Copyright Laws and Casuistry

"Ultracrepidarianism" · Who Coined the Term, Anyway? · Copyright Laws and Casuistry

A. Copyright Law and Catholics
https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/2-ethics-in-catholic-writing/copyright-law-and-catholics/

Here is a little thing I disagree on:

None of what appears below — in whole or in part — may be used without the express and written permission of the author.

Why do I disagree? Because, this is contrary to:
a) the age old practise prior to modern copyright laws
b) the content of current copyright law.

To the latter, she feels we are obliged:

As Rev. Francis J. Connell, writing for “The American Ecclesiastical Review” stated in the 1950s: “Theologians agree that the civil laws upholding the right of an author to the benefit of his writings and forbidding others to publish them without permission bind in conscience, because such laws are a reasonable determination of the natural-law right of a person to the fruits of his intellectual genius, (Aertnys-Damon, Theologia moralis, Turin, 1950)…When a writer plagiarizes, publishing as his own what is taken from another’s published writings, this is a sin against justice… a mortal sin if [harm] is great…One who illicitly publishes another’s writings, or portions of them, to the financial detriment of the author…is bound to restitution. Some hold that this obligation binds only after a court sentence, but the more probable opinion is that even prior to such a sentence, this obligation must be fulfilled by the guilty party, (Aertnys-Damon).”

Now, the civil laws of the United States, whereof Theresa Stanford Benns is a citizen, do agree for fair use excerpts, even without prior permission.

I do not intend in any way, shape or form to present myself as having myself written what T. S. Benns wrote. But whether myself or Pope Michael (whom she helped elect) or Introibo blogger (who compared her to a surgeon forgetting a scalpel in a patient) should have the right to criticise and therefore quote her conclusions.

Now, let's be clear on some backstory. She quoted a Casuist as saying:

The following is taken from “The Casuist,” Vol. IV: “All theologians are agreed that an author or writer, architect or draftsmen has a strict right to the fruits of his genius. And this right of ownership in the fruits of one’s intellectual labor is founded in the law of nature. For if it be the law of nature that men have a right to the labor of their hands, with much more reason ought they to have an exclusive right to the labor of their brains. And if the good of civilized society requires that a man be secured by law in the peaceful possession of whatever property he has acquired by his industry, with much more reasons must we hold that the good of civilized society requires that men be secure in the peaceful possession of that higher and more valuable property, namely the results of intellectual and artistic talent. ... The editor quotes Rev. Tanquerey as his source for these comments. The editor also adds that such theft is a sin against the seventh commandment and full monetary restitution must be made.

In old Roman law, your ownership to a text ceased the moment someone else held it in his hand. This means, if you wanted to make a profit, you made a deal with a bookseller. He made a payment, you had your money and now he owned your text - a bit like comic strips writer selling to newspapers. Once the bookseller had sold a copy, he could not stop anyone else from actually copying and selling as freely as he liked.

In a royal privilege, during the Ancien Régime, in order for authors to be able to devote more time to their second work, the Ancien Régime arranged that (for a period of ten years?), the author had monopoly on the monetisation of his text, and any bookseller wanting to use it needed to have an arrangement with him. For inventors, the patent law was somewhat different, the author of an invention had 15 years right to his invention, and it was forfeited if within 1 year he had omitted to take measures to make it fruitful.

As to literary authors, writers, there was a "formalisation" of such rights (concerning theatre authors) by the laws of the French Revolution: 17th Jan. 1791 gives control over performances for life and up to five years after death as to his heirs, 24th July 1793 reproduction rights for life and ten years after for his heirs.

Who was this Rev. Tanquerey? Did he live before the French Revolution? No.

The Reverend Father Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S., D.D., (1854-1932) was born in Blainville, France and joined the Society of St. Sulpice at the age of 18.

He was not a historian, not a Medieval scholastic, possibly not even a canonist. The one work by him that always turns up is:

THE SPIRITUAL LIFE
A TREATISE ON ASCETICAL AND MYSTICAL THEOLOGY
by the Very Reverend Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S., D.D.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/spiritual-life-12635

According to Barnes and Noble, the passage quoted being from there, he also taught Dogmatic theology:

His best known works include the three-volume Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae and comprehensive one-volume treatise The Spiritual Life.

Barnes and Noble : The Spiritual Life: A Treatise on Ascetical and Mystical Theology
by Very Rev. Adolphe Tanqueray S.S.D.D.
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-spiritual-life-very-rev-adolphe-tanqueray-ssdd/1121811519

It is possible he was also habilitated to speak on moral theology as to the copyright legislation, and did so in a less known work, but it is also possible that in that area, "he spoke as an ultracrepidarian."*

Now here is a thing I do agree on:

Many have questioned the “proprietary” attitude of Catholic writers today who copyright their works and insist that others honor their wishes concerning the use of their material. In doing so those questioning this right seem to intimate that such behavior is not in keeping with the Church’s own attitude on the matter. Far from being the case, it was the norm prior to the false Vatican II council for Catholic writers not only to copyright their works but to be paid for their writing.

It may be mentioned, I totally honour her wish to get paid for her work, I do not intend to reprint and sell it without her permission. I do not think anyone printing and selling this essay would be pretending to reprint and sell her work, since it is my work, commenting on hers.

Today, “Traditionalist” Catholics seem to think that writers should be happy to donate their works to the “movement,” or to posterity for the sake of the faith. This is not a choice as much as it has become a reality. Few outlets exist for those writing about the true faith, and what outlets there are can seldom afford to pay its writers.

This is a thing I have intended to mend. What has been blocking me is also a liability to others.

Note, the description depends a bit on how far from the true faith you think some Novus Ordos are, who in fact are making money from Apologetics (Mark Shea comes to mind). I would say his "Making senses of Scripture" is at least in the risk zone (I haven't read it, but kind of judge by what he said on literalism on other occasions) of putting the spiritual senses above the literal one, not just in importance for the Christian life, which is true, but also in veracity information given, which is false. But "Mother of the Son" would arguably be a very good book on why we should honour the Blessed Virgin precisely as we do.

I have actually not approached TAN books yet ... I maybe should. However, when I state (as I do) that Theistic Evolution involves either a total shallowness about what Adam as first man means, or a fairly depraved view on how he "grew up" once you start to accurately think about it, I have fears, this would not be the top priority of people who accept as Popes the Theistic Evolutionists Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and now Bergoglio.

I have approached Pope Michael, and I think it is somewhat reckless of him to allow Amazon to make not just the printing, but also the marketing of his books. Like the US bishops can rely on TAN, like the pre-apostasy papacy (and the antipopes after them) can rely on Libreria Editrice Vaticana, like the French speaking bishops of France and Belgium can rely on arrangements to publish books at once in Paris and in Leuven (spelled Louvain in French), so His Holiness should have a bookseller who actually serves his interests for the faith, not just a contracter, Amazon, largely run by (and manipulating algorithms against him) people who are total strangers to the faith. I also found it somewhat disingenious to make a new catechism, as he did a few years ago, while loudly claiming he stands by the Catechism of Trent and the four versions of the Baltimore Catechism (by Fr. Januarius De Concilio), and while neglecting apologetics, not to his papacy as such, at least his site is still vocal about that, but to things he has stood up for, like Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism. The latter being where I come in. I stood for both while I was still a Palmarian (before October 2002). My going from Palmarian to moderate Feeneyite, from Feeneyite to Ratzingerite "at last a pope materialiter and formaliter" from that to Romanian Orthodox (Neohimerite jurisdiction), from that to FSSPX, from that to briefly wavering between Sede and Ratzingerite and from there to accepting Pope Michael the last seven years, all this has not affected my idea, that the Church Fathers and Scholastics were right, and so is a plain reading of the Bible, and modernism is wrong.

Speaking of Young Earth Creationism, and Geocentrism, we may see some kind of rationale in Introibo blogger's relectance against him in what he used to be:

I'm a former New York City science teacher and current lawyer, so why am I writing a blog on theology?

New York City - so blue state. What can we know of science teachers in blue states? They usually promote Evolution (but he could have refused and lost his job over that**) and they nearly always to absolutely always promote Heliocentrism.

My own arrangement about copyright is actually a limited version of Creative Commons with voluntary Royalties as an option for remunerating me. There are six or so accepted versions of Creative Commons (with or without requirement of faithful reproduction, for attribution, for non-profit use only***) and my own version would be a seventh - no requirement of non-profit only, but instead an option for voluntary copyright royalties.

I do not think T. S. Benns can complain of anything I stated about the content of her text to be incorrect, since I used copy and paste, and I also do not think she could reasonably pretend I am (if this be printed and sold as books) earning money from her work.

Now, her rationale for a requirement as given being:

It is only logical to ask anyone intending to use a work to which considerable time and research has been devoted to request permission to use it. That way the author can check the posting or printed material to make sure the copy agrees with the original. Anyone whose intentions are honorable concerning such intended use of another’s material should not object to asking permission and allowing the author to check the resulting use. It is the responsibility of every Catholic writer to see that if their work is quoted, it is quoted properly.

Well, the quotes are by copy and paste, and the opportunity to check them, and contradict my use, if she judges it fraudulent, or careless, or otherwise incorrect, is given in another way, namely a notification. Introibo will have one too, even if he will arguably not bother to publish it in the comment section.

As I have already alluded to my copyright conditions being a species of Creative Commons, namely attribution and text integrality (but not original format°) required from anyone pretending to give my text, monetary use both allowed and encouraged, and this especially in relation to voluntary royalty payments. Obviously, giving my text and commenting on it are two different operations. But some people who think I need to be objected to (since they disagree with me) and who may have read me (during three months, the daily readership of my 40 blogs, big and small, has been 1700 per day, somewhat under 1000 of which from France) have been unnecessarily shy of citing me with a reference to where my text is (for the moment being, that's the internet). Perhaps due to a mistaken idea that even citations would require my previous permission.

To be fair to T. S. Benns, before the internet, a prior request was actually needed : the paper publication once printed could not be modified after criticism of a cited author, and so the request meant "I intend to publish a book on paper, and I would like to have your permission to quote you, so you can check I am not misquoting you" - any quotations made prior to such a permission would have been only in the citing author's manuscript, and hence unpublished, private use, and he would have been able to rewrite the manuscript after permission of the cited author depended on this. In this era of internet, I am by definition not mis-citing (unless it be by strategic truncations°°) any passage, since I use copy and paste, and by definition, if T. S. Benns feels mis-cited, I can change the post afterwards to suit her requirement of exact citation - if only by adding a PS or in the case of very bad errors a square of warning above the text.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Désiré of Langres
23.V.2022

Apud Lingonas, in Gallia, passio sancti Desiderii Episcopi, qui, cum plebem suam ab exercitu Wandalorum vexari cerneret, ad Regem eorum pro ea supplicaturus accessit; a quo statim jugulari jussus, pro ovibus sibi creditis cervicem libenter extendit, et, percussus gladio, migravit ad Christum. Passi sunt autem cum ipso et alii plures de numero gregis sui, qui apud eamdem urbem conditi sunt.

* If that is how Introibo blogger would have it stated. ** The speculation is meant to be a compliment, to desist from thinking the worst of him. If he insists with pride that he actually taught some kind of Theistic Evolution, we'll have to believe him. *** If each version that has a ban on modification automatically involves a requirement of attribution, this makes it six, three versions around these requirements, times two around non-profit only or not. ° The original format is the internet, and it is usually for free. The format that would give some reusers, and via voluntary royalties me too some money would be the paper format. Here are my conditions, as linked to from my main blog and applicable to most of my blogs:

hglwrites: A little note on further use conditions:*
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/a-little-note-on-further-use-conditions/

°° I am not aware of any.