Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
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.
LDS Church fined for contributions to Prop 8!! HA!
- Thread starter KatieMCR
- Start date
Stickler
Well-Known Member
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.
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
Well-Known Member
https://www.boston.com/ae/movies/ar...bing_8_does_a_number_on_mormons_gay_marriage/
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.
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.
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)
LOL
(and to whoever mentioned it elsewhere, I agree, these new smilies sorta suck)
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Heh. I guess one just "copies" your identity and doesn't steal it. You're right. Makes doing that much more justifiable.
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.
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
Well-Known Member
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.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
Have you ever heard the story of Judas?