> The converstion was both about ehtics and the law. No one is taking
> anything from anyone when you trade an MD.
It's been pointed out to you (several times) that that's *exactly*
what's happening. You're taking property from someone who hasn't
authorized you can do so.
You can rave and scream -- misinterpreting both laws and and the
constitution to your heart's content -- but you can't change this.
> for creativity. People use and build on each others' ideas all the
> time in the U.S. It's encouraged and it's legal. It promotes
> creativity, freedom and economic growth.
What promotes creativity is the artists' ability to actually make a
living from their work.
> In response to others, copyright law is frought with grey areas.
That's something else that's been claimed several times in this
discussion. . .and it's been refuted every time. In fact, it's
not grey at all; it's quite clear. Keep claiming it, though, and
maybe you can *make* it so.
> It is not by any stretch of the imagination cut and dry. All the edges
> are fuzzy, as to exactly where the line between legal and illegal
> is.
On the contrary, copyright law is quite clear in this regard; you may
make a recording for your own personal use, but you may not transfer
it. Nowhere does it say, "unless you want to."
> As I mentioned above,
the issue has very often been resolved in
> favor of the human vs. the organization, and in favor of the free
> flow of information and ideas. That's the way our Constitution was
> meant to be construed.
. . .And in this case, it's clearly on the side of the individual
person whose work you're stealing.
=========================================
Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer
http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg
=========================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
