Re: _obsKuriTies_2_: a KuesTion of eThiKs?

[tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney)]

In article <8906181951.AA08085@GAFFA.MIT.EDU>, quoth Andrew Marvick:
>IED does not in the least deny
>the power of Tim Maroney's argument. On the contrary, IED feels its
>righteousness only too strongly, even as he continues on the tenebrous
>moral path to which he committed himself two weeks ago. He hopes that
>Mr. Maroney, and any others on this group who may share Mr. Maroney's
>indignation, will take the time to consider the delicacy of this
>problem before condemning either IED himself or the many Love-Hounds
>who have decided to join him (albeit as recipients rather than as
>co-distributors) in the current project.

Mr. Maroney would point out that his message was provoked, not so much
by indignation at the act itself (though that is real), but at the
continued refusal of Marvick himself "to consider the delicacy of this
problem before condemning" those of us who choose not to participate.
His statements on the matter have been extremely intemperate and
deliberately insulting, implying -- no, stating outright! -- that those
of us who do not buy these bootlegs have an inferior appreciation of
KT's work.  It is primarily an emotional reaction to the nth repetition
of this self-righteous, "bushier than thou" attitude which led to
Maroney's counterattack; and now Marvick is requesting a courtesy for
himself which he has always refused to those of us on the other side of
the fence.

>     IED doesn't know how many readers of this group share Mr.
>Maroney's sentiments--that IED should be prosecuted for this crime--
>but perhaps there are a substantial number of you.

Mr. Maroney has stated no such thing.  He has stated only that IED is
lucky not to have been prosecuted for the crime.  This is not an
expression of his personal wishes, only of pragmatic reality.

>To you IED
>sincerely apologizes. Naturally, he also asks your indulgence, and
>will take it as a personal kindness (perhaps one which he does not
>deserve) if you will not report him to the authorities.

Since (as reported below) IED has already turned himself in, there would
be no purpose; but I for one would not do it in any case.

>     He would like to add that although Mr. Maroney may be
>quite certain that Kate herself would certainly condemn IED's activities,
>IED is not, himself, so convinced. True, Kate is very upset that these
>recordings have become available to the public at large--that much is
>known for a fact. But Kate is also realistic enough to know that now that
>these recordings are available commercially (though illegally), there
>will be no stopping the zealous fan from obtaining them. Consequently
>there is no reason to assume that she will view IED's entirely
>altruistic distribution "scheme" with a particularly hostile eye.
>It is even possible that she will forgive IED for his actions,
>understanding the complex of emotions which has motivated him.

I would estimate the odds as perhaps one hundred to one against this
starry eyed vision.

Are you familiar with the Python case some years ago on USENET?  At the
time, lyrics from MONTY PYTHON'S MEANING OF LIFE were posted to the
net.  Maroney and others wrote to object, pointing out not only the
crime involved but the disrespect for the artists implied.  The person
responsible wrote back to claim that this was ridiculous, that the
Pythons would be happy their work was being presented to a wide
audience, and that the unauthorized posting was in effect advertising
that could be expected to increase their sales.  He was so sure of this
that he wrote to the Pythons explaining the situation.  His response
came in the form a cease and desist letter from the Pythons'
solicitors, and he was obliged to post a network message requesting
that everyone who had made copies of the messages destroy them.

Perhaps you are unaware that if the Pythons, or KT, were to behave in
any wise differently, they would legally have surrendered their
copyright forever in the material.  Perhaps you are unaware that
copyright, which you have violated so profligately, is meant to be a
legal reflection of the moral right of artists to control distribution
of their material.  In any case, I repeat that to violate it shows
disrespect for the author's rights and interests.

>     One other comment regarding Mr. Maroney's remarks. The
>hypothetical types whom Mr. Maroney describes--those whose "respect"
>for Kate is so great that it prevents them from listening to seventeen
>works of almost certain genius--are no doubt to be admired for their
>astounding moral rectitude and their boundless respect for the rights of
>the artist. Yet they are also, IED thinks, a little to be pitied. For it
>is impossible for this fan, having been put so completely in the thrall
>of Kate's art, to believe that the hypothetical types whom Mr. Maroney
>describes can ever truly have fallen under the final, most elusive
>and ultimately inescapable and irresistible spell of her magic. No.
>In IED's opinion, anyone who has ever fully, finally lived amid
>the limitless heights, depths and expanses of Kate's artistic realm,
>could not _possibly_ resist the opportunity to look upon seventeen more
>of that realm's miraculous vistas. Those who could resist such a
>temptation would deserve our admiration for their virtue--but they would
>also provoke our pity for the ignorance to which their self-abnegation
>would subject them.

And so IED once again promulgates his childish and pompous notion that
disrespect for an artist's legal and moral rights constitutes a higher
attachment.  Perhaps it is so.  Perhaps someone could be so smitten by
KT's physical beauty that the mere technicality of her ownership of her
body falls beneath his transcendent standard of devotion, and thus the
ethical issues which would prevent her rape at his hands could be
disregarded.  Yet Maroney confesses that this seems to him a profound
disrespect rather than a transcendent respect.  It is true that rape is
different in quantity, but not in quality.  As a writer myself I can
only imagine my boundless depths of rage if some fan were to obtain
illicit copies of my early notebooks and photocopy them to other
devotees.  I do not think this is as different from rape as it might
appear to someone who is not themselves an artist.  If you are looking
for parallels in history, you might consider that Dickens' hatred for
America had a great deal to do with the widespread pirating of his work
in the States.

>     In any event, IED sent a letter to Kate ten days ago confessing
>his crimes, and explaining in detail every facet of the whole sordid
>story. The matter of IED's exoneration, pardon or condemnation,
>therefore, is in Kate's hands. Please let it remain there, and IED
>will not complain.

Please be sure to post the cease and desist letter when it arrives.
The chances of Kate permanently abrogating her copyright in this
fashion are practically nil.

I am sure you consider it admirable that you have done this, but
even minimal respect for KT's interests would have demanded that
you do it *before* engaging in your criminal conspiracy.

And finally, I hope you will see fit to send her a copy of both
IED's and Maroney's messages on this subject.
-- 
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com
Postal: 424 Tehama, SF CA 94103; Phone: (415) 495-2934

"Something was badly amiss with the spiritual life of the planet, thought
 Gibreel Farishta.  Too many demons inside people claiming to believe in
 God." -- Salman Rushdie, THE SATANIC VERSES