Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/20/89)
Really-From: Pete Hartman <bradley!bucc2!pwh@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu>
Lazlo Nibble wrote:
]Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
]]]] I do believe the tape was called "The Whole Story". Does anyone
]]]] know where I can get this tape????
]]] IED has a copy, so no doubt we will all be treated to an offer of postal
]]] distribution at cost sometime in the near future.
]] If you are going to make a point, Tim, why don't you make one that
]] makes sense and is fair? IED has never said that he planned on, or
]] would even consider, distributing material that is widely available
]] for sale. That *would* be stealing money from Kate, and no one here
]] is condoning that.
]And distributing copies of privately-recorded demo tapes that she has
]EXPRESSLY STATED THAT SHE DOES NOT WANT DISTRIBUTED *isn't* stealing
]from her? If not, then what the hell *is* stealing from her? There's
]no moral high ground here, Doug . . . it's no different than if someone
]started passing around photocopies of her childhood diaries or tapes
]of her private phone calls or something; just because your intentions
]are good ("it helps us understand her better as an artist") doesn't
]make it *right*.
You certainly have a good point, lazlo. The problem is, we're sick
of Maroney's self-righteous whining. If he'd make reasoned statements
instead of outright attacks, his point might be better taken. But
it's hard to be charitable to someone who consistently takes the
cheapest shots possible to make his point, whether the point is valid
or not. (at least it sure looks that way in this group). Whether
IED's alleged actions would be right or not, I'm much more inclined to
sympathize with him since he seems to go out of his way to avoid
outright attacks (except against |>oug :-).Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/22/89)
Really-From: tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney) Quoted-From: Pete Hartman <bradley!bucc2!pwh@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu> >Whether >IED's alleged actions would be right or not, I'm much more inclined to >sympathize with him since he seems to go out of his way to avoid >outright attacks (except against |>oug :-). This is like saying that Lucrezia Borgia always made sure her wines were free of taint. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "As I was walking among the fires of Hell, delighted with the enjoyments of Genius; which to Angels look like torment and insanity. I collected some of their Proverbs..." - Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
CCJS@cc.nu.oz (James Smith) (08/23/89)
Lazlo Nibble writes: > And distributing copies of privately-recorded demo tapes that she has > EXPRESSLY STATED THAT SHE DOES NOT WANT DISTRIBUTED *isn't* stealing > from her? [...] it's no different than if someone > started passing around photocopies of her childhood diaries or tapes > of her private phone calls or something; No it isn't. Diaries are for the private perusal of the person who writes them. Private phone calls are for the ears of the two people involved. These tapes were made to show off Kate's skill, and were for the perusal of anyone who might be interested in offering her a contract. They were intended for the ears of people who didn't know Kate, and who would possibly not listen to them with a kind ear. They are not 'private.' I'm sick of hearing this line about them being like childhood diaries. It's bullshit. Jim -- James Smith, Computing Centre, University of Newcastle, ccjs@cc.nu.oz.au "It scares me silly but it gets me going" -- Kate Bush
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/24/89)
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: The Man With The Attitude up his ***.... Message-ID: <8945@cc.nu.oz> Date: 23 Aug 89 09:07:54 EST References: <619564801@bucc2.UUCP> Organization: University of Newcastle Lines: 24 Lazlo Nibble writes: > And distributing copies of privately-recorded demo tapes that she has > EXPRESSLY STATED THAT SHE DOES NOT WANT DISTRIBUTED *isn't* stealing > from her? [...] it's no different than if someone > started passing around photocopies of her childhood diaries or tapes > of her private phone calls or something; No it isn't. Diaries are for the private perusal of the person who writes them. Private phone calls are for the ears of the two people involved. These tapes were made to show off Kate's skill, and were for the perusal of anyone who might be interested in offering her a contract. They were intended for the ears of people who didn't know Kate, and who would possibly not listen to them with a kind ear. They are not 'private.' I'm sick of hearing this line about them being like childhood diaries. It's bullshit. Jim -- James Smith, Computing Centre, University of Newcastle, ccjs@cc.nu.oz.au "It scares me silly but it gets me going" -- Kate Bush
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/24/89)
Really-From: Lazlo Nibble <csbrkaac@ariel.unm.edu> > . . . Diaries are for the private perusal of the person > who writes them. Private phone calls are for the ears of the > two people involved. These tapes were made to show off Kate's skill, > and were for the perusal of anyone who might be interested in offering > her a contract. They were intended for the ears of people who didn't > know Kate, and who would possibly not listen to them with a kind ear. > They are not 'private.' Nor are they 'public'. The tapes were intended originally for a very specific audience -- record company execs. Are you one? If not, then 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? > I'm sick of hearing this line about them being like childhood diaries. > It's bullshit. So are all the defenses of IED's piracy campaign that I've heard so far. You folks just hate to even *consider* the possibility that what you're doing is flat-out morally *wrong*, don't you? Lazlo (csbrkaac@ariel.unm.edu) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lock the target. Bait the line. Spread the net. Catch the man.
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/28/89)
Really-From: Lazlo Nibble <csbrkaac@ariel.unm.edu> 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. Are you arguing that once an artist creates something, its ultimate fate immediately falls out of their control? That's ridiculous. 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. "Humanity" doesn't have a right to see and hear everything I do. > 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. > I get the impression that you and Tim Maroney are confusing morals with > money--such unfortunately seems to be the way with some Americans. That's a cheap shot, Jim. It also doesn't happen to apply in my case ... my concern for Kate's pocketbook is virtually nonexistant. I'm much more worried about Kate's privacy and her right as an artist to control her work. If you wrote the copyright laws, where would you draw the line? Would everything an artist creates immediately fall into the public domain? Lazlo (csbrkaac@ariel.unm.edu) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lock the target. Bait the line. Spread the net. Catch the man.
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/29/89)
Really-From: 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
brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) (08/31/89)
In article <8908240613.AA07570@ariel.unm.edu> Love-Hounds@GAFFA.MIT.EDU writes: >Really-From: Lazlo Nibble <csbrkaac@ariel.unm.edu> > >> I'm sick of hearing this line about them being like childhood diaries. >> It's bullshit. > >So are all the defenses of IED's piracy campaign that I've heard so far. >You folks just hate to even *consider* the possibility that what you're >doing is flat-out morally *wrong*, don't you? > > Lazlo (csbrkaac@ariel.unm.edu) Oh! I must really be behind the times. You mean to tell me that someone has finally gone and written down all the rights and wrongs of morals for us? No more guesswork involved, eh? There must be some list that you could post for us? Or is there the possibility that morals are different for each culture, country, state or even province? Might be a lot of paperwork to write them all down, maybe even enough to make military documents look like brief summaries! I'd really hate to eat you for dinner, but just because the thought bothers me doesn't change the fact that such an act is considered moral in some remote cultures of the world. Why don't you just stick to arguing about what is ILLEGAL! Now there is something we can see on paper, and can be flat-out settled by a judge and jury of our peers. Morals have no place in law (or on this net, when used to judge others), because no human has the right to impress their "morals" on another. And, yes, there are different morals for different folks. Especially with an International network as an audience. I'm really starting to worry about this country. Attitudes like those above make me realize how lucky I am that Pat Robertson didn't win the election and send me to prison for life for owning an album where the cover art depicts the artist in bed with a couple of dogs. Brian Willoughby UUCP: ...!{tikal, sun, uunet, elwood}!microsoft!brianw InterNet: microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET or: microsoft!brianw@Sun.COM Bitnet brianw@microsoft.UUCP