I'm not holding you back now (Photo: abnelphoto.com)
You don’t have any rights, and I said I don’t either.
Let me put that into practice.
Official release
All the free writing at bondChristian.com is yours if you want it. You can use it however you want.
And I don’t just mean can you apply it however you want – I mean you can use the actual content itself however you want.
For example…
- You can copy/paste it into your blog and say you wrote it.
- You can switch it up, quote me out of context, and add porn links.
- You can repackage it, sell it, and keep all the profits for yourself.
Seriously. But you already knew that. You’ve always had that capacity, but you thought you might get in trouble or look bad for doing it…
Official blessing
What you might not have known is that I want you to do that. I want you to take this content and use it however you want.
You don’t need to ask me if you can use it – I want you to.
I’d love for a link back to the site, since links are the Internet’s currency, but that’s extra… and totally not required.
For example, you know what I think would be really cool? I think it would be really cool if someone (you?) took some articles off this blog, pitched them to a publisher, and got a book published in your own name with my content.
I’m not being sarcastic here. It’s unofficial ghostwriting for me. I’d totally love that. Stealing my writing here is impossible.
The caveat
There’s always a catch, right? Here’s the deal: as much as I’d like to, I can’t give away everyone else’s content… so any interviews or guest posts or comments here are still the poster’s property, not mine.
Also, any content I share on other sites (through guest posts, interviews, or comments) is subject to their rules.
But in either case, if you get their permission, no need to get mine – you already have it. And my blessing.
Over the next couple weeks, I’m trying to work it out so you can use everything, including their stuff (unless otherwise noted).
The big “why”
Why am I doing this?
1. Because I’m here to serve others, not myself.
2. Because I don’t believe in rights.
3. Because I want to help you serve others.
4. Because I want to help you spread the message of serving others.
and…
5. Because I think one of the best ways to spread the message of serving others is to live it out practically.
Serving Suggestions:
(1) In general, what do you think of this? More specifically, what do you think about right-free comments and guest posts? Should I open that up for anyone to use however they want, or is that going beyond my rights (irony)?
(2) Now spread this. Create devotionals, blog posts, ebooks, studies, whatever. And don’t feel bad… I want you to do it.
—
Many thanks to Leo Baubota, Seth Godin, and Jesus Christ for the inspiration for this.
Twitter Updates
I’ve used your material in the past for my porn site…you just weren’t aware of it.
Nah, this is a great idea. What you say makes sense. They’re really thoughts from God in the first place, right? Good stuff!
Awesome, man. It’s one of those things I’ve had in the back of my mind for a while, and for those who’ve asked, I’ve always said, “Go for it however you want.” So it made sense just to release it publicly. It fits with everything else I believe.
Glad you liked it – thanks for reading and sharing.
-Marshall Jones Jr.
Really like your serving heart bro! I agree with you..although, not going to lie I’d probably be bummed at first. But, none of the things we say or do is ours…it’s all God, and thus, all credit should be given to Him. I also believe that we usually get our own ideas from other ideas whether we realize it or not.
Definitely. I’m almost positive every idea I’ve ever shared is from someone else – I’m a pretty dependent guy. And releasing this for everyone to use however seems like a good way to spread it, which is what I’m really after, whether I get credit or not.
-Marshall Jones Jr.
What do I think about it? To be honest, I don’t get it. Seriously.
Well, you know all those little messages you see at the bottom of stuff that says, “All rights reserved,” meaning that the owner reserves the right to distribute and use the content and no one else can do that without getting permission?
This is my way of saying, “No rights reserved.” You don’t have to get my permission to use the writing here.
Does that help, Bernard?
-Marshall Jones Jr.
P.S. Now that I think about it, I wish I’d called this, “No rights reserved – it’s yours to use.”
I understand WHAT you’re saying. I just don’t – seriously – see the point. Is there really a market for using stuff that somebody else wrote?
And, to a large extent, this encourages a kind of dishonesty that I DON’T think is good for Christianity. Sure, you’re giving someone the content and the right to use it, but to say that it’s okay for them to claim it as their own is, well, just wrong, in my opinion. You might not mind them doing it from an OWNERSHIP perspective, but that person’s credibility as an “author” would be seriously undermined by what you are proposing.
As well, as the husband of a budding photographer who is trying to help support her family by taking pictures (which are incredibly easy to steal), I’m sensitive to the mentality that “if it’s on the internet it’s free”. We should respect what other people create and not claim it as OUR OWN, even if they allow us to. In other words, even though I DO appreciate the gracious attitude that you propose here, the insinuation is that EVERYONE should function in this fashion to be appropriately slavishly spiritual, and, well, that’s just wrong.
I’m not a fan of the semi-communistic Christianity that “I don’t own anything” statments can be used to promote. Just because I don’t want someone using my wife’s hard earned skills “as their own” doesn’t mean that I’m any less sold out to Jesus than I should be.
And please don’t take this as an attack. Just a strong disagreement.
In Christ, bro.
Oh, okay… I see now. Thank you for bringing this up. I almost included more about it in the post, but didn’t want to make it too long. I’ll share more here though.
Let’s consider who’s going to actually use this:
1. The people who would use it anyway: spam-bots, link hubs, whatever. I don’t think their credibility changes because of this – they’d do it anyway (like with your wife’s photography).
But if I give it away, like I am here, they can’t take it. It’s the idea that if someone’s stealing something from you, just give it to them – that way they can’t steal it. Stealing from the thief in a way. Maybe that’s not ALWAYS the way to handle it, but I’m cool with it here.
“If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.” -Matthew 5:40-41
2. The people who are amazing and would otherwise ask permission and link back to the site. I might as well give a general statement saying they can use it WITH my blessing. This way, everyone knows I’m open to everyone sharing this.
3. The people who have good intentions who don’t give attribution for whatever reason. In most cases, I’m erring on the side of grace and assuming their motives are right. Perhaps they’re printing it out and sharing with their small group. Perhaps they just want an excerpt. Perhaps they just don’t know any better. I’m willing to submit that if it’s used for the glory of God, it’s going to be okay.
This group also probably includes those who, like you mentioned, decide to lie to everyone by saying they wrote this instead of me.
You’re right about that: it can promote lying. And I’m not pro-lying. I trust, though, that God will sort that out with them – I’m more concerned with my heart in the matter and how I respond to people doing this. Their issue of lying is, in a way, a separate issue for me.
And if they’re that hardcore about deceiving people, I’d probably start to put them in the first group anyway. Otherwise, I’m looking at it as ghost writing.
-Marshall Jones Jr.
Okay, one more note:
-I don’t think everything should be free. I hope no one thinks I’m saying they’re a heathen if they don’t follow this example, though I hope people do follow it (but I’ll sell stuff too).
There’s always the argument that if enough people give stuff away for free, then its value goes down. I agree in part, but even in a free market, if I want to sell something for $1 when everyone else is charging $100, that’s business. I think the same principle applies to free.
Also, the message of the gospel is free – does that make it worth less? Well, maybe. Maybe the perceived value (which I agree is totally important) goes down, but in that case is that a legitimate reason to start charging for it?
In general, I don’t think we should force anyone to give up anything (like in a Communist state). But if we choose to share, I’m all for it. As the classic verse for Christian communism says…
“Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common.” -Acts 4:32
-Marshall Jones Jr.
“…even in a free market, if I want to sell something for $1 when everyone else is charging $100, that’s business. I think the same principle applies to free.”
Can I use the word “relative” without being accused of some great heresy?
I work in an industry that is virtually non-existent today because the work has been devalued extensively and employers cannot survive in the business. Custom machinery is incredibly expensive to design and build, yet there have been a lot of small machine shops trying to make a go of it, and they have been entirely too willing to let their work go for much less than it’s worth, in the interest of “making a paycheck for a while”. Designs and equipment that cost $200,000 to create are discounted to $125,000 because it’s either do that or close the doors. Eventually, they go out of business and wind up in bankruptcy court because they can’t pay the bills. Sure, it was “their stuff” and they could sell it for your proverbial $1 if they like, but that doesn’t at all reflect the true cost of producing the equipment. However, because they exist, customers in search of cost cutting measures seek out the hirelings who sell too cheap rather than coming to a vendor who charges enough to stay in business over the long haul. This makes it almost impossible for ANYBODY to survive in the business.
Likewise in photography, it’s tough to make a real living of the business, due to the fact that every kid’s mom has a digital camera and thinks she knows enough to shoot some poor kid’s wedding for $50. They don’t know crap about lighting, they don’t understand exposure, they don’t know anything about composition, or focal length, or depth of field, or lens speed, or virtually anything else, but somebody uttered the words “you’ve got a good camera, can you do our wedding?” and, bam bam, the wedding photog who charges $1500 looks like a jerk, even though his quality and results would be noticeably better.
Our local newspaper has fired all their photographers because they can get photography free, since everybody wants their name in the paper for submitting a photo. Reuters plays the same game. This results in a gradual degradation of the field because it isn’t monetarily attractive to artsy young men and women to make a career of it.
Go ahead and open a gas station and sell gas for $1 a gallon. You’ll soon find that the rules of the supposed “free market” don’t work there. You’ll have a million customers and lose money on every one. The government will soon send law enforcement to shut you down because you owe the trucking company thousands upon thousands of dollars that you do not have for gas that you sold below your own cost.
Now that I sound like a real jerk, please forgive me – I’m just offering the opposite perspective because I think it’s worthy of consideration.
Is the Good News of the Gospel free? Yes, but we can abuse that. It actually wasn’t “free” at all – it’s just that somebody else paid the price.
Nothing’s free. It’s just a matter of who is paying for it. Just like the guy who gives his life away working for an orphanage or a homeless shelter. The complicated part of it comes with the fact that he has a family at home that he is neglecting and that he’s not properly providing for by working for pay. Is it RIGHT for him to make his wife work so that he can GIVE away all of his time and look all noble and good? Seems rather wrong to me. Everybody thinks he’s a great guy for GIVING so much, when actually he’s failing to provide for his own family in order to be able to “give”. Somebody else is paying for his time.
I LIKE the fact that all of John Piper’s resources at desiringgod.org are “free” to whoever wants to access them. But I’m also aware of the fact that SOMEBODY has to pay for that. It disappoints me that John MacArthur’s stuff ISN’T free, but it’s primarily because he is wanting the end user to pay for it rather than some generous donor. The actual cost is no different. Piper makes Mac look bad, in a way, because he appears to be more generous. That’s not really true, it’s just a matter of who’s paying.
“The message of the gospel is free” is a remotely true statement. Doesn’t mean that it’s FREE to get it out there. It costs to print pamphlets. It costs to run websites. It costs to own buildings. It costs to air condition them. It costs to employ pastors. It costs to print Bibles (now if ANYTHING should be “free”, wouldn’t that be it???) It costs to produce DVDs.
YOU have costs in running this site. Perhaps they are small. Perhaps they are large. Yet, you are paying them. You are choosing to give away your content. That’s definitely your right.
I think authors should be compensated for their work. I don’t see any reason that’s undesireable. Thus, I’m not really a fan of anti-copyright movements. I think these things are important, for a lot more reasons than I’ve even gone into here.
I think it’s just that this approaches some hot button issues with me. Please forgive my rambling
No, thanks for outlining this. It’s helpful to get the other perspective. I’m obviously on the other side, but I think it’s good for anyone who reads this to understand your position as well. And by the way, I actually think my side is the one that looks more cold-hearted.
I won’t counter argue this one too much since I know this topic goes far beyond just copyrights. I will point out an observation though:
You want prices to reflect costs (at least somewhat), whereas I don’t want that to happen. [I'm probably butchering your position here - I apologize for that. You know more about it than I do.]
I think those are two very different, but interesting, perspectives. And I think they’re at least partially involved in why we come to such different conclusions.
-Marshall Jones Jr.
It’s complicated.
-Marshall Jones Jr.
I read this the other day and still don’t totally know how to respond to it. The debate is certainly interesting though.
I can see both sides. Being a musician/singer/songwriter who records worship music, I can be very frustrated that people will buy a CD from me at a conference I’m leading worship for then turn around to their friend who is ready to buy one too and they say, “Oh no, don’t worry I’ll burn you a copy.” Really happens (and not just once).
Now, this is not the only means of supporting myself and I have given many copies of the albums away over the years, but it is surprising that some don’t see anything wrong with stealing and copyright infringement. It’s complicated indeed.
Yes, I think information, including music like, is going to end up free. As Seth Godin likes to say, we’re going to move into a culture where we buy souvenirs of the actual information. Perhaps that’s part of my motivation releasing this.
Still, if you’ve not released it, I understand the frustration. I think most frustrating are the people who you think really support you but seemingly unknowingly rip you off, like that first guy who bought your CD.
-Marshall Jones Jr.
Rather than “end up” free, I suspect it will cycle through a phase where it is freely and legally available, then somebody really good will start demanding money for theirs and the cycle will go back in some fashion. Everything cannot be based on advertising for hardware when soft information is experiencing greater demand. IOW, the free stuff out there will eventually suck bad enough that the Lady Gagas and Sony artists start offering their better music for a premium fee, just like websites do. There are “free versions” of just about everything of a lot of software, but if you want the REAL good stuff, pony up.
Yeah, I think there’s always going to be garbage out there. And yes, there will be premium (paid) versions of everything for a long time. But I don’t see it all cycling back, barring any catastrophe that knocks out technology.
For example, Twitter and Facebook are free. I don’t see those cycling back to only offering paid options. If they do, someone else will jump in with the free version again. It might not be the actual Facebook or Twitter companies anymore, but the service, if people still want it, will be free.
With more and more excellent (as well as lousy) free stuff available, it’s only pushing the quality of premium stuff up, so overall, I’d say it’s a good thing.
-Marshall Jones Jr.