Anyone Want to End Piracy?

SOPA and PIPA

At this point, I imagine anyone with Internet access has heard of SOPA and PIPA. I found last Wednesday’s online protest quite enjoyable. I love political activism; I love seeing a people stand up to Washington and the large companies who try to purchase power over us*; and I hope this bill goes down because it will do little concerning piracy but could change the Internet as we know it.

Wednesday was a big win. I hope neither of these bills (and anything like them) ever pass.

But I’m also concerned about piracy, the issue some had hoped the bills would address. I’m concerned by the realization that *many* good persons are pirating music, films, and software…but few seem care.

I have a story about piracy. A story from my life.

My Lack of Music Problem

I was never one to listen to music regularly, so over the course of my high school years I acquired only a couple music CDs. But when I went to school (Virginia) in the Fall of 2004, I realized I do enjoy listening to music sometimes; it’s just that when I was home I’d relied upon overhearing music others were playing. So I set about to fix my lack of music problem.

It started small, I ripped a couple of my sister’s CDs to my computer, and I used iTunes to manage my music. It wasn’t long before I wanted to listen to something else, so I found it online for free (maybe a Russian site, etcetera).

Next thing you know, I wasn’t just using iTunes, I was also using MyTunes (pirating music from other computers that shared music via iTunes). Within months I’d amassed tens of gigabytes of music. It was wonderful—I had everything from Elvis to Shania Twain to Papa Roach to Snoop Dogg to Nickel Creek.

Reality Check

After this behavior began (probably more than a year later) I had a conversation with a friend. He confronted me: piracy is wrong, he clearly conveyed; it’s theft.

The wheels began turning in my head. Our conversation didn’t last too long…but I continued to have one with myself for a long while; I wanted to justify my behavior, explain how it wasn’t that bad.

(An Aside Concerning Definitions)

I realize that not everyone agrees upon what piracy means, and I don’t plan to settle the discussion now (I’m not entirely sure myself).

Yes, gray areas exist. For the purposes of this post, let’s ignore those gray areas and focus on the clear areas (such as the piracy I was guilty of early in my college years).

And let’s face it, though gray area piracy does occur often, straight up piracy is super common, and it’s done by normal and generally upstanding citizens of our nation.

Is Internet Piracy Really Theft?

Obviously theft is wrong. If someone questions this, we have other issues with which to deal! (Exodus 20:15, “You shall not steal.”)

Certainly back in the day that mostly applied to physical property (e.g. baskets, pigs, hammers, and pens)

But what about intellectual property (IP—the IP in PIPA)? IP is less tangible (e.g. brand names, music, designs, and prose).

Consider this passage:

1 Corinthians 9:9-11, For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things?

In a relatively direct way Paul is saying that intangible investments (i.e. teaching, prayer, etc.) that he and others have made are worthy of material compensation. Paul used a passage from the law of Moses, and shows that it was not written so much for the sake of oxen, but as a specific instance of a big idea: it is right and good for us to enjoy the fruit of our labor.

And Paul’s specific application shows that whether that labor results in something super tangible like houses and crops or something less tangible such as excellent public addresses and written letters, it is right and good for the laborer to enjoy the fruit of his labor.

Ecclesiastes 3:13, Every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor—it is the gift of God.

Thus, when people write/perform/record music, when they design logos, when they create video games, when they write screenplays, etc…it is good and right for them to enjoy the fruit of their labor. And if they write a super popular screenplay, then it is good and right for them to enjoy *lots* of fruit.

(And, yes—for those quick to judge—it is also good and right for them to be generous with that fruit.)

Personal Attestation: As someone who’s possessed much more intellectual property than traditional property, I can bear witness to the fact that that IP often is the result of much labor! (That said, I’m a big open source fan and don’t mind sharing the fruit of *most* of my labor.)

I’ve recorded music, played shows, written at length, built software, etc. IP is most definitely the result of labor, and it should be enjoyed by the laborer. And when you use or make a copy of that property without permission, you’re depriving a laborer of the fruit of his labors; you’re muzzling the ox. This is sin.

(Again, fair use is massively important…and there are many gray areas. I briefly addressed this in the aside earlier in the post.)

My Excuses

After determining it was wrong, I still wanted to justify my piracy—I didn’t want to lose all the music I’d acquired!

These are two excuses I actually told myself:

  1. Everyone Does It

So? Since when does God call us to the holiness standard set by “everyone”?

I had no answer.

  1. I Don’t Feel Convicted When I Pirate Music

This seemed to satisfy. After all, if celebrating no day as holy doesn’t bother your conscience, then don’t celebrate, right (Rom. 14)? And then I realized, “How terrifying—that my actions are clearly condemned by the Word of God and yet not by my own conscience!”

It was as if my conscience had been “seared with a hot iron” (1 Tim 4:2); it was unresponsive to this sin.

The End of My Story

I repented. I deleted the music. I do my best to refrain from piracy (again, there definitely are gray areas).

And my conscience is much more sensitive in this area now. (I’m even convicted as I write this concerning a piece of software; I need to look into the licensing details!)

Conclusion

What’s the solution? Well, certainly not SOPA and PIPA! They wouldn’t have stopped the college-freshman-me anyway…but a lot of passion was exhibited the other day—a people taking a stand for liberty.

And I would love to see as much passion exhibited by a people in support of the respect of intellectual property. And not a stand that necessarily results in laws, but results in individuals calling each other out and taking a stand for God honoring activity.

Piracy might get someone the coolest things fastest, but I don’t think piracy is cool in God’s book.

The end.

* (I didn’t want to distract from my point up top…but this is too good not to mention!) We’ve all long known that corporations regularly bribe politicians through campaign contributions (and are often successful). One amazingly direct quotation surfaced through this whole SOPA/PIPA ordeal, a statement from a studio chief who said, “God knows how much money we’ve given to Obama and the Democrats and yet they’re not supporting our interests.”

§78 · January 23, 2012 · 1472 Words · Essays, Miscellaneous, Politics · Comments Off · Tags: , , ,

Hashtags

This is a random post. On a topic that only interests me because I’m slightly obsessive and a geek.

Hashtags: Are They a Twitter Invention?

No.

First, hashtags were first used in a Tweet by a user, who now happens to be a Google employee, not Twitter.

Second, this usage was not entirely original; actually, it was bringing a preexisting standard to a new medium with a slightly modified use.

Third, over time, the way many use hashtags on Twitter (and now all over including Facebook) has evolved as people like you and me use them. (Just like language evolves.)

The Creator

Chris Messina is the guy who first used a hashtag in a tweet. He asked, “how do you feel about using # (pound) for groups. As in #barcamp [msg]?” (The Tweet that began an era.)

This was August 23, 2007.

Although a great idea, it didn’t take off until the disastrous fires in San Diego lit up the Internet (including Twitter). Messina was an active evangelist for the hashtag and took advantage of the opportunity. Here’s his blog post dated October 22, 2007; in this entry Messina makes a solid case for the potential of the hashtag convention.

The True Origins: IRC

Messina’s Tweet suggesting hashtags was made on August 23, 2007. Two days later here wrote a long blog entry giving further explanation for the convention he’d proposed.

It occurred to me that IRC presents a proven model for these needs with its foundation on channels, and so that’s what I’m generally going to call them.

In this post he explains how the hashtag idea isn’t entirely original but is very directly based upon an preexisting standard from Internet Relay Chat—essentially a protocol for certain kinds of chatting online (mostly for geeks).

I’ll admit, I didn’t use IRC until just a few years ago, but the protocol has been around nearly as long as I have—1988. One useful feature of IRC is separate conversations in different channels (conversation topics/groupings). To enter a specific conversation in IRC, one would type the following:

/join #conversationtopicgoeshere

Twitter users, look somewhat familiar?

Messina’s idea was to be able to follow conversations on Twitter by simply having users preppend Tweets with the conversation topic…or the grouping for a conversation…or the “channel” to which the Tweet belonged.

While I fully credit him with the creation of hashtags within the world of Twitter, we must not ignore the idea (hashtagging) did not fully originate with him.

Evolution

Messina’s idea was to simply associate Tweets with a conversation. For example:

#christmas2011 I had sooo much fun shopping today!

But the usage has evolved to be more than simply a conversation title but fun/useful/additional information communicated in a very blunt way (and I’ve fully embraced this usage). Example:

Ten more pages and I head home! #cantwaittobehome #ilovefoodsomuch

In this instance #cantwaittobehome and #ilovefoodsomuch are not conversations to which this statement belongs. They’re essentially addendums, almost parenthetical statements but even less connected to the sentence.

Conclusion

The Twitter is an interesting piece of software with lots of potential; my intention is not to take away from the company. However, a common notion is that hashtags are a “Twitter thing”.

But, Twitter didn’t create hashtags, one of their users “created them”. And, he didn’t really create them so much as borrow them from a preexisting protocol. Subsequently the usage evolved and spread to other platforms as well.

btw, I’d love to hear other ways hashtags are used. I demonstrated two common usages that I’ve seen, but I’m sure there are others!

§72 · November 23, 2011 · 667 Words · Miscellaneous · 2 comments · Tags: , ,

WikiLeaks: Good or Bad?

WikiLeaks: Some Background Info

WikiLeaks was officially launched in 2007 with a fairly clear focus:

Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists (our electronic drop box). One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth.

Sounds like classic journalism, right? Well, things have gotten sticky real fast. The year 2010 found WikiLeaks at the center of controversy after releasing the Afghan War Diary (91,731 military documents, mostly classified as “secret”) and then the Iraq War Logs (391,832 military documents, the biggest leak in our military history).

These documents documents contained lots of info and lots of names. I’m not sure anyone has linked the leak of the documents to any casualties, but potentiality has been noted many times.

They’ve linked non-military things, but nothing to which I’ve paid much attention.

About a year ago they released a video taken from an US military helicopter. They called the video collateral murder. The title is certainly a biased editorial (I believe some of those killed were armed insurgents), that said the video didn’t make the servicemen look good.

I watched it. It was strange to see actual footage of men dying. I remember clearly how I felt while watching it. I felt sick. I’ve seen many movies where people get killed, and Hollywood does an excellent job of making it super realistic, the blood and gore are like you’re only feet away. But death in films (even graphic and violent) does not effect me nearly the way this black and white long range video did. Hearing the gunshots, and then seeing the people fall, knowing that this isn’t a film…I’m actually watching people die, it was crazy. I don’t necessarily recommend it.

Anywho, that is what WikiLeaks does. They encouraging people to anonymously leak information (that usually equals violating organizational rules), and then they leak it (often with an editorial twist).

Journalism

The truth is that when I think of journalism, I don’t think of brief headlines about the latest travels of the president to some foreign state. I think about people like Deep Throat who leaked info to Woodward during the Watergate scandal. I remember the Pentagon Papers published by the New York Times in the early 70′s.

I think about investigative work (often involving anonymous informants who leak information) that uncovers truth. Of course, the truth is often that we’ve been told lies…and the liars are rarely happy that such truth has been uncovered!

So in many ways, WikiLeaks is an attempt to utilize modern technology to put at least part of the journalism process (informant/leak finding) on steroids.

Is It Legal

Free speech is important. And the First Amendment exists not to protect chit-chat about the weather, it exists to protect speech that most people hate and want censored.

So can you say anything legally? Basically yes, but not exactly.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court said the following:

[Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not allow a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or cause such action.

It is not legal to say something if you’re intention is to incite lawless action and will likely be heeded by hearers.

Otherwise, it’s protected.

Is It Good?

What if you work at the FBI (like Deep Throat) and you become aware of illegal practices and a big coverup dripping with corruption. But all the documents containing useful info are “secret” and you have signed a confidentiality agreement.

Is the right action to talk to the Washington Post or write a group like WikiLeaks? Or should you just ignore it and not participate?

Sometimes that question might be easy (like if people are being murdered, etc.) but at other times it could be very difficult (a small series of lies concerning minute sums of money).

Fact: there is a hierarchy of authority in our lives.

We have lots of authorities: church elders, parents, employers, civil servants, God, and maybe more. But they are not all on an equal level. Obviously God is the highest on the list. In fact, the reason we recognize the others is because God has delegated authority to them, but if one of them tells us to violate His law, we ought to disobey them for they are a lesser authority.

Example: Peter and the Apostles in Acts 5

We know that civil government is an authority that God has placed in our lives.

1 Peter 2:13-17, Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

But when the human authority conflicts with God, God trumps.

Acts 5:27-32, And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, 28 saying, “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!”
29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. 31 Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”

My point is that if you’ve signed a confidentiality agreement, you should respect it as much as possible, but if people are breaking the law and engaged in massive coverups, etc…there are higher authorities than that contract between you and a corrupt organization.

Final Conclusion

As far as I’m aware, what WikiLeaks is engaged in is classic journalism on steroids. Is it legal, yes. Is it good, it can be.

That said, from what I know of the organization, I’m sure that I disagree with their bias…which shapes what they choose to release and their editorial spins (titles + commentary).

But I’d rather them be able to have their bias and I have mine, then have us both be controlled by some central government bias.

So, while I probably would do most things differently than WikiLeaks, I’d prefer they not be stamped out (at least not by a tyrannical government…if people stopped donating I’d be happy). What they do ought to be legal and could lead to some good once in a while.

§48 · June 11, 2011 · 1284 Words · Miscellaneous · 2 comments · Tags: , ,

Preface: Concerning This Post Series

Note: This is part of a mini-series; reading the posts in order will help them to be understood. This is the first post but many more will come

Introduction

As someone who has grown up as a born again child of God, I’ve been familiar with Christian apologetics for years. However, over the past couple of years I’ve definitely done considerably more thinking on the ideas of the existence of God, inspiration of Scripture, and Jehovah being God. I hope to share some of my current thoughts on the issues in this series.

I intend to be succinct and straightforward. At times I may fail, for some ideas are very difficult to communicate, but I will try.

Disclaimer: I am a man of faith, I believe many things. The list could go on and on, but let me just present a few:

  • There is one God, Creator of the universe, and He is Jehovah
  • God represented Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ
  • Jesus died for the sins of (at least) those chosen to be His Bride and rose from the dead
  • The Bible is a book written by many men but inspired by God

Thus, I have biases. I try to maintain impartiality in my reasoning, but I am wise enough to realize impartiality is at best extraordinarily difficult, and I would not claim it for a minute. However, biases do not mean valid and sound reasoning are not possible, and I think I’ve had some success in my endeavors.

Many people think I’m crazy for my beliefs, I understand. The question I want to pursue is this: “Let’s get down to the basics, what is actually reasonable to believe? Is ‘believing’ itself even reasonable?” And then I’ll continue from there.

I would love feedback (email or comment) and will address questions in the comment/email thread or in later posts.

§36 · April 6, 2011 · 338 Words · Apologetics (The Mini-Series), Miscellaneous · 3 comments · Tags: , , , ,

The Pursuit of Undistracted Devotion: A Look At 1 Corinthians 7

The following is a brief interview with my brother-in-law, Ryan. This is not an endorsement (I both agree and disagree with different aspects). However, the message overall is very much inspiring. Over the years Ryan (coming with this perspective) has encouraged many including myself to serve Jesus with intensity and focus. Two thoughts before the interview:

Feel free (both now and in the future) to have fun critiquing every word, challenging every idea, and engaging in some active discusion—I know I do.

That said, please don’t get entirely lost in the details. Interesting as they are, there is a much more interesting big idea that I wholeheartedly endorse and would shout from rooftops: serve Jesus with urgency and expectation! Whether or not you agree with all or little, I hope it inspires you to serve Jesus in whatever state you find yourself.

Q: First, give me a brief overview of the doctrine of preferred singleness. What’s the big idea? What are some significant Scriptural texts where you see it?

The doctrine of Preferred Singleness is less a doctrine and more an exhortation to (first) singles to realize and value the “single state” as a unique opportunity to pursue God in a way that they will not be able to when they are married. And it’s not just unique as in different, but unique as in preferred; it’s better.

But as fast as we say that, we quickly concede two important things: (1) it’s only better when continually apprehended by faith, and (2) just because something is better, doesn’t mean the alternative is bad. (Quite the opposite: marriage is good.)

Secondarily, the doctrine is a radical call to all believers to live with an urgency and expectation for Christ’s kingdom, utilizing as is necessary the things of this world (marriage being one of those things), but as much as we are able to live in such a way that allows us to best apprehend the things of the world to come.

[Scriptures to consider: Matthew 19:3-12, 1 Cor 7, 1 Cor 9:5, 1 Tim 5:11-15]

Q: In reference to 1 Corinthians 7, I have heard some say the present distress was either persecution or famine. What do you think is meant by that phrase?

I suspect I could concede the “present distress” is a reference to something about which the Corinthians specifically wrote to Paul (famine, persecution, or whatever), and I don’t believe it would affect the teaching at all. (I don’t believe that that one verse is the linchpin.) In fact, long before Paul was exhorting the Corinthians in chapter 7, Jesus was talking about the idea of renouncing marriage (cf. Matthew 19).

What I think is meant by the phrase is best articulated by theologian Herman Ridderbos:

“[Paul] lets it be known, moreover, that his urging people to remain unmarried has its basis in “the present distress” (v.26). What is intended is specifically the distress in which believers find themselves in a world hostile to them, with which Paul himself had had and would yet have such an abundant acquaintance (cf. 2 Cor 6:4; 12:10; 1 Thess 3:7). What follows relates this with the fact that “the time is short” (v.29) and “the form of this world is passing away” (v.31). This alludes to the end of things, which is at hand. The “distress” need not yet be understood therefore in the special sense of the last great tribulation, the quote “messianic woes” (cf. Luke 21:23). But suffering in and because of the present world that has not yet been redeemed in its mode of existence, as the counter force of the redemption given in Christ (cf. e.g., Rev 12:12), is indeed characteristic of the temporal life of believers; and even though they do not always feel this in their own persons, it must restrain them from becoming to attached to the gifts and pleasure of this world as though their life consisted in them. (vv. 29ff.). And because of this distress, Paul fears more “tribulation in the flesh” for those who are married (v. 28) than for the unmarried, whereas he would spare them these anxieties (v. 32).”

Q: So when did you come upon this idea of preferred singleness? Most likely it was a bit of a process; could you describe the process? And were there any influencers on you during the process?

Years ago I was talking with Pastor Mike about living radically for the Lord, and one of us said flippantly, “you could even make a case that Paul believed singleness was better than marriage!” It hit me like a brick, and I remember getting off the phone, grabbing my Bible, and the scriptures starting to speak to me like few other times in my life.

Over the next few months I ordered about every book I could on Pauline theology and eschatology, on singleness, celibacy, and 1 Corinthians, and tried to piece together and validate all that I was understanding.

As to what influenced my opinion, lots of things—but a couple ideas stick out in particular:

(1) I think over the years at CFC, even if it hasn’t been articulated as I have here, we’ve largely upheld the value of singleness and view single people as “whole” people.

(2) Watching the way your Mom and Dad “do marriage” (and there are others, too) and comparing them to more self-absorbed couples, provided a real-world interpretation of 1 Cor 7:29.

(3) No doubt the writings of Jim and Elisabeth Elliot influenced my thinking. (And I highly recommend their books!)

(4) Though in one sense having a very defined doctrinal framework, your Dad and others have influenced the way in which I approach theology as to not be threatened by new ideas.

(5) I’ve had great friends over the years and we continually challenged one another to live abandoned for His kingdom. (Danica, Josh Card, John Ebel, Ann Parow, Pastor Mike, your Dad, Paul Brown, and others I’m offending by not including.) That type of friendship and continual encouragement makes you hunger more, and it makes you read your Bible differently.

Q: Why do you say singleness is “better”? That seems to raise red flags for a lot of listeners.

“Better”, “preferred”, “happier”, “greater”—there’s a value that’s being articulated: You’ve got “undistracted devotion” juxtaposed to “divided interests” (vv. 32-35). You’ve got a father who does “better” if he keeps his daughter (vv. 36-38). And you’ve got a girl who is “happier” if she remains single (vv. 39-40.) And on top of all this, you’ve got the great Apostle Paul wishing that we were all pursuing singleness like him (v.7).

I think flags go up for several reasons:

(1) We instantly think if something is “better” its alternative must be bad,

(2) a misinterpretation of the nature of the distraction in v.33*,

(3) Christ-centered marriages may offer little experiential support as they are often more selfless and happier than the alternatives seen around us (and also, married people may testify that their personal experience is opposite to what is outlined here),

(4) history: celibacy is contrary to how God created us, and has only been encouraged in these “last days”.

[* As to point two above, I have thoughts on the "distraction" of verse 33, but I am strongly opposed to the suggestion that it is the Agape obligation a spouse has to his/her family—a selfless servanthood to which all believers are called (cf. Jn 15:13).]

Finally, to echo Paul, the goal of this exhortation is not to be a stumbling block (v.35); we must determine what is “better” for us on a personal level before God. That said, when upholding and teaching biblical truths, we must acknowledge that the New Testament teaches that singleness is better and we should, with concessions (v.2, v.9, v.36), encourage it (v.8).

Q: And if it’s “better”, why’d you choose marriage? (And why then are you so passionate about this doctrine?)

Good question.

The simple answer is this: remaining single takes faith, and despite my best efforts to “covet earnestly the greater gifts”, I didn’t ascertain it. But I continue to maintain that the faith-filled celibate life is a better calling than marriage, despite that it became better for me to marry than to remain single (v.9).

As to why I’m passionate about this doctrine: there are many reasons, but one is I believe biblically embraced celibacy presents a radical picture of New Testament living that provides an opportunity to evaluate our lives against it, and make our own adjustments to how we should live. For example, if last days living calls us to consider even renouncing marriage, then as a married person, what implications does that have for me and my family? (What does radical look like in my context?) Preferred-singleness (as I’ve defined it above) is such a stark reality of the abandoned life, it ought to inspire anyone toward that end.

Q: And finally, do you recommend taking a vow of celibacy?

Binding yourself with your words is, at best, dangerous; in doing so, I think it’d be easy to trick yourself and open the door to all kinds of sin. That said, it’s good to pursue a life of singleness provided one “reserves the right to marry”. Based on 1 Cor 9:5, I suspect that’s what Paul did, and I think that’s the general counsel of 1 Corinthians 7.

§25 · March 22, 2011 · 1561 Words · Miscellaneous · 4 comments · Tags: ,

← Older entries