• How important is copyright?

I’m a software developer.  Copyright on all my code has been transferred to my employer before I write it.  Yet it is still relevant to my work; I get commission on smartphone app sales, and my employer’s income is my job security.  Granted, my works, being compiled to binary and mostly locked away on iDevices, are less accessible to customers than print media or professional blogging.  Regardless, how important is copyright to society?

Richard M. Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation, is a prominent figure within my primary special interest group.  However, I lean more toward the Open Source side of the fence, don’t observe all the pedantry (RMS, chill out about GNU being used in all Linux distributions), and prefer the Republican or Libertarian party to his Green.  Yet I have long respected his opinion on copyright and patents as they apply to software, and as a result I’m surely more receptive of his other opinions, which are numerous.  I’m also a sucker for the American Constitution, and libertarian trimming of institutions both government and corporate.

So it’s not surprising that I would prescribe his opinion on copyright law with no salt.  As that page explains, copyright as it is currently implemented is vastly bloated compared to the constitutional intention, and unjustified by constitutional standards.  I welcome objections to his argument, but if you simply don’t agree with honoring the Constitution then we have nothing to discuss.  But this post will address the crux of the “anti-piracy” argument: that livelihoods are threatened by copyright infringement.

(To reiterate Stallman’s point: I will go out of my way to avoid calling it as piracy or theft, or the work as intellectual property.  I don’t agree with copyright infringement, but a copyright is an expression-monopoly.  The expression is not property in any meaningful way; it cannot be damaged or stolen.  Its market value can certainly be lowered, but that is competition rather than theft.  A copyright is a monopoly on an expression, granted by the government for the public’s benefit.)

I won’t address the corporate-interest angle (CEO versus grunt) or the flawed implementation of SOPA/PIPA.  (The OPEN Act may not be all that great either.)  My focus is on the equity of the trade Mr. Stallman explained.  He suggested shortening the very long longevity which copyright currently enjoys, from [artist's death] + 70 years (approximately 1.5 to 2 lifetimes, for works produced by younger artists) to 10 years or less, depending on the industry.

Mr. Stallman’s focus was on getting the most new works for the least public liberty – maximum efficiency, not simply maximum output.  Does anyone disagree with his guesstimates?  Specifically, I wonder how much we should be concerned whether copyright can sustain someone’s entire living income.  Perhaps it would be better for society if some arts were only viable as side jobs or hobbies.  Would the decreases of input and output be equitable?

The primary argument for “anti-piracy” legislation is that we should preserve copyright because otherwise the artists won’t be able to support themselves.  I’m sure the artists would find ways to support themselves, although they might produce less art or even cease to be artists.  I say this not to be cold-hearted, but because I think this point deserves attention after such a long period of widespread neglect culminating in our current crisis.

Several Republican politicians have been strung up for bribes and general corruption. Some voters have accused the Democrats of taking bribes, but this looks kind of like projection of guilt, and bribed Republicans seem more intuitive than bribed Democrats. Understanding how the Democratic platform can benefit businesses is intellectual gymnastics at best, although of course they don’t have to constrain all actions to the platform.

Then there are the conscientious loud-mouths who flaunt their opinion based on the Bible or just some ideology like laissez-faire. While I agree with many of their claims (and I used to be one of them), I don’t like finding them as my stereotype. And some of the flaunted opinions are conspiracy theories (sent out by the Illuminati to desensitize us). Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for Scriptural discourse in Christian politics, and even to a point in general – but have we focused so much on truth that we forgot about love? And have we not therefore brought this secular crisis on ourselves?

What I wish the GOP would do:  Ease up on war; just war is defensive.  Reform immigration policy; I’m tired of telling people to obey laws that I don’t agree with.  Focus on repealing laws rather than passing them.  Reform the political process (fat chance).  Institute internal discipline at least as fierce as its political rhetoric.  Generally adopt an open-minded, intellectual approach to politics worthy of its roots.  Santa Claus, you have exactly two months.

But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore He says:

“When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”

(Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

I don’t understand that parenthetical…  Surely one can go up (to Heaven) without first going down?

If Jesus did go to hell, when did He do it?  On the cross or in the tomb?  And how do you know?

July 29, 2010: This post did link to a rather disoriented PDF document on the topic, but it has since been taken down.  (Thanks for noticing that, Anavil!)  Fortunately I was able to read the title of the snapshot, and found several alternative copies on Google including this non-PDF one.  Now I need to sit down and have a read of that so I can update this post in response…

SJ Camp said:

Definition of Damned: a final verdict of eternal damnation; where one is sanctioned to hell, tormented forever without relenting under God’s eternal wrath, and it is upon all who have rejected the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and died as unregenerated – vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. Damnation is irrevocable. You live once, die, and then the judgment.

gigantor1231 said:

Isn’t ‘to be damned’ a condition or action applied to the spirit only, and the only ones whom it could apply to are those who are dead of Spirit? Christ was never spiritually dead, 1 peter 3: 18-20 says that “Christ was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit.” So, since He was alive in the spirit there is no way damnation could apply!

Both of the above comments are correct regarding common usage, and any theologian who makes a comment at odds with this usage is promoting misunderstanding at the very least.  I will not defend Piper etc. on that point; however, I think the theological point represented by their misuse of the term is valid.  I was afraid that I wouldn’t be able to articulate it clearly, but then I found that someone did it for me:

A. B. Caneday said:

The eternal Son of God did not need to endure God’s wrath eternally in order to redeem us, for he, bore God’s eternal wrath due unto us in the compressed time that he was upon the cross precisely because he is the Eternal One.

The rest of the source paragraph addresses an issue which confuses me, but I’ve addressed that elsewhere.  I think the definition used here can be expressed as follows:  Damnation is the dealing of God’s infinite wrath upon one’s spirit.  As Caneday explained, Christ’s spirit was able to sustain this within a small period of time because He too is infinite; He never died spiritually because He is even more infinite than the damnation of all mankind.

So I don’t think that Piper, Mahaney, and others who use such terminology are necessarily in theological error.  They are, however, miscommunicating the center of the Gospel, and I think that’s something for them to correct.  On the other hand, some of the writings quoted in those comments (Luther’s for example) may well be heresy; I haven’t taken the time to understand all of them.  But now I want to read your thoughts on this.

To start, it must be indistinguishable from a conventional address, at least to corporations and/or courts.  It must be either anonymous or actually yours to circumvent this clause: “Failure to submit accurate registration information will result in loss of eligibility.”  To actually be yours, it has to be a summer home or some such, or a post-office box.  To be anonymous, it would have to be either a post office box (Would the post office give a box’s owner away?) or a commercial mail receiving agency.

Most of us don’t have summer homes, so let’s consider the other two options.  Post office boxes are commonly used as “real” addresses – check.  If the box isn’t yours, it would have to be sorted by a CMRA.  Even if it is yours, someone has to sort through all the spam.  Are CMRAs commonly used to receive “real” mail?  If not, it must somehow hide from the spammers.

So when the CMRA gets a package, it checks that it’s addressed to a customer who is anticipating it.  If not, it gets chucked.  I don’t know how long it would be kept for the customer to retrieve it, but after a certain amount of time it would probably get chucked anyway.  I wonder if this is already being done?  Maybe our post offices could do it, accompanied by a law that spammers can’t avoid the mechanism.  Hmm…  What do you think?

I’m going to take a rather bold (stupid?) shot at constructing a political platform based on Scripture – because I’m unsatisfied with the whole platforms we currently have. In other words, I can only cherry-pick positions from the major American parties, and I’m not even sure they have everything I need.

Let’s immediately admit the ideas we won’t entertain, before we start getting nasty over them. If we run into a mutual refusal to agree, we must suspend either disbelief or discussion. By that I mean that we can still discuss while qualifying with “assuming that you’re right,” and maybe we can even show the out-of-bounds issue to be irrelevant. We also must use discretion regarding what belongs in this discussion and what merits a new one, or belongs in another existing one.

Personally, I refuse to back down from Sola Scriptura, the doctrine that the Christian Bible is true in an obvious way from Genesis to Revelation. While I have my doubts and intend to resolve them, this is not the appropriate forum for that. I’m also closed to certain beliefs which fall within that; I’ll present them as we go along. (My hope that I’ll actually have anyone to discuss with is about as ambitious as this post’s purpose, considering how infrequently I post.)

Now, let’s start at the beginning. Mankind is both inherently beautiful and inherently flawed, being created in God’s image and having infected ourselves with sin. Our objective is to magnify God’s likeness and make our flaws as inconsequential as possible. The entirety of Scripture shows that we will never be fully successful, and what success we see will be attained by God’s grace alone. So, to rephrase the objective, we must accept and apply God’s grace at every opportunity.

Obviously, the fundamental and most significant expression of grace is salvation. Thus evangelism becomes the core of this platform. More correctly, this platform becomes a consequence of the Gospel. The more people repent and believe in Christ, the more society will experience grace.

I know that last version of the objective is very politically incorrect. “What, he wants to Christianize the world?!” Yes, and no. The popular concept of Christianization (the Crusades, Inquisition, etc.) is extremely distorted. Proper evangelism is dramatically different from this, being founded on analogy of universal experience with basic Christian theology. See Christianization for a more in-depth contrast.

Now, back to the objective: This means that current Christians are to exercise the fruits of the Spirit, all of which are manifestations of grace, in all capacities and toward all people. This naturally has modern political implications, and just what those are is the subject of this post. (I didn’t include the spiritual gifts because they apply very little to government policy.)

Following the Wikipedia link above, does anyone know an issue to which we can apply the fruits? I’ll be updating this page with more examples as the thoughts and time come to me. By the way, do you think each issue should have its own post and link from this one, or should I keep them here?

Political Discipline

I get disgusted by how loyal politicians, including pundits, are to their party fellows in light of error. Sometimes this error is just a result of poor research (e.g., Ann Coulter). At other times, it incriminates the author of being deliberately deceptive and requires a public apology (e.g., Sean Hannity). In all cases, politicians forfeit credibility when they refuse to call their party fellows out. Ironically, one website which has a policy of never doing so is the media watchdog MediaMatters.org. Wait a sec… Even watchdogs need watchdogs?

Scripture gives procedures for discipline within the Church, designed to keep it pure. I propose that the political arena should have a similar code. This would reaffirm the duty of participating politicians to call each other out, privately or publicly as the case requires, across party lines. But more importantly, politicians must call out errors which come from within party lines. Admittedly, bias may hide some of these errors, but that’s beside the point; we must alert each other to what we do see, including those who claim to abide by such a code but appear to be either lazy or selective about enforcement.

It’s been some time since I joined the Governance Wiki for this so here’s the URL for the category we’re working in, followed by the introduction URL:

• http://government.wikia.com/wiki/Category:People
• http://government.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Using_Giki

Political Correctness

All over the world and throughout history, those in power have tended to do horrible things to everyone else. In the modern western world, those in power are often in, or are at least supported by, the majority. So members of the majority (i.e., whites) have taken upon themselves the noble cause of regulating their fellows. Opportunists, however, have ironically manipulated this trend to gain power for themselves. And now we see a curious phenomenon: A large portion of the majority combines with minorities to make a new majority, which goes under the liberal banner. And this new majority then uses politics to oppress the rest of the original majority; this brand of politics is known as political correctness.

This goes hand-in-hand with the previous point in that, if a sizable majority of whites would denounce each other for prejudice, anti-majority prejudice might be rendered baseless. But we do all of society a disservice when we over-zealously search for and counter prejudice, because this actually nurtures the same prejudice. I have no doubt that the white supremacist movement has benefited from affirmative action and taboos against such legitimate actions as calling certain blacks racist or using accurate racial terms to describe minorities.

In case you would like a concrete example of this phenomenon, see this video, whose earlier comments reinforce my previous point about nurturing prejudice.

War

To begin with, I don’t believe the Old Testament is a valid source of war policy. God is forming Israel into His ideal bride, and war is one of His primary tools. However, the war front is now only in the spiritual realm, not the physical one. Not to mention that I don’t like that aspect of Scripture in the least, although it does make a good analogy for modern experiences.

So where does that leave us? I think groups of people are subject to the same moral standards as individuals, so just war theory must draw on morals pertaining to violence. Violence is not forbidden by Jesus (Luke 22:36; John 2:15), but it is certainly discouraged in general. Indeed, loving our enemies could improve foreign relations drastically; I wonder how Iranians would react if we were to help them construct solar energy farms to replace the need for nuclear energy. Would anti-Western propaganda still work? What if we tried helping citizens to non-violently topple dictators rather than killing some while doing it on our own? Or maybe we could even lessen our general involvement in the politics of other countries; that alone might save what little reputation we haven’t soiled.

Immigration

Many Americans fear foreigners because they need jobs. Poor foreigners are even worse because they would gladly work for less. But maybe we should let them in and give them free English courses, or even a little money in case they don’t find a job immediately (Luke 10:25-37). And of course we shouldn’t abuse or despise them (Deuteronomy 23:7, 24:14).

The primary problem with this concept is probably the tendency of cross-cultural evangelists to promote their own cultural taste alongside the Gospel.  Culture and authentic Christianity, while always mixed in practice and often confused, are not the same thing.  If any part of a Christian’s culture obstructs evangelism, it is to be adapted – at least for a specific situation.  This is of course a very difficult skill, and adaptation may mean that a different person represents Christ to a certain group.

The record of wars in the Old Testament has often been used to justify atrocities, including the Crusades, the Inquisition and, with less involvement (maybe even none) from church officials, the Holocaust.  Modern Christians, myself included, have a deep loathing for any mention of these events.  It is therefore comforting, in a very biased way, that God’s war is now for souls and against sin rather than for Israel’s purity and against sinful ethnicities.

I want to make one final point which will reinforce both of the others.  Like the medical profession, Christianity has seen its share of malpractice.  But unlike physicians, Christians are often supposed guilty by association for what their fellows have done.  Yet several verses in Scripture confer a sense of duty which is similar to but greater than that of the Hippocratic Oath.  So I must ask anyone who wishes to blame modern Christians for historical atrocities, what is your rationale for doing so?

So in short, I refuse to apply the term “Christianization” to legitimate evangelism because it has been so tainted by historical usage.  For an explanation of what legitimate evangelism is, see Evangelism.

This is a first for me, so please bear with any stutters of mine.  I doubt I’ll get through this whole lesson, but if I don’t then maybe I’ll have a chance to finish it.  And these two chapters are a great source of study material, so don’t think I’m coming close to exhausting them.

In the Revelation to John, chapters 2 and 3, seven types of churches are identified and their members encouraged by Jesus. Who here has already heard someone characterize evangelicals (that’s us) according to this passage? (Mark their names.) You won’t be allowed to answer questions you already have the answers to, but you can help the others.

Out of these seven churches, one has nothing to be commended and is in a spiritual coma; another is thriving and receives nothing negative.  (Mark the continuum below on the board.) Each of the remaining five has its problems but also some merit. I’ve marked them on the continuum according to my estimation; does anyone disagree with me? (Open the room for discussion.) Which one are we in? (Open the room for discussion.)

Sardis      Laodicea     Ephesus     Thyatira      Pergamos      Smyrna     Philadelphia
  |------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|
 Dead       Lukewarm     Loveless     Corrupt    Compromising  Persecuted    Faithful

(In case they don’t have an answer…) Richard Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983) was an American architect, engineer, and entrepreneur who made it his goal to anticipate the needs and wants of society and invent accordingly.  He’s best known as the inventor of the geodesic dome, an arrangement of triangles which achieves maximum structural integrity with minimum use of raw materials.  This expert on our consumerist society said:

Let architects sing of aesthetics that bring Rich clients in hordes to their knees:

Just give me a home, in a great circle dome
Where stresses and strains are at ease.

Revelation 3:15-17 – the problem

Revelation 3:18-19 – the solution

What other modern churches fit any of these labels?  (Open the room for discussion.)  I have some of my own estimations, but I generally rate the churches I know less about as higher than the ones I know more about. (Replace the names above for those below.) That could be because we’re all doing pitifully, or because I actually know very little about the more outstanding churches, or maybe a little of both.  But I base each of them on the characterization seen in these chapters.

Mainline       [  Evangelical ]       Catholic     Anglican [Arabic & Indian] Orthodox
   |------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|
  Dead       Lukewarm     Loveless     Corrupt   Compromising   Persecuted    Faithful

I know zilch about the Eastern Orthodox Church, so they’re at the top. I’ve read about the persecution (but nothing else) in Islamic nations and especially India, so they’re next. I’ve read about the Anglican Communion’s compromise on homosexuality and how the African, South American, and some North American churches are having big disagreements with the rest. I strongly believe the management of the Roman Catholic Church to be corrupt, so they get my fourth place. And then here we are in fifth, evangelicals generally being loveless and some even lukewarm. Finally, we have the mainline Protestant churches, such as Joel Osteen – the only group that I think is doing worse than us.

Now, how can we improve our position?  Those who are lukewarm must acquire a zeal, a love for God and His word, and then they’ll be loveless.  The loveless (probably including me) must further acquire a love for men.  When we get that far, we will naturally discuss what we can do about it because love prompts action.  If we don’t compromise after that, maybe we’ll be in the faithful church.  (Open the room for discussion.)