[OT] Internet Censorship

Richmond Mathewson richmondmathewson at gmail.com
Thu Aug 11 14:48:02 EDT 2011


On 08/11/2011 08:55 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
> <Sigh>. Once again I've started a controversy.

Lovely; where would we be without you? Probably considerably more bored 
. . .  :)
>
> My original point, which perhaps I did not make terribly clear is that there is a huge corporate machine that has grown up around copyright protection, that is the main entity actually making the money, and often is operating contrary to the original artists interests. A thing can (and often does) start out with good intentions but ends up being counterproductive to the original goal. I think in the Christian music industry, this has become a bad thing.
>
> Perhaps I should put it this way. It is my opinion that a Christian artist should decide whether he wants to devote himself to ministry, (which does not exclude making *some* money by the way to cover expenses and needs) or else make a living at what he does. BOTH CHOICES ARE EQUALLY VALID I must emphasize. But it is a bad idea and I stress IN MY OPINION to start out calling yourself a minister, and then end up trying to get rich at it. One seems to push out the other. "You cannot serve God and Mammon" I think was the phrase.
>
> Again, everything is about focus and balance.
>
> Bob
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Marty Knapp wrote:
>
>> Cool! So now all I need to do is figure out who has god-given talent (as opposed to atheistic talent or agnostic talent???) or who is "rich" and I can take what I want!!! My brother is an airline pilot - makes way more money than me. Has 5 cars, including a red '73 Chevy convertible. Maybe I'll just "borrow" it for a while, when he's on a trip to Paris. He doesn't need to know and he's rich, so it's my right! You can't drive 5 cars at the same time! Then there's my two multi-millionaire friends. They're both self-made and very generous, but it never occurred to me that because they're rich, I have a "right" to take some of their stuff that I've determined they don't need. Awesome!
>>
>> Marty K
>>> Years ago the large Church I work for had a recording studio and a record label, so that we could produce "religious" music and not have to deal with the secular industry and the exorbitant prices they charged for use of their studios. Some artists because quite successful in their careers, as they were quite good.
>>>
>>> Later we bought a radio station and began playing the now wide selection of Christian music, but at one point one of the agencies that polices rights infringements approached our radio station and insisted we pay royalties to these artists (meaning the agency) for the right to use the music. Some of these artists got their start in our studios, and would never have gotten anywhere had they not started there.
>>>
>>> Our head Pastor was so disgusted, he banned any music from an artist who belonged to one of these agencies. Offerings on the radio were a bit slim for awhile. Now I can see someone being upset if another artist went around performing another artist's songs for money, because it was less money that the original artist charged. But the very thought of having people pay royalties on what we consider to be a "gift from God" namely the talent and the inspiration for the music seems to be... well "quenching". The moneychangers in the temple comes to mind.
>>>
>>> Bob
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode





More information about the Use-livecode mailing list