LDS Church fined for contributions to Prop 8!! HA!

[Scat]

You know I was going to reply to this, but I decided it's a waste of time. You obviously have your mind made up, and will never see this movie. I'm done.

Physician heal thyself...

I remember you promoting this movie before you had ever seen it. What does that say about YOU? This alone makes me question your motives and the validity of the movie. You obviously had your mind made up before ever seeing this propaganda piece.

I won't watch simply because the title tells me that it will be biased and is nothing more than a movie against the Mormon religion, i.e. A HATE MOVIE. Three words, The Mormon Proposition, are all you need to know to realize what you are watching.

The movie would have carried much more weight if it had been named otherwise. The very fact that it was named "The Mormon Proposition" tells you everything you need to know about the movie.

The "I'm not normal but really wish I were" movement would do itself wonders by being intellectually honest with themselves and others about what they really want. Acceptance. As long as they continue to bully and whine they are going to face opposition and hatred.

 

[Stickler]

Come on. Saying you're a thief if you don't pay someone for a service when there's an admission price isn't an ad hominem, it's stating a fact.

It is name-calling. Copyright infringement is not the same thing as theft. And they're not providing a service; if they were providing a service, you could call it theft of services, and then I'd be a thief. Hate to nitpick, but when you call someone a pejorative, at least man up to it. You don't throw down the word "Thief." in a one-word sentence and then say it's not name calling. You really thought that deserved a "come on"?

To say nothing of the fact that I haven't even done it yet.... Please.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I'd call you a thief.

EDIT:

Even after your semantics argument, I'd still call you a thief.

 

[G-O-A-T]

I always thought the proper term was "Pirate"

 

[sirkickyass]

It is name-calling. Copyright infringement is not the same thing as theft.

I'm sure the producers and directors of all the films you've torrented would beg to differ.

 

[Stickler]

And how many films have I torrented? Can you name them? Can you name ten? Oh, what, you don't know anything about my torrenting or non-torrenting habits? Why, that's crazy -- but you must! Otherwise, why would you speak so?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

And how many films have I torrented? Can you name them? Can you name ten? Oh, what, you don't know anything about my torrenting or non-torrenting habits? Why, that's crazy -- but you must! Otherwise, why would you speak so?

The casual nature in which you mentioned it suggests many.

Although one or 250 doesn't change the term.

 

[Stickler]

It wouldn't make it any more correct, you're right. I don't believe that particular debate belongs in this thread though. You fellows, in your wisdom and your charity, deem me a thief. Fine. I understand your position on the matter, and you understand mine. How much are we going to hash about it? I get it. You get it.... enough. I'm appropriately offended. You win.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Actually, I don't understand your position. Taking something of value for free and not claiming it's not stealing is something I'll never understand.

 

[Stickler]

Copying is not stealing. When one steals something, one takes it away from someone else. If you have a cd and I steal it from you, you no longer have a cd. If you have a cd and I copy it, you still have it. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's legal, I'm saying there's a term for that, and it's copyright infringement.

Stealing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealing ("In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.")
Copyright infringement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement ("Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works covered by copyright law, in a way that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.")

I don't expect you to agree with me, but at least now you understand my position. Without attempting to further justify my intention to torrent Prop 8: The Mormon Proposition, I'll just repeat that I am hesitant to pay for a movie which I think might be a hatchetjob. If it is not, I will pay for it. That is obviously unacceptable to you. But I feel right with it. As I said: if we really want to re-hash the old internet piracy arguments, I think it would best be done in a different thread.

 

[Stickler]

https://www.boston.com/ae/movies/ar...bing_8_does_a_number_on_mormons_gay_marriage/

“8: The Mormon Proposition’’ is a deeply felt, and numbingly partisan, documentary about how the Mormon Church both bankrolled and masterminded passage of the initiative. It’s so one-sided you hardly care after a while that the side it’s on is so clearly the right one.

More than 30 persons are interviewed on camera. Only two are opponents of same-sex marriage — and one of those two, Utah state Senator Chris Buttars, is such a bombs-away bozo he does more harm to his cause than all the talking heads put together from organizations with names like Californians Against Hate and Alliance for Justice and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. When several Mormon elders are heard in screen-shot footage, they’re shown in a heavily pixilated format that makes them look like Big Brother in “Nineteen Eighty-Four.’’

Chris Buttars? Are you kidding me with this? They interviewed two proponents of Proposition 8 and one of them was Chris "this baby is black" Buttars. Oh holy crap.

 

[moevillini]

we need a scorecard to keep track of all the various arguments taking place in this thread!

LOL

(and to whoever mentioned it elsewhere, I agree, these new smilies sorta suck)

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Copying is not stealing. When one steals something, one takes it away from someone else. If you have a cd and I steal it from you, you no longer have a cd. If you have a cd and I copy it, you still have it. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's legal, I'm saying there's a term for that, and it's copyright infringement.

Stealing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealing ("In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.")
Copyright infringement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement ("Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works covered by copyright law, in a way that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.")

I don't expect you to agree with me, but at least now you understand my position. Without attempting to further justify my intention to torrent Prop 8: The Mormon Proposition, I'll just repeat that I am hesitant to pay for a movie which I think might be a hatchetjob. If it is not, I will pay for it. That is obviously unacceptable to you. But I feel right with it. As I said: if we really want to re-hash the old internet piracy arguments, I think it would best be done in a different thread.

Heh. I guess one just "copies" your identity and doesn't steal it. You're right. Makes doing that much more justifiable.

 

[sirkickyass]

Ok, since I saw the movie here goes.

Bottom Line: It's an interesting, if imperfect documentary. It wears its heart on its sleeve, and that is simultaneously an asset and a handicap. It also meanders around a number of side paths without fully exploring them. Those side paths could have been good short-subject documentaries in and of themselves. As a result, the short-running time feels disappointing.

The Good:

1. There's an honestly thoughtful explanation relating to why gay marriage is particularly problematic for those of the LDS faith that relates to their unique vision of the afterlife.

2. There's a good description as to why the words "means and time" were particularly meaningful to those in the LDS faith when the First Presidency's statement was read.

3. The case is made pretty undeniably that the church has done some barbaric things in the name of fighting homosexuality. I'm pretty sure no one here would claim that strapping electrodes to BYU students genitals and trying to shock them into being averse to homosexual thoughts is excusable.

4. I think they do a good job explaining the organizational structure as to why the description of a religious coalition working against gay marriage in California and Hawaii was a sham. The documentary also convincingly makes the case (through leaked church documents) that the church actively attempts to conceal its primary role in this particular battle so that it can hide behind the idea that the fight was broad based.

5. Some of the church training videos that are shown telling members how to talk to their friends about Prop. 8 are pretty chilling. Especially if you lived in the state during the debate. A lot of the statements in those videos were dominant messages on television and during the campaign.

6. I think they do a good job explaining why the flush of cash was truly exceptional and how the money actually affected the campaign by contrasting poll numbers at different dates with the initiation of church action.

The Bad:

1. There's not a lot of statements from the opposing side. Some of this is self-inflicted as the church declined to put anyone in front of the camera. However, it does make the inclusion of those they could find seem selective even if that criticism is unfair. It doesn't help that Buttars is so damn crazy.

2. I wish they had explored a few ancillary issues more fully. For example, they explore briefly a small destitute population made up of gay LDS teens that have been disowned by their families for religious reasons. That had potential. It gets abandoned.

3. A large segment of the documentary implies that two men who were married prior to the passage of Prop 8 had their marriage taken away from them. I believe that is factually incorrect. Obviously this is a minor point given that these men would be in a small pocket of individuals for whom marriage is legalized, but when they're playing the heartstrings on this issue, it's relevant.

4. They rely on statements by Bruce McConkie during a segment on church views. Members and non-members will never agree on how relevant McConkie is. This will obviously turn off members immediately, regardless of how actually fair using McConkie is.

Related Thoughts:

1. I asked earlier when Buttars was a bishop in the church. If it was at all recently, that would seriously shake my faith in the institution as a member.

2. In doing a little after-documentary research I've been somewhat surprised how many of the arguments in this thread are essentially copy-pastes of church talking points on the issue. Frankly, I was a little disappointed.

Overall, I thought it was worth watching.

 

[Beantown]

I asked earlier when Buttars was a bishop in the church. If it was at all recently, that would seriously shake my faith in the institution as a member.

Kicky, you're a member of the church?

 

[sirkickyass]

Kicky, you're a member of the church?

Funny question.

I say no. The church says yes.

I was speaking about a world in which I was an active member and Chris Buttars was appointed my bishop. That would shake my faith.

 

[Stickler]

Sirkickyass, Thanks for sharing your comments on the film.

 

[NAOS]

Heh. I guess one just "copies" your identity and doesn't steal it. You're right. Makes doing that much more justifiable.

What about all the "stealing" the record label has done when it has charged more than $12 dollars for a bloody compact disc, which is an astronomical markup, and of which only a small amount goes to the artist?

Let me tell you a little something: the record labels in their pre-internet form were basically dead when the CD emerged on the market. They were able to survive by reproducing their entire discography on this new format, which has been of embarrassingly low quality in every respect. They have been unable to control the internet distribution ... and that is a good thing, despite what your apparently conservative conscience is telling you. Honestly, I would not copy music or media if it were reasonably priced (~ $5 an album) and more dynamically packaged (I'm bored to **** of the plastic case and liner notes). In the end, I think it is the major labels that are holding back more open expression... call it stealing if you want, but I'll do my part to bring them down.

If this still hasn't dented your Yes-Sir zealotry, then how about this: I've personally released two CDs on independent record labels. Each time I've sold a CD while touring in support of my album I've told the purchaser to copy the hell out of it and distribute it to their friends. Does that mean that I have some license to copy?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

What about all the "stealing" the record label has done when it has charged more than $12 dollars for a bloody compact disc, which is an astronomical markup, and of which only a small amount goes to the artist?

Let me tell you a little something: the record labels in their pre-internet form were basically dead when the CD emerged on the market. They were able to survive by reproducing their entire discography on this new format, which has been of embarrassingly low quality in every respect. They have been unable to control the internet distribution ... and that is a good thing, despite what your apparently conservative conscience is telling you. Honestly, I would not copy music or media if it were reasonably priced (~ $5 an album) and more dynamically packaged (I'm bored to **** of the plastic case and liner notes). In the end, I think it is the major labels that are holding back more open expression... call it stealing if you want, but I'll do my part to bring them down.

If this still hasn't dented your Yes-Sir zealotry, then how about this: I've personally released two CDs on independent record labels. Each time I've sold a CD while touring in support of my album I've told the purchaser to copy the hell out of it and distribute it to their friends. Does that mean that I have some license to copy?

You do NOT have the right to an individual's IP unless it's your own and you haven't sold it. Value is set by the distributors. You can either A) buy the right to the IP at the price listed, or B) not pay for it at all. To "bring them down," you have to NOT PAY FOR THE DAMN THING AND NOT WATCH/VIEW/LISTEN TO/PLAY IT. Obviously if you want to listen to the music on whatever medium it exist on, you obviously place value on it. The "I think this IP is overpriced, but I want to listen to it anyway so I'm just gonna" attitude is pure entitlement. I think your car is overpriced, so I'll just take it. Doesn't fit the "copy" angle, but the attitude is the same. Owners of IP have the right to do whatever they want with it. They can sell copies of it, sell the rights to it, or do absolutely nothing with it. Or, in your case, owner's can allow copying of it by others (i.e. free use), essentially making it freeware.

So no, there is no stealing if people are willing to pay the price the market, exhorbitant or not, perceived or not, for it. Getting it through other means not accepted by the owner of the IP is stealing.

 

[Archie Moses]

1. I asked earlier when Buttars was a bishop in the church. If it was at all recently, that would seriously shake my faith in the institution as a member.

Have you ever heard the story of Judas?