Answering a Few More Objections to Authorized: Part 1, The Modern Versions Are Copyrighted; They’re in It for the Money

It’s worth noting that legally speaking, there are at least two reasons to copyright a work. First is to collect royalties, but second is to prevent someone from changing your work and presenting it as your own. I’ve seen a fair number of works where the copyright is retained, but specific permission is given to copy it unaltered for local church use.

Regarding the issue of profit and royalties, that objection bothers me, as (as an engineer) I work in areas where I get paid not because of widgets I make, but because of ideas I create. If I argue against copyrights, I’m basically saying I shouldn’t get paid. The same applies to experts in ancient languages and culture who help us to understand the Scriptures. Idea rats need to eat, too!

The irony is that Erasmus was quite obsessed with money. In fact, a credible knock on Erasmus is that he often rushed works to print without enough editing because he needed money. Historians have access to numerous letters written by him that give insight into his thinking.

Also, though of course this is no condemnation but interesting nonetheless, according to what I have read, Erasmus was apparently the very first writer ever who was able to actually earn a living through publishing.

Copyright allows you to prohibit alterations. It also allows you to prohibit derivative works you wouldn’t want. If someone wants to produce the Queer Study Bible in the ESV, the copyright holder can say, “Um, no.”

When people say “they are in it for the money” I think they mean the copyrighters and the publishers rather than the translators in general.

[Steve Newman]

When people say “they are in it for the money” I think they mean the copyrighters and the publishers rather than the translators in general.

They might, but the book/work exists because of the publishers and copyright owners. They are the ones that got the author (s) connected with the project, and they’re the ones who lose out if someone steals the pdf and spreads it around the world without attribution or payment. Very often, they give the author an advance so he has the chance to write it. No? I would argue that demonizing the publishers/copyright holders is exactly the same, practically speaking, as demonizing the authors/composers/etc..

Zondervan is the publisher of the NIV. Owned by Harper Collins … owned by News Corp

EPS is negative

….can’t help but note that NewsCorp’s HQ hasn’t existed for nearly 18 years….maybe that explains their negative EPS? :^)

[Bert Perry]

….can’t help but note that NewsCorp’s HQ hasn’t existed for nearly 18 years….maybe that explains their negative EPS? :^)

Info on their HQ:

News Corporation

1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
United States
212-416-3400
http://newscorp.com

–––––—

As for me:

• I have a nice NIV - the Zondervan NIV Study Bible
• I dabble in stock investing - NEWS has never been on my radar!

…..except in Gail Riplinger’s or Jack Chick’s dreams:

Person #1: “Hey, let’s publish and sell Bibles. Then we will be rich!”

Person #2: “Sounds great! I’ve always wanted a Bentley and a yacht!”

If people would only heed Psalm 12 and stick with the KJV …

[Larry Nelson]

…..except in Gail Riplinger’s or Jack Chick’s dreams:

Person #1: “Hey, let’s publish and sell Bibles. Then we will be rich!”

Person #2: “Sounds great! I’ve always wanted a Bentley and a yacht!”

I worked for BJU Press during grad school, and a thought like this was in the back of my mind. Unless your name is Tim LaHaye or Beverly Lewis, there’s not a whole lot of money in Christian publishing.

[M. Osborne] I worked for BJU Press during grad school, and a thought like this was in the back of my mind. Unless your name is Tim LaHaye or Beverly Lewis, there’s not a whole lot of money in Christian publishing.

Unless you’re Dave Ramsey, Johnny Mac, or Beth Moore.