The morality debate (again) / Kate & "Brazil"

["Andy Gough, x4-2906, pager 513, CH2-59" <AGOUGH%FAB6@sc.intel.com>]

>     IED admits that distribution of the music would be "wrong". When he
>considered the possibility of distributing the music anyway, it was
>because there were other factors--not just moral factors, either--which
>had to be acknowledged, as well. First, he recognized the fact that
>a fan is a fan, and as such, a true fan--i.e., one who is, first and
>foremost, hopelessly in love with the _music_--is going to do anything
>he or she can to hear the demos. This isn't a moral statement, it's
>just a fact of life. Second, he recognized that a corollary of the
>first fact is that _if_ these fans are unable to get the demos
>cheaply, they will pay more money for them--thus further fattening the
>wallets of the bootleggers who are responsible for the original
>leak of the demos. How, then, could these two factors be reconciled?

You could do nothing.  This is, in fact, what you did.  Good choice.

>     And an explanation occurred to him. Tim and Lazlo seem to find
>it quite easy to reject all of the mitigating circumstances and
>arguments which IED considered, and to place all their confidence in
>the simple assumption that Kate's moral right over her tapes precedes,
>overrules and condemns all other aspects of this particular case.

The "'simple' assumption"?  I assume when you use "simple" you actually
mean "foolish" or "stupid."

I do not believe it can be called an "assumption" at all.  It is more a 
belief in the basic rules of civilization--in this case, "It is wrong to
steal."  

You (IED) pose a more difficult question, though.  You do not ask if it
is right or wrong, for you already know it to be wrong.  Instead, you 
ask if it is a sin.  Your question is of the type, "Is it a sin to steal
bread when you're hungry?", or "Is it a sin to steal medicine to save your
dying wife's life?"  More directly, the question you ask is, "Is it a sin
to pirate Kate's demos if you really really really really really really
really really want to hear them?"   Tim, Lazlo, and myself reply, "Yes!  It
is a sin!"  Why do we believe it a sin?  Two factors, I think, are dominant:
your life doesn't depend on you hearing them, and one doesn't always get
what he wants in life even if he really wants it (so denying you the demos is
no different than other aspects of your life).    

>     And why is this? Their simple-minded concern with only
>one piece in a complex, many-sided puzzle does not indicate that
>Tim and Lazlo are better able to judge the problem than the rest
>of us. On the contrary. So what other distinctions between them
>and us can be seen? In IED's opinion, there can be only one explanation:
>Lazlo and Tim Maroney are not, according to IED's definition of the
>term above, "true" Kate Bush fans. That is to say, they are _not_
>driven by an amoral, unreasoning and uncontrollable need to hear
>any and all Kate Bush music which it may come within their power to
>hear. In IED's opinion, their remarkable sacrifice of the chance to
>hear the demos is not to be admired at all, for IED knows that his
>own sense of morality is as strong--and clearly is more refined--
>than theirs. Rather, their sacrifice is to be pitied, for the only
>thing that it indicates to IED is that they do not truly live in the
>world of Kate's art. This is a fact.

A heroine addict is still commiting a crime when he purchases and shoots
up heroine--even though he has a real, physical, need for the drug. And,
if you confront the junkie with the moral, legal, and health issues
associated with heroine abuse just as he's craving more heroine, the junkie
won't listen to a word you say--for he only wants his fix.  You are a
self-proclaimed Kate-junkie.  And we're supposed to believe that your
morality is as strong, but more refined, than Tim or Lazlo's?  You need to
detox first.

Perhaps Tim and Lazlo can better _balance_ listening to Kate with other
aspects of their lives--such as being ethical human beings.


> Their willing, even proud,
>sacrifice of access to the demos on what they claim are purely moral
>grounds is really nothing more than an unwitting admission that their
>appreciation of Kate's art is insufficient to override their rather
>ordinary and facile sense of right and wrong. And for this, IED
>pities them both.

Or perhaps they have more respect for the _artist_ rather than just her
_art_.

________________________________________________________________________________

>I walk away and curse myself for again maiking myself a fool in front
>of Kate.  But I spot John Carder Bush and am able to talk to him somewhat
>intelligently about *Brazil* and about how Kate does her two way
>messages (which Kate herself would say nothing about).
>
>"You're all alone on the stage tonight..."
>
>|>oug

Hey Doug, just what is Kate's connection with "Brazil"?  I've seen it briefly
mentioned on Love-Hounds several times, but not in-depth explanation of her
involvement.

I'm more interested in this than usual since "Brazil" is a film that I
very much admire.  In fact, I think Harry Tuttle should become a new
Superhero and join the ranks of Superman, Flash, Batman, Spiderman, and
(another favorite) Plasticman.  I often wish that Tuttle would zoom in when
I'm argueing with an unthinking bureacrat.

It's been a few years since I've seen the film, but I assume that Kate
sang the theme song.  Is there anything more to it than that?  Anything
special about the song?

-andy

"We gotta fight back, Sam.
 We're all in it together, kid."
		-- Harry Tuttle
		   "Brazil"