umm do you actually have anything to debate about or are you just wasting time and trolling?

Stephen, you still are violating copyright laws.  If you keep it up, sooner or later, someone who owns one of those songs is going to come after you.  Then you will be subject to legal penalties of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

You are committing theft in what you are doing.

You are also a troll who appears to have no actual thing to say to us.

In this context, the correct question to ask is if the words of Norman Gimbel and Charles Fox speak to me.  They are the people who wrote that song.  The holy spirit had nothing to do with it dude.  Nor did you have anything to do with it either.  Thus, you cannot make a copyright claim that is not fraudulent.

So I decided to beat my head against the wall and went to Stephen's craptacular Youtube channel and listened to him murder perfectly acceptable songs by the likes of Elvis and John Mellencamp with his MIDI keyboard, mangled lyrics and terrible singing.  The guy is such a thin-skinned pile of crap that he moderates all comments and can't handle constructive criticism, like the suggestion that if he goes and plays in traffic, he might get hit by a car, which sends him to Heaven and allows him to stop polluting the music supply for mere regular (re:  unsaved/rational) people such as myself.

Your music sucks, Stephen.  Even if I were a Christian, I'd be embarrassed to know you.

Vastet wrote: "Btw, why is it always theists who do this shit? Seriously, they're the only ones dumb enough to think it's ok to steal intellectual material to the point of advertising the theft. And they suck at it too."

Me: But of course it's okay, Vastet...saying that you're doing something "for the Lord" justifies absolutely anything.  Or, at least, if there are exceptions...I have no idea what they would be.  This, of course, is perfectly consistent with saying "God did it" whenever they approve of something, and saying "Satan did it" whenever they disapprove.  How can you resist such perfectly logical reasoning?

Conor

It's not stealing. It's called parody.

A parody (pronounced /ˈpærədiː/; also called send-up or spoof), in contemporary usage, is a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, or author, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation. As the literary theorist Linda Hutcheon (2000: 7) puts it, "parody … is imitation with a critical difference, not always at the expense of the parodied text." Another critic, Simon Dentith (2000: 9), defines parody as "any cultural practice which provides a relatively polemical allusive imitation of another cultural production or practice." Often, the most satisfying element of a good parody is seeing others mistake it for the genuine article.

Parody may be found in art or culture, including literature, music (although "parody" in music has a rather wider meaning than for other art forms), and cinema. Parodies are sometimes colloquially referred to as spoofs or lampoons.

My work clearly fits in the above definition.

       Thomathy  it does not,   what'sit'snuts is still useing original music and that alone violates  copywrite.  holieerthenthou  needs to change One(1) key  and one (1) octave in order to qualify for parody.  Just ask George Harrison (My sweet lord) and Mick Jagger (Jumpin' Jack  Flash) who lost court cases based on the exact same point of law.