# Bible Copyrights Infringement of God's Law?



## TaylorOtwell (Jun 29, 2010)

Are copyrighted Bibles in violation of God's law? And, more specifically, would it be acceptable for a Christian to break those laws out of conviction that the words of God cannot be copyrighted by man, in their original or translated form, and that any such copyrights are null and void in the eyes of the Lord?


----------



## raekwon (Jun 29, 2010)

What would make them a violation of God's law?


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt (Jun 29, 2010)

I don't see why anyone would want to Taylor. There's plenty out in public domain. And any church would be happy to simply give you one if you need it.


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Jun 29, 2010)

Thanks for the responses. 

Rae, I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking if anyone else has any thoughts.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 29, 2010)

I think the root question may be about the commercialization of Scripture. In other words, is it lawful to make merchandise out of the Word. It's kind of like "Big Dan" in O Brother Where Art Thou? who goes around making money off of God's Word. 

This is similar to what Rome did, and part of why Luther did what he did.

God's Word is for the masses; not as a commercial enterprise, but for a work of faith and love. Therefore, it can't be copyrighted, since God owns it.

Is this what you're getting at, or something else?


----------



## Zenas (Jun 29, 2010)

However, translators need to be paid, and translation is a creative endeavor that can create copyrights in the work product. It's not wrong to make money to support yourself or be paid for the honest work you've done, even if it's Greek translation for a Bible.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Jun 29, 2010)

It's normally cheaper and better quality just to buy the Bible printed instead of trying to print the whole thing yourself.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 29, 2010)

It's not a sin to translate and publish the Bible and to secure a copyright for the translation you've done. A lot of work, time, and expense goes into making a translation - and the people involved have a right to protect their investment from being financially infringed upon.

I DO think American Bible publishers should be taken to task for the generally lousy job they do in producing the physical books. It used to be said that a Bible that's falling apart usually belongs to a Christian who isn't. Now, a Bible that's falling apart is just a badly-produced Bible - no matter how much it cost! The expensive ones fall apart just as quickly as the cheap ones do.


----------



## Jack K (Jun 29, 2010)

Bible selling has become big business. And for the big Christian publishers, having their own proprietary version of the Bible is a good money-maker. That's part of the reason for the recent proliferation of new translations. In that sense, copyrighting the Bible does bother me. If feels like profiteering off God's Word, which rightly belongs to the church, not to outfits like Zondervan.

But there are more protections in a copyright than just the right to profit from the work. Very importantly, a copyright protects your work from being altered and then passed off as the real thing. If for that reason alone, I think it's reasonable for Bible translators to copyright their work.

The real question is: Why isn't the important work of Bible translation being funded by churches instead of by big business? How might the Bible publishing world be better if the church owned the copyright?


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Jun 30, 2010)

Jack K, your point about translation being an ecclesiastical matter is a good one, and I agree with it. 

I guess I just don't buy the points made defending copyrighting the words of our Lord.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 30, 2010)

Zenas said:


> However, translators need to be paid, and translation is a creative endeavor that can create copyrights in the work product. It's not wrong to make money to support yourself or be paid for the honest work you've done, even if it's Greek translation for a Bible.


 
Ah, yes, but paying a scholar, and paying a bunch of investors or shareholders in a corporation are not the same thing. The laborer is worthy of his hire. But, the non laborers are not in sacred work.


----------



## Jack K (Jun 30, 2010)

TaylorOtwell said:


> Jack K, your point about translation being an ecclesiastical matter is a good one, and I agree with it.
> 
> I guess I just don't buy the points made defending copyrighting the words of our Lord.



I very much like your basic concern that none of us may copyright what are, in fact, God's words. I'm certainly against profiteering from the Bible, which copyright law does make pretty easy. So to explain why I think such copyrights may be okay, consider this scenario:

You're a great Biblical scholar and committed Christian. You complete a brilliant and God-honoring translation of the Scriptures, which you publish. For fun, let's say you call it the Great New Translation (GNT). Because the GNT is so good and faithful to God, it becomes very popular. But in an attempt to honor God, you refuse to register a copyright and you grant unlimited rights of reproduction.

So now a cult, seeking to confuse rightly-believing Christians, publishes the GNT under its masthead. This cult adds notes expousing herecial interpretations, and even inserts extra lines into your text made to look like your work. Furthermore, a large Christian publishing house puts out a "GNT Life Application Bible." It includes notes and articles advotating a works oriented approach to the Scriptures. Because it's associated with the GNT, readers figure it must be good stuff and it sells like hotcakes. The publishing house makes a fortune, and immediately begins planning to put out a "GNT Ryrie Study Bible." A gender-neutral version and one that tones down the wrath of God are also in the works. Again, the publishers will profit greatly.

Because you've given up copyright protection, you have little recourse.

This is why I think copyright protection can be a good idea if the copyright is held by a God-honoring organization. Copyright doesn't merely let you profit from the translation (if you wanted to). More fundamentally, it also keeps others from profiting off it or altering your work. So I'd support such copyrights precisely because I'm opposed to the idea of profiting off the Word of God.


----------



## raekwon (Jun 30, 2010)

TaylorOtwell said:


> Jack K, your point about translation being an ecclesiastical matter is a good one, and I agree with it.
> 
> I guess I just don't buy the points made defending copyrighting the words of our Lord.


 
Well... they're not copyrighting the words of our Lord. They're copyrighting the translation of those words. Might seem like a small difference, but it's significant.


----------



## CNJ (Jun 30, 2010)

Taylor, are you asking for publication? If so, here's my take on your question.

In publication of a Bible translation quoted in a book you can *easily* get permission to use a copyrighted version. Go to the publisher's web site and most often they will say you can print limited amount of verses and then put that copyright on the copyright page of a book with "Used by permission. All rights reserved." Of course you could be sued if you misquoted that version. 

You would want to do that to show proper obedience to copyright laws and thereby God's laws.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Jun 30, 2010)

Investors have as much of a legitimate right to a return as a laborer. 

My TBS AV Bible indicates:

RIGHTS IN THE AUTHORIZED (KING JAMES) VERSION OF THE BIBLE
ARE VESTED IN THE CROWN
PRODUCED ... UNDER ROYAL LETTERS PATENT


----------



## Claudiu (Jun 30, 2010)

bookslover said:


> It's not a sin to translate and publish the Bible and to secure a copyright for the translation you've done. A lot of work, time, and expense goes into making a translation - and the people involved have a right to protect their investment from being financially infringed upon.
> 
> I DO think American Bible publishers should be taken to task for the generally lousy job they do in producing the physical books. It used to be said that a Bible that's falling apart usually belongs to a Christian who isn't. Now, a Bible that's falling apart is just a badly-produced Bible - no matter how much it cost! *The expensive ones fall apart just as quickly as the cheap ones do*.



Which expensive ones that fall apart are you talking about, just wondering?


----------



## jwithnell (Jun 30, 2010)

The commandment most in play here is: "You shall not steal." Just about every society influenced by Judea-Christian perspectives have recognized private property rights. They've also recognized the exchange of property or service either directly or by a monetary system. I don't see any way of getting God's word into people's hands without some manner of value being exchanged aside from those who have made it a ministry to pay the costs and provide the Word to spread God's word. 

Others have mentioned the need for translations. You also have to get the text into a readable form, proof-read and designed for the intended audience whether printing hard copy or via the web. (Ever wonder why some books simply get reprinted in an old style -- it's expensive to get everything type set, designed, ready for press and printed.) If you balk at the term audience, have you ever complained that it's too hard to read the small type in some Bibles, or have you complained that the overall page size was too big. Someone had to make those decisions based upon who might make use of the book.

What's mentioned here are compensated services, even if done at cost by missions groups. To take something that has gone through the above process (to any degree) and use it without compensation is plain and simple theft. To take and use it as your own (as others have mentioned, say in the case of a cult) is plagiarizing, another form of theft.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 30, 2010)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> Investors have as much of a legitimate right to a return as a laborer.


 
No they don't.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 30, 2010)

First time I looked I thought you were talking about the Bible copyrighting infringements of God's law. I was like "Wait, what?" 

But that aside--copyright laws are still laws, and just like we shouldn't break the law and go shoot abortion doctors, we shouldn't break the law to copy copyrighted Bibles without permission. We ought to obey, to the best of our ability, every ordinance of men.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 30, 2010)

Christusregnat said:


> Glenn Ferrell said:
> 
> 
> > Investors have as much of a legitimate right to a return as a laborer.
> ...


 
Huh? 

So if I invested in a vineyard and then rent it out to folks to work it, and then I send my son out to collect the rent, and then find that the laborers killed him, I should just shrug and think, "well, I guess they are right. I really don't have a legitimate right to my share of the return."


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 30, 2010)

VictorBravo said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Glenn Ferrell said:
> ...


 
It is blasphemous, in my understanding, to treat Scripture like something under man's dominion, such as a business venture.

Paul did not copyright his letters. Freely, we have received, freely we are to give (and this is the specific context of Christ's words: giving out the Word of God).

Does this mean that the laborer is not worthy of his hire? No. He is. However, the commercialization of Scripture is blasphemy: it is taking the Lord's Name in vain.

Why not have a commercial venture for the ministry of a pastor, and pay the corporation for the right to use a pastor?

Why not commercialize the sacraments to have a centralized corporation invest in sacrament sales?

Why? Because we are not papists.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 30, 2010)

If there were no English Bibles without a copyright, I might be more inclined to see the point. However, the issue is not "God's Word" in English since there are any number of sound translations that are available out of copyright. And, in digital form, there are a large variety of original language AND English translations that do not charge for their use (e-Sword, TheWord, etc.). e-Sword, for instance has 24 ENGLISH translations available for free, including the ESV! As for printed Bibles, there are also inexpensive printings of a large number of copyrighted Bibles. Many Bible societies will sell you a paperback Bible in a choice of several different translations for $2 or $3. 

The issue is that picky Americans want to have a PARTICULAR translation of God's Word. I don't think that I have a "right" to get the NIV, NAS, HCSB for free. As long as there are ESV, KJV, etc. Bibles online for free, the matter is one of customer preference, not access to the Word of God. And, as for the high end Bibles, my $140 premium calfskin ESV ($240 retail) may or may not be overpriced. But, it was my choice to purchase it.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 30, 2010)

Christusregnat said:


> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> > Christusregnat said:
> ...



Well, OK. That's a different point than the one I thought you were making. I took your statement to mean generally that an investor is not entitled to profit.


----------



## Claudiu (Jul 1, 2010)

Skyler said:


> First time I looked I thought you were talking about the Bible copyrighting infringements of God's law. I was like "Wait, what?"
> 
> But that aside--copyright laws are still laws, and just like we shouldn't break the law and go shoot abortion doctors, we shouldn't break the law to copy copyrighted Bibles without permission. We ought to obey, to the best of our ability, every ordinance of men.


 
The laws, or ordinance of man, are only for the _citizens_, not the _sovereign_ (the _People_). As a _sovereign_ you have the _freedom_, or _Rights_, to do what you want as long as it doesn't impose on someone else's Rights. However, most people (lower case p) have become subjects, legally, by becoming citizens under the 14th Amendment, which requires one to be under the jurisdiction thereof after being born/naturalized in this country. On the other hand, if one chooses to retain his Rights and not be a citizen he is not under jurisdiction and free, truly free.


----------



## Grimmson (Jul 1, 2010)

Christusregnat said:


> Paul did not copyright his letters. Freely, we have received, freely we are to give (and this is the specific context of Christ's words: giving out the Word of God).


That anachronistic argument. They didn’t have copyrights during that time. People were paid to be copyists to various writings and then expected customers to buy the writings in the ancient world. I do not see that condemned in scripture anywhere. And we can see an example of the practice with the Ethiopian eunuch.


Christusregnat said:


> Why not commercialize the sacraments to have a centralized corporation invest in sacrament sales?
> 
> Why? Because we are not papists.



There are businesses that sell communion wine and communion crackers/bread to Protestants. You can find this, at least the bread, at Christian book stores like Gospel Supplies in Tucson, AZ.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Jul 1, 2010)

It makes sense to copyright the text of a translation in order to protect it from unauthorized changes. Thus, I pointed out the AV copyright is held by the Crown in the UK.

It is certainly best if the Bible is translated by the church; or as with the AV, the church with encouragement from the civil magistrate. Even so, they have a right and obligation to protect the integrity of the translated text.

The Apostle Paul was apparently concerned about a possible “letter as from us” and signed with his own hand as a sign of authenticity.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Jul 6, 2010)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> It makes sense to copyright the text of a translation in order to protect it from unauthorized changes. Thus, I pointed out the AV copyright is held by the Crown in the UK.
> 
> It is certainly best if the Bible is translated by the church; or as with the AV, the church with encouragement from the civil magistrate. Even so, they have a right and obligation to protect the integrity of the translated text.
> 
> The Apostle Paul was apparently concerned about a possible “letter as from us” and signed with his own hand as a sign of authenticity.


 
Shouldn't someone be suing the LDS church then?


----------

