One thing that has always amazed by about so many of the current splinter cults of the Armstrongite Church of God, is that while claiming to be commandment keepers they STEAL WCG/GCI owned works for their own use, or plagiarize it as much as they can while adding their own little twists and perverted interpretations.
The Self-anointed great Bawana Bob Thiel says he is going to do just that!
He reached out to Grace Communion International (former WCG) to see if he could use the old Youth Bible Lessons aimed at the youth of the church. GCI, thankfully said NO!
No matter, Bawana Bob, just like the Kitchen clan, will steal their works anyway.
Youth Bible Lessons
After being told in writing by Grace Communion International that they would not make available for us to purchase, etc. the old Youth Bible Lessons from the old Worldwide Church of God, we have begun a program to look into republishing slightly edited versions of them.
So far, I have reviewed and tentatively approved about two dozen lessons, with minor edits (mainly additions of historical facts) in about half of them.
The intent is to produce the youth lessons in English and Spanish, and perhaps other languages.
We plan to make relevant announcements in one or more future letters.
Like any ACOG leader, practicing what one preaches is never a given. Bawana Bob cannot even heed the words that he writes later in his letter to his members:
Brotherly love involves caring for others and keeping the commandments–all of them! As the James wrote:
27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27)
8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; 9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. (James 2:8-12)
Letter to the Brethren, March 21, 2019
33 comments:
Bob Thiel is such a stinking hypocrite! I hope GCI sues his ass.
Why not be original rather than plagiarize? This casts doubt on his professed academic qualifications. A true scholar would relish the opportunity to start from scratch.
While Bob's actions are not good he's not stealing. So you should correct that. What he is doing its committing copyright infringement. That is a civil law not criminal law like stealing. That is a huge difference.
Copyright infringement is like breaking a contract. I know it's not as sensational as "stealing", but I am sure you'd rather speak the truth than falsely accused someone of a crime.
It’s often a whole different mentality amongst non-serious academics who participate in the world of gospel. It’s as if the entire body of work can be borrowed from and shared without regard to such things as copyright, respect of intellectual property, or giving credit where credit is due. They just call it “spreading the gospel”. Or perhaps they see it as “common”.
Some will attribute their teachings to a respected resource (even a bogus one like HWA) in the hope of boosting credibility with their targeted audience.
YOU came about after I had left the organization. In the years since, I have never read anything positive about it from past participants. Kids were molested at it, or got pregnant at it. Seems like at this time in history it’s got about the same value as the WCG pre-1975 prophecy materials, or the hippie booklet. So, dated and tarnished as it is, one wonders why Bob Thiel wouldn’t just be original and start from scratch. Guess that’s just not in his dna, although he doesn’t mind setting himself up to edit and correct it. Weird, man. Weird.
BB
The youth bible lessons were terrible. They repeated the same materials each student year. Even as a loyal member in those days, I was very unhappy with them.
It was a common practice for members who left the old WCG back in 1995 to steal hymnals. I guess the law didn't mean as much to them as we all thought.
Armstrongism is an excellent example of a "copy/cut and paste" theology.
What Bob needs more than copyright smash and grab is a sound curriculum, syllabus and lesson planning; filling in the details - which in schools would be selecting a suitable textbook - is much lower on the list.
Why single out just cogs with regards to academic dishonesty? It's rampant throughout every industry and science. China has made copying western ideas, design, research and many other things a key component of their entire economy.
While bob is obviously a desperate and maybe even sad guy. He's not specifically worse than the world... He's the same.
Anon 10:40 PM, the act of duplicating and re-distributing copyrighted materials may indeed be treated as a minor misdemeanor where the offense is deemed innocent or ordinary, but things change when the courts determine that it is a willful offense.
If Mrs. Jones photocopies YOU lessons for her Sabbath school kids one afternoon, that's likely just an ordinary offense, maybe even innocent. But if Mr. Thiel republishes material in order to attract tithe-payers (profiting from WCG's work), and if he does so across state lines using federal mail, he may well have crossed over into the realm of felony copyright violation.
Would the courts bother to prosecute him? I doubt it. Any "damage" to GCI as a result of the violations is negligible, as those old lessons do not teach GCI doctrine or attract tithe-payers to GCI. And it is highly unlikely that Thiel's pathetic efforts are gaining him any significant boost in donations, so a prosecutor couldn't show that Thiel was using GCI-owned material for personal financial gain.
Does anyone here know, however, whether WCG licensed the lessons to PCCG, or whether they were sold outright? If PCG turns out to be the copyright holder of the material Bob is using, a court could easily show that Bob is competing for the same tithe-payers who are now using the PCG editions of the material, and may be taking money away from PCG by his infringement of PCG-owned copyrights.
10.40 PM
I googled criminal vs civil law. The distinction is arbitrary. It does not exist in nature. In both cases peoples lives are being harmed. In both cases Gods laws are being broken. Theft is mentioned on some sites as coming under civil law rather than exclusively criminal law. Copyright infringement by China is costing America hundreds of billions of dollars a year. To shrug it off as breach of contract is comical.
I suggest you read your bible and observe the way the world really works rather than worshipping/looking only at your city slicker lawyer books.
You're obviously a Pharisee.
Thiel needs to rethink some things. 99% of the kids who went through YOU , or received "Bible Lessons" did not stay with any of the COGs . The number of people who are currently in the COGS that are under the age of 60 and grew up "in the church" are extremely sparse.
So (in conclusion brethren) the process for youth retention in the old days, was very flawed and did not work. Thiel, a classic definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result". Running old HWA stuff, even edited, will produce the same result.. failure!
If Thiel started from scratch and did the research for his lessons, then maybe he would see the error of what he's been preaching for the past how many years. One could only hope. If that should happen, I wonder what decisions he would make about changing his church if any.
Tonto, one of the saddest features of WCG's old Youth Bible Lesson series is that it gave kids many years of Old Testament background before it seriously introduced Jesus Christ and (the WCG version of) His message. In a series that ran from K-9, Jesus doesn't appear as a subject until Level 8. Only after seven years of legalistic oppression were kids exposed to even a faint version of the true Jesus Christ.
How much different things could have been if the first lesson had begun with the Acts 15 conference, which ruled that new Christian converts may skip nearly all of the Old Testament minutiae, and, instead of the 613 commandments or even the Ten must follow more or less what we today call the Seven Noahide Laws.
If Thiel started from scratch and did the research for his lessons,
No. PLEASE, No! Otherwise, expect something like this:
Lesson 1: How to Recognize Proper Dreams of a Prophet
Lesson 2: Why Your Leader Needs a Double-Portion Anointing But Doesn't Need a Proper Ordination
Lesson 3: When Is It Time To Stop Shilling For Your Bible Daddy and Break Out On Your Own?
Lesson 4: The Plain Truth About Mayan Prophecy
Lesson 5: The Plain Truth About Catholic Prophecy
Lesson 6: How To Prophesy With Wiggle Room and Disclaim Your Failures
Lesson 7: Crooked Bookcases Are Not A Sign of Spiritual Crookedness
Lesson 8: Effeminacy Is A Blessing in a Football-Hating Philadelphian Overseer
Lesson 9: Why You Should Respect Unaccredited Graduate Degrees
Lesson 10: All Rod Meredith's Dead Friends Said I Was Much Better Than Rod
Lesson 11: I'm Predicted In Scripture Even More Than HWA or Dave Pack!
Lesson 12: It's Not the Gospel OF Bob Thiel; it's the Gospel ABOUT Bob Thiel
To anyone who thinks stealing and copyinh ate the exact same things need a to properly educate themselves.
If I steal your car you no longer have a car. If I copy your car you still have a car.
Copying is a god given right. The Do I ding fathers knew this and created an ARTIFICIAL contract with the public called "copyright" that gave the creators a limited exclusive license to copy their own work.
Before these laws were created in the past 200years anyone could copy anything they wanted and it was legal since the beginning of time.
But stealing is one of the 10 commandments.
It takes considerable twisting of words and is deceiftul to say copying is the same as stealing.
About thirty years ago, a major franchise copy shop was located on the fringes of a university. Being in such close proximity, they often did work for that university, its professors, and the students. The normal channel was that the administration would commission the copy shop to print and bind the materials, and would hand them out to the students in class. At some point, the copy shop began duplicating the materials on their own, and selling them directly to the students. This led to a high profile lawsuit, following which all legitimate copy shops must question their patrons regarding their having obtained permission to duplicate copyrighted materials.
Unauthorized duplication of copyrighted intellectual property is most definitely considered theft, and punishable under the law, whether or not it is done for profit. With the proliferation of desktop printers it is somewhat more difficult to police, but even single copies printed in your home are technically subject to prior permission. Whether someone seeks redress depends on the level of damage perceived, and how deep your pockets are.
All I can say is, Bob, if you are reading here as we know you do, now that you know about this, you are accountable. Don’t steal!
BB
The wikipedia article 'history of copyright law' is worth reading on this topic. As the article points out, it's only the invention of the printing press that made this a issue. Prior to this, books were rare for it receive attention. So it's only in 1707 that the first copyright act was passed.
As the article points out, Martial complained about not profiting from his poetry that was popular in the Roman Empire. So the morality was understood even back then.
God worked long and hard for billions (trillions?) of years. His labor was intellectual in nature. We observe this effort in all the creatures and plants around us. All the angels in Revelation thanking God and giving Him honor is in recognition to this labor. Those who don't believe in copyright, including Dennis Diehl, think this strange, but the angels don't, since they know that there ain't no free lunch.
Anonymous 6:13 AM may have an interesting argument, but it is not a Christian argument. Christians are taught to obey the law of the land unless that law requires them to sin. Not copying is not a sin, so Romans 13 requires Christians to obey laws that forbid them from using another person's intellectual property without proper consent.
Non-Christians, however, may believe that they are free to disobey Romans 13 and to violate the law of the land as long as doing so doesn't violate their religion's spiritual laws.
Christians, however, will see the flaw in Anon 6:13's statement that "it is deceitful to say copying is the same as stealing." In fact, Scripture says that stealing is the same as dishonoring your parents, which is the same as lying or coveting. If my copying takes income away from another person, I am indeed stealing, and I have thus broken all of the commandments, according to Jesus Christ.
Wow! What a lot of ignorant comments in this thread from a couple of people obviously untutored in both American law and God's word!
Interestingly enough, there is no law in the U.S. that directly criminalizes plagiarism. Representing someone else's work as your own may get you thrown out of a school if when you enrolled you consented to a "no plagiarism" requirement. It will not, however, get you thrown in jail, and it will only subject you to civil prosecution if your plagiarism damaged another person either by taking his income or hurting his reputation.
However, the Bible makes it clear that bearing false witness is a sin, whether or not it is a secular crime. Representing someone else's work as your own is a form of lying, and is a violation of God's law.
Put simply, if HWA had published another author's booklet and given him credit, there would be no plagiarism, and thus no violation of God's law. Only if HWA's publication deprived the author of income or reputation would the original author have grounds for a lawsuit, and might there be some possibility that the use of the other author's material was sin.
However, if HWA published another author's booklet but put his own name on it, he bore false witness and might have damaged the original author's reputation if the identical booklets were discovered. In fact, when early Ambassador students found that one of HWA's early booklets was pretty much a direct copy of another organization's booklet, those naive students were so upset that they tried to sue the other organization... only to find out that it was HWA who misrepresented the booklet's authorship!
Theil is wrong with his actions according to both civil law and God's law. But copy is not stealing.... It is copying.
Byker bob you are a twister of words as bad as Theil. Open a dictionary to see the difference between these two words.
Theil is wrong but so are you.
Anon 5:22 AM, you are the one who is twisting words, and giving them your own meanings.
Copying may or may not be stealing, depending on the circumstances.
5:22 ~ You are looking at dictionary definitions of the two words. That’s fine, but it is naive and simplistic. Being part of the printing industry, I am looking at the legal applications of those two words as they apply to the body of printed materials, and their legal and ethical application.
A dictionary defines words. Civil and criminal law define and inform their practical application.
BB
No. Copying is 100 percent not stealing. Neve. Period. Even legally its not stealing. I have court experience on this topic and I challenge you to look up "copyright infringement". It is literally the breaking of a contract.
I realize many people here have been told repeatedly for decades that it is stealing and theft. But according to the law of the u its states copyright infringement and theft are two completely and separately defined actions.
I read so much about about HWA deceived so may people, I was caught up in his bullsgit for decades. So use the same power of insight you got to see the truth about HWA and do so real research not cherry picking ideas from blogs newspapers and marketing material. Go to the actual source, the law.
According to the law they are absolutely not the same. Call a lawyer. It will be enlightening. My copyright lawyer we helpful informing me about this topic.
Anon 11:49 AM, you are hopeless. "Copying" and "copyright infringement" are two different things entirely, although in some cases they may both be applicable to the circumstance. I'm glad you had the guidance of a copyright lawyer, because on your own you are making a laughingstock of yourself with your inaccurate and careless comments.
Look, I’m telling you the truth from my profession. If Bob Thiel were to take Herbert W. Armstrong YOU lessons to any printer, and to request copies, he would be told that he needed to obtain written permission from the copyright holder before they could proceed with the job.
Now, if Thiel asked the same vendor to copy a single page, let’s say, because he needed a quote for a paper he was writing, that would constitute copying, and so long as Bob gave proper credit in a footnote, he would be copacetic morally, ethically and in compliance with the law.
You cannot duplicate another’s copyrighted works for distribution, whether you charge for it or not. Why do you think Flurry lost his lawsuit and ended up having to purchase the old bogus HWAcaca booklets from GCI?
BB
Want case law, 11:49? Read and weep! Basic Books, Inc v Kinkos Graphics Corp. 758 F SUPP 1522 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
Hope that helps! Have a nice sabbath!
BB
Byker Bob,
Why do you treat people with such contempt and act so arrogant?
The first link for this court case say it was copyright infringement, not stealing.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/758/1522/1809457/
Here is the legal definition of stealing, it's the removal of another person's property.
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/stealing/
Though I have been corrected, there is civil theft. (it's good to look things up)
"What is copyright infringement? As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner."
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html
If it helps you understand the difference, when I went to court over copyright infringement they had to prove intent. That means the complainant had to legally notify you that you are committing copyright infringement. Then you have a period of time to remedy this situation by "stop copying". If you openly refuse (by legal reply or denile) then they can prove in court you "intend to infringe". If there is intent, then they can add fraud and some other things to the list. (or at least try)
But if you resolve the issue. (ie, stop infringing) then they have almost no legal recourse against you at all.
Consider how this would work with stealing. You steal your neighbor's car... intent (legally) is totally and completely irrelevant. And you can't "stop stealing" the car simply by legal response. You have "removed property" from your neighbor.
Consider that there is totally legal circumstances to copy someone's art, book, music, etc... for many, many reasons. Totally legally. If you say "copying is theft", then you don't understand the concepts of fair use. Which is totally legal copying. Therefore copying simply cannot be theft. Is there such a thing as "legal theft"? No, because copying and stealing are two totally and completely different things.
Please post another legal opinion about copying being theft, and I will read it and show you how it is not.
The Kinko example is simple, they intentionally and wilfully committed copyright infringement (read the documents) and they claimed "fair use", and lost in court. But Kinko's didn't get accused of stealing.
I will meet you half way, I was wrong about "civil theft" not existing. Please try to learn to be wrong gracefully instead of throwing it other's faces. It just makes sharing information harder for everyone.
Oh, look! At 5:22 AM, our poster says Byker Bob is "as bad as Thiel" simply because he presents the facts of current U.S. law. Then, at 7:48 PM, the same poster admonishes Bob to "learn to be wrong gracefully." Somebody needs to do a little introspection, it seems.
Yes, this poster has "court experience" on the matter. But he was a defendant, not a plaintiff, and did what the court instructed him to do. His experience doesn't necessarily make him an expert on the law; that was his lawyer's job. And it shows, given the ineptness of his posts.
King David could speak about adultery. Just because he did it doesn't mean he is unqualified to admonish others on the evil I causes of or the definition.
Maybe you have never sinned that is why you are angry at the replies?
Let’s bring this all home as it relates to Bob Thiel. He started properly by asking permission to use GCI’s copyrighted materials. Permission was refused. Bob appears to be stating that he will go ahead and reproduce the materials anyway, using them as if they were his own even to the extent of making mild edits. If that doesn’t indicate what the law calls “intent”, I don’t know what does. As Gary rightly observed, it is stealing. Like most of the Armstrongite “leaders”, Bob refuses to accept any authority above him.
Secondly, there are specific legal terms for different categories of stealing or theft, such as copyright infringement, patent infringement, and counterfeiting just to name a few. It is inherent in each of these terms that the criminal perpetrators are profiteering from others’ work, and diminishing the profits and often the reputation of the rightful owners. Obviously, law enforcement and the judicial system do not tack on additional terms or charges such as “theft” or “stealing” because that would constitute redundancy. Those terms already define theft.
It would be intellectually dishonest for me to meet 7:48 halfway on something that he is just plain wrong about soley for the purpose of making him feel comfortable about participating in future discussions here. Remember, he got in my face, accusing me of twisting words, a charge of which I am not guilty. I strongly suspect that we’ve had similar encounters throughout the past right here on Banned.
BB
Well, now that former copyright infringer Anon 11:48 AM has rather astonishingly equated himself with King David, a man after God's own heart (Hebrews 13:22), there's nothing more that can be said. I'm done here.
...because Anon 11:48 AM did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Xerox the Copier. (1 Kings 15:5, Revised Banned Version)
I’m just rolling in the aisle, LMAO because I believe it was actually Bob Thiel himself that we were responding to!
BB
I am only interested in this topic regarding cloning.
Can a person "steal" my dna and "copy" me illegally?
Can twins "profiteer" on the others chatacter? Can I sue my dreamgirlfriend for damages?
Nck
Post a Comment