landonville

Yesterday, the Presbyterian interwebs were a-buzz with the news that the new Book of Order was not going to be available this go-round as a free download as it had been in the past (Here's a link to a thread I started after catching wind of the frustration). The Office of the General Assembly will be offering the download for $10, the same as the price of a printed copy.

Oh, the outrage.

Reactions were numerous, but all seemed to center on a few themes:

1) "Why should anyone have to pay for a digital copy of a document since 'it doesn't cost anything'?"

2) "If we are going to be an 'open source church' then how can we restrict access to the rules which govern our life together?"

3) "Screw the OGA, I'm uploading it to a server anyway and offering it for free. Information wants to be free!" (or 2b - "You're not getting my $10. I'll find it somewhere, since I'm sure it's out there already.")

Here's some "from the hip" responses:

1) Clearly, those who make this point do so from a place of relative lack of information. I do not begrudge them - they just do not know the ins and outs of producing written content.  I confess that I know just enough to be dangerous, but the basics were summarized aptly by Douglas Hagler on my Facebook thread:

"I don't know if the PCUSA hired copy-editors, layout people, or anything like that to produce a book and a PDF, or if that was volunteer work. If it was all volunteer work, then the cost should be materials, and/or whatever bandwidth it requires to have the books available for download. A PDF costs everything a hard copy costs, aside from the actual dead trees, ink and glue, and has the extra cost of bandwidth for download."

The issue here is one of appropriate cost. When I asked online, the wisdom of the crowd seemed to suggest that $5 was what folks were willing to pay for a digital copy. Now, can the OGA produce a digital copy for that price? That question is not mine to answer, but around $5 seems to be what the market is willing to bear given the information it has at this moment.

2) Why - oh, why - did I not trademark the phrase "open source church"? I would be a rich man after yesterday. :)

Two things: 

First, those who say this are correct. It doesn't make much sense to restrict the access to the "rules" if one wants to promote an open source organization. While I do not think that $10 is overly prohibitive, I do agree in principle that a restriction is a restriction no matter how you slice it. However…

Second, the PC(USA) has never claimed to be an open source organization. Despite what Carmen Fowler says, I am not the kind of denominational leader who has the kind of power to declare that the PC(USA) begin functioning according to the principles I lay out in my book. Would that it were so, but it's not.

3) This is the response that troubles me the most, and my gut response is, again, two fold.

First off, I have no issue with sharing digital files. Copying is not theft.

However… (Again, with the "however")

I know the people who do this work for our church well, and they are good, decent, and hard working people who want the PC(USA) to thrive and make a difference for Jesus Christ. But they are having pies thrown at them like they were Rupert Murdoch or something.

So I ask:  Are we Christians or not? Do we assume the best of one another or not? Do we speak (or write) about one another in derisive ways, or do we inquire and inform and (if need be) take public, principled stands?

Oh, and by the way - the Stated Clerk just made the call to offer the Book of Order online for free again. IT was an honest mistake and he wants to make it right. It'll be live soon. Shall we say thank you?