Subject: OK, here's my argument

Bartcop -

You're not making your living writing and selling jokes.  The artist who
is creating and recording the songs is making his or her living that way.

Let's look at another situation (one dear to my heart, since I write computer software).
Let's say that I write a software package for food distributors.  And I sell it once.
And that customer gives it away to all of his friends in the same industry.
I've worked very hard to produce that product.  But those years of work,
perfecting my software package, are down the drain because everyone has a copy.
Is that fair to me?

It used to be a joke that you only sold one copy of any software in Brazil.
Now, the same joke is told about China.  I don't know if that's
true about either country's inhabitants, but it's the same kind of thing with Napster.

OK, your turn for a rebuttal.

Mary Beth Finnerty
 

Mary, you seem to be making my argument for me.
Remember the fence: IF people can re-tell the joke without paying, why would they?
This isn't an issue of "fair."  This is an issue of technology.

If you can't build in some time bomb or expiration date or something in your program,
it's going to be re-distributed until a better program comes along.

It's the same as my "still smoking" joke.
To me, it means I have to write another joke tomorrow.
I can't live off that one joke for the next 100 years like rock stars do.

I remember the day it became clear to me.
Someone wrote:

"If you could go to McDonald's a buy one hamburger, and then (thru technology)
 somehow make exact duplicates of that burger a million times, would you?
 It's not fair to McDonald's."

Of course I would, and everyone on the planet would have supper that night.
That's the entire point of my argument: IF someone could duplicate hamburgers,
McDonald's would be out of business and there'd be no more hunger.
IF that days arrives, we should reject it?

This has nothing to do with fair.
Is it fair to re-tell the joke without sending a dollar?
No, but I'm not going to cry about it.
I know once I release that joke - it's gone.

The artists and the music industry needs to realize the future is here.
The minute anyone with a computer and a modem gets a song, it's gone.
Nothing on the planet can stop that - nothing.

From: jnagarya@888.nu

Subject: Copyright

The purpose of copyright law is to protect the owner of the copyright.
One way or another, that means the person who produced that which is
copyrighted (such as this email).

The current law is useless - totally.
If they passed a law saying it was illegal to tell my "still smoking" joke without paying,
people will still tell the joke if they really liked it.

I love The Beatles.  But I hate and excoriate Beatles bootleggers.
Their "defense" is that they love The Beatles.
My response: do you always steal from those you love?
Or do you lie thatyou love in order to steal?
Or are you sick, believing that love=stealing?

Why?  Because, as an artist, I decide what of my work I release, and
what I do not.  No one else has that right.  In that process I have the
right to produce whatever self-image (if I'm doing that) I want, without
that being undercut by thieves who release other of my work.

Joe, you're making the same "mistake" Mary did.
This isn't about fair.  Fair isn't the issue.

Note I haven't yet mentioned money?  I've only been talking about
privacy, private property, ownership of what I produce, and integrity.
If I write a poem that goes through 15 drafts before completion, I have
the right to suppress the first 14 versions.  No one--_no one_--has the
right to rifle through my work product, drafts, notes, jots, or doodles,
and then publish them without regard for my primacy over my productions.

You're saying it's not fair.
 

Note I've still not mentioned money?  Okay, now I will:

The Beatles had inpeccable tastes because they worked hard.  They did
not release anyting until they were satisfied it was the best they could
do.  They deliberately withheld all versions prior to that.  As exclus-
ive owners of those prior versions, they had the sole right to determine
what to do with those versions.  For all anyone else has to say about
it, they could, as they pleased, burn them, wipe their asses with them,
or make cake decorations with them.

They didn't want those "drafts" released because they compete with and
undermine the final result.  All artists worth their salt have that
integrity.  And I wan't sell you half-assed and inferior shit just for
the buck.  Thieves, having no integrity, have no respect for my integrity;
if they think they can make money off my work--without, also, sending me
a cut (I don't want the cut; leave my shit alone)--they'll do that and
make up reams and reams of bullshit rationalizations in effort to
"prove" they're doing a great service to mankind.
 

Ask yourself: how many Beatles bootleggers send a cut to The Beatles they claim to "love"?
Zero.

I disagree with you.
The fans would rather buy the product from the Beatles.
They are paying HIGHER prices for a vastly inferior product because the Beatles
have chosen to let the bootleggers make the money, instead.
That's crazy.
I think this is a mistake on the Beatles's part, but it's their mistake to make.

Did you see what Pearl Jam did? They released every show from their last European tour.
That makes inferior, bootlegged copies of those shows worthless.
That's how you fight back, but we're getting away from the point.

Because a thing is possible does not mean it is proper to do it.  It's possible to shoot people,
even though illegal.  Should we do it 'cause we can?  It's possible to steal productions resulting
from others' hard work.  Should we steal 'cause we can?

Respectfully, "should" isn't the right word.
The right word is "will," and the answer is yes.
You're stuck on "fairness," and that's not the subject.

All within the fence--of both law and reason.  Keep your uninvited face out of my workbooks/Notebooks.
If, and when, I want you to read it, I'll make that decision.  No one else.  I may even let it be read without
charge.  But if I choose to charge, pay for it.

Look: Metallica sucks--big time.  I know they call their crap "music". I know they're multijillionaires.
I wouldn't listen to their carp even for free.  But it's still their _work_ product.

I won't steal from those I love either.  Because I love The Beatles, and trust their instincts and whims,
I don't want to hear anything of their's they don't want me to hear.  I respect their boundaries (fence?)
as I would have my boundaries respected.

Yers,

Joe N.
Boston, MA

This is another sidebar, but you're never heard/owned a Beatles bootleg?
I confess, I have none myself, but if I was as addicted to the Beatles as I am Zeppelin and U2,
I couldn't stand knowing millions of people were listening to the outtakes and live versions
and I refused to listen because "it was wrong."

Also, it depends on the artist.
When I met Robert Plant for the first time, he signed some bootlegs for me.
When an artist produces a sound, live for 15,000 people, he's got to know someone
will have a recorder going, and will trade/sell copies.

It's going to happen, nothing can stop it

It seem to me the choices are
(1) do something about it, as Pearl Jam did
(2) Complain and say, "It's not fair."
(3) Threaten your fans with the RICO statutes, like that idiot Lars did.

Y'know, I started reading newspapers when I was 6 years old.
I've followed show business for over 40 years, and I've never seen a fuck up like Lars made.