Question about bootlegs

[greenchili]

Ok. Jesus Christ himmself proclaimed that he was God's son. When he was standing before the Sanhedran, they drilled him about it. They met at night (which they normally did not do) and in a house privately (not in the court). It was an emergency. According to their law, Jesus Christ could not claim to be God, or God's son. According to God's truth he was/is! So, are you telling me that Jesus broke the law? Jesus sinned by claiming to be who he was?

Jesus Christ healed on the sabbath. When asked about breaking MANS legalistic laws of working on the sabbath, he tells them that God doesn't stop working on the sabbath so why should he? Did Jesus sin by breaking man's law?

Well were getting a little off topic here. Your talking Jesus.. (who just so happens to be God). And I'm talking about missionaries who are children of God and are subject to God's law, and man's law. The legalistic laws he was breaking were not the governments laws, they were religious laws, so I really fail to see the parallell here. I certainly do not see Jesus physically running around today telling everyone to break the law when he says so.

I think your reeeeaaaly reaching there..

An oddball question here. When Jesus said, concerning taxation, "Render unto Caesar, what is Caesar's" was he saying follow the laws of your nation? Or was he simply saying "Pay your taxes"? I mean if you want to get REEEAAAAL specific. All he is saying here is "Pay your taxes". Nothing MORE, nothing LESS.

Now back to my previous post which was LARGELY overlooked. I added a little bit too it, just for fun.

1. Lets not get in a wizzin match. I let Jesus Christ do the talking.

Sounds to me like your doing the talking, based on YOUR interpretation of what the bible is saying. You say it's ok for missionaries to break laws in other countries to "spread the good news"... I say..

I see no precedent.

I was thinking about prophets in the bible, and for some reason none seem to come to mind that used deceitful tactics in order to "obey God's law". But I can think of one who ended up in a Lion's Den, a few in a fiery furnace, one or two thrown in jail, one beaten and crucified (more than a prophet of course).

When Jesus rose from the dead, what were the apostles doing? Hiding. He literally had to go and tell them to get off their toocus and start preaching the word. I dont remember him telling them to issue false Id's, create illegal Visa's, or any other type of activities that modern day missionaries may be using. (whatever that may be).

He said that he came to fulfill the law, not abollish it. God's law plainly states "Thou (You) shall not (Don't Even Try it) Steal (bootleg, borrow without permission, take it cause you can't afford it).

I was questioning why this LEGALISE applies to bootlegging, but not what some missionaries are doing? I saw your explanation and I don't buy it. Do you have anything better?

Jesus said that when people saw him, they were seeing God. The commandments are clear, Jesus was clear, and so is the great commission. A sixth grader can grasp this. I know, cause I asked mine.

So your saying that the verse says "Go ye therefore into all the world, breaking any laws necessary, etc, etc". I sure do not remember seeing THAT verse. At least not in sixth grade.

What's with the double standard? Sin is sin, non is greater, non is justifiable.

2. Everybody SHOULDN'T have their own interpretation of the bible, but they do, because people cannot agree on what bible is right. Another device of Satan. God is not the author of confusion.

But man is, and man wrote the bible, man translated it to different languages, man interpretes it. So henceforth everybody DOES has their own interpretation. We are, after all human. You seem to act like you do not have an OPINION on the bible, but that everything you say based on it is a direct revelation from God. I say, huh??

Sounds to me that the missionaries are sinning by breaking the law and using deceit. So it's ok for them to break the law to spread the Gospel, but not for someone to copy a CD (break the law) and use it to reach someone "ministry". So isn't sin, sin? Who draws the line? You?

I think some people are picking the verses that happen to match their moral "belief" on a certain issue. But when asked why they do not apply the same logic to something else they pull out some "other" verse that somehow justifies that action. Just seems awfuly self serving. Coincidence?

I'm just trying to make sure I understand what "exactly" is being said here.

[Pethead1]

It is Spring and I am all stuped up. Cant go outside and all that.



And I got to get ready to plant mt beens on Good Friday.OH well

[epdc]

Stop arguing!!!!! you do understand that none of you will be convince to think the other way the other does right? :p

For example, if it�s necessary I�ll continue with my sinful life where I get copies of cd�s I just can�t find where I live and you guys will be judging my sinful acts LOLOL.

[hookandworm]

hey ya'll. i dont know much about the copy right laws or weater or not it is morally wrong or right to bootleg something based on said oppinions in this forum. what i do know is that i have been succesful in recieving a reply via email from bob hartman when ever i have a question about petra related issues. once i asked him if he could custom make me a guitar and he even wrote back. the point is if you go to www.houseofbob.com you can ask him and if he gives you permission to copy or bootleg his stuff than ya'll got nothing to worry about. have a good one matt

[gman]

I don't think they are arguing. They are just having a lively discussion about the scriptures; which I find rather enjoyable, or entertaining.

Perhaps it is a stretch to say that Jesus' statement of 'render to ceasar' can be extrapolated cover laws of the land. However, I think it says elsewhere in the new testament that we are to obey the gov't except where laws are passed that go against our faith. examples include: no religious gathering, no witnessing, no bible reading.
Going against copyright law to burn cds or photocopy bibles for witnessing would obviously not be ok.
In my opinion the bible is applicable to, and should guide, every area of life, and it does address the copyright issue in the way I mentioned above. The NT instructs us to obey our gov't. That gov't has issued laws which tell us what activities are ok in regards to copyrighted material. Now, I'm not talking about what people like Weird Al or the Apologetix do, or the debate over whether an idea is similar or not to a copyrighted work. I'm simply talking about the use of other people's copyrighted material. For the most part you are not allowed to do anything without a license, and as I said earlier, in the case of things that you purchase through a retailer, that purchase essentially gives you a license which grants you permission to use that purchase in certain ways.

[brent]

I don't think they are arguing. They are just having a lively discussion about the scriptures; which I find rather enjoyable, or entertaining.

Perhaps it is a stretch to say that Jesus' statement of 'render to ceasar' can be extrapolated cover laws of the land. However, I think it says elsewhere in the new testament that we are to obey the gov't except where laws are passed that go against our faith. examples include: no religious gathering, no witnessing, no bible reading.
Going against copyright law to burn cds or photocopy bibles for witnessing would obviously not be ok.
In my opinion the bible is applicable to, and should guide, every area of life, and it does address the copyright issue in the way I mentioned above. The NT instructs us to obey our gov't. That gov't has issued laws which tell us what activities are ok in regards to copyrighted material. Now, I'm talking about what people like Weird Al or the Apologetix do, or the debate over whether an idea is similar or not to a copyrighted work. I'm simply talking about the use of other people's copyrighted material. For the most part you are not allowed to do anything without a license, and as I said earlier, in the case of things that you purchase through a retailer, that permission to use that purchase in certain ways.

Both Weird Al and Apologetix secure permission to do parodies. They also must pay royalties. I know this because I share the same distributor annd have talked with them about it, and MTV news reported one time that Al was blocked from releasing a tune by Madonna I think. People gave her such crap about it that she relented and he got permission.

[gman]

why must they pay royalties? It was my understanding that when you make a parody you have created a new work with a new copyright that you hold.
As for asking permission, I think it's a good idea to do that. It's the respectful thing to do. But, didn't the Supreme Court rule that you don't need permission?

[greenchili]

Stop arguing!!!!! you do understand that none of you will be convince to think the other way the other does right? :p

For example, if it�s necessary I�ll continue with my sinful life where I get copies of cd�s I just can�t find where I live and you guys will be judging my sinful acts LOLOL.

Just having a little fun. But I think it's safe to say this topic kinda ran it's course.

I'm not as insane as I sound, and I appreciate people like brent who go thru the lengths they do to take the high road. Even if I do pick at em every once and a while.

Maybe we should take up a fund so we can purchase these items legally for some people.

hey ya'll. i dont know much about the copy right laws or weater or not it is morally wrong or right to bootleg something based on said oppinions in this forum. what i do know is that i have been succesful in recieving a reply via email from bob hartman when ever i have a question about petra related issues. once i asked him if he could custom make me a guitar and he even wrote back. the point is if you go to www.houseofbob.com you can ask him and if he gives you permission to copy or bootleg his stuff than ya'll got nothing to worry about. have a good one matt

That would be up to the original poster to do that.

n my opinion the bible is applicable to, and should guide, every area of life, and it does address the copyright issue in the way I mentioned above. The NT instructs us to obey our gov't.

I have no problem if one extrapolates in that direction. I'm just trying to figure out why some missionaries are an exception to this rule and how it is biblical without extrapolating. Ultimately what they do is between them and God, and I'm certainly not gonna get in the way.

That being said. I've been avoiding the copyright discussions. That topic has been done over so many times It's a bit old. Maybe we need a wiki we can just point people too.

That's a good one about madonna. . I was just recentally watching SpyHard. Al does the them song for that movie. Love his dew.

This movie is Spy hard... Yes it's called Spy hard.. It is named Spy hard.

[Michael]

...MTV news reported one time that Al was blocked from releasing a tune by Madonna I think. People gave her such crap about it that she relented and he got permission.

That may be the case... but Al's FAQ page lists a couple of other incidents. Prince has never let Al borrow his material. Coolio was not coolio about "Amish Paradise."

I guess Coolio forgave him, though.

[brent]

why must they pay royalties? It was my understanding that when you make a parody you have created a new work with a new copyright that you hold.
As for asking permission, I think it's a good idea to do that. It's the respectful thing to do. But, didn't the Supreme Court rule that you don't need permission?

Nope. Somebody wrote the music. Changing the lyrics doesn't negate the rights of the one that wrote the music.

[epdc]

Maybe we should take up a fund so we can purchase these items legally for some people.
[quote]

hehehehe greenchili, that would be cool

[gman]

maybe I'm a little fuzzy on all the details of this. It was my understanding that once a derivative work is created, that work is a separate copyright. Meaning, you could take the original music, put new lyrics to it, and have a new copyright, provided the lyrics could be proved as new and not just the old lyrics with a slight twist. I agree you should have to get permission to use someone else's song in this way.
Here's an brief bit on the supreme court issue I was referring to. Maybe things are different now, I don't know.

...the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed that parodies are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. ApologetiX provides a link to the site that explains this ruling. In this particular case, 2 Live Crew claimed to have done a parody of Roy Orbison's song "Pretty Woman." The resulting song was rather vulgar (in line with most of 2 Live Crew's material) and Roy Orbison's estate filed a lawsuit because of their perceived damage that this parody caused to the original recording. The Supreme Court ruled that parodists must be protected under the First Amendment because it is likely that the original author would refuse permission to create the parody if it was poking fun at the artist or the song. Therefore, a parodist may use the original material without permission and without paying royalties.

[charl]

Usually one cannot copy the "main body" of another piece. This of course is arbitrarily decided once a case goes to court. In Canada they are much more apt to side with the complainant. And then you have to deal with Moral Rights-if the creator of the original work believes your derivative version to be defamatory, he may have a case against you.

[executioner]

maybe I'm a little fuzzy on all the details of this. It was my understanding that once a derivative work is created, that work is a separate copyright. Meaning, you could take the original music, put new lyrics to it, and have a new copyright, provided the lyrics could be proved as new and not just the old lyrics with a slight twist. I agree you should have to get permission to use someone else's song in this way.
Here's an brief bit on the supreme court issue I was referring to. Maybe things are different now, I don't know.

...the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed that parodies are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. ApologetiX provides a link to the site that explains this ruling. In this particular case, 2 Live Crew claimed to have done a parody of Roy Orbison's song "Pretty Woman." The resulting song was rather vulgar (in line with most of 2 Live Crew's material) and Roy Orbison's estate filed a lawsuit because of their perceived damage that this parody caused to the original recording. The Supreme Court ruled that parodists must be protected under the First Amendment because it is likely that the original author would refuse permission to create the parody if it was poking fun at the artist or the song. Therefore, a parodist may use the original material without permission and without paying royalties.

This is true then and still is today. It has been turned down by the Supreme Court numerous times and I believe the Supreme Court has said it won't be heard anymore. Even though the original artists will disagree with this assessment and try and bring the copyright law back into it, but most parody artists like Al try their best to get permission. I know for a fact that there are a few songs that Weird Al has done without permission from the original artist, one of them is the Nirvana song he did. Courtney Love is still to this day yelling about it.

[brent]

The Acuff-Rose case (Pretty Women/2 Live Crew) was not exactly cut and dry like that. Two of the four issues were bumped to another court. The issue for the court was that 2 Live Crew did infact receive a denial to record the tune. So they went over and above the minimal laws requirements to add enough material to make it different. The other issue was the market. There would be no damage because the two markets (the one of the original and the rap) were so far removed, that no damage would be done. Had there been two rappers duking this out, it would have been different in the courts. Because, on of the rappers would have been on trial for poppin' a cap in the other's booty.

When you guys state these cases, add all of the facts. This particular case was not the same thing as Weird Al, or Apologetix. Apologetix does not have the same direct market. Weird Al had the MTV market, just as the people he was poking fun at.

There is a difference between a parody and a blatent rip off.

I think that this country is headed straight to hell. None of us can have a creative thought, piece of private property, or even a church (read about the Philipino church in CA) without the government taking away our right of ownership. It is sad. There will be little incentive to be creative, own a business or do what is right before too long.