Question about bootlegs

[crossways]

OK so is someone saying it is perfectly ok to go to the Steve Taylor fansite and pick up some of his music. Simply because "Steve T" said it was OK? Well what about the involved parties and the money due to them?

Well that certainly brings up alot of interesting questions.

For example.. If for some strange reason

A local radio station plays an entire Petra album. The listener records the radio station and burn it to a CD. Is that legal? Is it legal to then copy that CD and give it to a friend?

Same thing for internet radio. If an internet radio station plays an entire album. The listener records the songs, burns em to a CD. Is that legal? Is it legal to then copy that CD and give it to a friend?

Extending this to bootlegs (which I'm not exactly sure how the LAW applies in this case). But assuming it is legal.

Someone records a live concert (whether by video or audio), and NO indication was given by the artist that recording was NOT allowed. Is said person allowed to keep that recording, as well as make copies available to a friend?

Intellectual property is a hard thing to grasp, I recognize this. But in all of these cases you have NO legal right to copy for yourself much less distribute in anyway.

It doesn't matter what is or isn't said by the radio station or venue.

The Bible IS very clear. "Thou Shall Not Steal".

Their is a such thing as "Fair Use". This means I could quote a line from a song for use in a sermon, or use music for an instructional purpose in most cases.

But I think most people have NO CLUE just how many laws are broken ... maybe without knowing.
For example: Do you use projected lyrics for worship? -- you better be paying your licensing fee.

Do you use soundtrax in church? Better make sure of the licensing agreements....most not all uses are covered.

Do you play cds at church for the entire congregation or for background music at events? Better have paid the licensing fees! (A lot of resturants are getting into big trouble for not complying --- churches won't be far behind)

The list could go on and on.

Whether you do something for ministry or for profit generally makes no difference.

THE POINT ... really is one of submission. Isn't that the whole point of Christianity........ to submit our will unto the Father's will? It is something to keep in check if you are a Christian.

I used to speed all the time...not really fast, just 10 or 15 miles over. A pastor of mine talked about that one day. He explained that submission was an act that we have to practice in all areas of our life especially if we are going to be willing to submit to God on a BIG matter (like following Him into missions or some other life change). I was not willing to submit to the authorities in society by habitually breaking the law.

God calls us to submit to our fellow man and to Him.

If our heart is so unwilling to submit to paying fellow brothers and sisters for their art even if it means going without, then how are we going to be able to submit to the Father when He calls us to take an even GREATER leap of Faith?

[charl]

Why did Jesus argue for David's sin of stealing concecrated bread? I mean, really. He might as have hired a hooker to witness to her.

The Bible is indeed clear.

Obadiah was an intellectual property thief.
Ezekiel was an intellectual property thief.
Peter was an intellectual property thief.

In fact they all stole Moses' good ideas and should have been paying his family for them.

Please prove that a nebulous concept such as intellectual property was part of the injunction against theft before simply stating that "stealing is a sin". In fact a decent argument could be made in the inverse. Perhaps we should be sharing our ideas with others out of our love for our neighbours-as stated in the bible.
The bible can only be correctly interpreted if it's taken seriously and IN context.

[brent]

HEY! That girl in CHARLs avatar...She's...no, can't be! She's the chick in the "Addicted to Love" video!

[charl]

I was only about ten when that video came out, alas. I am not part of music video history.

[crossways]

Charl,

You have just proven my point that most people do not have much understanding of Copyright Laws.

Whether you agree with the laws or not. If you take a cd, whose songs you didn't write and record, and copy it (even one) and then give it away -- you HAVE broken the law.

That the leaders of the Bible all quote each other and build on each other's teachings does NOT equate to Intellectual property theft for TWO reasons: 1) They didn't HAVE copyright laws at that time. (We aren't talking morality here we are talking man's laws - which the Bible does tell us to obey) 2) Moses and all other Scripture was Divinely Inspired and therefore does not belong to anyone but to God.

So yes the Bible DOES address the copying and bootlegging of cd's, dvd's etc.

THOU SHALL NOT STEAL

[greenchili]

I must be missing something. Is breaking the law sin or not? And in which cases? WHO decides it? Everybody has their own interpretation of the bible, so WHO is right? Are there any exceptions? If the bible specifically does not cover an issue, are we then adding to it?

Again I ask.. who interprets "God's" law? You Brent?

If a judge interprets the law (that is what Judge's do, they don't write it) in such a way that it goes against God's law, is that judge sinning? He is, after all, just doing his job (interpret the current law).

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).

So basically I'm asking is where is the line drawn, and who is drawing it for one? Are we adding to the bible by extrapolating on what it says? Or is that ok? The other thing is you use a ludicrous example (hookers) to compare to bootlegs, but then someone asks about missionaries you said "they are not juxtaposed.". Just how is that they case?

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?

Intellectual property is a hard thing to grasp, I recognize this. But in all of these cases you have NO legal right to copy for yourself much less distribute in anyway.

It doesn't matter what is or isn't said by the radio station or venue.

The Bible IS very clear. "Thou Shall Not Steal".

Do you use soundtrax in church? Better make sure of the licensing agreements....most not all uses are covered.

Do you play cds at church for the entire congregation or for background music at events? Better have paid the licensing fees! (A lot of resturants are getting into big trouble for not complying --- churches won't be far behind)

Well that's a new one on me. Could you please provide a link to the applicable TEXT in the applicable laws that says it's illegal to tape stuff off of the radio, and/or television. If fact apply recording television to my previous questions from page 4.

As far as I'm concerned if a trax is created, it is up to the creator of the trax to make sure all licensing issues are covered. They, after all, can afford all the lawyers to sift thru the ridiculous mess. Licensing fees? I thought that was only an issue for radio stations. Are you sure your not getting the "happy birthday" fiasco mixed up.

I work for a company who used to have music play when you put someone on hold, and EVERY time it would play thru the same sequence of songs. So are you saying for everytime someone was put on hold and the song played that my company owes licensing fee's to said artist?

Plus you "totally" missed my point. The Steve Taylor comment was a very specific comment made to one person in particular. The three questions I posed afterwards were specifically chosen for a reason, and yet I've seen someone answer them completely.

All I see is alot of seemingly contradictory statements by the fingerpointers. With logic being inconsistently applied to their situations, but very consistently applied to the bootleg situation.

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

[unlost]

Aw, the copyright/bootleg thread...It was about time someone started that one again, it's been awhile.

Some of the other threads that seem to never go away:

The notorious CITAS/CITS debate.

Why did so-and-so leave the band?

Greg vs. John.

More recently Louie vs. Paul (mostly on Josh's site).

So-and-so is cute.

Which album do you like/hate the most?

Why did so-and-so get divorced? (Fair warning, you will likely get yelled at if you start that one, and I will probably be the first one to do so).

That's put together so beautiffully you should make them all chapters in a book.

[greenchili]

Aw, the copyright/bootleg thread...It was about time someone started that one again, it's been awhile.

Some of the other threads that seem to never go away:

The notorious CITAS/CITS debate.

Why did so-and-so leave the band?

Greg vs. John.

More recently Louie vs. Paul (mostly on Josh's site).

So-and-so is cute.

Which album do you like/hate the most?

Why did so-and-so get divorced? (Fair warning, you will likely get yelled at if you start that one, and I will probably be the first one to do so).

That's put together so beautiffully you should make them all chapters in a book.

Just having a little fun and doing it in love.

We are all doing this out of love for each other right?

[gman]

You just need to know the basic copyright laws bra. It's seems fairly clear to me. The holder of a copyright has the exclusive right to do things with the copyrighted work. Like: making a recording, copying it, playing it live etc. To boil it down real simple, if anyone else wants to use that copyrighted work, he/she must have the permission of the copyright holder, and most likely will have to pay a licensing fee. One may get permission directly from the copyright holder, but probably more often, they pay a few and get a license from an organization like CCLI, ASCAP, BMI, etc. Churches buy a license from CCLI giving them the right to show song lyrics on a video screen. The churches have to submit a listing of what songs they use so CCLI can determine who gets what in royalties. Now, in the case of things that you the consumer pay for like, sheet music, trax, cds, dvds, videos, and TV, you are essentially buying a license for that product. That license determines what you can and can't do with that product.
As for things like radio, tv, and live concerts, the station, channel, or artist gets permission and a license for whatever they are putting out there, but that permission doesn't transfer to you. Mostly likely with a lot of live concerts and events it is stated somewherethat you don't have permission to record and distribute a copy of the event. It might be on an event program, the back of your tickets, or in the agreement on the website where you got your tickets.

I could keep going, but I sense that I'm just rambling, so I'll shut up now.

The bottom line for me is that we have all those laws in place, and the bible says that we are to obey the laws that are in place.

[Shell]

They probably would make good chapter titles for a book...You're bound to run into a few threads about the same topic when you've been posting on a message board for awhile.

[brent]

I must be missing something. Is breaking the law sin or not? And in which cases? WHO decides it? Everybody has their own interpretation of the bible, so WHO is right? Are there any exceptions? If the bible specifically does not cover an issue, are we then adding to it?

Again I ask.. who interprets "God's" law? You Brent?

If a judge interprets the law (that is what Judge's do, they don't write it) in such a way that it goes against God's law, is that judge sinning? He is, after all, just doing his job (interpret the current law).

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).

So basically I'm asking is where is the line drawn, and who is drawing it for one? Are we adding to the bible by extrapolating on what it says? Or is that ok? The other thing is you use a ludicrous example (hookers) to compare to bootlegs, but then someone asks about missionaries you said "they are not juxtaposed.". Just how is that they case?

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?

Intellectual property is a hard thing to grasp, I recognize this. But in all of these cases you have NO legal right to copy for yourself much less distribute in anyway.

It doesn't matter what is or isn't said by the radio station or venue.

The Bible IS very clear. "Thou Shall Not Steal".

Do you use soundtrax in church? Better make sure of the licensing agreements....most not all uses are covered.

Do you play cds at church for the entire congregation or for background music at events? Better have paid the licensing fees! (A lot of resturants are getting into big trouble for not complying --- churches won't be far behind)

Well that's a new one on me. Could you please provide a link to the applicable TEXT in the applicable laws that says it's illegal to tape stuff off of the radio, and/or television. If fact apply recording television to my previous questions from page 4.

As far as I'm concerned if a trax is created, it is up to the creator of the trax to make sure all licensing issues are covered. They, after all, can afford all the lawyers to sift thru the ridiculous mess. Licensing fees? I thought that was only an issue for radio stations. Are you sure your not getting the "happy birthday" fiasco mixed up.

I work for a company who used to have music play when you put someone on hold, and EVERY time it would play thru the same sequence of songs. So are you saying for everytime someone was put on hold and the song played that my company owes licensing fee's to said artist?

Plus you "totally" missed my point. The Steve Taylor comment was a very specific comment made to one person in particular. The three questions I posed afterwards were specifically chosen for a reason, and yet I've seen someone answer them completely.

All I see is alot of seemingly contradictory statements by the fingerpointers. With logic being inconsistently applied to their situations, but very consistently applied to the bootleg situation.

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

1. Lets not get in a wizzin match. I let Jesus Christ do the talking. If jesus were here today, would he bridle the ox? Would he withhold the earnings for one man's honest day's work? Nope!

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).

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.

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.

did you know that anyone can print the KJV, and it cannot be copyright prtoected, but all other versions can? Why? They are edited versions so people can make money off of it. Because of this we have over 3,000 different versions of bibles floating around the planet, and people cannot take the time to study it, let the Holy Spirit reveal it, then they are screwed. God is not the author of confusion. He said that his WORDS would be preserved for all generations. Either he did or he is a big liar and a failure. I tend to think that the book is on the planet.

[greenchili]

I think the copyright issue is pretty much beating a dead horse. It is "other" parallels that are being drawn here that I have a problem here. Apparently some people think that the law only needs to apply in certain circumstances, "that they dictate", and to do otherwise, or disagree with them is wrong.

I see alot of line drawing here. I think the line is not being drawn at the right spot, nor is everyone drawing the line at the same spot.

So again. Who draws the line? Where is it drawn?

I see lines being drawn between moral and legal. But is it morally right for someone to be suing a church for putting lyrics up on a screen? Yes I know it is legally CORRECT, I dont think that needs to be hammered into our head for the umpthmillionth time.

If an album is released without the lyrics included is the lyric writer being cheated out of his due share? If he/she is getting their money, then isn't the purchaser being cheated for not receiving a copy of the lyrics?

[greenchili]

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).

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).

You apprently overlooked the fact that I was not questioning whether bootleggin was legal. 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?

All I see is alot of seemingly contradictory statements by the fingerpointers. With logic being inconsistently applied to their situations, but very consistently applied to the bootleg situation.

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

Still a few issues not addressed, so I requoted them.

[brent]

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).

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).

You apprently overlooked the fact that I was not questioning whether bootleggin was legal. 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?

All I see is alot of seemingly contradictory statements by the fingerpointers. With logic being inconsistently applied to their situations, but very consistently applied to the bootleg situation.

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

Still a few issues not addressed, so I requoted them.

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?

[charl]

1) They didn't HAVE copyright laws at that time. (We aren't talking morality here we are talking man's laws - which the Bible does tell us to obey) 2) Moses and all other Scripture was Divinely Inspired and therefore does not belong to anyone but to God.

So yes the Bible DOES address the copying and bootlegging of cd's, dvd's etc.

If copyright did not exist at the time (which I fully agree with), then no the bible does not address it. I do not accept interpretations of the scripture that try to force modern ideas on it and make it about something that was totally foreign to the authors. So you will have to do better than just asserting they are the same to convince me.

Copyright law would not recognize "inspiration by God" as a valid argument for lifting large pieces of another's work, regardless of whether it were true. Perhaps they'd say "God wouldn't tell you to steal Jude's idea, Peter. That's a bad witness." But the concept of intellectual property was not there.
There are also many copyrighted works (including bibles BTW) which were created before copyright existed, and that hasn't stopped anyone copyrighting them retroactively in one way or another. Someone holds a copyright on The Wycliff bible. If you want to talk about something that is horribly ironic and just plain wrong chew on that.

It of course exemplifies one of the major problems of copyright law today: Someone who is not the creator of a work can hold the copyright to it. People use this to make money off the back someone else. This is purely parasitic, and I don't see how that can be defended as an eternal virtue. I'm not going to support it or insist the bible does either.

I don't knowingly break copyright law, BTW. Not because I believe it is stealing, but because I don't want the hassle. An appeal to the command to obey authorities may work to try to tie this to the bible if you must do so to legitimize this argument. This however has absolutely nothing to do with the decalogue.
And, simply because something is law does not make it a good law. If so what is all those pro-life people's problem? They have a terrible witness. There is nothing in the bible that says we should not fight for change in this or any arena, and just chant thou shall not steal as a mantra.

Thou shall not steal is indeed a universal moral principal. Nobody questions that. Thou shall not be inspired by someone else's work and do something similar to it is not.


Besides, copyright law can be far more nebulous than is being painted. Often, it all depends on the judge who hears your case and whether he thinks you have violated copyright or not. Is this 60 percent like the original or 59? hmmmm....


Sorry, guys but I wrote this and never posted it. I don't know how far the discussion has gone since this afternoon.