🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov20.012853.14667@news.columbia.edu>, dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
> In article <1992Nov18.225743.12386@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
> >
> >Many people misunderstand copyright as strictly the right to sell a work.
> >It is not.  It is the right to control what is done with your creation.
> >The most obvious benefit of this control is the right to charge money for
> >granting permission to copy, but it is not the entirety of it.
> >
>    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.

So what gives you the right to assume this without asking the copyright holder?
You may not care but some creators may care and you DO NOT have the right to
make a decision on the use of their creations without asking THEM. This is the
point that people are making; the assumption that the creators would be happy
but failing to ASK them. 





-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030