Good copyright, bad copyright

Issue #135, 1st January 2011


Good copyright, bad copyright

Scamming in the name of the Lord.

Now here’s a scam – the scam of scams. This is how it works: Select a business covered by laws few people understand, grace your company with the titles “Christian” and “International” and enlist a large law firm to administer threats to prosecute for non-compliance.

Like to see more ?


Subscribe to our on-line edition !

For a mere R298.00 per year you get the convenience of our online version including:
  • Twelve monthly issues of Noseweek delivered to your browser
  • A searchable archive
  • Access to every back issue since 1993 !
  • A downloadable PDF version

If it's just this article you are after, you can purchase it for R30.00 by clicking here.

Tempted ?


For a taste of what awaits you, you are welcome to browse Last month's issue for free !


Share this article on your favorite Social Network: mixx del.icio.us Reddit Digg Twitter Facebook StumbleUpon

 or .....


Reader's comments

 Like to add your own comment ? Please click here to subscribe.
 
Submitted by : Donn on 2010-12-28 03:49:41
@Scott: When I investigated this, I discovered that the bible translations are copyrighted to prevent unauthorized modification by groups (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses) who disagree on the translation.

The CCLI License only covers songs that are not in the public domain and have been registered with the CCLI. This means that "traditional" churches/schools who use hymn books of public domain songs need not purchase a CCLI license. Most contemporary songs are covered by the CCLI license, and the annual license fee is distributed to the songwriters whose songs are used and reported by the subscribing churches. Popular songwriters such as Graham Kendrick earn royalties in this way. These royalties are nothing in comparison with those earned by commercial artists like Bob Dylan or the Rolling Stones.

It is disgraceful that CCLI sales people are using fearmongering tactics or harassing schools and churches. This is completely un-called for and unnecessary. The CCLI license has its good points, but these seem to have been ignored.

There are many benefits to churches who use the license, including the ability to copy lyrics and musical scores for all uses within the church without having to worry about whether they are going beyond "fair use", and without having to deal with multiple music publishers, which can be an administrative nightmare.

As a programmer who has helped a local music company keep track of its own royalty payments and sales, I have first-hand knowledge of how difficult it is to manage royalty payments. If this was imposed on schools and churches as well, it would be an admin nightmare.

The CCLI license makes it simple to report which songs were used, and the fees are not excessive. A small congregation of 275 people ends up paying R10 per person per year, or 20c per week. That's about the same songwriter royalty as buying one music CD per year.

If the CCLI sales people cannot explain this to a church or school, then they deserve to be exposed for scare tactics. I trust that Nosewek has documentary evidence of such "harassment"?

Editor's Note
Donn, how do you explain such songs (hymns) as 'Amazing Grace' and several others that should be 'public domain'? In our books, it's greed, fraud and anything else that could be thrown at it.
 
Submitted by : Scott on 2010-12-23 19:34:53
Even the bible is apparently copyrighted!
 
Submitted by : John on 2010-12-23 15:51:43
Great idea to charge!! Maybe our citizens will now think twice about the farce that is religion. They really should try charging for the stuff that is sang out of the Koran as well - but then maybe they'll get slightly more than they bargained for.... Yep, push up those prices - let's try get people to stop acting like sheep!

Disclaimer

While every reasonable effort is taken to ensure the accuracy and soundness of the contents of this publication, neither the authors nor the publishers of this website bear any responsibility for the consequences of any actions based on the information contained therein.