🚀 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. 

So I should feel free to distribute Larry Niven's "Ringworld" on the
net, because he has already exposed it to the public?

I don't know which "creators" you are talking about.  Most of 'em
actually *like* their royalties.....

Perhaps the key in your argument lies in the phrase "...good use...",
but for the life of me I don't really see how that matters, nor (more
to the point) why you should be allowed to be the arbiter of what is a 
"good use" over the opinions of the creator of the work.


>   Without harm, freedom should rule. If online services had existed before

We exist under the rule of law.  If you don't like the law, lobby
to get it changed.  Advocating ignoring laws that one finds inconvenient 
is the road to anarchy.



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Philosopher and plowman			|
each must know his part			|	-Richard Hartman	
to build a new mentality		|	hartman@uLogic.COM
closer to the heart!			|