Saturday, August 01, 2015

Hillsong DMCA claim on vimeo publication of Brian Houston/Driscoll interview

https://vimeo.com/134722998

Page not found

Vimeo has removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Hillsong Church Ltd. claiming that this material is infringing: Mark Driscoll interview with Brian Houston
Removed on Friday, July 31, 2015 At 9:31 AM
A public record of this claim is available at: http://chillingeffects.org/notices/11024398

https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/11024398#
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/june/distraction-down-under-hillsong-mark-driscoll-conference.html
Morgan Lee and Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra [ posted 6/30/2015 05:36PM ]
[Originally published on June 8 as "Distraction Down Under: Hillsong Drops Mark Driscoll from Conference"]

CT covered things Driscoll shared with Houston back on June 8, which is why this week's headlines from Charisma and the Christian Post are such bad jokes.  Way to be more than a month late talking about something Driscoll had said via video.

There's been more than a month to enquire as to whether anyone on Joel Osteen's side got the contact attempt from Mark Driscoll.  Since Osteen at one point was asked what he thought about Driscoll's tirade against him from 2007 and Osteen's response was to ask who Driscoll was, even Mark Driscoll's apology may not have been worth paying attention to because Mark Driscoll was never worth Osteen's attention.

Meanwhile, whoever posted video to vimeo got Hillsong attention.

Which makes it interesting that Houston didn't ask Grace Driscoll about her thoughts and feelings about the plagiarism scandal of 2013 since it was her chapter 7 "Grace and Disgrace" that was part of the larger controversy about whether Driscoll books had properly cited the published works of others.

Amid the length of the plagiarism controversy not one person opted to file a copyright infringement claim against the Driscolls.  This has been invoked by Driscoll apologists as a negative proof that Mark Driscoll didn't do anything wrong.  The retroactive revisions to Mark Driscoll's published work, documented by Warren Throckmorton about Real Marriage in particular, makes that case seem dubious.

Grace Driscoll did not just fail to credit Allender's work in the first edition of the 2012 book she co-authored, she also had a story about how all the ministry and resources at Mars Hill up into 2006 were inadequate because they focused on behavioral change or were not gospel-centered.

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2013/10/real-marriage-chapter-7-grace-driscolls.html

Ironically, whatever implied flaws there were in the Dan Allender book available to buy at Mars Hill in 2006 that Grace Driscoll may have been thinking of when she wrote chapter 7 of Real Marriage, she still took time to make use of the taxonomy of masks as secondary symptomology or "style of relating" for sex abuse victims.  The book can't have been that bad if Grace Driscoll appropriated the concepts after having announced to the whole internet 12 years earlier that Dan Allender was one of her favorite authors.

So the question is not necessarily whether the Driscolls appropriated the published works of others in a way that "could" have become the basis for a copyright infringement claim.  IVP said the Trial study guide was not defensible by an appeal to Fair Use, after all. A possibly unanswerable question is why nobody bothered to make a claim of coyright infringement against the Driscolls. 



No comments: