Yay, the Pope has learned something from Scientology

[Boldido]

If you want to know what the Pope has to say, you better be prepared to pay.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060219/ap_on_re_eu/popes_and_copyright

Pope Ratbastardinger keeps coming up with new and fresh reasons for mean not to like him.

My wife wanted to give some money to our local church's improvement campaign after mass yesterday. I told her the day this Pope stops sucking air is a day I'll consider giving them money again.

[Paul McEnery]

If you want to know what the Pope has to say, you better be prepared to pay.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060219/ap_on_re_eu/popes_and_copyright

Pope Ratbastardinger keeps coming up with new and fresh reasons for mean not to like him.

My wife wanted to give some money to our local church's improvement campaign after mass yesterday. I told her the day this Pope stops sucking air is a day I'll consider giving them money again.
Hell, I regard this as a positive move.

The less people listen to this Pope, the better.

[Mike Smith]

Now, if the Pope gets greedy enough that he starts actually peddling books right out of the Vatican, may he incur the wrath of God, get some of those nice golden pews and marble arches smote?

Honestly I can see why the Vatican would do it, but really don't agree with it.

[Valmore]

If you want to know what the Pope has to say, you better be prepared to pay.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060219/ap_on_re_eu/popes_and_copyright

Pope Ratbastardinger keeps coming up with new and fresh reasons for mean not to like him.

My wife wanted to give some money to our local church's improvement campaign after mass yesterday. I told her the day this Pope stops sucking air is a day I'll consider giving them money again.

John Paul would never have stood for this.

Ringo, on the other hand, needs any money he can get.

[Sabrinaset]

"When the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from Purgatory springs!"

[Boldido]

"When the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from Purgatory springs!"

So are you saying I have to give money to the church or my relatives souls stay in purgatory forever?

[Sabrinaset]

So are you saying I have to give money to the church or my relatives souls stay in purgatory forever?

Well, that was what ...Tetzel, was it? ... said that got Martin Luther pissed off enough to nail his Theses onto a church door and inadvertently started the Protestant Movement.

[Charles RB]

Funny, here was me thinking they'd want as many people as possible to know what the Pope says. Silly me.

[Night]

Actually it more reminds me of a Star Trek DS9 episode where the Ferengi Commerce Authority has come in to press charges.

BRUNT: Please provide a dermal imprint for F.C.A. records.

QUARK: You haven't even told me what I'm being charged with.

BRUNT :No. I haven't.

Brunt stares at Quark for a long beat. Quark finally realizes what he's waiting for.

QUARK: Oh... How rude of me.

Quark reaches into his coat and produces a slip of latinum (this is a coin about a third of the size of the regular strips).

QUARK: For your trouble.

He hands it to Brunt, who accepts it without a second thought.

BRUNT: You're charged with violating the Ferengi Trade Bylaws... subsection one thousand twenty-seven, paragraph three.

QUARK: Subsection one thousand twenty-seven, paragraph three? I'm not sure I'm familiar with that one.

BRUNT: In that case what you need is a copy of the Bylaws.

QUARK: Which you just happen to have.

Brunt holds up a PADD. Quark places several more slips on the table and Brunt hands it to him. Quark quickly looks up the relevant section.

[Boldido]

Well, that was what ...Tetzel, was it? ... said that got Martin Luther pissed off enough to nail his Theses onto a church door and inadvertently started the Protestant Movement.

Thanks, I just wasn't sure if you were for the concept or agin it. It clearer now that you don't think its a swell idea.

[Michael P]

Wait, lemme see if I get this right:

The Pope is, according to Catholic Doctrine, God's representative on Earth. And his word is, literally, the Word of God.

And now, the current Pope is claiming full ownership and authorship of the Word of God.

Does that strike anyone else as blasphemous?

[Charles RB]

Does that strike anyone else as blasphemous?

Huh. Now you mention it...

[Wesley Dodds]

Having read the whole article, it's clear that he only wants royalties for things he's written and he gives the royalties to charity. So, why should publishers get to make money by publishing his work when the profits of it can go to the poor and sick? Sounds pretty sensible.

[Boldido]

Having read the whole article, it's clear that he only wants royalties for things he's written and he gives the royalties to charity. So, why should publishers get to make money by publishing his work when the profits of it can go to the poor and sick? Sounds pretty sensible.

There are lots of great ways for the Church to make money for poor and sick. They use them all the time to get money from the masses.

Selling what should be the word of God and the instructions from the Church isn't one of them. May be he can sell his Gucci sunglasses or Bruno Mali shoes to by some starving guy a burger, but this is wrong.

[Tadhg Adams]

Wait, lemme see if I get this right:

The Pope is, according to Catholic Doctrine, God's representative on Earth. And his word is, literally, the Word of God.

That is incorrect. The Pope's word is not literally the Word of God, even when he is speaking Ex Cathedra though that is mighty close.

[Wesley Dodds]

No, seriously, I don't have a problem with this. A book that Benedict wrote before he even came Pope shouldn't qualify as the word of God. If he wants royalties, fine. People shouldn't be able to make money off his work if he's not getting a cut. If he's giving the royalties to charity, even better.

[Rachel Grey]

Takes aim at the Vatican. Draaaaaaagooooon Slaaaaaaaaaave!!

[Paul McEnery]

No, seriously, I don't have a problem with this. A book that Benedict wrote before he even came Pope shouldn't qualify as the word of God. If he wants royalties, fine. People shouldn't be able to make money off his work if he's not getting a cut. If he's giving the royalties to charity, even better.
Wesley, when did the Devil buy your soul?

He's asking royalties for press releases.

[Trystenn]

Wesley, when did the Devil buy your soul?

He's asking royalties for press releases.
Seriously, i thnk all these posts might be deleted.

[Wesley Dodds]

Wesley, when did the Devil buy your soul?

He's asking royalties for press releases.

Hey, all the more power to the Pope if he wants royalties for press releases. I mean, he's just giving the money to charity, right? Why should newspapers get to make money off the Pope? The poor and sick should get a cut.

[Trystenn]

Hey, all the more power to the Pope if he wants royalties for press releases. I mean, he's just giving the money to charity, right? Why should newspapers get to make money off the Pope? The poor and sick should get a cut.
At first i thought they were trying to get royalties for parts of the actual Word of God, but it just seems as if wants some money for some essays he wrote.

Sure its cool, but it is a bit out of nowhere.

[Tadhg Adams]

He's asking royalties for press releases.

From the article: LEV says news organizations can quote from the pope's speeches, encyclicals and other writings without charge. They can also publish full texts for free provided they cite Vatican copyright, it says, but if a text is published separately, as Tornielli did in a book, payment is due.

[Wesley Dodds]

And it's even going to charity. So, if someone tries to make money off the Pope, they're not allowed to without some of it going to the poor and sick. If you work at a newspaper, go ahead but let people know it's the Vatican's.

No reason to be outraged, really.

Wait, fuck, that's right, Satan owns my soul, right? Uh... George Bush is wise and just! He should be Pope, instead of Benedict, who should be pelted with eggs. Happy, Paul?

No, sorry, hold on:

Nyah, nyah, Paul was mean and self-righteous but also dead wrong, nyah, nyah!

[MacQuarrie]

This has absolutely nothing to do with collecting royalties. The thread title should tip you off: Scientology uses copyright laws to silence critics. How can one refute the teachings if one can't legally quote those teachings?

[Sam]

Given that this is a Pope who has been proveably tied to his Church's efforts to cover up the rape of children, this whole issue seems fairly inconsequential one way or the other on the "Is Ratzi evil?" question.

[Paul McEnery]

And it's even going to charity. So, if someone tries to make money off the Pope, they're not allowed to without some of it going to the poor and sick. If you work at a newspaper, go ahead but let people know it's the Vatican's.

No reason to be outraged, really.

Wait, fuck, that's right, Satan owns my soul, right? Uh... George Bush is wise and just! He should be Pope, instead of Benedict, who should be pelted with eggs. Happy, Paul?

No, sorry, hold on:

Nyah, nyah, Paul was mean and self-righteous but also dead wrong, nyah, nyah!
Fair enough. I'd read an earlier version of the story which left out some of the details.

But on the other hand, no.

In the first place: where does it say the poor and sick? Whom the Vatican is not notorious for helping out.

In the second place: by asserting copyright in this way, the Vatican is asserting control over the work in question; which means that it could demand redress if you cite the material in a negative article.

[Guapo Méndez]

Well, the link did say "charity".

[Paul McEnery]

Well, the link did say "charity".
Yes indeedy.

And any non-profit counts as a charity.

[Wesley Dodds]

This has absolutely nothing to do with collecting royalties. The thread title should tip you off: Scientology uses copyright laws to silence critics. How can one refute the teachings if one can't legally quote those teachings?

Well, I don't know about the United States, but Australia has fair use laws for quotations and excerpts of copyrighted works. If you quote the whole thing... in book format... OK, there's a problem. But an essay saying "this, this and this is just plain wrong", that's fine here.

[Wesley Dodds]

In the second place: by asserting copyright in this way, the Vatican is asserting control over the work in question; which means that it could demand redress if you cite the material in a negative article.

Well, so can Michael Crichton, and he's just as much of a dipshit.

[Night]

Fair enough. I'd read an earlier version of the story which left out some of the details.

But on the other hand, no.

In the first place: where does it say the poor and sick? Whom the Vatican is not notorious for helping out.

In the second place: by asserting copyright in this way, the Vatican is asserting control over the work in question; which means that it could demand redress if you cite the material in a negative article.
you mean the http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2005615,00.html article where it says
The edict covers Pope Benedict XVI’s first encyclical, which is to be issued this week amid huge international interest. The edict is retroactive, covering not only the writings of the present pontiff — as Pope and as cardinal — but also those of his predecessors over the past 50 years. It therefore includes anything written by John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI and John XXIII. (bold added for effect)

[howyadoin]

And it's even going to charity.When did NAMBLA get charity status?

[Paul McEnery]

Well, so can Michael Crichton, and he's just as much of a dipshit.
This has actually been a serious matter of contention lately, and fair use is in trouble. Which I know you know.

As far as I'm concerned, Papal Encyclicals are not in any way copyrightable material. They're public speech. It's disingenous to think this Pope is only going after the instabook people who are fleecing the flock (and good on them, btw). Ultimately, this is a tool for silencing dissent.

Which, you may remember, is something this Pope's got a reputation for.

[Wesley Dodds]

Well, yeah, America's intellectual property laws are shitty and getting worse, but when the Pope actually cracks down on dissent, then I'll condemn him. But I think he's within his rights as an author here. I don't even care if he gives the money to charity.

[Spackling Compound]

If you want to know what the Pope has to say, you better be prepared to pay.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060219/ap_on_re_eu/popes_and_copyright

Pope Ratbastardinger keeps coming up with new and fresh reasons for mean not to like him.

My wife wanted to give some money to our local church's improvement campaign after mass yesterday. I told her the day this Pope stops sucking air is a day I'll consider giving them money again.
Well, B, your wife seems to have the right spirit in wanting to help improve her church.
You may want to consider that not one dime of her money will go to Rome or to the Pope but to make improvements on her Church, whatever is needed. She seems to have some sort of belief in the Church or she wouldn't even consider it.
If you're not supportive of the Catholic Church, just know that you don't have to send your money to Rome or even the Diocese. Your wife seems to place some value on her faith and that money she wants to spend is all the Church has. Even some dioceses do not assist financially with the small Church.
I would consider seperating your venom against the Catholic Church and her love for her local parish.

[Paul McEnery]

Well, yeah, America's intellectual property laws are shitty and getting worse, but when the Pope actually cracks down on dissent, then I'll condemn him. But I think he's within his rights as an author here. I don't even care if he gives the money to charity.
Reeeeeeally.

And should the President of the United States be allowed copyright and control over the State of the Union, or any other Presidential speech?

Remember, encyclicals aren't simply the writing of a private citizen; nor even the head of a religion. They're the public and political statements of a head of state. They are state documents just as much as a law or a White House memo.

Or do you think Karl Rove should claim copyright over memos and refuse to hand them over to Pat Fitzgerald?

[Wesley Dodds]

Reeeeeeally.

And should the President of the United States be allowed copyright and control over the State of the Union, or any other Presidential speech?

Remember, encyclicals aren't simply the writing of a private citizen; nor even the head of a religion. They're the public and political statements of a head of state. They are state documents just as much as a law or a White House memo.

Or do you think Karl Rove should claim copyright over memos and refuse to hand them over to Pat Fitzgerald?

Oooh, Paul's trying a wedge on me! I think his drunken duel with Tages made him cocky. A hundred years too early, old man!

No, because they're public property, paid for by US taxpayers. The people paid for them and the people own them.

But that's because the United States is a democracy. Vatican City is a theocracy, and the Pope speaks for God. The only "citizens" Vatican City has are diplomats. Because Vatican City isn't a democracy, the citizen-diplomats of Popetown don't own the Pope's papers.

Or: sure, the encyclicals are the pronouncements of a head of state, but he's the state, bitch.

If the Pope was also President of the United States, sure, he shouldn't be able to copyright his State of the Union. But if this hypothetical Pope-President just wanted to copyright his encyclicals, hey, he's the metatron.

[Tadhg Adams]

This has absolutely nothing to do with collecting royalties.

It does though, because that's what the Vatican is doing. Collecting royalties. The copyrighting isn't actually new, it's only news now because the whole collecting royalties thing.


The thread title should tip you off: Scientology uses copyright laws to silence critics. How can one refute the teachings if one can't legally quote those teachings?

I wouldn't give much credence to the thread title, Bolidido does seem quite biased(Granted, the bias developed for pretty darn good reasons). Also, I think the title is in reference to the members of the church having to pay for the church's wisdom.

[Spackling Compound]

Deos Caritas Est, the first encyclical by Benedict XVI is available for free from the Vatican website. If you care, it's right here (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html).

I have mixed feelings about the new policy but am sure of a few things:

a. The pope's words aren't the Word of God.
b. Rarely are papal statements or theological statements even used by anyone other than theologians or students. If you want to print the pope's words in a book or put it on an Apple computer ad, then paying doesn't seem to terribly bad. Not great, but not bad.
c. NAMBLA isn't a charity of the Catholic Church.

[Paul McEnery]

Oooh, Paul's trying a wedge on me! I think his drunken duel with Tages made him cocky. A hundred years too early, old man!

No, because they're public property, paid for by US taxpayers. The people paid for them and the people own them.

But that's because the United States is a democracy. Vatican City is a theocracy, and the Pope speaks for God. The only "citizens" Vatican City has are diplomats. Because Vatican City isn't a democracy, the citizen-diplomats of Popetown don't own the Pope's papers.

Or: sure, the encyclicals are the pronouncements of a head of state, but he's the state, bitch.

If the Pope was also President of the United States, sure, he shouldn't be able to copyright his State of the Union. But if this hypothetical Pope-President just wanted to copyright his encyclicals, hey, he's the metatron.
Nuh-uh.

Apart from the fact that the Vatican is, agreed, a legal fiction -- who's paying for that legal fiction? The Italian state.

But no again anyway. Encyclicals are a fortiori public domain because they're policy statements.

This is not about the money -- even though it's cast that way -- it's about control.

[Tadhg Adams]

Nuh-uh.

Apart from the fact that the Vatican is, agreed, a legal fiction -- who's paying for that legal fiction? The Italian state.

But no again anyway. Encyclicals are a fortiori public domain because they're policy statements.

This is not about the money -- even though it's cast that way -- it's about control.

The copyrighting bit isn't new though, it's the collection of fees that is.

[Paul McEnery]

The copyrighting bit isn't new though, it's the collection of fees that is.
A copyright not enforced is no copyright.

[Rachel Grey]

But if this hypothetical Pope-President just wanted to copyright his encyclicals, hey, he's the metatron.

He is? What dose he transform into?!

[howyadoin]

He is? What dose he transform into?!Most likely one of these:

http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffengattung/images/panzer-1.jpg