Nancy says:
> The artist is not making anything off this, but seriosly there
> are people out
> there who are. Like I said, it is flattering when someone tapes a show.
> Passing around a couple copies to friends is no big deal. But
> there has to be a line drawn there somewhere.
Posts on the Internet that traffic indiscriminately in such recordings might
be a good place, eh?
>If they are real fans, how can they do this.
Good question. I've always wondered how someone who thinks that their
*want* outweighs any ethical (not to mention legal) consideration for the
artist in question can call themselves a fan.
BTW, this (which, it should be obvious, is *not* from Nancy):
> the difference is that there's a contractual, legal relationship between
> artist and company that either disallows, or allows, the company
> to release with or without consent of the artist. there is no such
agreement
> between the public and the artist.
is mighty lame. There isn't a contract between the artist and the public
because there's a LAW that says that an artist's material belongs to the
artist until s/he assigns the right to reproduce it to someone else in a
contract. According to this argument, a company would be free to release
material as long as it DIDN'T have a contract. The technical term for this
is "ass-backwards."
Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
