Charging For Encyclicals

[arfink]

OK, some of you have probably already seen this.

 

Today Pope Francis' new encyclical Lumen Fidei was published. The Vatican website put up a nice PDF in addition to their usual parchment-background HTML. That's all well and good you say, but what if I would like it on my Kindle? Well, lots of people did ask, and so one blogger decided to convert it to EPUB and a few other formats, and put those up on his website. Sounds great, right? Well, not for him.

 

From http://brandonvogt.com/lumen-fidei/

 

 

In the last couple hours, I've received a litany of emails from both the USCCB and the Vatican accusing me of "[violating] both civil and moral law" and "stealing from the pope" (actual words used) by making the encyclical available in other formats. They've ordered me to remove the documents with full knowledge that this would prevent hundreds of people from reading it who otherwise wouldn't read the encyclical online or in print.

 

In my view, this is tragic and unjust. It's valuing profit over catechesis, and I have to believe Pope Francis (and Pope Benedict) would be extremely perturbed. Their goal and the goal of the Church is to evangelize—to spread the message of Jesus Christ, especially through papal encyclicals—not to make a dime off each copy printed.

 

Of course, it's very telling that today the USCCB has also announced they will be charging for their Ebook version of the encyclical, which is ironically the exact same as the PDF the Vatican released online, but converted to Epub. They probably used the same converter tools Mr. Vogt used.

 

This, to me, just sums up the inanity of using copyright to protect sacred texts. The same tomfoolery has been used to protect the English translations of the breviary, the parts of the Mass, and even Sacred Scripture. This has to stop. We can't charge people for these texts, the faith must be free. I understand charging for printed volumes because the laborer deserves his wages, but when other Catholics pay for the web hosting to distribute these texts we need to allow it to continue because, frankly, not everyone can afford to pay for print, and not everyone can use a PDF or a website. If redistributing these texts is going to be illegal then we've lost our ability to transmit the documents that are so critical to our faith.

Edited July 5, 2013 by arfink

[Laudate_Dominum]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVafzGiap4Y

[Nihil Obstat]

I am ok with charging for a printed copy. That is an actual, tangible product which is not costless to reproduce. Charging for a digital copy is insane, and going after people who set it up themselves is beyond the pale.

Then, just to add insult to injury, it is mind-bendingly stupid that they have a problem with someone taking a PDF, which is already freely available, and simply distributing it in a different file type. It is not like this guy starting charging for his EPUB file. He downloaded a file which was freely offered, converted it - himself - and is offering it freely - himself. To say that this is bad logic would be insulting to logic, because there is none whatsoever here.

 

Whichever people are behind this should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[Amppax]

What Nihil said.

[qfnol31]

The Vatican's website has fairly clearly posted at the bottom of its English translation: Â© Copyright - Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

 

I think it's perfectly legitimate for the USCCB to have become involved here in the manner it did. First of all, someone makes his/her livelihood making these translations. If they don't receive money from the translations, then they lose out (even if indirectly). The same principle sort of happens with movies that are pirated. It's not like the people in the movies really need to keep them out of the public sphere; they get tons of money (just like the bishops), but the writers lose out on a lot. Stupid, but that's how it works. Since I know some people who have been involved in various translations (for the NABRE, e.g.) I care a great deal about this aspect.

 

The second, and more important reason these documents are copyrighted is to protect the translations from interventions. This is why the GIRM is copyrighted. You can't change it then and you must have permission to make it available. If you don't like it, change the law, but as it stands, that's how the law works and why the Vatican is perfectly willing to use copyright itself.

[qfnol31]

By the way, what I said applies to both digital and physical texts equally and is more necessary now that we have digital means of transmitting data. I am fairly vigilant about this since I teach and want to make sure my students know how copyright works in this country.

[arfink]

The Vatican's website has fairly clearly posted at the bottom of its English translation: Â© Copyright - Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

 

I think it's perfectly legitimate for the USCCB to have become involved here in the manner it did. First of all, someone makes his/her livelihood making these translations. If they don't receive money from the translations, then they lose out (even if indirectly). The same principle sort of happens with movies that are pirated. It's not like the people in the movies really need to keep them out of the public sphere; they get tons of money (just like the bishops), but the writers lose out on a lot. Stupid, but that's how it works. Since I know some people who have been involved in various translations (for the NABRE, e.g.) I care a great deal about this aspect.

 

The second, and more important reason these documents are copyrighted is to protect the translations from interventions. This is why the GIRM is copyrighted. You can't change it then and you must have permission to make it available. If you don't like it, change the law, but as it stands, that's how the law works and why the Vatican is perfectly willing to use copyright itself.

 

They should be using a Creative Commons "Attribution, Non Commercial, Non Derivative" license then. It's got all the protections they want without any of the cow-offal restriction of information that comes with Copyright enforcement. This would be INCREDIBLY easy to do.

 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Edited July 6, 2013 by arfink

[Era Might]

I think it's perfectly legitimate for the USCCB to have become involved here in the manner it did. First of all, someone makes his/her livelihood making these translations. If they don't receive money from the translations, then they lose out (even if indirectly). The same principle sort of happens with movies that are pirated. It's not like the people in the movies really need to keep them out of the public sphere; they get tons of money (just like the bishops), but the writers lose out on a lot. Stupid, but that's how it works. Since I know some people who have been involved in various translations (for the NABRE, e.g.) I care a great deal about this aspect.

 

How much is a translation worth (i.e., as a service rendered)? Translators are not the creators of the text, directly or indirectly (writers are). Why not have some kind of deal so that they are either paid upfront, or entitled to royalties until an agreed-upon payment is satisfied.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Era Might

[Lil Red]

kind of ridiculous, but not surprising coming from the USCCB. 

[AnneLine]

Makes me sad to hear of this happening ... because what the effect will be is that a bunch of people simply will not read the encyclical.  They'll trust they will hear what they need to hear in their parishes... or just won't bother.

 

 

[arfink]

How much is a translation worth (i.e., as a service rendered)? Translators are not the creators of the text, directly or indirectly (writers are). Why not have some kind of deal so that they are either paid upfront, or entitled to royalties until an agreed-upon payment is satisfied.

 

Something tells me the translators are not going to be stiffed because the Ebook isn't selling well...

[qfnol31]

How much is a translation worth (i.e., as a service rendered)? Translators are not the creators of the text, directly or indirectly (writers are). Why not have some kind of deal so that they are either paid upfront, or entitled to royalties until an agreed-upon payment is satisfied.

 

Chances are they are paid up front, based largely on previous (and similar) current sales, talent, time, deadlines, etc.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Support the Catholic Church_® -- if you see something, say something. Pirating church documents is a sin and we'll sue your ass, in his name.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Laudate_Dominum

[Laudate_Dominum]

From a different point of view alienating a guy like Brandon Vogt, who evidently donates much of his time and resources to promoting the Catholic Church, is "genius". Very wise and business savvy people out there. /sarcasm
What they should have done was contact him respectfully and graciously, with the intention of negotiating a solution that protects their interests while securing and rewarding Brandon's "brand enthusiast", as it were.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Laudate_Dominum

[Basilisa Marie]

That's idiotic.  Like Nihil said, it makes sense to charge for a paper copy.  But if the VATICAN has offered digital copies for free, it makes absolutely no sense for the USCCB to charge for digital copies.  If it was their document and they wanted to charge for it, they could. But it's not.  It's the Pope's document.  And it's written to (among others) the lay faithful.  We have a RIGHT to read it.