Crimperman.org

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.

My father would hand-pump air into one of these to keep his baby brother alive

There was quite a bit of stuff on TV over the weekend regarding the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain. Included in any tale of the Battle of Britain will always be The Blitz and these were no different.

Watching these programmes reminded me of my father. Growing up in Islington (which was not the trendy place it is now) he was 5 when Britain declared war on Germany. By 6 he had been evacuated to Whitney in Oxfordshire where he stayed on a farm but – like many – found his hosts not to be as warm as his own parents. In 1941 my grandmother gave birth to my twin uncles so my Dad, aged 7 was brought back to London (at the height of the Blitz) to help her. He has told me of his nights sat in an air-raid shelter wearing his “mickey mouse” gas mask and pumping air by hand into one of his baby brother’s gas mask (see image right) while my grandmother did the same with the other one. I have a son about the age he was then and the idea of my boy going through what my dad went through is horrendous.

A while back (I think it may have been during the 60th anniversay of the Blitz) the Imperial War Museum¹ in London had a Blitz exhibition. I accomanpied my Dad hoping he could give me some first-hand references to the displays and features. He did. One of the exhibits was a “Blitz Experience”. You walked into a mock anderson air-raid shelter and then sat there whilst a simulated air-raid took place. The narrative was interesting and to me it looked like they had taken a lot of care over the authenticity. When the “bombs” dropped you could “hear” the planes and “feel” them exploding in the surrounding area as the shelter shook. During much of this time the lights were either out or very low. Thinking the experience was quite good I turned to my Dad for an opinion on just how realistic it was. My Dad was a white as a sheet and staring ahead. I touched his arm and he looked at me with a tear in his eye and simply said “That was a bit too close for comfort”.

At that moment, more than any other I began to appreciate what those who remember the Blitz went through and why they rarely speak of all of it. I imagine it is similar for the pilots of the RAF and all those who served, fought and just lived through those times. Later my Dad would tell me how it brought back memories of the time and of those who went through it with him but are no longer around. At that moment also my respect for my dad grew at an exponential rate and still does.

So here’s to my Dad and the thousands like him who lived through times that I couldn’t possibly imagine living through. They didn’t ask to or want to and I doubt they would want to do it again but they did and had they not: how different would the world be now? While we’re at it here also is to those around the world who live through such times today and here’s hoping we can finally get around to making sure nobody else has to.

¹ If you live in London and have never visited the Imperial War Museum, I recommend it. Far from being a celebration and glorification of military might as the name might suggest it takes a sensitive, respectful and careful look all the aspects of war, the people involved, the tragedy and the reasons behind it. I am yet to go and not come away even more convinced that war must end.

Grown-ups, we make our own path
Using our own needs as a compass
Indiscretion, excused with a toss of the head
Leave the consequences for now
Time’s aplenty
Yes, there’s time to reflect later

And yet the day comes
No excuses delaying it
Debt is a patient builder

Yesterday’s fun on today’s bill
Every day it’s the same, will we ever learn
Time to settle accounts

Fallen, we turn to our one Hope
Revelation lifting our eyes beyond the debt
Every wrong, every fear. Our account is settled
Every time, it gets paid. Gone forever

We don’t deserve it

Document Freedom day - because freedom counts

A week or so back I announced the m108 project aimed at getting some freedom into Church resources. The Church needs to stop the trend of restricting what we permit God’s family to do with the stuff he has inspired us to make so we can worship, learn about and fellowship with Him.

Those who know me will know I care about freedom, be it free software or free culture. Today (31 March 2010) is Document Freedom day. Across the globe people who care about freedom will be marching, speaking and even eating cake with the aim of promoting free(dom) documents. In a nutshell, document freedom is about formats and standards. It’s no good giving freedom in use of a work if the file format prohibits that very freedom by forcing people to buy a particular piece of software.

This fits directly in with m108 if you ask me. Given that we are seeking to bring back sharing within the body of Christ (and I don’t mean “sharing” as a euphemism for evangelism here) it makes sense to me that the file format is important. Suppose I share with you a song I have written. I give you access to the lyrics, the recording and the music. Now suppose the lyrics are in (say) Microsoft Word format. Aren’t I forcing you to get a copy of Word to use it? Even if you use one of the great alternative programs that can read Word documents (like OpenOffice.org) ; what happens iif/when Microsoft change the format? Unless I convert it as we go, my lyrics may be left behind, orphaned in a world of upgrades. Similarly with the recording. MP3 is the ubiquitous format for such files – to the point where it’s fast becoming a label for any digital audio file regardless of the format (bit like biro or hoover). But MP3 is covered by patents and is owned by a corporation. Right now they are quite relaxed on how they let people use “their” format, insisting only on payment if you make a program that creates or plays MP3s. But what happens if they decide to increase their fee? What happens if they start to get a bit more greedy, then a bit more. We’ll be stuck, we’ll be held to ransom. There are open formats for media files, such as OGG, FLAC etc. and providing media in those will ensure longevity of the freedom we want to share.

I’m not going to insist that those contributing to m108 (or whatever it finally gets called) use only open document formats and standards – that’s why I’m posting this here and not on m108. For a start I’m not aware of an open format for music scores but then I know little of such things anyway. I do think it’s vital that open formats be encouraged within the project. If only to ensure the freedom and sharing we are trying to engender doesn’t get held to ransom by the corporate greed we are trying to avoid within the Church.

When the Church invented printing it didn’t hold onto its invention but shared it and the technology used within it. It changed the world forever. The Church may not be inventing this technology or the open standards within it but we should be equally ready to use it to change the world.

Brief version: Frustrated by restrictive licencing stifling what should be free worship and resources, I am looking for like-minded Christians to discuss a proposal to produce an on-line directory of Christian resources which have freedom built in. See http://m108.crimperman.org for further details and to join the discussion

Okay that’s a bit of a grand title but hopefully it got your attention. As you may know I am a keen advocate of freedom in Christian resources such as music, art and writing. This site is covered by a licence which explicitly permits you to redistribute the material as long as you don’t stop others doing so. I’ve also written about the subject of freedom in the way Christian resources are provided and used in two previous posts.

• Christianity that doesn’t spread from the fridge
• Taking risks and freeing up worship

The latter invoked a bit of discussion, some on here and some with friends offline and I would like to thank all those who have discussed this already for giving me a bit of a kickstart.

The m108 galaxy ( image from http://www.astr.ua.edu/gifimages/m108.html )

Copyright and restrictive licencing of resources is a reasonably hot topic right now and the Church has not escaped. I have noted a shift in support for what is known in some circles and the open content movement. Others have waxed more lyrically than I could on the subject but in generally it involves content creators moving away from draconian imposition and towards freeing up users to use their content including sharing it with others and remixing it. The most popular of these efforts with regard media and arts is the Creative Commons – which is what I use here.  In the Church as I have already written 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. Churches and church  leaders are finding themselves navigating through a minefield of legal requirements which prohibit the free movement and growth of the Church itself.

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

To a certain extent you can’t blame the musicians, writers and artists because they are following the only pattern they see – that of big business. We are in a world where music and words, art and poetry have become “Intellectual Property” (a term which still does not have a proper legal definition in most places). IP is something which we treat as precious, as some kind of golden goose. We dare not let it go in case it never comes back. And yet this does not sit well with the Jesus I know, who turned the tables on those making a profit from worship in the temple, who said “Freely you have received, freely give.” or as the Message puts it …

You have been treated generously, so live generously. _{Matt 10:8 MSG}

The next step

But what if we do let it go? What if we say “copy it just don’t sell it”? I fear that if we continue down this path the Church, even more than greater society, may stifle itself in a fog of restrictions and fear. As Christians we want to do the right thing so I am not advocating we start copying that which we are not permitted to. I am suggesting that rather than break the law we use it. I am suggesting that we, content creators, free the users of the content we have made so they can glorify God with it.

But how do we do that? What form should it take? What about…?

Exactly. before we take the “next step” we need to make sure we know where we are headed. For that purpose I have set up a discussion forum to discuss this proposition. Specifically to discuss a web-based directory of Christian resources with freedom built in. For now I have called this project The m108 project as an homage to Matthew 10:8 but even the name of the project is up for discussion. I have since discovered that m108 is the name given to a galaxy within the constellation of Ursa Major (The great bear). This galaxy (pictured above) is described as having “no noticeably strong center, being a motley collection of features often referred to, in classic understatement, as very dusty”. I like that.

So if you are a user, maker or observer of Christian music, art, literature, liturgy, youth and children’s work, video – pretty much anything which the Church at large could use to glorify God, please hop over to http://m108.crimperman.org . I know this is a cliche but this time your opinion, your view really counts. This project won’t take off or grow unless it represents us, God’s family. Feel free to comment here but if you have a view or question on this matter please consider contributing your comments at the m108 site. Right now we need discussion, no more.

Honestly I have no idea if this is going to work but I feel that we have to at least try. It’s not enough for me to do this alone and while it is small I take comfort from the fact that when Jesus fed thousands from a packed lunch he got his disciples to share it around and he did a great deal with a small amount. Taking part will not tag you as involved, I won’t chase you up to do more later but I would say that in my experience God might.  But surely that’s not a bad thing is it?

Way back in 2005 (was it really that long ago) I posted a piece on my blog entitled “Christianity that doesn’t spread from the fridge“.

In that I explained how the use of copyright can stifle the spread of worship and faith among churches. I also focused on the ridiculous situation that means the vehicles of worship and relationship that God has inspired his people to create are locked down and used as revenue generators rather than faith-builders. If you read this blog long enough you’ll soon discover I am a fan of freedom and for creative works (including the text and artwork on this site) I encourage the use of Creative Commons licences. My spreading from the fridge piece ended with a rallying cry:

So here’s a wake up call to the Christian publishers, Bible houses, Song composers and authors of today: Think about why you do that work? If it’s for God’s glory and the furtherance of God’s kingdom then are you not restricting the very purpose of that work by restricting the fair usage of it by others? Christianity is about risks – take one with the work you do for him and see if God likes it.

I’m happy to say that I’ve found somebody who has. I’m not for a second claiming that they did because of anything I wrote – I doubt they’ve even heard of me – but when I found the music it blessed me. Yes I know that can be a cheesy phrase, all too often bandied around but in this instance it’s the most accurate description I can use.

Take Me In | live worship | freely download | freely use

Murray Bunton of Australia has produced and made available a live album of great original songs and made them available under a Creative Commons licence. I’m never any good at music reviews so I’m not going to try and explain where these songs fit in the spectrum of Christian music. What I will say is that the songs on this album are of a high quality – in terms of the writing, performance and production.

Murray has also made the recordings, the lyrics  and the guitar chord sheets freely available under the same licence as my artwork: the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share-Alike licence. This means you can use them, copy them, pass them around as much as you like without charge or penalty. You just can’t sell them or use them in a comercial venture. Seems entirely fair to me and I applaud and thank Murray for this step. Others will be greatly encouraged by the music and further still by the decision to allow the works to be freely used in their intended purpose.

If you produce or know of other Christian worship songs under a Creative Commons licence, feel free to post a link as a comment here.

In New Zealand a new law is about to be passed. Under Section92A, any internet user can have their connection cut off if the givernment suspects they’ve been infringing copyright. No proof, no evidence, no day in court. It becomes law on Feb 28.

Across the web people are mounting a blackout campaign – Twitter, Facebook and other profile pictures are being replaced by a black square and bloggers are getting in on the act as well.

I, for one, am glad to join their ranks. Lot’s of people infringe copyright and it’s wrong but to be found guilty by accusation is worse. As a Christian, a web-user and a producer of artwork – I find this law disturbing and immoral.

I have long been a fan of the open source philosophy along with others like Creative Commons. I like the way they allow you to distribute things in a fair manner whilst still protecting the author or the work to the extent they prefer. Much better than the restrictive and prohibitive copyright licences used so often today. This blog is distributed under a Creative commons licence. Basically you can distribute it without penalty or charge as long as you give others the same rights.

Recently it struck me how much the Christian viewpoint is left unhindered by such licences and how much it is hindered and impinged by copyright and publishing law.

Take for example a worship or praise song. In days of old, hymns were written by men and women for the use of all, without penalty, and the for the glory of God. They may have been published or distributed by word of mouth but rarely was there a restriction on their use. In short the aim of the author was to glorify God and they saw no reduction of this aim by allowing as many people as possible to freely and fairly use their works to this end.

These days? Somebody writes a song, releases it on a CD and then releases the sheet music under a copyright licence. Suddenly churches using these songs – to glorify God – are left with a minefield of legalese to overcome so that they are not “robbing” the author of their livlihood. Payments to copyright agencies (aren’t these just protection rackets?) abound on the off chance that you may use a song that was (shock) written to be used in that way.

In short, in 1850 somebody could write a hymn and churches could use it. Somebody hearing it in one church could introduce it to another without breaking the law. These days, you hear a song in one church, ask the musician for a copy of the sheet music and, if it is handed over, both of you are breaking the law. Result? songs that are written to worship God are not allowed to do so because it would impinge on the “rights” of the author. The same author who wrote the song to worship God! What is really meant by “rights” is “income”. If no copyright is placed on the music, or so the philosiphy goes, then you and I could distribute and sell said music and rob the author of their livlihood from selling the stuff they’ve written.

Imagine if people like Hillsongs, Survivor and Kingsway published their sheet music under a Creative Commons licence? You would be freely allowed to copy and distribute the sheet music but not sell it. So the song is used for it’s intended purpose (worshipping God) by many more churches, none of whom are breaking the law by doing so, none of whom are paying a licence fee just because they used a song in it’s indended purpose. But only the original composer/publisher may sell the song. This means a CD with it on continues to earn the composer a royalty.

Transpose this to Bibles. There are some great modern translation of the Bible. Some of you may not like them, everyone has their favourites. There are also some great computer programs to help us read and study the bible. But unless someone pays a licence then this software often only includes public domain translations like the KJV. “But if you want to use it you should pay for it” you say. fair enough but let’s take the New Century Version for example (the same applies to other versions).

I own two paper copies of the NCV in differing sizes and with differing extra bits. I also own a Palm Pilot PDA with some bible software on it. In order for me to read the NCV on my Palm Pilot I must buy another version of it. Okay so far I’m with this, seems fair. But I also own desktop bible software which doesn’t come with the NCV. I think it’s fair usage for me to want to use the same elcetronic version in two programs but only one at a time. I’ve bought the Bible (a few times now) – the translators, publishers et al have been rewarded for their work – I just want to use it on two programs. To me, this is like reading it in two different chairs. But no I would have to either wait for the software company to bring out an NCV module and then buy that one or use differing translations in differing places.

Again, suppose I have an electronic copy of a bible. I come across a friend who cannot afford one but would like one. Or I come across a friend who – not being a Christian – would like to look into the Bible on a try before you buy-in basis. I could tell both these people to go buy a modern version but doesn’t it come across as more gracious for me to give them a copy? Wouldn’t it more in the spirit of Christ for me to not expect them to pay? “So give them yours” you say – can’t it’s licenced to me and not transferrable. “Buy them one” you say – can’t because it’s no longer available for their operating system. “Copy yours – the publisher won’t mind” – no they may not mind (mostly because they wouldn’t know) but it is still illegal to do this – what does that tell my friends?

If digital versions of Bibles used Creative Commons licences then I could freely use it on any software I liked and pass it to friends for their use. At the same time I would not be allowed to sell it – only if the publisher authorises it.

“So” you’re thinking, “if the publishers use Creative Commons licences and allow you to give their stuff away – why would anyone buy them? They still lose money.”

Well, no they don’t the paper versions are still under copyright law. The recorded version of songs are also still under copyright and publishing law. And in fact if someone is given an electronic copy of a particular translation and uses it regularly, it would make sense to assume that when it comes to buying their own paper version they would plumb for the same translation.

Some authors have found that when they published their books under a Creative commons licence electronically, sales of the paper version have not dropped but been enhanced by the free distribution of the electronic one.

The point

Okay so here’s the point of this post…

It strikes me that a major aim of Christians is to become more Christ like. This would be the Christ who said “Freely you have received, freely give” then and who turned the tables on the temple sellers for making unfair profits from those who simply wanted to follow God’s way?

Where would Christianity be today if the gospel and epistle writers had prohibited copying and distribution of their writings without royalty payments? Where would we be today had people like John Wycliffe and William Tyndale had slapped copyright all over their translation or if Charles Wesley or John Newton had done the same with their hymns?

What would have happened? Christianity would have died along with the hope of humankind that it brings.

Perhaps you’re thinking that those people weren’t in this age, they didn’t need to be have been concerned about the “wrong” sorts of people corrupting their work from it’s purpose. Perhaps it’s true that they didn’t have to earn a living from their works. Perhaps these are true but most of them worked in conditions far less privielged than we do today. Most of them could have been killed if the “wrong” people got their hands on their work. Yet they did that work and they did for the higher purpose we all serve – the Kingdom of heaven.

So here’s a wake up call to the Christian publishers, Bible houses, Song composers and authors of today:

Think about why you do that work? If it’s for God’s glory and the furtherance of the God’s kingdom then are you not restricting the very purpose of that work by restricting the fair usage of it by others?

Christianity is about risks – take one with the work you do for him and see if God likes it.

There’s been an interesting post on Slashdot (a regular visit for me) recently regarding the use of Blogs as spam.

When somebody commented that they like to see a Google feature that filters out blogs a discussion ensued which included some comments about how asking people not to blog was against human rights (free speech) and also the First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights.

The US Bill of Rights aside (like much of the web I am not American and have never read it so I can’t really comment) as a human and a (very occasional) blogger I thought I’d comment on the idea that blogging is a human right (that of free speech).

Much seems to be made and held of certain (to use the US term) “inalienable human rights” we aapprently have. These I am lead to believe include things like the right to life, freedom from tyranny, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of religion (or not accordingly).

The problem I see with this idea of human rights is that the idea is worthless on it’s own. I can bang on to my heart’s content about my freedom to life but if someone runs me over my “right” is worthless. Okay so governments can protect against such a thing but only in theory. They could ensconce in law the right to life and punish my killer but that would not actually ensure I get my right to life.

Now if we talk about Human Responsibility in place of human rights then it starts to make more sense.

• Instead of a right to life we have the responsibility to protect and care for it.
• Instead of a right to freedom we have the responsibility to allow it.
• Instead of a right to freedom of speech we have the responsibility to listen and engage in dialogue.
• Instead of a right to freedom of religion we have the responsibility to respect other’s faith (or deliberate absence thereof) but live out our own.
• Instead of a right to blog we have a responsibility to blog respectfully.
• Instead of a right to have blogs excluded from our searches, we have a responsibility to exclude them (thus implying the search engines have a responsibility to give us this functionality, much as Google does with it’s safe-searching facility now).

And human responsibility can be legislated for just as much (if not better than) human rights. Murder is the deliberate choice to avoid the responsibility to protect and care for life.

I am a Christian and throughout my life I have heard that the Bible promotes human rights. This is generally because of passages that speak of social care for the ostracised. But by my reading those passages refer to a responsibility on the part of those that have to aid those that have not. There is no mention of a widow or orphan’s right to be looked after. There is mention of the responsibility of the rest of us to do so. There is no mention of a mugged man’s right to a Samaritan’s aid, there is mention of the responsibility of us all to help those in need.

Update March 11 2012: There’s been some fuss in parts of the UK press today because the UK Government have declared Christians have no right to wear a cross openly at work. To this I would say that we Christians need to stop thinking of our rights altogether. In this instance instead of a right to wear a cross at work we have a responsibility to show our faith by our fruit and not our choice of jewelry.

One final big difference between human rights and human responsibility. It is possible to infringe on other people’s human rights without realising or meaning it. It is almost impossible to ignore your human responsibility by accident – you have to mean to do so.