Re: More Ethical Shit Hits the Fan

[Richard Caley <rjc%aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSFNET-RELAY.AC.UK>]

>Really-From: John M. Relph <relph@presto.ig.com>

>Do people still believe this myth?  It is not a few fans making copies
>of albums, CDs, or live concerts that rip the artist off.  Artists
>get ripped off by "creative accounting practices" . . .

The issue is not depriving KT of money, it is theft of intelectual
property. It must say something about Americans that the first thing
they start worrying about is the money :-)

>All these copyright laws are well intentioned: they are
>(theoretically) designed to make sure the artist continues to derive
>revenue from her or his hard work.

Nope they are designed to ensure that people who make something retain
control of it. Revenue has nothing to do with it.

>So how am I, with my lowly tape trading non-profit exercise, going to
>steal money from those artists?

As I say, money is not the point. It is the work you are stealing.

>IED continues to say that the moral issues are not simple . . .

He is right. I sent off the money to him ( is it there yet? Have the
Royal Mail and the USPO decided to shred it? ) after some moral
agonising. _I_ decided that sooner or later I was going to be faced with
these tapes face to, erm. . . face to liner ( lets hear it for mixed
metaphor ) and knowing I would not be likely to resist in that case I
decided that IED's argument, that it is best to bite the bullet now and
not feed the bootleggers, holds.

The work has already been stolen, it is receving stolen goods we are
talking about here. Intelectual property is bad in that you can't return
it to its rightful owner. The choice now is either to distribute or to
let others.

>P.S.  Read Frank Zappa's book, it'll give you something to think
>about, too.

I assume you stole your copy:-)

--
rjc@uk.ac.ed.aipna		    Stay alert,
				      Trust nobody,
					Keep your laser handy.