openswitch

I was just playing around with a Photoshop tutorial and this is what happened. Not too bad, if you ask me. This small image doesn’t do it justice, click the image to view the full size one.

Scene: My wife, Thomas and me driving through town on our way home. The radio is playing some forgotten song. We’re stuck in the left lane on a two lane road, about 100 yards from a traffic light. Our lane isn’t moving, the lane next to us is zipping along like normal.

Me: Why aren’t we moving?

Wife: I don’t know.

Thomas: (singing quietly in the background.)

I see an opening in the traffic so I jump out of line into the right hand lane.

Me: Look! They’re all just waiting to turn left. (I point to show that there was a better way to turn left rather than block traffic.)

Wife: Yep, looks that way.

Me: Stupid people.

Thomas: Toopidd peepple.

Me: We really need to watch what we say, don’t we?

Wife: Yep.

A little over a year ago I started blogging. I had a very basic knowledge of HTML, a blogger account and a passion to change the world. Almost immediately after entering the blog-oh-sphere I was confronted with a new concept, “Creative Commons.” I had heard of Copyrighted content, but not Creative Commons. It sounded cool and forward thinking so I jumped on the bandwagon putting the cool CC image in my footer. It wasn’t until just the other week that I believe I’ve gotten a firm grasp on exactly what Copyright is, what Creative Commons is and how all that plays into blogging. Most of what I’ll share here is the result of a great conversation between Elliot, Phu, Jonathan, Joe, Paul, Koray and myself. I don’t link to those guys just to drop names, I do it because I want to make sure that I give appropriate credit for the ideas in this post. Lots of information was also gleaned from Wikipedia.

Copyright

Copyright law is part of Federal Law and is authorized by the US Constitution. Copyright means that the author has the exclusive right to publish and vend anything they write and/or create. There are certain important points to note regarding Copyright.

• Everything created since March 1, 1989, unless otherwise stated, is copyrighted. “United States law in effect since March 1, 1989 has made copyright the default for newly created works.” -Wikipedia. For bloggers, that means that if you don’t put any notice of copyright or your intention of use for your writings then that content which you create is automatically under a full Copyright. This may be a viable option for many people. However, there are a lot of folks out there who are not aware that a lack of copyright notice is the same as an “All Rights Reserved” copyright notice. This is why it is important to state your intended use for your works.
• Everything that is copyrighted, even “All Rights Reserved” is subject to fair use. Fair use refers to, “reproduction in copies or phonorecords …, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.” -Wikipedia. This concept of fair use is based upon four factors:
  1. “The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.” Why is this work being copied? Is it for personal gain or is it to benefit society as a whole by building upon the original?
  2. “The nature of the copyrighted work.” Basically, things like, the theory of Gravity can’t be copyrighted. Interestingly, neither can the video of John F. Kennedy getting shot. This is because it is in the public best interest that it remain copyright free.
  3. “The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.” How much, and what parts of the original work are being used?
  4. “The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” Is the use of this material going to detract from the marketability of the original?

The point to take note of is this: whether or not a specific instance of the use of Copyrighted material is considered Copyright infringement or fair use is subject solely to the decision of the courts. Cases which are superficially similar can yield completely different verdicts based (seemingly) upon the whim of a judge. But regardless of the viability or nonexistence of concepts like “intellectual property,” copyrighted materials do have some level of protection in the courts today.

Creative Commons

As cool as Copyright is, not everyone wants to limit the use of their works. While under a Copyright their works may still be used, even in full, but the user must first seek permission from the author (except for what is considered fair use). The terms of use are then be decided and agreed upon by both parties. This can be a tedious process if the author intends for his work to be used by anyone who wants to use it. It can also be a deterrent from people using the work. In such cases the author (presumably) views his works not so much as a personal creation for self-serving reasons, but a contribution to the public good. He therefore desires that everyone have full access to do whatever they want with his work. Also, in such cases the author usually recognizes that his work is implicitly based on the works of others; and as such, doesn’t desire to claim his work as his own but rather a conglomeration of knowledge. Enter Creative Commons.

Contrary to popular belief, publishing your work under a Creative Commons license does not negate the Copyright. As Elliot pointed out, even on the Creative Commons website it states:

“Offering your work under a Creative Commons license does not mean giving up your copyright. It means offering some of your rights to any member of the public but only on certain conditions.”

It’s basically the author making an agreement with everyone on earth about how exactly he intends for his Copyrighted work to be used. There are different kinds of Creative Commons licenses. Some are more strict than others, but all are more lenient than a full Copyright. Copyrighted materials may be quoted legally, or used for criticism, etc (fair use) without express permission from the author but any work licensed under even the most strict Creative Commons license may be used in its entirety so long as credit is given to the author. In fact, all Creative Commons licenses at least require attribution to the author. Some also put stipulations such as “no derivative works” and “no commercial use” on the work.

What’s a blogger to do?

Creative Commons sounds good, and it is. It’s a great option for many people who blog. However, along with all the freedoms it grants the general public it also leaves the door wide open for splogs using your content on their site. As Phu points out, if you’re publishing your blog under a Creative Commons license

“it’s perfectly fair for sploggers to reuse and republish your whole blog content as long as they have a credit somewhere.”

And sploggers are certainly doing this. They’re taking full posts from popular blogs and republishing them on their own sites which are riddled with ads. Just ask Paul, he’s had more than one run-in with a splogger stealing his content.

However, this isn’t happening as much as some people would have you believe. It may become a very real threat to the average blogger at some point in the future but today it’s mostly a problem that mainly “A” and “B” list bloggers seem to be dealing with. Jonathan explains why he’s not too concerned about sploggers:

“My thoughts are on how do people find content and where do they find it useful. If people find the content and it’s attributed accurately, the user has the option to follow that link and consume that content in a mostly ad free environment. What more could you ask for? Doing a Google search for the stuff I write about invariably has my site coming before any splogs so I don’t see a loss of traffic. If anything, it may potentially lead to more traffic.

In any case, while we’re all concerned about people stealing our content, I currently don’t see it as a threat.”

Yet, Jonathan still has a full Copyright notice on his site. When I inquired as to why he has done this he replied,

“By using a full copyright, I avoid any confusion between copyright of design and copyright of content. This way, there’s no confusion. You ask me before you do anything with it… the only thing I have been explicit about is the original code examples that I provide in my articles. Those are public domain (because I’m all about sharing the love).”

That makes sense to me. Jonathan isn’t opposed to someone using his content (even in full), but he is concerned about someone using his design; basically he just wants control over what is used and where it is used. This is why I’ve decided to place all my content at openswitch under a full Copyright. It’s not that I’m opposed to people using my content, I just want to have full control over where and for what purpose it is used.

Another option to consider is that as Joe pointed out you, as the author, can draft your own license. After all, this is all that Creative Commons has done. They’ve just gone into much more detail than the average citizen could do.

If your blog is currently under a Creative Commons license and has been for a while now you should note that it’s legitimate to change your mind and place it all under a full Copyright. Koray points out the consequences of a decision like this:

“Everyone who has used [your] posts when they were CC are still bound by CC, and only CC. But [you] can say that “Now, for everyone else from this point forward, these posts are Copyright.”

So the people who used [your] work before can continue to use them as they were. But new people can’t come along and say “Oh well they WERE Creative Commons (before I even knew about them) so I can just keep using the CC license.”“

Of course, going from a full Copyright to a Creative Commons license carries with it no such consequences. What was once Copyrighted material is now Creative Commons.

Conclusion

In the end it ultimately comes down to you, the author, and how you want your work to be used. Both full Copyright and Creative Commons are perfectly viable options but the ramifications of each are different and should be carefully considered. The choice is up to you.

I hope you learned a little bit from this post and I’m interested to know what you think about Copyright, Creative Commons and the future of blogging.

[via The Corch]

David and I had a brief but inspiring exchange on a previous post of mine which I thought I would expand upon a bit more in a post dedicated to the topic. Many of my ideas are derived from Millard J. Erickson’s writings because I think he a very balanced view of the church.

The church is one aspect of Christian doctrine that everyone seems to have an opinion about. This is partly due to the fact that as an institution of society, the church can be studied and observed by the methods of social science. The temptation is to try to define the purpose of the church based upon what can be observed empirically. However, this approach would neglect the ideal of what the church is supposed to be. Therefore, to get an accurate picture of God’s purpose for the church we must go to Scripture.

What is the church?

The church is the chosen people of God; they belong to Him and He belongs to them.

?I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” – 2 Cor. 6:16 (cf. 2 Thess. 2:13-14; 1Thess. 1:4)

In the New Testament the word which is used for church is ekklesia which was used in classical Greek to denote the assembly of the citizens of a city. The closest equivalent in the Old Testament is qahal and is not so much a specification of the members of an assembly as a designation of the act of assembling. In the New Testament the word church has two senses. On one hand it denotes all believers in Christ throughout all history (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22-23; 4:4; 5:23). The other sense is used more frequently and relates the gathering of believers in one geographical locality (1 Cor. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1).

In the Old Testament those passages in which Israel is described as God’s people are Exodus 15:13, 16; Numbers 14:8; Deuteronomy 32:9-10; Isaiah 62:4; Jeremiah 12:7-10 and Hosea 1:9-10; 2:23.

“The church is the apple of God’s eye”

The fact that the church is the people of God carries certain implications. God takes pride in them. He provides care and protection to them. They are the “apple of His eye” (Deut. 32:10). The church is sometimes referred to as His bride. It also carries implications for how the church is to relate to God. They are to be His people without reservation and without dividing their loyalty (Matt. 6:24).

What is the purpose of the church?

The church is not only the chosen people of God, it is the Body of Christ. This imagery is used both of the church universal (Eph. 1:22-23) and of individual, localized congregations (1 Cor. 12:27). There are several aspects to the imagery of the church being the body of Christ:

1. Christ is the head of the body (Col. 1:18) and Christians are the individual members or parts.
2. This body is intrinsically interconnected to one another (1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4:11-16; Gal. 6:2).
3. The body is characterized by fellowship. This goes beyond simple social interaction, but an intimate understanding of one-another (1 Cor. 12:26). Still, it must be clearly understood that this fellowship takes place between sinful people. It is a group of people who are struggling in fits and starts to do the work of Christ.
4. The body is universal. It is for all who come into it regardless of nationality or race (Col. 3:11).
5. The body is to be unified (1 Cor. 12:12-13; Eph. 4:4-6). The interesting thing is that today we see that the church is anything but unified. There are countless traditions and denominations; some of which are very similar in teachings yet still remain hostile toward each other.
6. As the body of Christ the church is to be an extension of His ministry. Don’t hear me say that the church is a literal incarnation of Christ, I’m referring instead to the Great Commission. The work of Christ is to be done by the church.

Conclusions

• The church is a divine institution.
• The church is a continuation of the work of Christ.
• The church is a fellowship of regenerate believers.
• While the church is a divine institution comprised of imperfect, fallen human beings. Thus, it will not be a perfect institution until the Lord returns.

Some of y’all have expressed a desire to join 9rules. If you’re one of those people then the date you need to note on your Google calendar is October 25th. That’s the date on which there will be a 9rules open submission round (round 5) where anyone who so desires can submit their site for review and potential inclusion in the 9rules Network. On October 25 starting at 12:00am Eastern Time you’ll have 24 hours to submit your site. Don’t forget!

This post is written mainly with Christians in mind though I suppose much of what I say here could be applied to other faiths and traditions as well.

I’ve known several people, just a handful really, who have decided for one reason or another to leave the church they are attending to either go somewhere else or stop attending church altogether. Now, I doubt very much that they have left the faith, but I can’t help but realize that more and more Christians today are ceasing to attend a physical church and instead have joined the “virtual” or “media church” through radio, TV, the Internet, books and Cd’s. I admit, in many ways it’s an excellent trade but at the same time it has the potential to be very detrimental to a Christian’s life.

The “virtual” church is in your control

Some of the reasons why the “virtual” church can be an attractive alternative to attending a “physical” church are that it’s convenient, encouraging, polished and (perhaps most importantly) it’s non-confrontational. If you don’t like the message you’re reading or hearing all you have to do is click a button and the problem is solved.

“The virtual church is convenient, encouraging, polished and non-confrontational”

In contrast, at “physical” church it’s nearly impossible to so easily get out of uncomfortable situations. You’re certain to run into people who look differently, think differently and even believe differently than you do. All the church member’s hypocrisy, pettiness, hostility and jealousy is right there in your face. Truly, it’s no wonder that so many people are leaving physical churches and seeking solace in the “virtual” church.

Let me quickly say that I’m a huge fan of the “virtual” church; in fact I’m part of it. Many Christian bloggers, writers and radio personalities have inspired me and encouraged me in very real ways. There are countless websites with excellent tools which help me grow in my faith. The “virtual” church is a great resource for Christians who are looking to supplement their spiritual diet. However, if it is their only source of spiritual nutrition it can lead to the equivalent of scurvy. That is, a absence of key nutrients in their life leads to a lack of overall spiritual health.

The “physical” church is a sanctification workshop

Being an active participant in a physical church is akin to a marriage relationship. One of the purposes of marriage is to allow God to work through your spouse in order to remove your “rough edges.” In marriage we have the opportunity to learn how to truly forgive, truly love, and truly share ourselves with another person. It’s a painful and often messy process, but this is where transformation and sanctification take place in the context of marriage.

Similarly, God wants to use the relationships that happen only within a physical church in the same way. He wants to teach us compassion, forgiveness, and servant-hood within a body of believers. The Scottish preacher Alexander MacLaren once observed, “The Church is a workshop, not a dormitory.” The imperfect church is the perfect place for us to learn lessons of love. It’s a place where imperfect people have come together to walk side by side with each other as they live out the Christian life.

Alone and unprotected

This may come as a shock, but people will inevitably fail you. Yes, even I will fail you at some point (perhaps I already have.) But if we continually run away from conflicts we can’t learn how to genuinely forgive or be forgiven. There’s no telling how many people whose lives you will potentially bless in the next year.

But if you separate yourself from them, your ability to affect their lives becomes null. In Proverbs 18:1 Solomon wrote, “He who separates himself seeks his own desire, he quarrels against all sound wisdom.” In isolation we forgo meaningful, deep relationships. Mere acquaintances can’t help me, or warn me of a destructive habit I’m hanging on to. They can’t point out the flaws in a plan or idea I’m harboring. Does the truth hurt sometimes? Yes, but so does the surgery that removes a cancerous tumor, the adjustment that brings a dislocated joint back into place, the cleansing of a wound before it can heal properly. My weaknesses stay put in isolation.

I’ll conclude with a direct quote from Dan Schaeffer:

People are a collection of strengths and weaknesses, and we’re exposed to all of it within the church. We need this often-confusing variety! As we learn to show grace for the weaknesses of others, we gain patience; as others lift us up in our need, we learn humility.

We can never fulfill our spiritual destiny if we strike out on our own away from the church, because we were created for this fellowship. We are designed to function in this sometimes clumsy, uncomfortable, and problematic family of God.”

Some wording, quotes and ideas used from Dan Schaeffer’s article, “The Return of the Lone Christian: Why We Need the Church”, In Touch, September 2006.

If you didn’t know, today is International Talk Like a Pirate Day. So, you’ll notice that the all the posts have been pirate-ified around here. ‘Tis a fine way to be speakin’, an’ if ye disagree with me ye be walkin’ the plank!

If you’re using WordPress and haven’t already, I highly recommend you download and install TFS filter suite which includes TFS Pirate filter. It’s a great way to pirate-ify your blog!

In fact, every comment left on this post will be pirate-ified too!

Generally speaking I dislike blogrolls. But, these sites I’ve compiled here are truly excellent. In light of that, I’d like to share them with you, and that’s why this page exists.

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately about my personality. I’m a type B personality. This is opposed to a type A personality who, in my mind, is the typical Alpha (fe)male. CEOs are usually type A people. They’re go-getter’s, highly competitive and goal driven. They were the class presidents, the football quarterbacks, the straight-A students. This is not me. Instead I possess personality traits like, “Laid back, non-confrontational, not aggressive, not competitive, emotional, caring, empathises easily with others, introspective, etc.” I’ve known this about myself since college but it seems that I still struggle with accepting it.

Why do I, as a grown man, still insist on comparing my weaknesses to the strengths of others? Why can I not love myself for who I am, realizing that God has made me a certain way for a purpose? There are so many times when in my heart I want to be the Alpha male. I was to be a leader, inspiring others to follow me where ever I go. But I’m not, and I don’t. Is it time for me to give up on trying to be a different person? What do you think? Can you relate?

P.S. – Even though I was never the football quarterback I was a cheerleader for two years in college. Surly that has to count for something!