Go Back   Christian Guitar Forum > Musicians > Worship Leading
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Arcade Mark Forums Read

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 10-31-2004, 01:05 PM   #91
Moderator
 
Sean's Avatar
 

Joined: Sep 2002
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 23,687
Send a message via AIM to Sean Send a message via MSN to Sean
I really don't have too much of a desire to spend $200/hr to find out its okay to change "Above all" to "Lord of all." Maybe its just me. :wink:

__________________
FIND ME ONLINE

Modern Ministry Blog | My thoughts on life and faith
The Sean Chandler Blog | My thoughts on culture and politics
YouTube | My thoughts on movies and TV
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Sean is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Unread 10-31-2004, 01:35 PM   #92
.
 
elijah77jc's Avatar
 

Joined: May 2002
Location: Abilene, Texas
Posts: 2,733
Send a message via AIM to elijah77jc Send a message via MSN to elijah77jc Send a message via Yahoo to elijah77jc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean
I really don't have too much of a desire to spend $200/hr to find out its okay to change "Above all" to "Lord of all." Maybe its just me. :wink:
i still don't completely agree with what you're saying there...

but i'll fight to the death for your right to say it.
__________________
Read my blog!
elijah77jc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-06-2004, 12:51 PM   #93
Ummmm... yeah.
 
Vvildcard's Avatar
 

Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 370
Send a message via AIM to Vvildcard Send a message via MSN to Vvildcard
It just so happens that my business law class is going over copyrights right now... however, we don't go over each specific law on copyrights, just what they protect and what burdens of proof are required by the plaintiff/defendant in order to prosecute. Due to the vast amount of copyright infringement that goes on now-a-days, courts tend to favor the plaintiff in infringement cases and most of the burden of proof shifts to the defendent proving they were not in violation of copyright law.

So... lets look at what the Law says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Copyright Law: Chapter 1: § 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity
(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art —

(1) shall have the right —

...

(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and

(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.
To summarize: Originally, the author of the song has the exclusive rights to prevent someone from intentionally changing their song in a way that is "prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation." However, it looks like they added a clause that any intentional change is in fact a violation of the owner's rights. Therefore, if the author of a copyrighted work wanted to sue you for changing one word in a song, he/she would have the burden of proving it was a change that was intentional. It would then be up to the courts to decide whether or not they should be compensated for any harm that was caused.

And as far as using other people's stuff without paying copyrights on it, here's what the deal is...
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Copyright Law: Chapter 1: § 110. Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:

...

(3) performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or of a dramatico-musical work of a religious nature, or display of a work, in the course of services at a place of worship or other religious assembly;

(4) performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work otherwise than in a transmission to the public, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and without payment of any fee or other compensation for the performance to any of its performers, promoters, or organizers, if —

(A) there is no direct or indirect admission charge; or

(B) the proceeds, after deducting the reasonable costs of producing the performance, are used exclusively for educational, religious, or charitable purposes and not for private financial gain, except where the copyright owner has served notice of objection to the performance under the following conditions:

(i) the notice shall be in writing and signed by the copyright owner or such owner's duly authorized agent; and

(ii) the notice shall be served on the person responsible for the performance at least seven days before the date of the performance, and shall state the reasons for the objection; and

(iii) the notice shall comply, in form, content, and manner of service, with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation;
Part (3) specifically allows you to perform musical works of religious nature for worship services without being an infringement of copyright law. Part (4) lets you play anyone's musical works, so long as no one makes money on the event... or if the people who do make money are only doing so educational, religious and/or charitable gain and not for personal gain (ie: it's okay to take tithes and offerings). I would assume most churches fall into that exception.

Its also worth noting that part (4)(B)(i), (4)(B)(ii) and (4)(B)(iii) cover what process the copyright owner must undergo to stop you from performing thier works when they have objections.

So in short, yes, it's illegal to intentionally change even one word of the person's copyrighted song. However, there is no indication that I can see that says you can't exclude a word, phrase, line, verse, bridge, etc (as in the God of Wonders example).

Hopefully that clears up a few things...
__________________
Thanks! ... or ... You're Welcome! ... or ... whatever.

Ryan
Vvildcard
Vvildcard is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-06-2004, 01:12 PM   #94
Moderator
 
Sean's Avatar
 

Joined: Sep 2002
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 23,687
Send a message via AIM to Sean Send a message via MSN to Sean
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vvildcard
So in short, yes, it's illegal to intentionally change even one word of the person's copyrighted song
It doesn't say that anywhere in there. It says the author has the right "to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right ." The writer HAS THE RIGHT to prevent modifications to their work. It doesn't say its illegal to modify their work.
__________________
FIND ME ONLINE

Modern Ministry Blog | My thoughts on life and faith
The Sean Chandler Blog | My thoughts on culture and politics
YouTube | My thoughts on movies and TV
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Sean is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-06-2004, 01:48 PM   #95
Ummmm... yeah.
 
Vvildcard's Avatar
 

Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 370
Send a message via AIM to Vvildcard Send a message via MSN to Vvildcard
That's right, they have the right to prevent them. In other words, the government backs them up if they want to prevent modifications because they've paid the government money (that makes it sound more shady than it is).

Quote:
and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right
This clause states that intentionally making the stated changes is a violation of the right. Violating the right is illegal. Period. Whether or not the owner cares enough to excersize their right is another story entirely. Because copyright law is usually civil law (as opposed to criminal law), (in most cases) it is up to the owner of the copyright to enforce the violation of their rights... so it's not like the cops are gonna come knocking on your church's door to press charges.

That's my take on it... I could very well be wrong. That's why it comes down to the judge's decision and interpretation.
__________________
Thanks! ... or ... You're Welcome! ... or ... whatever.

Ryan
Vvildcard
Vvildcard is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-24-2004, 10:16 AM   #96
support the rabid
 
psalm63adam's Avatar
 

Joined: Feb 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 6,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by trpullen
One of our music staff recently begged for me to add "You Are My King (Amazing Love)" into the rotation. I like the song but the line "in all I do, I honor You" really twists my BVDs the wrong way. I know that all I do does not honor God so why sing it? I convinced them to use "let all I do, honor you".

What about you?
I've been thinking about this song quite a bit and trying in my own mind to get rid of it based on the last line "In all I do, I honor You." I've decided I don't have a problem with it. I look at the book of Psalms, and David says phrases such as:

1 O God, you are my God,
earnestly I seek you;
my soul thirsts for you,
my body longs for you,
in a dry and weary land
where there is no water.

2 I have seen you in the sanctuary
and beheld your power and your glory.
3 Because your love is better than life,
my lips will glorify you.
4 I will praise you as long as I live,
and in your name I will lift up my hands.
5 My soul will be satisfied as with the richest of foods;
with singing lips my mouth will praise you.

6 On my bed I remember you;
I think of you through the watches of the night.
7 Because you are my help,
I sing in the shadow of your wings.
8 My soul clings to you;
your right hand upholds me.


Do you think that when David was sinning with Bathsheba on "his bed", that he was remembering God? That he was thinking of Him?

To me, making the declaration "in all I do, I honor You" is just like reading through the Psalms. Obviously there were times in David's life when he didn't remember God, when he didn't praise Him. So do we discredit his psalms because it says that he did?
__________________
"When we're still holding on to how things were, our arms aren't free to embrace today." - Rob Bell

I've decided to embrace today - "May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace."

Peace,

Adam
psalm63adam is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-24-2004, 10:43 AM   #97
She's a guitar hero!
 
Dave H's Avatar
 

Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 2,795
Send a message via AIM to Dave H
That's a good point. I'll be pondering that this weekend.
Dave H is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-24-2004, 04:20 PM   #98
übergeek
 
trpullen's Avatar
 

Joined: Oct 2001
Location: Alton, IL - USA
Posts: 1,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_01
That's a good point. I'll be pondering that this weekend.
I'll be pondering turkey...but it is a good point.
__________________
Thomas R. Pullen

Acoustics: 2003 Taylor 855ce-LTD L1 (Brazilian), 1993 Taylor 810, 2005 Taylor K4 preamp, 2006 ESP XTone PA1 (Sunburst)
Electrics: 2007 ESP Vintage Plus Distressed, 1998 Fender AmDx Fat Stratocaster (Black with EMG SAV + SPC kit), 1997 PRS CE24 (Ruby), 2006 ESP LTD EC-1000s (Sunburst)

Amps: Orange Rockerverb 50 Head and PPC212 cab


“Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.” - St. Francis of Assisi
trpullen is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-24-2004, 04:59 PM   #99
She's a guitar hero!
 
Dave H's Avatar
 

Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 2,795
Send a message via AIM to Dave H
Quote:
Originally Posted by trpullen
I'll be pondering turkey...but it is a good point.
It will help to digest...no, seriously!


Dave H is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-27-2004, 01:11 AM   #100
Yamahas are the best.
 
Cade's Avatar
 

Joined: Nov 2004
Location: Dallas. Arlington actually.
Posts: 57
Send a message via AIM to Cade Send a message via MSN to Cade
It's nice to see the conversation finally come back around to what it was initially started for.
__________________
Do You Ride? Let me know in my journal
Cade is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-27-2004, 01:27 AM   #101
support the rabid
 
psalm63adam's Avatar
 

Joined: Feb 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 6,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cade
It's nice to see the conversation finally come back around to what it was initially started for.
Turkey?

Just kidding.

I don't know if this falls in the same area or not, but my senior pastor will not let me do "Let My Words Be Few" by Matt Redman because of the statement "Jesus I am so in love with you." He tells me that men won't sing that line because it's too sissy-ish, so we shouldn't do it. Then I remind him that he listens to K-Love, so who is the sissy?

So I thought about changing it to: "Jesus, I sometimes think you're swell." Or maybe "Jesus, I'm checking the box that says 'Maybe'." Or perhaps "Jesus I love you in the most non-gay or effeminate meaning possible."
__________________
"When we're still holding on to how things were, our arms aren't free to embrace today." - Rob Bell

I've decided to embrace today - "May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace."

Peace,

Adam
psalm63adam is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-27-2004, 07:53 AM   #102
JT
 

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by parkway
I don't know if this falls in the same area or not, but my senior pastor will not let me do "Let My Words Be Few" by Matt Redman because of the statement "Jesus I am so in love with you." He tells me that men won't sing that line because it's too sissy-ish, so we shouldn't do it. Then I remind him that he listens to K-Love, so who is the sissy?
Hahaha

I actually don't like that line either. I'm okay with saying, "I love you," to God, or to guys. "I'm in love with you," puts a hugely romantic spin on things, in my mind.
Jay Tea is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-27-2004, 08:12 AM   #103
scary foto! oh its jus me
 
Dj MeZ'nJaH's Avatar
 

Joined: Jan 2003
Location: << Melbourne Australia >>
Posts: 83
i have never actually got so caught up in individual lines like this before!
though i do think about what i'm singing and the songs i'm choosing as a worship leader i must admit things like this have never tripped me before

there are certain songs that have an anointing on them and usher in the precence of God, bringing people into his presance, and i'll choose them on that basis and on what God's put on my heart while preparing them ... individual lines dont seems to bother me like that for sum reason

and i love the last line "jesus i am so in love with you." in today's culture we use the word love so loosly and to say we're in love with him is to say we're completely emersed in him and who he is and in ore of him ... i dunno i just love it ... and i'm really tired so i think i'll just shuddup now before i really stop making sense
__________________
"Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you"
- 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18
- -_Bk 2 BaTTLe_- -
Tutto ciò che è nato da Dio vince il mondo
<< if ya curious look up 1John 5:4 ... yes in the Bible ... now go do it ... now>>
Dj MeZ'nJaH is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-27-2004, 09:45 AM   #104
Registered User
 

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 25,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Tea
Hahaha

I actually don't like that line either. I'm okay with saying, "I love you," to God, or to guys. "I'm in love with you," puts a hugely romantic spin on things, in my mind.
Seeing as we are Christ's bride, I am thinking it would be proper for us to be in love with Him. But that is just me.
Andrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-27-2004, 10:04 AM   #105
Policy Terrorist
 

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,229
Send a message via MSN to agrimes87
I was just preparing for our practice tonight, and I noticed that The Heart of Worship says worship is "all about you, Jesus".

Lately, there's been a lot of talk about our worship being Trinitarian. Like Redman's new song Gifted Response says, "we will come in the name of your son, as he glorifies you, and in the power of your spirit". We worship the father, in the name of the son, through the spirit. Lately, Matt Redman has been making a bit of a deal out of this, and has stressed the importance of proper worship, and it being wholly Trinitarian. But how can this be so if it's "all about you, Jesus"?

I could be misinterpreting, but I don't think I am. Is "The Heart of Worship" non-trinitarian? It certainly seems that way to me. It makes no mention of the Spirit, or the Father, and claims worship is "all about you, Jesus"; all about the Son.

I realize how nitpicky this is, but that's what this thread is all about, and I don't mean that sarcastically.
agrimes87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:15 AM.


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2