Charging For Encyclicals

[qfnol31]

Most likely the latter. They have a history of using copyright on Church documents like a modern corporation. The truth of faith shouldn't be behind a pay wall and the faithful shouldn't be treated as criminals or threatened because they share the documents of the faith.


http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=89

With all due respect to Dr. Mirus, many of his articles that specifically address topics relevant to Catholic Culture come across as partially self-serving and it's difficult to know how objective he really is in this case.

[Brother Adam]

The Church today is a giant bureaucracy fully involved and intertwined with the secular world. They hire hundreds of thousands of people, from priests, to teachers, to lawyers, to finance experts. Many of the people working for the Church have good hearts, are faithful, and truly want to advance the cause of Christ and follow his teachings in the public or private sphere. Our diocesan lawyer is a great example. A good many others - this is a job, nothing more, a huge cash cow to protect and an agenda to advance. I spoke to one bishop who said that is why he does his best to keep his diocese out of the way of successful lay movements. He is too well aware that his diocese has a way of crippling them with red tape.

 

There can be something said for controlling the distribution of documents. If they want to restrict the distribution of their documents to certain ecclesial websites, I am sort of okay with that to protect the integrity of the work. To charge for digital copies of any works by the Church is stupid (see cash cow above).

 

 

[qfnol31]

1) The USCCB is a good organization that has seen much purification over the past several years and deserves better from us.

2) The Vatican also pushed for this removal as well. Why should it be above reproach? It has its own publisher who sells the same types of books, though they're much more difficult to track down.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/feastofeden/2013/07/were-the-vatican-and-usccb-unjust-to-order-a-catholic-blogger-to-take-down-reformatted-versions-of-franciss-encyclical/

[arfink]

If this was any other organization people would be upset and with very good reason. But because we know the USCCB and the Vatican are just old and backwards we can be quite sure they're not doing this with any kind of malice, and so we shouldn't really be able to expect them to do any better, after all, it is the Church we're talking about. /sarcasm

[Brother Adam]

1) The USCCB is a good organization that has seen much purification over the past several years and deserves better from us.

2) The Vatican also pushed for this removal as well. Why should it be above reproach? It has its own publisher who sells the same types of books, though they're much more difficult to track down.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/feastofeden/2013/07/were-the-vatican-and-usccb-unjust-to-order-a-catholic-blogger-to-take-down-reformatted-versions-of-franciss-encyclical/

 

It has always been a good organization, however there are still departments, the copyright office being one, that need to be cleaned up. You wouldn't believe some of the conversations I have had with staff there in the past year.
 

[GeorgiiMichael]

If the pdf can be offered for free, the epub can also be offered for free. Charging just because it's a different file type makes no sense. I can understand their frustration at someone else distributing it, and their actions in that regard make perfect sense. But the pdf vs. epub difference is guano crazy.

[qfnol31]

But in the end, the property rights belong to the Vatican for this document.

I guess I must be missing something, but I don't really see the big deal here. Has anyone asked for permission to make a publication of the text through proper channels and been denied? Until someone tries that minimal amount of work and says so, I won't really care. Even after that point, the Vatican has the right to control who can distribute the book and would probably let a reputable company or publisher distribute it for free if approached, but then again, they may not have the right to do so. Ultimately they do not own the rights to the encyclical. They are the guardians of the copyright in the US.

[qfnol31]

If the pdf can be offered for free, the epub can also be offered for free. Charging just because it's a different file type makes no sense. I can understand their frustration at someone else distributing it, and their actions in that regard make perfect sense. But the pdf vs. epub difference is guano crazy.

Legally you may not distribute the PDF yourself either. Why the USCCB and other companies charge for the epub version is probably because of the process and money involved in making the original, which is itself part of the original publishing process.

[arfink]

Sigh, some people just cannot get it into their heads that sacred texts should NOT property to be bought and sold for profit. That is bordering on simony. As for using copyright to protect the integrity of the texts, it's archaic. I understand QF that you think it's just how it is, and it should just be that way, but it can't stay that way.

 

Just so you know, I'm part of a group who are petitioning bishops, the USCCB, the Vatican, and anyone else we can get hold of to fix this problem. This nonsense must be ended.

[GeorgiiMichael]

Legally you may not distribute the PDF yourself either. Why the USCCB and other companies charge for the epub version is probably because of the process and money involved in making the original, which is itself part of the original publishing process.

 

You didn't read what I wrote, did you?

 

I said, I can understand their chagrin at someone else distributing it. That's totally against copyright and they're within their rights to issue a cease and desist.

 

THAT SAID

 

There is essentially no cost to converting a PDF to an EPUB. I could take the PDF and convert it to EPUB at any number of conversion websites across the internet for no cost other than my regular internet bill. And if the Vatican and USCCB can distribute the PDF for free, then it stands to logic that they can, and should, distribute the EPUB for free as well. 

 

Charging for a print copy makes sense, because there is cost in printing. Hosting 2 files where you were hosting 1 costs so little extra that there is literally no point for charging for one of those files. Like Arf said it borders on simony. And it is definitely a hindrance to distributing the document. 

 

They'll be making any money back by selling print copies, and honestly, going into the red on an encyclical is such a non-issue that I don't see the point.

 

It's addressed to the laity, in addition to the clergy, and so it should be easy and accessible to all the laity.

[arfink]

It just kinda makes me mad when people keep harping on the "it's copyrighted, it's legal for them to do this" when it's clearly not MORAL for them to be doing it. It's enough to make a man want to put the encyclical on the Pirate Bay in the name of the New Evangelization.

[Ice_nine]

Pretty sure Jesus would do the same thing.

[Nihil Obstat]

It just kinda makes me mad when people keep harping on the "it's copyrighted, it's legal for them to do this" when it's clearly not MORAL for them to be doing it. It's enough to make a man want to put the encyclical on the Pirate Bay in the name of the New Evangelization.

 

Wanna do it? :|

[arfink]

Actually, yes. I kinda do. :)

[qfnol31]

Sigh, some people just cannot get it into their heads that sacred texts should NOT property to be bought and sold for profit. That is bordering on simony. As for using copyright to protect the integrity of the texts, it's archaic. I understand QF that you think it's just how it is, and it should just be that way, but it can't stay that way.

 

Just so you know, I'm part of a group who are petitioning bishops, the USCCB, the Vatican, and anyone else we can get hold of to fix this problem. This nonsense must be ended.

I'm actually for protecting the integrity of the system. I believe that copyrights (as broken as the system is, particularly with the 70-year limit), serve a great purpose for different things. I also think that it has to be enforced, but stupidly the enforcement is left to the wrong people.

 

I realize you like the idea of an open license, but even copyrighted texts can be opened up. Copyrighting texts doesn't necessarily imply that money is the only way to prevent the distribution of a text.