Martin Luther was a thief

Great Debates
1

Martin Luther was a thief as repugnant and as vile as any other thief under our current understanding of the idea. Let’s make a list of his many crimes:
[ul]
[li]He stole the Bible from its rightful owner, the Roman Catholic Church.[/li][li]He made, or caused to be made, illegal derivative works of the Bible, none of which were sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church. He completely failed to license any of his translations, making them theft even more heinous than the original crime, as they created confusion in the minds of the people as to which versions were valid and which were not. That is trademark violation in addition to theft.[/li][li]He destroyed the ability of people to make money in two ways: He impaired the ability of priests to sell indulgences, a practice as legal and moral as any other, and he destroyed the profitability of religion by providing an illegal alternative priced well under market value. (Yes, heresy is always illegal.)[/li][li]He corrupted generations by saying theft is justified. There are people still today who will defend his blatant thievery on various grounds. None of them are worth listening to: Theft is wrong![/li][li]He evaded justice by skipping jurisdictions, a sure sign of guilt.[/li][li]He established organized crime rings in rogue nations: He established an Axis of Evil including northern Germany, England, the Low Countries, and Switzerland, countries who would not abide by the law. In fact, the cause of international law was set back centuries by his illegal and immoral jurisdictional tricks.[/li][/ul]

It does not stop there. Crime begets crime. Gutenberg is guilty of contributory infringement, and the printing press is a copyright circumvention device. It completely erased the profits of monastic orders and other traditional publishing concerns by allowing illegal copies of privately owned works to be made for profit. In modern times, the Gideon organization is similarly anticompetitive: It destroys the market for Bibles by giving them away.

2

Bullshit. At most, the Catholic Church is only the rightful co-owner (along with the Greek Orthodox church) of HALF of this so-called bible. The second half.

Frankly, as a Jew, I’d like to see some royalties.

3

OK, Derleth, you have whoooshed me. (Maybe it’s just too late/early.)

I’m sure you have a point in there, somewhere, but your post is not quite odd enough to be counted as humor and I am failing to see the point you are attempting to make.

4

tomndebb: I thought the repeated echoing of the word ‘thief’ would make it obvious. I’m looking at Martin Luther through the lens of current copyright law, DMCA and Sonny Bono Copyright Extension and all that. Imagine the Roman Catholic Church circa 1500 issuing DMCA Takedown Notices and you’ll have the idea.

5

You are soooo going to be downloaded to Hell…

6

Well, couldn’t Luther just announce that he was only publishing extracts for commentary, since he left out a few important parts?

7

Honestly, as a Catholic, I’d be a lot more concerned about how he sold out the little guy to suck up to his German princes (who of course, were dropping sweet money on his efforts for political reasons). For a man who went on and on about the greed of the Catholic Church, it always seemed a mite unseemly.

8

“You hear about buyer’s rights, fair use and the creation of commentary. Every time I hear these words I say to myself, ‘That man is a Red!’ You never hear a REAL American talk like that!” - Mayor Frank Hague, somewhat modified.

Theft is theft. The fact some laws allow theft is a problem the RIAA and the MPAA are in the process of remedying. Great strides have been made on the elimination of fair use already: It is essentially destroyed if the work is protected by DRM, which is illegal to break for any reason, those misguided laws aside. It has saved millions in lobbying expenses, given that the aforementioned laws can be circumvented instead of needing to be repealed outright.

9

O-K-a-a-a-ay

10

I don’t think anything I’ve said is factually untrue. I don’t think that’s your problem with this thread, though.

11

The Catholic church would have to admit to authorship to try to claim copyright protection. From www.copyright.gov

(bolding mine)
This presents a problem for your thesis, as they claim that the Bible was written by God. To admit authorship would probably diminish their stance as a religion, and likely cut into their profits.

Further, since

by the time Martin Luther came around the copyrights would have long since expired. Again from www.copyright.gov

Others have pointed out that at least half of the Bible is much older than the church, so prior art can certainly be found.

This is ever more farfetched, as several hundred years from the time of Martin Luther have passed and the copyright has expired for an even longer period.

12

Standard disclaimer: IANAL nor Protestant nor Catholic.

*___He stole the Bible from its rightful owner, the Roman Catholic Church.
I am sorry but the Bible was obviously in Public Domain by Luther’s time.

*___He made, or caused to be made, illegal derivative works of the Bible, none of which were sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church. He completely failed to license any of his translations, making them theft even more heinous than the original crime, as they created confusion in the minds of the people as to which versions were valid and which were not. That is trademark violation in addition to theft.
Again, as the source material was in Public Domain, there was no crime.

*___He destroyed the ability of people to make money in two ways: He impaired the ability of priests to sell indulgences, a practice as legal and moral as any other, and he destroyed the profitability of religion by providing an illegal alternative priced well under market value. (Yes, heresy is always illegal.)
RCC priest were able to continue to sell indulgences until the RCC itself caved in to competitive market pressures and stopped the practice.
It is not illegal to develop a better market strategy and uncut the older monolithic competition. Geez are you a Rockefeller or something?

*___He corrupted generations by saying theft is justified. There are people still today who will defend his blatant thievery on various grounds. None of them are worth listening to: Theft is wrong!
There was no established theft, so I move this charge be dismissed immediately.

*___He evaded justice by skipping jurisdictions, a sure sign of guilt.
I do not believe this is admissible evidence; perhaps I am wrong.

*___He established organized crime rings in rogue nations: He established an Axis of Evil including northern Germany, England, the Low Countries, and Switzerland, countries who would not abide by the law. In fact, the cause of international law was set back centuries by his illegal and immoral jurisdictional tricks.
Might be some justice to this claim.

I would say he is guilty of lending legitimacy to a corrupt and foolish set of religious beliefs and thus leading to an increase in ignorance in the world. At least with the openly corrupt Roman Catholic Church, few treated it terribly seriously. The Protestant movement provided many groups with a strong religious fervor that had largely died out by this time period. The horrors of what he started still live with us today. Let us face facts, Martin Luther was among the worst type of both Evangelical and Fundie. That would be his crime against humanity in my book.

Jim

13

I think that even under the ludicrously extended standards of today the Bible was ancient enough in Luther’s time that it would have passed into the public domain.

14

Actually, even with Eisner-satisfying copyright laws, the RCC could only make claims based on the Vulgate, so Luther would have been under no more threat for his German bible than Disney would be for creating one more English version of Les Cage aux Folles.

15

Public domain is another of those antics designed to deprive people of their just compensation. The fact those people are dead matters absolutely not, even under the current copyright law.

If it isn’t illegal, how come people almost inevitably break laws in the process of doing it? The film industry was founded in California by people fleeing Edison, a New Jersey native, and his patents. The record industry (both phonograph and player piano) stole from composers. Radio was founded on theft from composers and performing artists. Cable TV was founded on outright theft of broadcast TV. Theft blackens every single entertainment innovation down through the 20th century. (Source: Free Culture, by Lawrence Lessig.)

16

So what you’re saying is that without theft there would be no entertainment industry. Well, in that case, thank God for theft!

17

This thread is a trap!

18

His namesake, Martin Luther King, was also a misogynist racist. Have you read his “I have a dream” speech? It makes references to black (not African-American) men and white men but not womyn, and Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics but is shockingly ignorant of Muslims, Hindus and Wiccans.

Clearly the man needs an adjustment in his thinking.

19

I don’t understand your point. Did you not say:

?

The current copyright law allows for public domain.

again from www.copyright.gov The bible would be in public domain because 120 years had passed since creation (see the above quote from the cite) (I use 120 years due to the fact that it would be difficult to prove exactly who wrote many parts of the bible and so it will fall under the annonymous works mentioned in the previous cite) So based on your premise that you are looking at Martin Luther through the lens of current copyright law, public domain is not a pesky antic.

20

And also a thief.