home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky news.admin:8619 news.admin.policy:528
- Newsgroups: news.admin,news.admin.policy
- Path: sparky!uunet!looking!brad
- From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
- Subject: Re: Harmlessness of a.b.p.e (long, but read it anyway)
- Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:34:40 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Nov20.223440.8704@clarinet.com>
- References: <1992Nov18.003412.10710@news.columbia.edu> <1992Nov18.225743.12386@clarinet.com> <1992Nov20.012853.14667@news.columbia.edu>
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <1992Nov20.012853.14667@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
- > I think that if they aren't being hurt, that most creators would be happy
- >that others are making good use of thier works. At least works that they
- >have exposed to the public. Since I think a.b.p.e is harmless, I think most
- >creators wouldn't object to it. I don't think I would.
-
- Sigh. The whole point here is that copyright law gives the creator that
- choice. The creator is free to decide what distributions to allow, including
- free ones. If the creator doesn't think she's being hurt, she is allowed
- to release it. The FSF wants their stuff distributed, but on their terms.
- Other people write freeware and have fewer terms. Some people release to
- the PD and give up all their rights.
-
- But that decision is up to the owner of the copyright. If Penthouse pays
- models and photographers and doesn't want to give it out free, that's up
- to them.
-
- All these people run around rationalizing "I don't think it hurts anyone."
- You can do that to a point, but you're being wilfully blind if you argue
- it in a case where the people who get to decide have been asked and said
- no.
-
- And if they haven't been asked, asking is not hard.
- --
- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
-