No Subject

["Robert M. Kelner" <KELNER@LL.LL.MIT.EDU>]

  I hadn't read my LH Digests for a week or so and have been catching up.
Some of what I have to say has already been said but I wanted to add my
opinion anyway.  (Actually |>oug said much of this earlier but since this
is already written, I'll send it out anyway).
  I can't believe all the debate about IEDs tape project.  It seems to me
that many of us have blown it way out of proportion.  After all, we're not
talking about publishing to the general public someone's private diary.
Remember, this was a demo tape!  I assume if the record company had loved
all they heard and wanted to put out a double album she would have been
delighted.  After all, why would she demonstrate songs that she didn't hope
to have published?
  Furthermore, we're not talking about full scale duplication like some
foreign publishers do with text books.  Those companies put a real dent in
the profits of American publishers.  We're not even talking about
duplicating something that's already out, causing someone to lose money.
We're talking about something that's not available anywhere else (and
probably never will be) - something that causes no financial loss.
  Besides, some of us could even think of this as scholarship into
someone's unpublished writings.  That happens all the time
(usually to dead authors though).
  In any case, how many of us have taken pens home from work and used them
for private purposes?  This is probably more serious than that.  How many
have put a program on more than one computer?  (The discussion about the
Macintosh finder may have been a bad example since it seems to be legal to
move it around.  What about other programs.) I'm sure in a small office
with several PC's it's rare for a separate copy of the program to have been
bought for each PC.  This is clearly less serious than that.  So, we're
dealing with something that might be wrong but is of such minor importance
that it's hard to believe everyone's given it this much thought.

  As for her wishes in the matter, since IED actually asked, I suppose he's
honor bound to do as she wants.  I agree with |>oug though that she never
should have been asked.  Even assuming she has the legal right to refuse
our wishes, I think a case could be made (not by me, here and now) that
someone shouldn't have the moral right to sit on a work of art.  I always
thought of copyright as giving an author the right to profit by some work,
but whether they can destroy it (as hiding it certainly seems to do) is
another matter.  Maybe they have the right, but I wouldn't feel bad if I
did something to prevent it.

  To change the subject slightly, let me make a comment about bootleggers.
I'll throw this out as an idea (which will probably get me branded as a nut
and all I've said before will be ignored, but here goes): What's all this
criticism of bootleggers?  We're losing perspective here.  The bootlegger
is really the GOOD guy, not the bad guy (as everyone here seems to think).
After all, they're the ones who brought us alcohol when the government
didn't want us to have it.  They're the ones who manage to distribute books
and tapes in Russia that the government doesn't want their people to read.
In general much of what they've done is supply people with something that
they want but which 'Big Brother' doesn't want us to have.  A real case can
be made that the smugglers and bootleggers are the heroes of modern society.
  (Perhaps IED should feel proud to be near those ranks, rather than feel
he's been sullied by the contact!)