A reminder ...

[OzSpen]

My oh my, and all this time I've been putting money in Rupert Murdoch's pocket and I never knew it.

However, if News Corp wants to retain its evangelical clientele with Zondervan, then Zondervan will need to continue to publish significant academic and popular level evangelical Christian books. If News Corp wants to publish the liberal religion agenda, it has HarperCollins (HarperOne) for that. And it is doing it in droves with, say, John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar. Many of his books were published by HarperSanFrancisco.

 

[jasonc]

The Fox network is owned by News Corp and that includes more than just Fox News. It's the whole Fox organisation. It's a monstrous media conglomerate.

I know that.wsj as well.

 

[Deborah13]

According to this article from The Wall Street Journal in 2011, 'HarperCollins Acquires Religion Book Publisher', http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203707504577010283227448426, HarperCollins (News Corp) bought all of Thomas Nelson. Also, The Wall Street Journal is owned by News Corp.

Corp. having an insatiable appetite.

 

[jasonc]

I cant get into that as well Im paid to throw the wsj.I miss the local reporting.

 

[john darling]

However, the issue is deliberately stealing somebody else's material without giving credit - plagiarism

I'm not sure why you call it stealing. Is it "sermon central" policy that pastors must give credit to "sermon central" or it will be considered stealing?

You said you talked to your pastor and after that he agreed to start giving credit for sermons which he does not personally compose. Did he do that because you said that you thought it was stealing? Do you think he was hoping to give the impression that the sermon's were his and thereby impress the congregation? Did he admit to that and if so did he give an apology to you or to anyone else? Was it only you two invovled in that meeting or was anyone else there?

I'd be VERY curious to hear his comments on what you've shared here with us. Can you ask him to comment here so we can get a fuller picture of the issues? I realize that probably sounds like a strange request but I hope you will see that it is not. You've made some fairly strong conclusions based on another person's behavior. We can't really know how valid those conclusions are without that person's input.

 

[Deborah13]

I'm not sure why you call it stealing. Is it "sermon central" policy that pastors must give credit to "sermon central" or it will be considered stealing?

Personally, I don't see what difference that makes, it is a moral issue.
If just one person said to this pastor that his sermon was inspiring, etc. He should speak up and give credit to the author of the sermon. He is being rewarded for words that he did not write. He is being rewarded for another man's labor.

When I was a supervisor and one of the people I supervised, approached me with an idea and I agreed with them, if there needed to be a major change, I would present it to the controller or GM for their approval. When I did that, I told them the name of the person who the idea had originated with and that I agreed with them. That way they received the credit due them and so did I. If I had not done that, I would have been robbing them of the credit due to them and keeping it all for myself. That is stealing, no matter how I look at it, and not just stealing, but bearing false witness and defrauding (to deprive).
Mar 10:19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

 

[Butch5]

We have received a number of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) complaints about their copyrighted information appearing on CF. Please refer to the Terms of Service #2.6 Use this announcement as a reminder to respect copyrighted material. Lawsuits have been started for less.

Good practice is to use one paragraph in your post, credit the source and provide a link. A link must be provided if the source is online, and full credit must be given if it is not available.

IMPORTANT - Many of the complaints have been from BibleStudy.org who do not wish any of their content be copied. Please refrain from doing this for BibleStudy.org. Instead, simply provide a link.
A reminder, from Terms of Service #2.6:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/731/1/

It's pretty sad. I guess they forgot that Jesus said, "freely you have received freely give." However, it's not that surprising, I think many Christians put money over God. Just look at the price of some of the Christian reference works. Hundreds of dollars for a single book that cost a few dollars to produce. I realize it costs money to produce these works and a profit needs to be made, but, I think some of these publishers get a little absurd. What's ironic is that they charge so much and people pay some much for these works and yet they contain so much misinformation. It's sad.

 

[Deborah13]

It's pretty sad. I guess they forgot that Jesus said, "freely you have received freely give." However, it's not that surprising, I think many Christians put money over God. Just look at the price of some of the Christian reference works. Hundreds of dollars for a single book that cost a few dollars to produce. I realize it costs money to produce these works and a profit needs to be made, but, I think some of these publishers get a little absurd. What's ironic is that they charge so much and people pay some much for these works and yet they contain so much misinformation. It's sad.

This is not directed at your post Butch, I'm just bouncing off of it.

I had gotten the wrong impression about BibleStudy.org's owners until I read their Terms of Service and I don't think they are being unreasonable. There is a catch though, that I had never seen on any other site.
Here's the catch with BibleStudy.org.....this is from their Terms of Service page.
No electronic distribution in whole or major parts.....
Limited use of 20% or less of any particular page.....
AND
the statement....."Courtesy of the Bible Study Web Site at BibleStudy.org" in bold print, close to the quote.
And
a link directly to their site.

It's the statement "Courtesy of....." that is different than any other site that I have ever used.
So they really aren't being unreasonable from my point of view. At the same time I will not quote from their site because I might not get this statement exactly right or forget it and that generates a complaint against this site.
There are plenty of other good sites to use.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not sure why you call it stealing. Is it "sermon central" policy that pastors must give credit to "sermon central" or it will be considered stealing?

You said you talked to your pastor and after that he agreed to start giving credit for sermons which he does not personally compose. Did he do that because you said that you thought it was stealing? Do you think he was hoping to give the impression that the sermon's were his and thereby impress the congregation? Did he admit to that and if so did he give an apology to you or to anyone else? Was it only you two invovled in that meeting or was anyone else there?

I'd be VERY curious to hear his comments on what you've shared here with us. Can you ask him to comment here so we can get a fuller picture of the issues? I realize that probably sounds like a strange request but I hope you will see that it is not. You've made some fairly strong conclusions based on another person's behavior. We can't really know how valid those conclusions are without that person's input.

John,

[Violation of ToS 2.4. We can be nice.]

The issue is one of ethics. If anyone uses another's material without giving credit, it is theft - plain and simple. Any preacher who steals another's sermon and uses as his/her own, is committing plagiarism. It is a moral issue. [Again]

I see it happening with some on this forum when they cite material from another website and do not give the 'source' as credit, whether that be a URL or a full bibliographic reference.
NOTE: Please use the Talk With The Staff forum or report post option to report violations of copyright.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Personally, I don't see what difference that makes, it is a moral issue.
If just one person said to this pastor that his sermon was inspiring, etc. He should speak up and give credit to the author of the sermon. He is being rewarded for words that he did not write. He is being rewarded for another man's labor.

When I was a supervisor and one of the people I supervised, approached me with an idea and I agreed with them, if there needed to be a major change, I would present it to the controller or GM for their approval. When I did that, I told them the name of the person who the idea had originated with and that I agreed with them. That way they received the credit due them and so did I. If I had not done that, I would have been robbing them of the credit due to them and keeping it all for myself. That is stealing, no matter how I look at it, and not just stealing, but bearing false witness and defrauding (to deprive).
Mar 10:19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

Deborah,

That is very well said. Thank you very much for labelling this for what it is - a moral issue.

Oxford Dictionaries gives this definition of plagiarism, 'The practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own'. They provide these as synonyms: 'copying, infringement of copyright, piracy, theft, stealing, poaching, appropriation informal cribbing'.

Oz

 

[jasonc]

I try not to do that. If I quote a person or source. I will hyperlink its original source or name the person if they said it. I have quoted persons that I know.

 

[OzSpen]

I try not to do that. If I quote a person or source. I will hyperlink its original source or name the person if they said it. I have quoted persons that I know.

Jason,

Thanks for supporting this anti-plagiarism need in the Christian community. Using the hyperlink is fine as long as it refers to the original source of the quote. You have no idea how many times I tried to trace a quote from an author on the Internet that is only cited as from an author and does not give the exact book and page number. Web pages are citing others who don't give the exact location of the quote.

It is not enough to name the person who made the quote. We need the author, name of the book, publisher and page number. Of course, some of these today are located by authors with articles on the www, so URLs are needed.

Oz

 

[jasonc]

most my friends aren't authors. if I quote my pastor its usually something he said during a sermon or says a lot. he has written no books.

 

[Butch5]

This is not directed at your post Butch, I'm just bouncing off of it.

I had gotten the wrong impression about BibleStudy.org's owners until I read their Terms of Service and I don't think they are being unreasonable. There is a catch though, that I had never seen on any other site.
Here's the catch with BibleStudy.org.....this is from their Terms of Service page.
No electronic distribution in whole or major parts.....
Limited use of 20% or less of any particular page.....
AND
the statement....."Courtesy of the Bible Study Web Site at BibleStudy.org" in bold print, close to the quote.
And
a link directly to their site.

It's the statement "Courtesy of....." that is different than any other site that I have ever used.
So they really aren't being unreasonable from my point of view. At the same time I will not quote from their site because I might not get this statement exactly right or forget it and that generates a complaint against this site.
There are plenty of other good sites to use.

Hi Deb,

I wasn't referring to any particular site. I Just think there's a problem when Christian publishers charge an exorbitant amount for Christian works. Maybe if they didn't charge so much more Christians could afford to do their own research and we'd have less disagreement. I find it very troubling that Christianity has become a monetary resource. As I said, I realize that there are costs and a profit needs to be made but there are many who raking in the bucks way beyond what I would consider reasonable. I thank God that some of the very best teaching I have seen is free so that anyone can study it. There are people who suffer financial hardship to do this. They rely on God to meet their needs so that they can disciple others.

Also, there are copyright laws that allow the usage of a certain amount of copyrighted info for educational purposes.

 

[john darling]

Personally, I don't see what difference that makes, it is a moral issue.
If just one person said to this pastor that his sermon was inspiring, etc. He should speak up and give credit to the author of the sermon. He is being rewarded for words that he did not write. He is being rewarded for another man's labor.

Personally, I don't see what difference that makes, it is a moral issue.
If just one person said to this pastor that his sermon was inspiring, etc. He should speak up and give credit to the author of the sermon.

Sure, I agree there is morality at issue here. However, I think this thing about "stealing" just misses the point entirely. It's like a pastor saying he's upset that someone stole his truth and gave it to someone else without his permission, as though he somehow created the truth all on his own and has a right to demand credit for it.

If someone really has expressed the truth in a way which promotes God/Jesus/love etc, why should they be upset if someone else uses it without giving them credit for it? Can that teaching be found anywhere in scripture, i.e. that Christians should demand credit for their expressions of faith and love and to call it "stealing" if they don't get the credit they feel they deserve? Deborah pasted "do not steal" from the ten commandments as evidence to support her case, but is it really stealing to speak the truth without giving credit to man?

Consider Jesus' own words on this same issue, "John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. 44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God only"?

Christians bickering over who should get credit for any truth God may choose to bless them with; what kind of witness is that to the world? I suggest the the real sin here is pride. Reputation. Praise of men and nothing to do with theft at all. Certainly, it feels nice to be appreciated and recognized for our efforts but Jesus said we should only seek honor from God, not from one another.

It's a little tricky going the other way, i.e. the pastor who uses another's words. It really depends on motivation. If he's keeping it secret that he's using another person's words because he wants others to think well of him, then that's a problem with his pride. But if he neglects to "give credit" because he feels like the validity of truth shouldn't depend on who it comes from then what's the problem? As Jesus suggested, personalities and people "receiving honor one of another" become a hindrance to real truth. In other words, when we demand credit for truth, we are no longer coming in Jesus' name, but in the name of whichever person God chose to bless with a bit of truth. What an insult to God and Truth for followers of God and Truth to promote glory for themselves!

How many people here have ever quoted a teaching from the Bible, in any context, but didn't list the chapter and verse? Is that stealing? Should we really need to go around saying, "Overcome evil with Good, but it's not my teaching; glory goes to Paul for that one"? Is that what Paul himself would have wanted? If I say, "Anyone who loves is born of God", full stop, am I stealing glory from John, or am I just stating a simple truth which would be true regardless of who "originally" said it? Jesus talked about the pharisees who "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel". They focus on petty, nit-picky issues and entirely miss the really important issues.

Anyway, I'm keen to respond to butch now

 

[john darling]

As I said, I realize that there are costs and a profit needs to be made but there are many who raking in the bucks way beyond what I would consider reasonable. I thank God that some of the very best teaching I have seen is free so that anyone can study it.

I think you've hit on an important point. I suggested in my response to Deborah that I thought the real sin here was pride, but certainly greed has it's role as well. Often the reason people demand credit for their work is because they want to be paid for it. Profits and sales are generally regarded as a measure of success. If a book, video, CD, etc sells well it's more likely to be regarded as useful or respectable. That fame often leads to other income generating opportunities like guest speaker appearances at other churches (where the "pastor's handshake" can often generate thousands of dollars depending on the size of the church), participate in crusades/conventions, or opportunities to write sequels

In the case of websites, popularity means advertising opportunities with increased traffic. By demanding credit for whatever content it contains, a website can generate the impression that people must go to that one website to get the content, thus increasing and maintaining traffic. I actually don't have any problem with this EXCEPT in the case where it is truth or promotion of Christian principles which they demand credit for.

I also think it's fine to argue that printing or production of media really does involve time, skill, and resources which, in today's system of buy and sell, costs money. But there are ways around this as well when the Truth is the real motive. We are "in the world, but not of the world". As you've suggested, many people charge MUCH more for their materials than what the material cost to make and certainly much more than what may be needed in simple day-to-day expenses. Looking at their lifestyle and comparing it to the lifestyle of Jesus and his followers it becomes clear that "basic printing and day-to-day" costs are not the motivation behind the prices they charge. This is why Jesus said, "where your treasure is, there will your heart be also". It's a very simple test.

One alternative is to this dilemma is to ask for donations for the materials. I know Christians who do this and they receive enough to cover their printing costs and their daily living expenses. I met some Christians the other day who said they are experimenting with NOT putting their name on their materials (no author or group name) precisely because so many people tend to focus on the messenger rather than the message. They reported that one woman on the street became visibly agitated when the Christian would not reveal the name of the author of the tract. She practically demanded to be told, asking how she could know if the material was good if she didn't know who was producing it. It seemed the thought of judging the material based on the merits of it's content never occurred to her.

Another alternative (to the concept that Christians must make profit to produce their media) is for Christians to start sharing more with one another and to focus their resources less on things like church buildings and more on issues like outreach. Imagine a situation where hundreds (or even thousands) of Christians share their income together, putting it towards outreach projects etc. That's what the early Christians did. They had a "purse" and the account clearly says that A LOT of wealth was being laid at the apostles' feet, but it ALSO says that all the believers were cared for "according to their need" and describes a situation where outreach teams of these believers are sent out in all directions.

 

[john darling]

You can't even get the facts correct of what I wrote in #8. I suggest that you learn to read carefully what I posted and get the content correct.

Hi Oz,

It would be helpful if you could clarify which facts I got wrong. I asked a few questions in an attempt to clarify what the facts are. Did you read those questions? Do you think they were bad questions? Anyway, I'll repost them below in case you missed them.

As a point of clarification, I realize you don't owe me anything, but I did have the impression that we were both approaching this as an issue up for discussion, which is why I was hoping you would answer a few questions to get the issues a bit clearer. I also suggested that, in a situation which you've involved another person, we've only got your side of the story to judge. Hopefully you can see it becomes impossible for us to make fair judgment on your conclusions if we only have one side of the story, which is why I suggested you let your pastor in on this discussion. If he could confirm your conclusions about his behavior and the meeting you had with him, then that would make your testimony all the more powerful, wouldn't it?

Otherwise it puts us in the awkward position of needing to "take your word for it", which is not only unfair toward your pastor but is unbiblical as well.

If you think he'd be too busy to post here, I don't mind writing to him personally to get a fuller picture of the background to your conclusions. What do you think about that?

As for the issue of ethics and morality I've addressed that in my responses to Deborah and Butch. I hope you don't mind counting those posts as my response to you on these two issue.

Anyway, here's the questions I asked you in post #45
"You said you talked to your pastor and after that he agreed to start giving credit for sermons which he does not personally compose. Did he do that because you said that you thought it was stealing? Do you think he was hoping to give the impression that the sermons were his and thereby impress the congregation? Did he admit to that and if so did he give an apology to you or to anyone else? Was it only you two invovled in that meeting or was anyone else there"?

 

[reba]

Please remember guys ... the point for this site is not the morality or lack of in view of copyright laws. The point of this site is to give space to those who wish to share the gospel... Please remember to respect those laws...

 

[Butch5]

I think you've hit on an important point. I suggested in my response to Deborah that I thought the real sin here was pride, but certainly greed has it's role as well. Often the reason people demand credit for their work is because they want to be paid for it. Profits and sales are generally regarded as a measure of success. If a book, video, CD, etc sells well it's more likely to be regarded as useful or respectable. That fame often leads to other income generating opportunities like guest speaker appearances at other churches (where the "pastor's handshake" can often generate thousands of dollars depending on the size of the church), participate in crusades/conventions, or opportunities to write sequels

In the case of websites, popularity means advertising opportunities with increased traffic. By demanding credit for whatever content it contains, a website can generate the impression that people must go to that one website to get the content, thus increasing and maintaining traffic. I actually don't have any problem with this EXCEPT in the case where it is truth or promotion of Christian principles which they demand credit for.

I also think it's fine to argue that printing or production of media really does involve time, skill, and resources which, in today's system of buy and sell, costs money. But there are ways around this as well when the Truth is the real motive. We are "in the world, but not of the world". As you've suggested, many people charge MUCH more for their materials than what the material cost to make and certainly much more than what may be needed in simple day-to-day expenses. Looking at their lifestyle and comparing it to the lifestyle of Jesus and his followers it becomes clear that "basic printing and day-to-day" costs are not the motivation behind the prices they charge. This is why Jesus said, "where your treasure is, there will your heart be also". It's a very simple test.

One alternative is to this dilemma is to ask for donations for the materials. I know Christians who do this and they receive enough to cover their printing costs and their daily living expenses. I met some Christians the other day who said they are experimenting with NOT putting their name on their materials (no author or group name) precisely because so many people tend to focus on the messenger rather than the message. They reported that one woman on the street became visibly agitated when the Christian would not reveal the name of the author of the tract. She practically demanded to be told, asking how she could know if the material was good if she didn't know who was producing it. It seemed the thought of judging the material based on the merits of it's content never occurred to her.

Another alternative (to the concept that Christians must make profit to produce their media) is for Christians to start sharing more with one another and to focus their resources less on things like church buildings and more on issues like outreach. Imagine a situation where hundreds (or even thousands) of Christians share their income together, putting it towards outreach projects etc. That's what the early Christians did. They had a "purse" and the account clearly says that A LOT of wealth was being laid at the apostles' feet, but it ALSO says that all the believers were cared for "according to their need" and describes a situation where outreach teams of these believers are sent out in all directions.

I agree whole heartedly John. The prices of some of the resources out there are ridiculous. I've seen electronic material at twice the price of printed material. Again, I understand that a lot of work goes into creating hyperlinks and the like when putting these works into electronic form. But come on, once it's done it can mass produced for virtually nothing.