USCCB - We, the people, pay their salaries. They "earn" no money on their own and they turn around and charge us for using the lectionary of the church.

Is this not sinful?

Are they afraid people will steal the lectionary?

Simony.

They don't even make that much money off it: according to the 2011 annual report, the USCCB's royalty income was $1.7 million, out of a $192M budget.

http://www.usccb.org/about/financial-reporting/upload/2010-and-2011-Statements.pdf (page 5)

The financial situation also seems to get in the way of a decent translation of scripture -- the NAB is not the best translation out there.

In Canada we now have a version of the NRSV corrected according to Liturgiam Authenticam, which is not too bad, better than the NAB at any rate. I don't believe our bishop's conference earns any royalties on this one.

However, I envy the U.S. permission for the revised Grail psalms - much better for singing than the NRSV version of the psalms we are supposed to use in Canada. Happily we may still use the old Grail which is serviceable, if not as quite good as the new Grail.

The copyright restrictions on the revised Grail are unfortunate, but it seems that they are not too restrictive which is a good thing.

I've got a great idea! Let's charge for the word of God!

"Great idea, we've only got 348 Million plus change, keeping the word of God from them unless they pay for it, that'll improve the looks of our spreadsheet."

Who needs money changers in the temple, we've got bishops!

With an estimated 77 million Catholics in the USA, I'd like my $4.52 back, please.

At least the Benedictines admit that they did the Grail for money.

While I'm overall outraged at the situation, facts are still facts...

GIA does not "own" the Psalms. GIA is acting as the licensing agent, and most of the fee they collect goes back to Abbey that owns the translation.
Also they only sort of "decide who gets use" them. My understanding is that they grant permission to everyone who asks, and that the terms are essentially identical for everyone.

It makes sense that the Abbey would use an agent, as the paperwork and hassle of keeping up with licensing is a pain, and it also makes sense that they would choose a company like GIA for this job. -- That is, it makes sense if you accept the notion that Intellectual Property is good and worth enforcing.

You don't have to over blow the financial "hardship" issue here to recognize the problems.

The central problem is not that it isn't "free like beer." Beer is cheap.
The problem is that it isn't "free like speech."

We are not free (at any price) to remix, to edit, to alter, to build upon, to resell, to improve. We can't put the text of the Grail onto Wikipedia or release it through Project Gutenberg. We can't re-typeset it in Comic Sans, add illustrations of lolcats, and sell it on Etsy. We can't use it for a daily Psalm Tweet. We can't read it with gravitas over synthesized bass beats and post it to YouTube.

Makers of liturgical IP (translations, liturgies, music, etc) have an insider focus, as if the main goal or purpose of this work is ministering to and among the already-churched. Music ministers, liturgists, pastors, whoever- are using this material for their own community's benefit, and so it's okay (the thinking goes) that those communities that benefit pay a bit to subsidize the creation. And, since those communities operate with staff and budget and planning meetings- it's okay that there is administrative friction in managing all of it.

But these owners of IP are forgetting that we are called to evangelize, to spread the good news. Forget the money for a second- the friction is the biggest problem here, the lack of freedom to share. The fields of mission do not operate with administrative overhead and six-month pre-planning meetings. The ability to quickly find and share, the ability to retool for the needs of the people being ministered to, and the needs of the ministers themselves to work in mediums they find comfortable- these needs are being ignored by the owners of religious Intellectual Property.

The only alternative for ministers, artists, and the like is to fall back on pre-copyright traditionalist sources. This is, of course, a good result in many instances: the KJV and DR translations, Gregorian Chant, traditional hymnody, etc. But we cannot evangelize a faith that exists only in the artistic past. We should not need to teach people how to read Latin or understand Elizabethan English before they can have a non-licensed encounter with God's Word.

The difference between owning and administering is legally important but practically non-existent.

But in any case, I hope everyone read Adam's post above. It is very important. GIA has been generous with permissions and they are not breaking the bank with fees. But he is right that the real problem is that the current copyright status is forbidding innovation and evangelization. That's the really serious issue.

Good point: for many non-profits, IRS filings are available on-line through guidestar.org, but there are no forms available at that site for the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Perhaps that means that CCD does not file the form.

As for income from the sale of Lectionaries, I doubt that is very much money, since few parishes buy new Lectionary volumes except when new editions are released. It's possible that more income comes from sales of bibles and "missalettes", with a little from hymnals that incorporate the Scripture readings.

I think we need to keep the pressure up. Perhaps those with blogs can post about this subject. I'm pretty sure GIA is just banking on the fact that nobody will care about this ... it will be ignored ...

Personally, I find the $1.7M figure plausible. If it represents a 5% royalty on sales, that would correspond to a $34M sales figure: a little under $2K, average, per parish. That's a plausible average budget for missalettes, right? It would cover 500 copies of OCP's annual book.

Two parishes I know buy 1000 copies every year. 500 is probably average.

Any parish that attempts to print the Breviary text for something will need permission now?

No.

http://www.giamusic.com/sacred_music/RGP/GrailLicense.cfm

Free Use for Which Written Permission Is Not Required

Parishes and other Ecclesial Communities may reprint the RGP as needed for celebrations within the specific community without obtaining written permission.

...

Composers

Composers are free to set the RGP at will, and may use their settings indefinitely within their own ecclesial communities, provided that no revenue is derived from such use. If any fees are attached to the sharing of a composer’s work, standard royalties will apply.