A world free from DRM, copyrights and patents (a personal opinion)

-

I was reading this article called A world free from DRM, copyrights and patents over on my favorite tech news site: www.tgdaily.com. It was less of an opinion piece, and more of an invitation for discussion than anything else, and it was on one of my favorite topics to vocalize my opinion about: copyright and patent law.

The article basically asked the following question:

What would it be like to wake up tomorrow and have the ability to take everything that exists and recreate it as needed absolutely free from royalty or limitation? If people and companies could copy anything in existence, rolling it into whatever product they can design, and then attempt to sell it to others ... what would that world look like?

After writing my response, I decided I would bring it over here as well. So, that being said, here it is:

A world without DRM would be a beautiful place.

A world without copyright and patents? Perhaps less so.

DRM is a little different from copyrights and patents in this discussion however. See, DRM is actually an enforcement of copyright. Without copyright, it would not exist. It is an example of the horribleness of the extreme position to which copyright law has been pushed.

It is important to remember that copyrights and patents exist for legitimate reasons. Namely, to protect the creators of the technology or work. They were originally intended to protect said creator(s) for a short period of time to allow them to profit exclusively from their work. That's a good thing. The bad thing is what they exist as now.

Copyrights now last an absurd amount of time. Perpetually forever in some cases. Mickey Mouse, for example, should have been in the public domain long ago except for the changes that we have seen to copyright law which now seem to provide Disney the ability to maintain copyright on Mickey forever.

Patents were originally created with a reasonable time attached to them as well...until technology advanced to the point that we are creating and manufacturing new things so much faster than when patent law was originally written. Especially in the case of software (which should not be able to be patented in my book), advancements are happening so fast that the long term of copyright no longer merely protects the creator from profitability, it stymies the creativity of others to the point of stymieing innovation.

The solution? Adjust patents and copyright terms to reflect modern innovation and technology. Copyright needs to go back to it's original term lengths (if not shorter), and patents need to have their term lengths set based on the creative pace of their respective industry. In other words, it may be appropriate for a special type of clutch on a tractor to have a patent lasting 20 years, but the idea of patenting multi-touch interfaces on mobile devices should probably not be able to last more than 4 or 5 years due to the pace of innovation in the industry.

I think with these kinds of modifications, patent and copyright law still serve a very valid purpose. It's only in it's current state that it becomes so evil.

The reason I say all this is because I can imagine a world without any of these things (DRM, patents, and copyright). Unfortunately, as we live in a world of fast paced innovation and proliferation of information, I think it would be impossible for people to profit legitimately from their work without some form of protection. We have rampant piracy now from countries that don't enforce copyright law. Imagine if it was out of control like that here because there was no copyright law. Suddenly, we would have less movies, less video games, less advancements in medicine, computers, and science. Sure, a program like Windows would greatly advance from the kind of openness that Linux currently profits from, but for how long before it fell apart or simply dried up?

The danger of these kinds of laws lies in the extremes. We have been steadily pushed by the big media and technology corporations towards increased DRM, copyright, and patent law to protect their profit margins for things that are now becoming ancient. If we are not already at the extreme and pushing beyond it, we are certainly at least approaching it. Likewise, we can and should not advocate the total opposite extreme. We needed the laws and rules to begin with to spark innovation. Now, we still need them. We just need them back towards to the point of balance where they began, and not towards the point of extreme at which they exist now.

And, below, is a thoughtful quote by a guy who is very outspoken and opinionated on the above subject: Richard Stallman

I don't have a problem with someone using their talents to become successful, I just don't think the highest calling is success. Things like freedom and the expansion of knowledge are beyond success, beyond the personal. Personal success is not wrong, but it is limited in importance, and once you have enough of it it is a shame to keep striving for that, instead of for truth, beauty, or justice.

- Richard Stallman - An Interview with Znet

"It's very rude to start a conversation"

-

Someone said this to me tonight. Is it right or wrong? You decide.

What Criteria Made You Choose Your Church? Was That Criteria Just? ***updated***

Tuesday night, one of our beloved upstairs neighbors took us out to eat at a charming little italian place called Angelo's. It's near here in the Lakewood area. As we sat and talked, conversation turned to (amongst other things) the subject of why people go to the specific church that they go to. What keeps them there? Why do some people leave, and others stick around through the heaviest of crisis?

The question came up dinner though this week, and boiled down (for me) to this: What should we reasonably expect from church, and when should we walk away as opposed to staying put during a time of hardship? How much hardship should we endure before we leave? Should we tell someone?

I think we can easily start talking about this issue by looking at some of the commonly stated reasons for leaving:

1.) Doctrine - what does the church teach? What has it declared that it believes? Where do you stand in relationship to those beliefs? When we become members of a church, we are essentially committing ourselves to the teaching of and adherence to those beliefs. So, it's important to know not only where you stand, but where the church stands. This is also why denominational schisms have erupted over the millenia. People disagree on doctrine, and chose to convene with and worship with people of like doctrine.

2.) Preaching - pushing the very important doctrinal aspect aside for the moment, a lot of people will chose their church entirely on the oratorial skills of the pastor. Is this an appropriate criteria for church selection and membership of or departure from?

3.) Worship Format - for a lot of people, the style of worship makes a big difference. Does it make you have that feeling of being all warm and fuzzy inside? Do you feel close to God during it? (FYI - I'm stating some common opinions about how worship is "supposed" to be here that are very debatable) Is the worship time somber or ecstatic? Is it traditional or contemporary? Is there a choir or a band?

4.) Community - What are the people like? Are they local or transplanted? (a term I had not heard used in this context until recently) Is it easy to establish relationships with others, or does everybody vanish into their lives post benediction until next week? Are friendships an "in church only" thing or do they reach out of the weekly service into each person's daily life? Are their social cliques which make it hard for an outsider to fit in? Do you have your "friends" and then your "church friends"?

5.) Programs - What kind of programs does the church have for people to fit into? Do some of it's members go out each week to feed the homeless? Maybe they knit socks for the poor or run blanket drives for the needy. Is a person able to easily get involved?

6.) Size - Usually an issue because of it's percieved association with some of these other issues, the size of a church is usually one of the first things people look at. Is it so big that it'll be hard to fit in? Maybe they really just want to blend into a crowd. Maybe they want a small church for the sense of community or a large church so it's easier to get involved in large scale community service projects.

7.) Status in the surrounding community - How respected is the church locally? What is it's reputation? Do you want to be associated with that body of believers?

8.) Educational Programs for youth - Does it have a good children's ministry with good teachers, solid doctrine, wise discipline, and a safe environment? How about a teenage ministry? A young adults ministry? Singles?

9.) Family - For some people, the church they go to was decided before they were even born by their family. For others, maybe they want to leave for that exact reason.

10.) History (of or with) - What is the history of that church. Is it prestigious? Is it humble? Has it been around for more than 20 years? 50? 100?

11.) Prayer activity - Does the church engage in active prayer? Are there regular prayer meetings? Does it successfully keep it's members informed of their current prayer needs of their peers and needs in the community? Does it pray faithfully?

12.) Denomination - Is it the denomination you fit in with? Maybe you want a non-denominational church.

13.) Conflict - This is really a reason for staying/leaving moreso than finding, but there are times when it might be best to leave due to conflict.

There are a lot of reasons why people chose their church, and I've probably missed some. We certainly didn't cover all of these at the dinner table, but we instead focused on the ones that either annoy us personally or that we follow. I tend to think that Doctrine followed by community are the most important ones. We should go to a church that does not teach practices, beliefs, and principles that are in contradiction to The Word. For example: as Christians, we should not attend a church that supports modalism. (modalism being an early church heresy that attempts to explain the Trinity by saying that The Father BECAME The Son who then BECAME The Holy Spirit) It's very important that we surround ourselves with peers and teaching that conforms to appropriate Christian doctrine.

I also believe that community and the availability of that community are very important. When I read about the early church in Acts, the things that shocks me the most is the sense of community. It's something I see as often lacking in our western church mentality. Now, maybe Rich Mullins was right when he said that he thinks that if we took all the highlighted verses from all the bibles in all the world we would discover that all of the bible was highlighted because different people are affected differently by different scriptures. (that's somewhat paraphrased) Maybe I am fascinated by Jesus's authority to heal the sick while someone Ethiopia is impressed with his generosity and charity for the poor. That being said though, I still believe that community is a vital and fundamental part of the church. It is one of the biggest roles of the church in my opinion.

I will say that, while it is definatly not a "deal breaker", the time of worship is important to me, too. I tend to like modern contemporary praise music with a band over the old hymns of yesteryear being sung by a choir. Not saying I hate the choir. Just stating my preference. For me it is easier to focus on worshipping God when singing the songs I am familiar with, and that is usually more modern stuff. I do thing though that the quest for a worship time/service that makes you "feel good" is kind of wishy-washy. I'm not saying you should be miserable during worship or anything, but I feel that the quest for "that emotion" is foolhardy.

I don't want to break down every criteria I listed above. I think that, for me, the Doctrine and the community are the "deal breaker" issues. I think the rest can be tolerated. (maybe the denominational issue is "deal breaker" important, but I think the import aspects of that can be summed up in the doctrine criteria). Obviously, the issue of conflict is not going to be always tolerable either.

I think that, ultimately, when I see someone leaving a church for some of these "lesser" reasons, I feel dismayed. I find myself wishing people had more backbone, and wondering about their priorities since they seem to be focused on what they are "getting" out of church. Is church here to service your expectations? Or, is it a gathering of people of like faith into a local representation of a global, universal body? If it is the latter, what right do we have to complain about the worship music or lack of programs? I'm obviously siding a little bit towards the "stick it out" ground, but maybe there is a bit of a middle ground. There are definitely legitimate times when one should leave. Sometimes, the community really isn't there or the church is teaching bad doctrine and sticking with it. I once walked away from even considering a church for membership because of a guest speaker who preached that we should all be rich. (yes, he was talking about money, and, yes, the congregation was jumping out of their seats with joy and acceptance of that message)

As for this post: you decide. Let me (and thus us) know what you think by posting a comment.

Peace.

Spock: Don't grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh...
James T. Kirk: The needs of the few...
Spock: Or the one.
- Star Trek II

Spock: My father says that you have been my friend. You came back for me.
James T. Kirk: You would have done the same for me.
Spock: Why would you do this?
James T. Kirk: Because sometimes the needs of the one... outweigh the needs of the many.

- Star Trek III

Bringing in the new year with Feuersangenbolle