Disqus - Latest Comments for Daron

Re: Mark Driscoll Rocks the Gateway Conference

Daron Medway — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 13:15:12 -0000

If there's a like/loath spectrum for Mark Driscoll I've always been towards the like end of things, but this is really rather disturbing. In one breath he says he isn't going to say anything which magnifies himself at the expense of Jesus and yet within three minutes he's blatantly exploiting an admittedly horrible family incident for the sole purpose of eliciting sympathy from a huge crowd of people who have no real right of reply. What a slap in the face for the pastors and flock of Mars Hill who don't have access to a public platform and a microphone. This is false humility of the crassest kind. Sad. Really sad.

Re: Mark Driscoll: I Made The Mistake Of Trying To Be Under the Authority Of My Elders

Daron Medway — Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:50:40 -0000

I have to admit that Mark's body language toward Grace in this video seems overly-attentive to the point of intimidating. It could just be an American thing, but for me it seems a bit OTT.

Re: God Isn’t Punishing Mark Driscoll

Daron Medway — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 05:13:11 -0000

5 Have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as a father addresses his son? It says,

‘My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline,
and do not lose heart when he rebukes you,
6 because the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.’

7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? 8 If you are not disciplined – and everyone undergoes discipline – then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live!

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:34:40 -0000

You're an idiot. Try reading for comprehension. I'm out.

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 07:00:22 -0000

1) Are you really suggesting that because my sermons have been preached in public I no longer own the transcripts or video footage of those sermons and I have no legal recourse to prevent an unauthorised person from taking them from me without my consent? You're talking nonsense, man. Pure fantasy.

2) I do not have proof; I do have reasonable grounds for suspicion because 1) Throckmorton is refusing to divulge his source or the manner in which the data was obtained, and 2) Mars Hill Church have asserted theft.

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:54:36 -0000

Because it's interesting.

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:52:59 -0000

Poppycock.

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:51:01 -0000

Irrelevant until such time as the provenance of the video is established. Cart meet horse.

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:47:57 -0000

You're conflating two separate but related issues: copyright law and data theft. If Warren hadn't uploaded the video to YouTube there would be no evidence of data theft. But the very fact that it was uploaded to YouTube is very strong evidence that data theft has taken place because MHC never published that video for global consumption. That's the evidence, along with Warren's own admission to having "a source".

Therefore, at present the copyright argument is moot until such time as the provenance of the video is clearly established. At worst it was criminal worst criminal, at best it was dishonest. Answers need to be given.

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:36:15 -0000

It must take a very special kind of mental gymnastics for you to assert that the wilful taking and receiving of unpublished data from Mars Hill Church without their consent doesn't constitute theft. Seriously?

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 05:22:03 -0000

"Do you attempt to subject every person who has a video taken down to accusations of theft or receiving stolen property?"

No. I'm just interested in this particular instance of it.

"Do you attempt to subject every person who has a video taken down to accusations of theft or receiving stolen property?"

No. On this particular occasion I haven't found the answers provided by Dr Throckmorton to be at all satisfactory. On the contrary, they only serve to confirm my initial suspicions.

"Do you have such longstanding respect and admiration for Dr. Throckmorton that you ask these questions out of Christian love and concern?"

I don't have any respect or admiration for Dr Throckmorton whatsoever. Is that a problem?

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 05:13:58 -0000

The sermon was spoken publicly. Yes.

Mars Hill Church never published 6 particular minutes of material online in video format.

Mr Throckmorton has managed to obtain it and put it on YouTube.

The issue is how Mr Throckmorton got that video in the first place because - from where I'm sitting - it looks a lot like theft or the receiving of stolen goods.

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 05:04:42 -0000

Your inability to understand the parable has no bearing on the value or validity of the reply.

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:56:50 -0000

Or, if 6 minutes of material - material which was edited and never released for public consumption - found its way onto YouTube, Jackson would be perfectly within his rights to ask how that material was taken without consent from his film studio. He would also be justified in reasserting his rights over his intellectual property by asking for its removal from YouTube. Which is exactly what's happened, is it not?

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:23:57 -0000

The quality or intellectual merit of the thing stolen has no bearing on the issue. It doesn't matter one jot if someone went my bookshelf and stole the manuscripts of my sermons or a file of love letters to and from my wife. They have still stolen from me. They have taken what is mine. It doesn't matter if my sermon manuscripts were written by me for public oration or if my love letters were written solely for my wife and me. The point is that my intellectual property has be taken without my consent. It was stolen. The issue isn't the quality or value of the thing stolen, the issue is that a theft has taken place. And I'll tell this for sure; the nature of the crime (i.e. theft) cannot be measured by the value of the object which has been taken. Yes, the gravity of the crime may well be measured by value of the thing stolen, but the nature of the offence remains the same. Theft is theft.

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 02:20:31 -0000

You're not explaining anything. At best you're seeking to protect the reputation of a friend, at worst you're seeking to justify theft. Whatever it is you're engaging in the same reality denying intransigent spin-doctoring that you're accusing Mars Hill of doing.

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:06:02 -0000

I answered the question with a parable.

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:59:01 -0000

What? The argument doesn't apply just because you say so? Because you desperately don't want it to apply here? Listen, the video has never be published by Mars Hill Church. Warren has obtained an unedited copy from an undisclosed source by means which he won't divulge. The whole thing stinks.

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:51:52 -0000

And you don't understand the 8th commandment.

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:46:28 -0000

Rubbish. If I decided to take, with assistance from an undisclosed source, an unedited copy of The Desolation of Smaug from Wingnut Studios without their consent and stick it on YouTube because I decided that Peter Jackson shouldn't have cut those 6 minutes I'd still be a thief.

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:28:42 -0000

I'm sorry but that simply doesn't work. My sermons remain my intellectual property after they've been publicly preached in precisely the same way as an artist's work remains their intellectual property even when they are on public display.

Furthermore, I certainly don't have the right to just walk into an artist's studio help myself to a undisplayed artwork and open my own exhibition. That would be art theft. And I don't have the right to start making unauthorised prints of undisplayed stolen artwork for my own artistic ends.

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:53:40 -0000

It's not an issue of making private information public; it's an issue of taking someone's unpublished intellectual property without their consent and publishing it in a matter which is contrary to their wishes as the sole owner of that property.

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:44:32 -0000

I did answer the question. I answered it with a parable.

You do understand that "fair use" does not apply to stolen intellectual property don't you?

I can't steal a car and then claim that letting all my friends drive it is "fair use". I stole the car. There IS NO FAIR USE.

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:36:57 -0000

Are you attempting to claim that Warren's use of the copyrighted material does not fall under the fair-use provision of copyright law?

The video material in question has never been made public by Mars Hill Church, so the fair use argument is entirely fallacious. I am making an in principle argument that Warren could be open to the charge of conspiracy to steal for having received copyrighted material which someone took without the consent of the owner (i.e. Mars Hill Church). It's really not very complicated.

The moral point that Warren is trying to make about video editing for the purposes of public relations may well stand, as I've said elsewhere. However, the main issue for me is that Warren has apparently colluded in the theft of unpublished intellectual property from Mars Hill Church for his own ends.

Your third point is just wrong.

Re: Mars Hill Church Causes You Tube to Remove the Jesus Made Mistakes Segment from Mark Driscoll’s Sermon

Daron Medway — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:30:21 -0000

The video was sent to you by a source who took the material without the owner's consent. That, my friend, according to UK law is conspiracy to steal.