🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov20.160910.1203@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
>   Isn't it true that the seizure of property in these cases (video stores
>included) (and in the USA) are based on the RICO (organized crime) laws?
>Am I the only one that thinks that applying RICO laws to video stores is
>wrong? 
>

I agree with you that applying RICO laws to mom & pop video stores and
seizing their entire stock because they had a few dirty videos is wrong.

That's about the only thing in this and related threads you and I have
agreed on, though.  I think that the way you try to justify breaking
copyright laws, by saying you're doing creative people a service letting
more people see their work, is obscenely arrogant and self-absorbed.  If
netters who posted pictures to the alt groups really had respect for the
creator they would get permission before posting.  But if you're any indication,
they don't.  Instead, they project their own selfish interests on the
creator of the work and try to make them one.

To compare it to the other "sacred cow" on the net, how about posting
email without permission?  Is it too much to ask people on the net to
accord as much respect to a work which was copyrighted, which indicates
that the creator wanted to maintain control, as they do to some rambling
flame that was sent off unsolicited to the poor person who dared post it?
I have seen much more righteous anger on the net about the latter than
about the former and it amazes me.  (Can we spell hypocrisy?)

And before you say any more about creative folks, let me tell you that
I'm a painter and my brother is a writer, one of my best friends is a
photographer.  Any one of us would be ticked off if you posted our work 
without permission.  

-- 

Sheryl Coppenger    SEAS Computing Facility Staff	sheryl@seas.gwu.edu
		    The George Washington University	(202) 994-6853