Open Access News

News from the open access movement


Friday, September 09, 2005

A Christian critique of access barriers

Christian Bell, Keeping integrity without copyrighting, Calvin College Chimes, 99, 28 (2005). Excerpt:
Allow me to propose a radical thesis: Copyright is fundamentally incompatible with Christian scholarship....As Christian scholars, we must oppose the very notion of copyright and marginalize it as a selfish and idolatrous temptation that is squeezing the life out of our work....The problem is that copyright places restraints on both scholasticism and scholars; it locks ideas up under the ownership of particular people who are legally entitled to do whatever they want with it. Furthermore, any derivative use of copyrighted material must acknowledge — and frequently pay — for the right to use the original work. In doing so, copyright denigrates the communal nature of scholarship. When our scholarship is done for the church, it is not a stretch to say that copyright denigrates the communal nature of Christian worship also. The proper method — and the historical method — for Christian scholarship is for our work to be conducted by members of the body of Christ for the benefit and enjoyment of the rest of the body....The primary motivation of copyright is to protect two things: profit and pride. But neither of these are things that we ought to be racing to defend....Our objection to copyright is a denial of the implicit premise of “ownership” in copyright. Christianity asserts strongly and unequivocally that no human person owns his or her own thoughts. Our entire scholastic and intellectual endeavor is made possible solely by the grace of God — this is one of the fundamental tenets of our faith....Avoiding copyright of course raises questions about what the alternatives are. We can say succinctly that there are alternatives, including the public domain, Creative Commons licenses, and other alternative protections that keep the integrity of our work intact while ensuring that it stays free — both in terms of cost and in terms of freedom.

(PS: I'm sticking to the secular arguments.)