Moral and legal grounds of copyright law

[keving@gaffa.wpd.sgi.com (Kevin Gurney)]

Lazlo Nibble <csbrkaac@ariel.unm.edu> writes:

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

> I don't know the legal standing of this argument, but I think that
> morally, it's unbelievably corrupt.  

But morality has very little do with legality. The point that James is
trying to make is that _legally_ an artist does NOT own the creation, only
the right to reproduce (or destroy, or cloister) it. She can't own the
notes, only how the notes are distributed, if at all.

This may seem like splitting very fine hairs, but it's actually a 
basic and important part of any reasonable copyright law. (The current 
suit between Apple and Microsoft (or is it HP?) over user interfaces points
this out.)

>				If I write a novel and don't care
> to share it with anyone outside of an immediate circle of close
> friends, then I think that anyone who copies it and passes it around to
> the world at large is *in the wrong*, both legally AND morally.

That's James point exactly; anyone who COPIES it against your wishes is 
legally in the wrong.

> > 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.

> Obviously I disagree.  I happen to believe that the creator of an
> artistic work has the moral right to decide what ultimately happens to
> that work.  If Kate wants her early demos to stay out of the hands of
> collectors and fans, then I believe those collectors and fans should
> respect her wishes.

If Kate wants the demos to stay of out the hands of collectors and fans, then
she'd better get her lawyers warmed up. I'm no lawyer and I don't know if 
English law if different than American law, but I think the way it works is
thusly: If I hold a copyright and you violate that copyright and I know it and 
do nothing about it, then you stand a good chance of succesfully claiming that 
I have placed my copywritten object into the public domain at which point I
and you and everyone looses all control over the objects reproduction, use, etc.

In other words, Kate needs to do a bit more (under American law at least)
than indirectly let her wishes on this matter be known via the editors of
Homeground. Sadly, about the best she could do (from a legal point of view)
is to file civil and criminal charges against anyone who she knows to have
copied one of these tapes. 

Sure glad I don't know anyone that fits that description :)
--
"Act like a dumbshit and they'll treat as an equal"
	-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs

keving@gaffa.wpd.sgi.com