Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/29/89)
Really-From: 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
CCJS@cc.nu.oz (James Smith) (09/01/89)
The following is turning into a flame. If you're not interested in such, hit 'n' now. Note: I haven't yet seen Lazlo's original article. If I misrepresent him, I apologise in advance. Lazlo Nibble writes (in reply to me): >> 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. And I believe it is unbelievably morally corrupt to think otherwise. If Alan Bond were to destroy 'Sunflowers', would it be a moral act? Would it be immoral to try and stop him? But he bought it from the man who bought it from the man ... who bought it from Van Gogh. If it was Van Gogh's to do with as he wished, one can raise no objection to Alan Bond doing the same. And if it is immoral for Alan Bond to destroy it, it would have been just as immoral for Van Gogh to do so. A work of art, like an invention or a scientific discovery, is not an object in the way that a bottle of wine or a ballpoint pen is. It cannot belong to any one person, it belongs to humanity as a whole. Once created, the artist does not have the moral right to suppress or destroy it. In fact the law underpins this by arranging things so that after about 40 years the music falls into the public domain. > 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. This sort of thing happens all the time. The letters of people such as Shakespeare, Lovecraft, and Howard have been published, even though they were private material. In fact, much of Howard's published work was draft work never meant for publication, and he certainly would never have wanted it publish. Yet it now forms part of the world's literary heritage. I guess the answer to your question is that it depends on whether your novel is a work of art, or just private jottings of no literary worth. > I happen to believe that the creator of an > artistic work has the moral right to decide what ultimately happens to > that work. And I believe that art once created becomes part of the world's cultural heritage, and that the artist has no moral right to destroy it. Kevin Gurney writes (in reply to Lazlo): > 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. No, my point is just the reverse, though I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying. Legally an artist has the right to destroy or suppress her work; I'm not arguing that. However, I feel that morally an artist never owns her work once it has been created. Lazlo, I understand your point of view, though I don't agree with it, and I'm sure you feel the same about mine. Let's leave it at that. Jim -- James Smith, Computing Centre, University of Newcastle, ccjs@cc.nu.oz.au The bluebird of happiness having been absent from his life for many years, David is visited by the chicken of depression.
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (09/01/89)
Really-From: James Smith <munnari!cc.nu.oz.au!CCJS@uunet.UU.NET> Path: cc!ccjs From: CCJS@cc.nu.oz (James Smith) Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa Subject: Re: Moral and legal grounds of copyright law Message-ID: <9088@cc.nu.oz> Date: 31 Aug 89 13:50:22 EST References: <8908290206.AA29236@gaffa.wpd.sgi.com> Organization: University of Newcastle Lines: 82 The following is turning into a flame. If you're not interested in such, hit 'n' now. Note: I haven't yet seen Lazlo's original article. If I misrepresent him, I apologise in advance. Lazlo Nibble writes (in reply to me): >> 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. And I believe it is unbelievably morally corrupt to think otherwise. If Alan Bond were to destroy 'Sunflowers', would it be a moral act? Would it be immoral to try and stop him? But he bought it from the man who bought it from the man ... who bought it from Van Gogh. If it was Van Gogh's to do with as he wished, one can raise no objection to Alan Bond doing the same. And if it is immoral for Alan Bond to destroy it, it would have been just as immoral for Van Gogh to do so. A work of art, like an invention or a scientific discovery, is not an object in the way that a bottle of wine or a ballpoint pen is. It cannot belong to any one person, it belongs to humanity as a whole. Once created, the artist does not have the moral right to suppress or destroy it. In fact the law underpins this by arranging things so that after about 40 years the music falls into the public domain. > 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. This sort of thing happens all the time. The letters of people such as Shakespeare, Lovecraft, and Howard have been published, even though they were private material. In fact, much of Howard's published work was draft work never meant for publication, and he certainly would never have wanted it publish. Yet it now forms part of the world's literary heritage. I guess the answer to your question is that it depends on whether your novel is a work of art, or just private jottings of no literary worth. > I happen to believe that the creator of an > artistic work has the moral right to decide what ultimately happens to > that work. And I believe that art once created becomes part of the world's cultural heritage, and that the artist has no moral right to destroy it. Kevin Gurney writes (in reply to Lazlo): > 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. No, my point is just the reverse, though I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying. Legally an artist has the right to destroy or suppress her work; I'm not arguing that. However, I feel that morally an artist never owns her work once it has been created. Lazlo, I understand your point of view, though I don't agree with it, and I'm sure you feel the same about mine. Let's leave it at that. Jim -- James Smith, Computing Centre, University of Newcastle, ccjs@cc.nu.oz.au The bluebird of happiness having been absent from his life for many years, David is visited by the chicken of depression.