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.

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.

-Marshall Jones Jr.

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.

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.

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

-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.

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.