There are people and organisations that state that copyright is wrong, and that copyright law should be deprecated. I think the same way but as a Christian I want to be sure that such thought is not be against the will of God.

Would being an advocate for the deprecation or abolition of copyright law run contrary to any Biblical or Christian principals? Is there any justification for copyright stated in Bible or other Christian sources?


8 Answers 8


It's a very good question, and not one which is easy to answer. But we are all called to make use of our talents, which I think may vary from gifts. Information is not necessarily subject to copyright - only literary / dramatic / musical works, films, broadcasts and sound recordings - basically, works where the author/creator has expended skill and effort to create it. And surely we as Christians should support those authors and musicians who clearly have a talent and a gift for their area to continue to write/create so that the greater Church benefits?

As a Christian, personally I feel that copyright should not be abolished, though I do feel the term of protection is rather too long. I would be upset if Christians got into copyright court battles, as it is right if we want something to buy it through the correct and lawful channels, but not if we download it free from a torrent site or similar. There are of course flaws in copyright law - the exceptions, for example, should be wider and allow for non-profit institutions to do more with copyright works, but the general principle of others being remunerated for their work I think fits with the Christian faith insofar as it is not exploited.

  • Thank you. I think it's right, that artists or authors should be supported by community, and it is possible in different ways - by having grants, by selling tickets on performances, by having donations from their fans. This may be not enough to be a multimillionaire, but may be enough to live and create freely. If work is done once - shouldn't it be paid once? Commented Sep 20, 2011 at 12:45
  • 2
    I agree, I think different business models come into play, which is no bad thing. Do you not think though that artists or authors should have some legal recourse if their work is used in a way which they disagree with? i.e. if a Christian band's song was used to promote a BNP campaign, for example? Copyright allows this sort of legal recourse, so I still see it as important. Commented Sep 20, 2011 at 13:55
  • Not sure. In this example recorded song is a result of work they did, but not the work itself. It is the work of consumers fantasy to make use out of this song (ex. to feel happy). Commented Sep 20, 2011 at 14:19

Copyright laws are written to protect the author (or translator, artist, etc, but I'll stick to authors for my discussion). Without copyright laws, it would be easy for a very skillful author to write a wonderful book, but for some wealthy publisher to come along and take their book and publish it for their own profit. The author then goes un-recognized and more importantly, un-paid.

Copyright, just like patent law, is designed to protect "the little guy," and to make sure that someone who spends a year writing a novel, or researching a particular area to write about it, or spends decades translating the Bible to their own language, etc, has the opportunity to be rewarded for their work.

Clearly, copyright laws can be used as tools for greed, too, but I don't think that invalidates the reason for the laws, any more than it invalidates the need for banks or supermarkets. Just because something can be abused does not make the thing inherently evil.

If a Christian author does not approve of copyright laws, he is free to release his book to the public domain (or with some other non-traditional copyright, as has become popular the last few decades). And in fact, if his purpose for writing a book is to enlighten others, and not to earn a royalty, he may well feel the desire to do this. This practice is especially common in certain areas of software development.

But I don't think a strong Biblical argument can be made that copyright is inherently immoral or unethical, nor that Christians ought to copyright their works. I think we can glean from scripture, though, that Christians are bound by copyright laws. See Romans 13:1-2.

To me, copyright is an important way to protect the rights of the "little guy." It clearly can be abused, but practically anything good can be abused, so the possibility of abuse is not a good enough reason to do away with something.

Because I view copyright as an important way to protect the rights of the otherwise powerless, I would could not in good conscience fight to abolish copyright law, as I would see it as violating the principles laid out in scripture, of caring for "the least of these," etc. For me, this would be a sin.

However, I cannot say that a Christian who feels copyright is wrong would be sinning to fight to abolish copyright. I would ask a Christian who feels it's wrong to explain why, based on scripture, they think it's wrong. If their reasons are purely selfish ("I want to download MP3s"), I would say they are behaving sinfully, and I would urge them re-examine their motives.

If, on the other hand, their motives are selfless ("I feel copyright victimizes people"), then, while I might disagree with their conclusion, I would see their motives as pure, and I would not consider it a sin.

Personally, I would support certain copyright reforms... as I think certain aspects of copyright law are in place only to protect large corporations--and that is not why I support copyright law. But doing away with copyright law entirely, to me, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

  • 2
    It's stated and (mostly) original purpose was to "protect the little guy". Not that it has much of this function anymore... (patents are even worse, much worse) Commented Sep 20, 2011 at 21:53
  • 1
    @MaxGontar: How is copyright law not government law?
    – Flimzy
    Commented Sep 22, 2011 at 5:38
  • 1
    @Max such works are not "payed once", though; many works are paid on a royalty basis, rewarding great works, while making it possible for "new blood" to break into the market, while not getting completely ripped off for their early works. To work the way you seem to want, you would have to radically change that system, violating innumerable pre-existing contracts. Commented May 9, 2012 at 8:19
  • 1
    @MaxGontar: I love open source software and other works. But there are many works that I am happy to pay for, because free versions simply don't exist, and probably could not exist, without paying people to do them, by means of copyright.
    – Flimzy
    Commented May 10, 2012 at 19:44
  • 1
    It's a common misconception that the purpose of copyright law is to protect content creators. However, the express stated purpose of copyright law is not to protect creators for works that already exist, but to encourage the individuals to create more works. This is accomplished by providing a protection that (in theory) makes it easier to make money from those works. "Protection" is not the end goal: protection is a mechanism by which the end goal may be achieved... and not the only such mechanism. Commented Jan 6, 2013 at 22:15

Ok, so far most answers are in terms of whether Christians/artists should work with copyrights. They give arguments like the musician, songwriter, etc. should get money in order to do what they do. But in all this, there is one important thing missing: motivation; what motivates the musician to write music - what motivated the people to write the Bible.

If you read 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, then you must come to the conclusion that, if we talk about God, Jesus, Holy Spirit or the Bible, then it is the Holy Spirit that gives us the words to speak out. How we preach depends on the gift/talent God has given to us.

It was not talent, sound or system, that motivated the apostles to spread the word of God, no, it was love that motivated them to tell the Jews, Greeks, Romans and eventually us that Jesus died for us. Why? Because God gave His Son out of love. So if the motivation is love, how do you answer to that? With a thankful heart.

How can we show that we are thankful? Through prayer, yes. But also in the gifts that we give to the church. That rule counts for every Christian: preacher, musician, artist, worship-leader, etc. And what is the promise of that rule? That you shall be blessed (no not Malachi, but 2 Corinthians 8:4). What we say, sing or show is knowledge given from the Holy Spirit. And to be thankful for that, we give to the church. Not because the bible says it (in this case, the bible does say it) but out of love.

Another answer is that most of the apostles sacrificed their lives (and still are!!) to preach the gospel; what gives us the right to ask for money to spread the word of God?

  • Welcome to Christianity--Stack Exchange! While I can see where you are coming from, we are looking for supported answers. I'm not sure, for instance, that 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 really supports your argument. How do you reconcile 1 Timothy 5:18 with this answer? Commented May 9, 2012 at 0:28
  • 4
    (tongue in cheek) So... I can steal content from Christians, but not atheists? Fair enough. More realistically, though: the "what motivates" is dubious (and I'll stick to music here, not the Bible, to avoid issues): for many people, "to put food on my table and a roof over my head" is a big part of the answer to that. Copyright law is not about "spread the word of God"; you need to consider that the number of people for whom that is a driving concern is small even among believers. Odd, then, that many of the most brazenly evangelistic are so keen to ask for money... Commented May 9, 2012 at 7:25
  • 1
    @Marc. Also, even if a work is designed primarily to spread a message, copyright law can be of assistance with that. If you're spreading a message, you may not want altered versions of your work to be distributed. Licenses such as CC-BY-ND depend on copyright law.
    – TRiG
    Commented May 9, 2012 at 12:59
  • @TRiG yes, copyright law may assist to protect information from change, but to change a mesage is rather lie than a stealing. Using copyright law for this purpose reminds me a joke about using microscope to hammer in nails. Except that microscope is actually a good thing. Commented May 10, 2012 at 20:12
  • @Marc this all was about correctness of copyright law actually, not about stealing something, and the answer was pretty on topic, since I was asking about Bible background. Talking about information and a basic of it - a simply word, you may consider, and it's not a pun, that in the beginning was a Word, and who we are to trade a gifts of our Heaven Father? The work is something done once and paid once otherwise it's gambling or begging. You may consider praising and spreading the word of God is a duty of most Christians, same way as attending a church, and the same way it is neglected. Commented May 10, 2012 at 20:28

So, I want to make two additional distinctions, the first is what establishment of copyright law means:

  • Option 1: Literal establishment of copyright - An author can still agree with each and every of his sellers on limitations how they can distribute a book.
  • Option 2: Forceful publication in public domain - It becomes illegal/impossible to limit distribution of works. This is what is often argued by people wanting to get rid of copyright law.

And the second distinction is between the context of society and the christian community:

In society in general

"If someone has spend time creating something that is conceptual rather than manual labour he should have the possibility to be rewarded for this." will be the claim I will be examining from different perspectives here.

Lets start by examining the greek/roman times a bit to see how it worked back then. If you take an individual such as Plato he was able to share his ideas publicly, but due to the difficulty of information travel he also was able to open his academy. Similarly an author would normally make copies of books 'himself' (except when he lived really far and a court closer by had a copy). Or when we take a look at inventions (as in better methodologies to make things) they were normally closely guarded family secrets passed down and not shared. In other words it was quite possible to be rewarded for intellectual endeavors. Of course this does not mean that Christians should live in a roman way, but it is worth noting as the context of the new testament.

Now, let's examine a society without copyright and patent law (in the sense of option 2, in the sense of option 1 it would just become harder for authors to publish, not impossible):

  • Short term: Huge burst of creativity and developement as all patents become public, everyone can make anything and a lot of expensive lawsuits stop. Smaller corporations will build incredible products and a lot more competition will exist. Patent trolls will have to shut down and all 'inventors' who used to sell patents to patent trolls lose their jobs. Small poorer authors will have to stop working as authors as they don't receive royalties from their previous works whilst richer authors might make it a luxury hobby.
  • Long term: Smaller corporations will disappear entirely as bigger corporations copy their innovations and bigger corporations will only invest in manufacturing techniques that can't be copied by looking at the final product. Innovation of consumer products themselves will halt entirely. Additionally writing of music, books, etc. will become a pure luxury hobby for those with extra time on their hands. Some people will still be doing this in the first world (probably china only by then) and in the rest of the world it will have disappeared nearly entirely and we will start rereading and rewatching a lot of 'old stuff' (not necessarily bad).

    So, still considering option 2, would it be stealing if works get forcefully published in the public domain. Maybe. The question would be then whether the government is capable of stealing. If for example the land reallocation policies by the USSR or many african governments are considered stealing then a good argument could be made that this is quite similar. On the other hand you could also argue that all that's happening is that it's still your own work, but that the government only made it impossible to share it with others as part of a deal.

In the christian community

However for Christians a lot of this is quite different I dare say and that seems to be the foundation for the confusion. Although not a commandment in any way1 (!!!) the new testament does discuss the sharing of property and similar concepts (e.g. Matthew 10:8 which has been quoted out of context above). What this means is that it definitely is a fair question to consider whether it's wise/correct/right for a christian author to sell his books, for a christian band to sell their music or a pastoral carer giving workshops to ask hundreds to thousands of dollars for a workshop.

Personally I am an advocate that these kind of jobs should be supported by local churches (requiring far greater church contributions which might be unrealistic) similar to some extend how the catholic church works and seen as gifts given by God and supported by His church. I do think that would be the 'rightest' way to do this, even though in our current society quite unrealistic. So, so long as that is not possible, would it be right to create a system where it becomes even harder for their gifts to prosper?

1 Ask a different question if you want, but that's too far out of scope to answer here.

So back to copyright laws

When selling a book what essentially happens is that you buy a piece of processed dead tree, but you also implicitly make a deal that limits the ways you can use it. Copyright law simply defines the way that agreement looks. Is there any Christian basis to take away the right from an author to make such an agreement? Definitely not. Is there any Christian basis to take away this government simplification of those agreements? Don't really see any either, but there doesn't seem to be anything against it. Is there any Christian argument to be made against forceful publication in the public domain? Maybe.

Either way, I am quite sure copyright laws won't be abolished, so I am going to add one final remark: Stealing - in many of it's original definitions - has nothing to do with whether the owner still owns his work. To just quote a couple of definitions:

  • to take (something that does not belong to you) in a way that is wrong or illegal
  • to take (something that you are not supposed to have) without asking for permission
  • to wrongly take and use (another person's idea, words, etc.)

(Source: Merriam Webster)

So, although we could change those definitions forcefully, in the end there is a fair chance that copyright violations simply are stealing and thus are explicitly non-christian (regardless of the requirement to conform to government rules). Why risk wandering through a gray area rather than staying cleanly in the white?


Rightly or wrongly, copyright is something that someone owns. To breach that copyright is essentially to steal from them, and I'm sure you know what the Bible has to say about stealing.

In terms of something more specific about copyright itself, you could look at passages like Romans 12:4-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:1-31. Copyright is usually applied to something that an individual or organisation has created through their own gifts and expertise. These passages say that different people have different gifts - we do not all have the same function and therefore don't have the right or ability to reproduce what others can whenever we want to. So if you're good at writing songs (say) and I'm not, I shouldn't expect to have lots of good songs to my name that I can do whatever I want with.

But you could interpret that same passage the other way, by heeding the very clear message in verse 5 of the Romans passage: "we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others". So although we all do different things, we do these different things for one another and with one another because we belong to one another. So the songs you write are my songs too because we belong to the same body.

Of course the body that Paul is talking about in Romans and 1 Corinthians is the body of Christ ("in Christ we, though many, form one body...") and this is an instruction to share gifts and resources within the church. It doesn't say that we, as one body, can take parts or functions from another body. So within the church we should share what we have freely, but in a wider context we don't have the right to own the fruits of other people's gifts.

  • 1
    Thank you. That's what I'm trying to find out - why information is recognized as a property? So, the point is, there should be no copyright within Christians? Since Paul is talking only about Church and only about a gifts of Holy Spirit, can we apply analogy? Commented Sep 20, 2011 at 11:16
  • 1
    Certainly that's how I read it; that Christians can (and perhaps even should) copyright their work, but at the same time should make it freely available to other Christians. I'm not sure what publishers, professional authors and worship leaders would have to say about that, though! I'm sure there are other ways of interpreting "each member belongs to all the others" - and, of course, you have the tricky problem of defining who is and who isn't a member of your "body".
    – Waggers
    Commented Sep 20, 2011 at 11:25
  • 5
    Copyright is not the same as authorship! I can understand that gift is a property of a person, but why a fruit of a gift, information, is a property also? One example, person A has a gift of healing, person B is sick, person A heals person B - now a good health of person B is a fruit of gift of person A. Would it be a property of person A also? No. Commented Sep 20, 2011 at 11:40
  • 1
    But is copyright law just? In the 19th century slaves were legally "something that someone owns", but that didn't prevent Christians from participating in the underground railroad. Commented May 9, 2012 at 3:24
  • 2
    @MaxGontar It's a common misconception, but information is not considered property under copyright law. Only license to reproduce that information is protected. Take a book, for example. I can purchase a book without the author or publisher's (copyright holder's) permission, but I am not permitted to reproduce the book. Ownership of the text and information itself is not granted. Even the copyright itself is not "owned" by the author. Rather, copyright law assumes the right is owned by the public, and a special limited-term exclusive license is granted to the author/rights-holder. Commented May 9, 2012 at 3:36

The Bible mentions nothing about copyright because it didn't yet exist. At a time when most people were illiterate, the concept of protecting ideas was absurd. That means to answer this question we have to find verses and try to make them apply, which gets dangerous. I will make my case for my beliefs, but to say "the Bible supports copyrights" or "the Bible says copyrights are wrong" would be flawed. However, I believe the FOUNDATION FOR copyrights is found in the Bible.

When Jesus sends out the seventy-two in Luke 10 he said, "7 Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house."

Copyrights protect intellectual property because we live in an age where ideas are very valuable. Copyrights allow musicians to make money, and therefore allow us to have a vast amount of entertainment. Copyrights allow authors to spend time writing excellent books. Like the men Jesus sent out, these people need to be able to eat, drink, and have a place to live. Without copyrights today, the people who create these songs, books, speeches, etc., would never get the money they deserve and therefore wouldn't be able to create them.

To get that music or book or whatever for free, or for someone else to make money off it would be stealing. Not necessarily stealing a physical object, but stealing the harvest of the work. The Bible says not to steal (Exodus 20:15, Leviticus 19:11, Deuteronomy 5:19) and copyrights are one way to help prevent people from stealing.

The argument comes down to whether you think intellectual property is something that should be free or if it can be stolen. However, if you think it should be free you are saying it has no value, it is worthless. If it has no value, why would you listen to/read it? If it is worth paying attention to, it is worth protecting. If it has value, the Bible says not to steal and that the worker deserves his wages...

  • 1
    "intellectual property" isn't. Property, that is. I just get temporary exclusive rights to it. And it (copyright) doesn't protect ideas, but the expression of ideas. Important distinction. And how does Luke match the fact that copyrights extend beyond the creator's death? See... it's a bit more complex than it looks. Commented Sep 20, 2011 at 22:07
  • It is the property of the one who came up with it (wrote it, said it, etc), not the person paying to use it. And I was looking at Luke as an example of people deserving pay for their work, even if it doesn't produce physical products, not as an example of the longevity of the protection. I began my post stating the Bible says nothing about copyrights, only the basis for them. Therefore, the technical details cannot be supported or argued against without extremely stretching the meaning of the verses
    – Cameron
    Commented Sep 21, 2011 at 13:52
  • 1
    Thank you, but I can't understand why Luke 10 is foundation for copyright. Preaching and healing is a real work, and sure it should be paid. Musician is working when he actually playing music, and then I'm ready to pay for a tickets. But I can't see there foundation for intellectual property. Besides, Matthew 10:8:"freely ye have received, freely give" Commented Sep 21, 2011 at 14:38
  • @Cameron: since you seem to be in the US, let me quote the constitution, "The Congress shall have Power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Not property, just temporary exclusive rights. If they had meant "Property", then they'd have said so. Commented Sep 21, 2011 at 15:01
  • 1
    @MaxGontar While I love going to concerts, it takes a lot more work for a musician to write a song than to play it after it is already written. If not for copyrights, anyone who knows how to sing/play guitar/whatever can sell tickets for you to listen to them play other people's music.
    – Cameron
    Commented Sep 21, 2011 at 15:26

Copyright is ultimately a protection over ownership. Those who choose to copyright their work are saying "I want ownership over my work, I don't want anyone else to take credit for what I do". But as Christians, we are held to a higher standard (Acts 2:44). What does taking credit of our work show? I think we need to examine our hearts here. Ultimately, shouldn't God get the ultimate glory, ownership, and credit (Psalm 24:1)? When someone else steals my work and gets tons of money or fame from it, my ego is bruised because I want that credit, that glory, and that wealth. But if we are doing work for God's glory instead of our own (1 Corinthians 10:31), we would be ok not to take the centre stage. We would be ok serving in the background and never getting the spotlight. We would even be ok allowing others take credit of our work as long as ultimately God gets the glory. Because ultimately, we serve our heavenly Father and not our egos. So, ownership, entitlement, and everything inbetween becomes irrelevant. Less of us, more of Him. May we truly live as the drink offering poured onto the Lamb (Philippians 2:17, 2 Timothy 4:6)

P.S. ever wonder why the identities of some of the writers of different books of the Bible are still disputed? Could it be partly because these authors had less of an ego and didn't care enough to even identify themselves let alone copyright their writings as long as God was glorified?

  • You don't choose to copyright, you have copyright (huge distinction). Acts 2:44 is not a commandment to act that way and quite possibly shaped by Plato's ideal in it's description (though definitely a wise lesson to learn from). And lastly, it's not about ego, because if that would be that case then it would be also perfectly fine to just steal: "They just want the credit for their work, that glory and that wealth". (continued in next comment) Commented Jun 2, 2014 at 22:28
  • 1
    Selling things is not unchristian. I mean, don't forget that even Jesus himself was taught as a carpenter (likely). Doubt he was giving everything he made away. Greed, serving two lords, etc. are all bad things, but that in no way means that for example having money is evil itself (it is the love of money that can become the problem) Commented Jun 2, 2014 at 22:29
  • I'm talking from the perspective of the creator of the work though, this is different. As a reader/viewer of course you are not supposed to take credit for other people's work or steal the work. Getting paid is different from copyrights as well. Making God's Word a commodity is problematic as well but that's a different topic altogether. I'm talking purely from the perspective of permitting copyrights on work you create for God.
    – j118
    Commented Jun 3, 2014 at 15:48
  • So true@God's word. I am have been lobbying for awhile now to get our national bible translation under an open license (with just a tiny bit of luck: they are going to at least make the usage policy more permissive). But the OP was about copyright laws in general, not limited to the fruits of our own labours. Commented Jun 3, 2014 at 16:00
  • Ah ok, sorry I must have misread. I had specific examples in mind when I wrote my original posts (copyrighting Bible study materials and Bibles are two examples I was thinking about in particular). I usually freely distribute my notes and Bible study materials to anyone that may benefit from them and have recently come across a lot of people who copyrighted their Bible study material and restrict access to them. I was having trouble seeing a pure and righteous motivation behind doing so. Hence my posts.
    – j118
    Commented Jun 3, 2014 at 16:25

It's hard to answer while stuck in manmade-law, in end-time "Babylon" with secular govt (not to be obeyed*) ruled by phoney money loaned at interest from the Fed Res conspiracy creators: a kind of treadmill to keep most folks working (for Conspirators & game players), not freed, as was original Eden for Adamites (sons of God, Luke 3:23-38). Not all humans are Adamites (some are pre-Adamites Cain built a city of); or Satan's brood, Gen 3:15, the force at top of the Conspirators, and game-players. Jesus returns to impose his Order (Zech 14:9) over all Earth (Adamites rule other "living" as in Gen 1:26-28), with a ("man's") Adamite's role set by how well he kept God's laws & prophecy orders, Mat 5:17-19. REWARDS to some for their great actions toward this! Rev 22:12. Grace will save (resurrect) called ones who at least recognize Jesus as KING and got baptized (if not tied on cross!), but rewards and your position in the Kingdom depend upon ACTIONS. (Don't "rapture"/"grace" yourself into conforming to world and doing nothing!) Leave Babylon! Seek its destruction Rev 18. We're to have OUR OWN COURTS: I Cor 6:1-6 logically of Bible Law (perfect Ps 19:7)

  • So "higher powers" to obey (incessantly misused Romans 13:1-2) are NOT MANMADE-LAW MEN, but Jesus and the Power (Father) descending from above in clouds (Mat 26:64) and his law! Heb 13:7 speaks of ones with rule over you - being ones who spoke God's Word! (not man's)

While we are not to covet/steal what is our neighbor's - used to justify severe private property rights, patents, copyrights - at no time is CORPORATE LAW established by God for having any (often hidden) persons or cartel owning an artificial person (= corporation), contrary to God's order NOT to make stuff in likeness of what he made! Not only is it a technical violation of Second Commandment, but it allows non-Adamites to rule Adamites, and even Satan's brood to gain control, and enslave Adamites - as warned. Our world now! See?

Oddly, after Jesus ascended, as a model for our end-time stuggle, the Holy Ghost instructed Christ's folks (told to get out of Babylon in end of end time, Rev 18) to live together as a brotherhood; own all things in common. Act 4:31-5:20 [Vastly different from 1917 Marxism, a Conspirator's scam for a small related group to rule all others with the excuse it would be paradise. Study Trotsky (Lev Davidovich Bronstein) got vast funds & guns from Rothschild banker Warburg to push revolution ostensibly for workers. Trotsky was in cahoots with cabal of hundreds who were inner circle of USSR power enslaving others in humanist Marx's name.]

So now we really are in end of end-times. Time to depart Babylon, set up godly communities, courts & defenders; live in close-knit ethnos brotherhoods of Bible Law. In that grouping is no use for patents or copyrights to become personally/corporately rich. Do do research, create POWERFUL technologies to be free of paper $ economy and stop manmade regime force. Write great things and give it freely! Make music/film to teach our folks the way (freely)! If enemies of God oppose us, and then get pushed out of your area. What of their stuff? Mechizedek got a tithe of what Abraham took from God's enemies (Gen 14); he's like a separatist group's leader. Form brotherhoods. Act. Get rewards. Vast media networks pander to advertisers of lies to bewitch/enslave us. Do they have a right to this "private" stuff?


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .