Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (06/23/89)
Really-From: mcvax!eutrc3.urc.tue.nl!rcbamw@uunet.UU.NET (m.waucomont) In article <8906210232.AA10737@hop.toad.com> Love-Hounds@GAFFA.MIT.EDU writes: >Really-From: tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney) >In article <736@eutrc3.UUCP> quoth Michel Waucomont: >>Please let the quarrel about obsKuriTies II being illegal stop! I don't want > [stuff about me expressing my sadness about this deleted] >Aaaawwww. You might have to actually think about the interests of >the artist you are insulting, as if she were a real human being instead >of a goddess? Tsk, tsk, I feel so ashamed for disturbing your sleep. Sleep? Sleeping = dreaming, DREams Are Meant To Illuminate ME. > I can't say for sure that this >will happen, but it is quite possible that you will be contacted and >asked to hand over your tape. Hand over? Boy, I would get on a plane and go to the UK to hand it over to Her personally!!!! But now serious: I must admit that I can not but agree with your point of view. It _is_ not very nice to duplicate someone's work (lyrics, music) if the person concerned has expressed not to agree with this. And this can be in the form of a personal wish or by copyrighting the material. Eventhough I doubt that the material is copyrighted, I respect Her wish not to distribute her early material. But I would like to see that confirmed. So far, I have only heard rumours. I would love to find out about Her opinion. Second thought: The first music I had from Kate was a copy on tape from Lionheart. Needless to say that it was ILLEGAL, PIRATED etc. But this tape made me decide I wanted the real (LEGAL) copy. I have bought *ALL* her albums in a similar way: first I 'obtained' an illegal copy on tape, listened to it, fell in love with it and _then_ bought it. >Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com ^^^ Have you got only - I mean without one exeption! - purchased copies of the Finder? Michel 'Mikki' Waucomont
tim@toad.COM (Tim Maroney) (06/24/89)
Quoted from: mcvax!eutrc3.urc.tue.nl!rcbamw@uunet.UU.NET (m.waucomont) >Sleep? Sleeping = dreaming, DREams Are Meant To Illuminate ME. No, sleeping != dreaming. In fact, you spend a distinct minority of your sleep time dreaming. >Hand over? Boy, I would get on a plane and go to the UK to hand it over >to Her personally!!!! Save me a ticket -- if this would work, I'd send off for the tape in a shot! >But now serious: I must admit that I can not but agree with your point of >view. It _is_ not very nice to duplicate someone's work (lyrics, music) if >the person concerned has expressed not to agree with this. And this can be >in the form of a personal wish or by copyrighting the material. Eventhough >I doubt that the material is copyrighted, I respect Her wish not to distribute >her early material. But I would like to see that confirmed. So far, I have >only heard rumours. I would love to find out about Her opinion. Thanks for the support. IED has made his source clear, and it seems to be correct that she does nto want this stuff distributed. As has also been pointed out, there are five songs there which *have* been released; if she lets them be distributed freely, she loses the copyrights on those songs. It was remotely possible she wouldn't mind the unreleased songs falling into public domain, but no way on the released songs. Period. >Second thought: The first music I had from Kate was a copy on tape from >Lionheart. Needless to say that it was ILLEGAL, PIRATED etc. But this tape >made me decide I wanted the real (LEGAL) copy. I have bought *ALL* her >albums in a similar way: first I 'obtained' an illegal copy on tape, >listened to it, fell in love with it and _then_ bought it. Me too. However, the person who had the pirated tape was a millionaire who could have readily afforded a legitimate copy, and I disapprove strongly of his moral failure in this regard. >>Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com > ^^^ >Have you got only - I mean without one exeption! - purchased copies of >the Finder? You don't purchase copies of the Finder. Upgrades are free. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com Postal: 424 Tehama, SF CA 94103; Phone: (415) 495-2934 "There's a real world out there, with real people. Go out and play there for a while and give the Usenet sandbox a rest. It will lower your stress levels and make the world a happier place for us all." -- Gene Spafford
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (06/26/89)
Really-From: mcvax!eutrc3.urc.tue.nl!rcbamw@uunet.UU.NET (m.waucomont) In article <8906232004.AA14941@hop.toad.com> tim@toad.COM (Tim Maroney) writes: >Quoted from: mcvax!eutrc3.urc.tue.nl!rcbamw@uunet.UU.NET (m.waucomont) >>Sleep? Sleeping = dreaming, DREams Are Meant To Illuminate ME. > >No, sleeping != dreaming. In fact, you spend a distinct minority of >your sleep time dreaming. > I know.. I was just hinting at DRE-A-M-T-I-ME ;-))) >>>Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com >> ^^^ >>Have you got only - I mean without one exeption! - purchased copies of >>the Finder? > >You don't purchase copies of the Finder. Upgrades are free. What I meant to say is, that if you read the Copyright Law carefully, you will notice that you are allowed to only have *ONE* disk with the software, wich may be loaded into the computers memory for execution. This is the only form of duplication allowed. But all Macintosh users I know have *multiple* copies of the Finder. That is illegal. Indeed the Mac comes with the Finder and indeed upgrades are free, but you _are supposed to_ boot from the original floppy. No copies allowed... says the law. So, if you stick to the letter of the law, all Macintosh users violate the Copyright Law and should be prosecuted. The point I am trying to make is that I feel laws are meant to protect the creator of a product as well as the consumer. Imagine what would happen if you would actually have to *buy* every *copy* of the Finder you are using.... The 'law behind the circeled c' (and the Finder definitely IS copyrighted, just check the about box!) says you are supposed to do so... but it is a tacit agreement between Apple and its users that they won't be prosecuted for dragging the System and Finder icon happily all over their disks. What I am propagating is that the law should be interpreted a little less vigorous as it has been in this newsgroup lately. I am definitely not advocating anarchy, but a bit more humane behaviour would be most welcome. Michel 'Mikki' Waucomont
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (06/27/89)
Really-From: tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney) Quoted-From: mcvax!eutrc3.urc.tue.nl!rcbamw@uunet.UU.NET (m.waucomont) >>You don't purchase copies of the Finder. Upgrades are free. > >What I meant to say is, that if you read the Copyright Law carefully, you >will notice that you are allowed to only have *ONE* disk with the software, >wich may be loaded into the computers memory for execution. This is the >only form of duplication allowed. But all Macintosh users I know have >*multiple* copies of the Finder. That is illegal. Indeed the Mac comes with >the Finder and indeed upgrades are free, but you _are supposed to_ boot from >the original floppy. No copies allowed... says the law. So, if you stick >to the letter of the law, all Macintosh users violate the Copyright Law and >should be prosecuted. Absolute nonsense. The copyright law says nothing of the sort, and Apple not only explicitly instructs you to make copies of the Finder onto your hard disk, they distribute on every boot disk a program, the Installer, which has no purpose but to makes copies of the Finder and other system software onto other disks. If someone told you that you are supposed to always boot from a floppy, they are a fool who did not bother to read the "Macintosh System Software User's Guide" that came with the Macintosh. A software vendor has the option of putting restrictions on software like the ones you mentioned. If so, they must be stated explicitly in a licensing agreement. Apple has not with respect to the Finder. About the only restrictions are that you can't redistribute it yourself and that you can't run it on anything but a Macintosh. Of all the silly things said here recently about copyright, your message is the silliest. No contest. >The point I am trying to make is that I feel laws are meant to protect the >creator of a product as well as the consumer. Gee, no kidding. Of course, all *my* arguments have had absolutely nothing to do with protecting the creator. Riiiight. >What I am propagating is that the law should be interpreted a little less >vigorous as it has been in this newsgroup lately. I am definitely not >advocating anarchy, but a bit more humane behaviour would be most welcome. Humane behavior like stealing from an artist one professes to admire, for instance? Oh, if I could only reach those lofty heights. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com Postal: 424 Tehama, SF CA 94103; Phone: (415) 495-2934 "Now hear a plain fact: Swedenborg has not written one new truth: Now hear another: he has written all the old falshoods. And now hear the reason. He conversed with Angels who are all religious, & conversed not with Devils who all hate religion..." - Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"