Re: The Man With The Attitude up his ***....

[James Smith <munnari!cc.nu.oz.au!CCJS@uunet.UU.NET>]

Lazlo Nibble writes:

> Kate has not granted you permission to even *listen* to these tapes,
> let alone own bootleg copies of them.  Do the artist's wishes mean
> absolutely *nothing* to you people?

> You folks just hate to even *consider* the possibility that what you're
> doing is flat-out morally *wrong*, don't you?

Kate does not own her music, any more than an author owns the text of a
novel he writes or a scientist owns the design of an invention he creates.
Such things belong to humanity.  What she does own is the right to copy
them.  And the purpose of that right is to allow her to make money from
her work, and encourage her to produce more of it.  That is the full and
only purpose of copyright.

Kate's only interest in these demos is to suppress them.  No one would
deny that.  Is this morally right?

I fully agree that it is illegal to copy the demos, and that it is
against Kate's wishes.  I don't agree that it is morally wrong.

I get the impression that you and Tim Maroney are confusing morals with
money--such unfortunately seems to be the way with some Americans.

Jim

-- 
James Smith, Computing Centre, University of Newcastle, ccjs@cc.nu.oz.au