which I believe was out of copyright in the UK – was under copyright in the US. Yep, you guessed it: the church received an e-mail from the US lawyers representing the “owner” of the poem. Their demands were simple – “You used our client’s poem, please pay us £7000″. SEVEN GRAND?! What happened to giving them a ring? What happened to asking them to put some kind of attribution? But again as I have said before what was the purpose of the poem? Was it to show off how clever the poet was, or was it to show how good God is. Maybe it was meant to encourage other Christians? Again this is a prime example of Christians behaving like the rest of the world – and worse than that – like the worst aspects of the rest of the world! If you use something from this site ( and you are welcome to in a non-commercial way ) and I want you to stop, then isn’t it better for me to call you, send a friendly “would you mind not doing that?” e-mail than a threat of “pay up or else”? And if you question why I restrict commercial use of my work, it’s simply because I offer this stuff for free and I don’t want anyone else being charged for it. The Creative Commons licence I use means that should someone want to use it in a commercial venture they need only ask (but I might still say no). Non-commercial uses nned not ask and can just go ahead. So go ahead use my cartoons and artwork and my poems (such that they are) in your church bulletins and projection systems. As long as you are not charging people for the work or to get in, I’m fine with it.

Do not write in anger

You may have guessed that I am angry about this. I was angry when I heard about last night but following my own advice I decided not to write about it then. I slept on it so I could write with a clear head. The trouble is these incidents and ones like them are ungracious, bullying and just plain wrong. As someone once said if the law supports this behaviour then the law is an ass! So although I have a clearer head I am still angry. If I wait until I am no longer angry I won’t be writing this piece.

I’ve been saying this for many years and now I am glad I am not alone: ENOUGH! What the heck are we doing to each other here? Christians caring more about some misplaced sense of “loss of earnings” and infringement of “intellectual property rights” than they do about loving each other and letting God have the glory. Why can’t Christians share any more? I’m pretty sure that Sundays Schools and youthwork programmes around the world are still teaching that sharing is good. As a father and a youthworker I know I try to pass that lessons onto those who are part of my responsibility and I am guessing I am not alone. So why are we teaching that if our actions don’t show it?

I don’t like to rant about others behaviour without offering suggestions for alternatives but I won’t waste space repeating myself here. Go read about the m108 project,  my proposal for a way for Christians to free themselves of these proprietary mammon-oriented principles.

As a closing remark. I once heard a sermon where the preacher asked how many people owned a TV, more than 10 CDs, more than two pairs of jeans, a car, a fridge etc. After the show of hands he turned and said “So you all own all this stuff? That’s odd because in my Bible it says ‘The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it’”. That’s the point here. This stuff, the poems, the names we use, the music, the artwork is not as precious as we think. Is “our” work so much better than God’s? He gave it to us to share, enjoy and look after. We slap copyright on it and threaten each other if we dare use the same name or share something that blessed us. To sort of borrow a phrase from the Daily Mail (of all places): this is Christianity gone mad and it has to stop! The only way it will is if we stop it.