🚀 go-pugleaf

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