Control At Any Cost: Copyright vs Christian Rock

C. Michael Pilato playing the guitar

Reader C. Michael Pilato sent us this story...

I've known about the terms "copyright" and "trademark" for as long as I've been able to read cereal boxes at the breakfast table. But I didn't became aware of copyright and the surrounding issues until I was in college. Sadly, our introduction wasn't all handshakes and smiles.

I play the guitar. I started teaching myself how to do this in high school, when my primary taste in music was so-called Christian rock. I carried my interest in the guitar with me into college at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where I developed a second love affair – with the Internet.

At some point early in my college days, someone introduced me to OLGA, the Online Guitar Archive. OLGA had the straightforward goal of providing a single location where guitarists of all shapes and sizes could download and contribute plaintext files that described how to play particular pieces of classical or popular music on the guitar. I gathered while traipsing around through newsgroups and such that OLGA was pretty popular with amateur guitarists like myself. There was only one small problem with OLGA from my perspective – it didn't have much music from the bands I listened to. So, I decided to dedicate a portion of the web-accessible disk space allotted to me by UNCC to host a site like OLGA, but dedicated to contemporary Christian music (CCM). And with just a handful of transcriptions I'd done myself (and also submitted to OLGA for inclusion there), and some severely lacking website design skills, I began the CCM Guitar Music Archives.

I advertised the CCMGMA on the rec.music.christian newsgroup, routinely asking for contributions, and trying to cover myself legally by asking would-be contributors to "respect all laws regarding copyright, patent, The Club(tm), and other such neat-0 anti-theft devices". Of course, if you've read anything at all here at QuestionCopyright.org, you should be able to spot quickly that I knew about copyright's true purpose exactly what most of America knows about it, which is to say I knew practically nothing. But contributions started to flow in, and the site's popularity started to grow. I recall a day when, flipping through an Internet-focused book in a Christian bookstore, I arrived at an appendix in the back listing top-tens of various categories of websites. There I discovered that my little uncc.edu-hosted website (complete with the tell-tale tilde in the URL) was considered one of the top ten music-related resources for Christians on the World Wide Web. UNCC eventually even had to ask me to move the site to my home ISP's servers because they felt it was generating too much traffic on their network.

In February of 1996, I tried to visit OLGA's website, but was greeted with a message about some legal issue they were having with a major publishing company. Knowing that any legal issue they were having was likely one I could wind up having, too, I temporarily brought the CCMGMA offline. I continued to watch OLGA for clues about the waters clearing, and eventually brought my site back up. I tightened up my submission policies to explicitly disallow renditions of songs for which you could purchase guitar sheet music from a music store. Again, my whole understanding of copyright was basically that it existed to protect artist's profits. In my mind, no profiting artists meant no music to listen to, so I did not in any way want to contribute to that scenario. I had to deny a few contributions under this new policy, but my conscience was clear.

And then it happened. A representative of a Christian music publishing company contacted me via email and indicated that I needed to immediately remove all the works on my site that were associated with artists contracted to them. I don't recall now if I tried to get a good explanation of why from the representative. I do recall the bewilderment I felt as I wrestled with the fact that it was a Christian publishing house that was forcing my hand. (I've learned much since then about the peculiarities of the word “Christian” when used as an adjective.) But none of this mattered. What mattered was that I was a college kid with no sizable income, and I had this vision looping in my head of my parents wringing their hands and asking of me through columns of steels bars, “Mike, what have you done?!” I took the CCM Guitar Music Archives offline, eventually handing the whole collection of nearly 300 contributions to someone else who wanted to try to keep the idea alive. And just like that, three years of making what I felt was a small but positive impact on one segment of the world were finished.

To this day, I still wonder if even a single penny of publisher profit was negatively affected by my site or OLGA or any number of similar collections of user-contributed guesswork. Never did I hear from my contributors that, thanks to my site, they no longer needed to buy CDs or cassettes. In fact, I suspect these sites existed at all because of folks listening to purchased music over and over and over again while trying to discern amidst a wash of drum fills and screaming vocals what their favorite guitarist might have been playing in a given song. Besides, doesn't the Good Book tell us that "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil"?

Copyright Restricts the Great Commission

Thank you for taking to blog on this issue. It's something I am rather passionate about.
Restrictive copyright prevents people from using copyrighted works to minister to others and share the gospel. I wrote an essay on this subject a few years ago. It's still online at http://www.serviceplanner.force9.co.uk/music/trwl/copyright.html

Those asking for Free Christian music resources should check out sharesong.org. Not everything there is completely free (some of the authors expect CCLI royalties) but there is a lot of music there.

Blessings,

Phil.

Can't use even 3 seconds of a song now

It surprises me how many people on Youtube are singing copyrighted songs and they aren't being banned. I make worship guitar instructional DVD's and have gotten all the legal copyrights.

I just assummed it would be OK to make a 'store loop' with just a few seconds of some of the songs. Boy was I surprised that it's not OK. One of the companies was OK with this, but the biggest were not.

I couldn't even play just the partial lyric "I'm coming back" from 'The Heart of Worship' without paying for it. I coudln't believe it! It's just a 5 minute store loop showcasing 4 DVD's with 24 songs.

I ended up just using a small portion of Amazing Grace in English and Spanish. That's a public domain song and 'safe.' The video is posted at youtube but has no copyrighted materials.

It's probably because these companies have lost so much business from illegal downloads that they've gotten really strict with any use of the songs. .... not sure why they haven't made youtube remove all the homemade videos with copyrighted songs.

I'm glad you weren't charged and that they did give you a chance to remove the songs first.

God Bless,
Jean Welles
http://www.worshipguitarclass.com

Hiding the Truth

I think it is interesting how you removed my comment. Is it because I didn't totally agree with you?

You can judge people if you want to, and accuse them of not being Christian simply because they don't agree with you, but just keep in mind that you will be judged too one day.

Re: Hiding the Truth

Are you kidding? We can't remember all the comments we've removed. Let me explain, you may not realize the situation sites like this one are in:

We have a huge comment spam problem. The vast majority of comments we receive are spam. But they're not automated; rather, they're done by humans who are actually paid to place commercial links in their comments as they surf the web. Placing such links is a service offered by businesses like the one described here. They pay people to surf the web, reading articles very quickly and writing low-quality comments that are more or less on-topic but doesn't actually say much. However, in each comment is a link back to wherever the customer paid to have linked. The rates are like $20 for 100 comments. Aside from being a completely unethical business model, I'm sure it's a great opportunity for literate people living in countries with network connectivity but low-value currencies to earn a decent living.

Out of the scores of comments we remove every few weeks, it's possible that yours was one. The only way we have to determine whether a post is spam or not is: does it contain a link, and does it seem like it was written hastily and after a very shallow reading of the article? If we didn't do this filtering, our site would be swamped in essentially meaningless comments that are nevertheless recognizably on-topic.

Maybe yours was a high-quality comment, in which case I apologize. We make mistakes occasionally. But please understand the situation we're dealing with.

You have insulted me with

You have insulted me with your bias.

1. My comment was not only on target, but I did put a lot of thought into it. Even though I put a link in it to my site, I wanted to add value to your blog entry. Obviously, you didn't appreciate that.

2. I am aware of the spam issue. However, you do allow people to put a link back to their website. So the fact that they do this is your fault. If you don't want their links then don't give them an opportunity to put them in their post.

3. At the very least, get people that know how to recognize real value when they see it. The post that I put up should not have been removed. It was well thought out and applicable to the point of this blog entry.

4. I find it to be interesting how you want to promote freedom of expression while censoring the thoughts of those who have something meaningful to say. That is quite hypocritical, in my opinion.

What about These???

From another section of your blog you have allowed a person to put not just 1, but 3 back-links to his websites about Melaleuca!

http://questioncopyright.org/bob_ostertag_speaks#comment-3118

Yet, you didn't mark this as spam. I wonder if he's someone you know well, or if it is a page rank issue...

Furthermore, you have allowed someone to put a blatant back-link to his website on a comment that doesn't even come close to measuring up to the value that mine had.

See post entitled Great Post here:

http://questioncopyright.org/bob_ostertag_speaks#comment-3131

So please don't try to use the spam issue as a scapegoat here!

Re: What about These???

Thank you for volunteering to help patrol this site for spam comments -- having another person on the job will certainly help us reduce our error rate. Also, it will increase your appreciation for the difficulty of the job and the quick judgment calls inherent in it; based on your replies, this also seems like a positive result :-).

In the meantime, I'll take a look at the other comments you cited. We do miss some from time to time, you know.

Regarding your other comment:

Freedom of speech means letting other people say anything they want, and in our case, it also means letting them use text from this web site however they want. It does not mean providing a publishing forum for anyone to say anything, commercially-motivated or otherwise. You are free to publish a blog at which you say anything you like, and we even agree that you can use text from here to say it. However, our primary obligation is to our mission and to our readers: no purpose of ours is served by publishing comments that do not contribute to that.

We frequently publish comments by people who disagree with our goals -- I'm sure you saw them all over the site. So it's not that we have any objection to vigorous debate. But like every open Internet forum, we are forced to filter. If we didn't, we'd be swamped with increasingly off-topic threads and seeming non-sequiturs, and the quality of the site would be steadily reduced.

You seem to be shocked that we don't have a perfect score in our attempts to perform this filtering service. But why would you expect otherwise? Any such filtering is bound to be imperfect. I'm sorry you got bitten by a mistake, if you did, but blame the spammers and topic-switchers out there, not us.

While it is most likely that your comment was accidentally deleted because it was mistaken for spam, it's also possible that it was deleted because we felt it didn't contribute to our goals in any recognizable way. I simply don't remember the comment, I'm sorry. Since we never promised to publish all comments in the first place (see our editorial policy), your complaints of censorship are ill-founded.

However, we could do more to make that editorial policy visible, and to preserve comments instead of deleting them. These are technical measures that we hope to take soon, we just haven't had a chance to do it yet (most site maintenance is done by me, but a few others help out -- at the moment, that maintenance is not paid work for anyone, so things get delayed when people are busy).

Re: What about These???

The first comment you pointed to is not spam at all (remember, we have no objection to links, just to comments where the link is the main justification for the comment's existence).

The second comment was clearly spam, and I've deleted it. Thanks for pointing it out; I don't know why we missed it before, but as I said, errors are inevitable.

By the way, errors aren't

By the way, errors aren't 'inevitable' unless you have your eyes closed at all times while trying to do things that require seeing!

Sure...

Look, you know what the real deal is. There is no need to try to convince me of something other than what is obvious.

I'm sorry, but I am not buying it.

Nice try though!

Creative Commons Christian music?

I've been disappointed with Christians on the copyright issue. You'd think, that because of their religion, they'd be the first to question copyright. Unfortunately, they still believe the myths about copyright, and they feel that fighting copyright is fighting a fair law. So in practise, it's the pirates who don't have consciouses (Christian or not), who first wake up to the myths of copyright.
I think there's a decent biblical case against copyright. Maybe someone should start christiansagainstcopyright.com.
I also think it's ridiculous to ask churches for copyright licence fees in order to praise the Lord.
I've been looking for some time now for Christian Creative Commons music. But I can't find any. When I saw the title of this post I was hoping you'd be revealing some. Do you know any?

Re: Creative Commons Christian music?

I don't know any freely licensed Christian music in particular (sorry). But that doesn't mean there's none out there, and if anyone knows of some, I hope they'll post here.

By the way, I haven't noticed Christians holding a statistically different position from non-Christians on copyright any more than on other issues. But if you can find a biblical argument against copyright, please use it! We need all the help we can get.

Cristian Music Resources

There is some!

Look here

http://www.unmercenary.com/

and maybe Cosmas and Damien would be suitable patron saints!

If you want a short snappy quote from the bible:
"freely ye have received, freely give." (Matthew 10 v8)