Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!GAFFA.MIT.EDU!Love-Hounds-request From: Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa Subject: Re: More Ethical Shit Hits the Fan Message-ID: <15312.8906261354@edai.ed.ac.uk> Date: 26 Jun 89 13:54:45 GMT References: <18255@mimsy.UUCP> Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU Reply-To: Love-Hounds@GAFFA.MIT.EDU Organization: University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh Lines: 29 Approved: love-hounds@eddie.mit.edu Really-From: Richard Caley In article <18255@mimsy.UUCP> you write: >>Really-From: Richard Caley >>Nope they are designed to ensure that people who make something retain >>control of it. Revenue has nothing to do with it. >Strike two. Says you! >The Constitution . .. >Congress . . . >Any questions? :-) I'll take your word for stupid American legalities, however, the argument was morality. And if the US constitution can't distinguish copyright from patent law then it has even more problems than I previously thorght. The US is a society built on the assumption of the right of private property. Now one could scrap that assumption, but as long as it remains ignoring intelectual property is as bad as ignoring physical property. Out LBW for a golden duck?