Gaffaweb >
Love & Anger >
1989-11 >
[ Date Index |
Thread Index ]
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
From: Richard Caley <rjc%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSFNET-RELAY.AC.UK>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 89 14:54:45 +0100
Subject: Re: More Ethical Shit Hits the Fan
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Organization: University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
References: <CMM.0.88.614358203.relph@PRESTO.IG.COM> <4064.8906210606@aipna.ed.ac.uk>
In article <18255@mimsy.UUCP> you write: >>Really-From: Richard Caley <rjc%aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSFNET-RELAY.AC.UK> >>Nope they are designed to ensure that people who make something retain >>control of it. Revenue has nothing to do with it. >Strike two. Says you! >The Constitution . .. >Congress . . . >Any questions? :-) I'll take your word for stupid American legalities, however, the argument was morality. And if the US constitution can't distinguish copyright from patent law then it has even more problems than I previously thorght. The US is a society built on the assumption of the right of private property. Now one could scrap that assumption, but as long as it remains ignoring intelectual property is as bad as ignoring physical property. Out LBW for a golden duck?