Re: artist rights vs. fans

The strict copyright laws in this country are vague, often silly, and time
and again have failed to protect the copyright holder unless backed by
millions of dollars. The software industry, comics artistes, actors, (to
name areas with which I am familiar) and the people of this country have
suffered time and again because of these inept laws which protect big
corporations and only incidentally and occasionally the artists and their
audience, who rarely can afford to gain in court what these laws supposdly
offer. I will not debate this.

I will debate this:
<<For the sake of this discussion - for which I am happy to be the Devil's
advocate - I helped rip off the band as did the manufacturer.>>

According to the current laws, which were muscled into place by the usual
gang of idiots, you are correct. We are now all criminals retroactively by
owning stuff we ought not to own, supposedly. The ethics, however, are not
at all clear.

<<We do not have some devine right to that music - we did not write it,
record it, perform it or copyright it in any way, shape or form.  Therefore,
why do some people think they do have some devine right to that music?

I realize you are merely anticipating an argument in your role as devil's
advocate. But divinity has nothing to do with this. I believe they think
they are entitled to profit by what they a)purchased, and b)subsequently
labored to transform into a saleable product.

>>If you built a house in your neighborhood, does some one else in your
>>neighborhood have a devine right to your labors?

They have rights if they pay for them, ie, buy the house rent the house,
etc. It's trade. When someone pays for a seat at a concert they share
ownership in what they receive in exchange for their money. The artist
doesn't like it they can stay home, or tack a lot of legal fine print on
the back of the ticket telling you what you can't do, which is inethical
yet apparently legal. It's me telling you you must pay to read what you've
just read and cannot re-post it to anyone without my consent.

You know, really good analogies take time to create.

>>However, the plain and simple fact is, that by buying them I have taken money
>>out of the pockets of those that created that music.

That is incorrect. They will vouch for the fact that the money in their
pocket is still there after you leave a record store. You are exaggerating
with a cliche to make point.

The artists are unconcerned. Not the WHO (not for a minute in thirty
years), not the DEAD, not U2 (re: Negativland), not Prince, not even ZAPPA,
who fought tooth and nail for every political or legal issue that concerned
him. He fought the record companies and the government instead, who have
been ripping off artists and audiences for years, and continue to do so
through these new, "protective" laws.

Sorry this got too long.

Sincerely,

Rich I.

This material copyright 1996 by Richard Imbro