>>1088
>no bible written after 1920 should be trusted
o-o-okay
I agree in principle that copyright is a – pardon my french – entirely shitty way to prevent nonnies abusing the Word of God, and I entirely disagree with ANY form of profit motive surrounding that which was gifted freely to all mankind.
Cover my printing costs? Fine.
Cover my paper costs? Fine.
Cover my marketing costs? Mmm. MAYBE on a very limited basis.
Cover my translation costs? Start a foundation, get people to freely contribute, get churches and charities to contribute. DO NOT use market economics to back-pay for something … nah,. mang
But, as I said, I'm a massive commie when it comes to the Word of God, or anything that God freely gave us. You owe Him your absolutely EVERYTHING … how can you talk about profiting from His words or effectively DENY it to people eager to learn from it who are in poverty.
Nah, mang, this is dangerous territory, I agree.
BUT … copyright, as such, I don't have AS much of a difficulty with. What I object to is the notion that Rupert Murdoch then takes a cut every time the Lord's words are given away freely. This is toxic corruption at its worst and anyone that enters into such an arrangement like this is entirely stupid.