The Bible (2): A Priate has Stolen my Bible.

"A pirate has stolen my BIBLE!"

This phrase seems out of place within the 21st century, and just 'off' in general. Although, the colour pink turned my notion of the Bible's aura upside down, the remix did not stop there. My next thought was pirates.

     What if perchance, Church 2.0 formed from this remixed Bible? If this church made copies and sold it to their practioners for five dollars, or even for free would those religious leaders become priates? Despite the obvious hyptetical nature of this discussion, there are some very realistic problems underlying this situation. They are the complex issues of authorship and ownership within remix.

      Although Mr. Peterson may never have intended his novel to develop a religious following, the laws surrounding the ownership of his book prevent people from using this novel within a certain context. The problem arises from the copyright Eugene has on his novel and his words, these copyrights do not extend to an indiviuals personal beliefs only their practices. This predicament reminds me of the Manifesto in the documentary RIP! stating that current copyright laws control the freedoms of citizens to engage with particular (at times religious) objects.
     This contemporary Bible is the epitomy of capitalism. The Bible given it's history does not have a particular owner, similarly to the other cultural artifacts of today. Since this version of the Bible is copyrighted it prevents particular uses of it (unless there is profit). It becomes a question of capital in whether or not it is legal to form relgious followings based on this text or reuse this version to form another one. I think I fully understand that was meant when the Manifesto stated that the future is becoming less free. It is not only relevant in terms of digital commodities it has been extended to cultural artifacts in general. In this context when even relgious practice could be off limits due to the copyright laws on versions of the Bible. To the point where there may be a day that someone could legally claim a writer plagerised their Bible.
    To think someone could legally claim the Bible has been plagerised seems prposterous. However, with laws governeing ownership the reality is not far off.
    Although, copyright law may be trumped by religious freedoms this hyptheical circumstance highlights the complex intermingling of ownership, copyright and indiviual use. It provides a plethora of questions which "remix" the notion of authorship and ownership. Does Eugene H. Peterson really own his own Bible? Can he truly be considered an author?
    With copyright the practices of everyday life (for some) are complicated since they are limited in their ways of using items. A remix manifesto may have been right. If a new version of the Bible can turn a priest into a priate - maybe it has gone too far.

Forgive me for using such a charged issue such as religion, however, I feel as if the relgious culture behind the Bible is seperate of the practices of ownership and copyright. In the same way the intentions and creativity expressed by the people who engage in remix are separate from ownership and economy. The question remains is culture something you can own?