de=da=duh=D'OH/ bloooooze and thievery

[Carl Edlund Anderson]

At 19.21 -0400 99-10-07, DASLUD at AOL.COM wrote:
>In a message dated 10/7/99 5:10:05 PM, cea20 at CUS.CAM.AC.UK writes:
>>Whether or not Zeppelin deliberately evaded attribution is not really what
>>I'm thinking about--that's an issue of legal definition which isn't really
>>connected with the processes at work.

I think you are most concerned whether what Zeppelin did was (by our
society's current standards) legally and morally correct. I am not
concerned with that. I am noting the parallels between their taking
material from a song composed by another and recomposing it to some extent,
and the way traditional musicians (in various cultures) commonly work. Such
a process is currently in our society illegal and viewed as immoral unless
one give appropriate credit to the owner of the copyright (assuming there
is one). That's legal and moral issue, and is not connected with the
process of using pre-existing material itself. I'm interested only in
observation of the process, not in judging it by one set of standards or
another.

Cheers,
Carl

--
Carl Edlund Anderson
mailto:cea20 at cus.cam.ac.uk
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~carl/