Well, I think that this talk is going nowhere. I mean what is the use? These difference of opinions will remain the same. I only like this as a logic game.
So let me answer some of your new points. In his original post Mr. Lucather actually refers to the person who recorded the show as an idiot. That is a personal opinion obviously, that maybe it should never be made public, or maybe true, regarding the context (far fetched anyway). But it still is derogative and insulting. Such a remark, really made a bad impression on every fan that read it, since obviously the person who recorded it was a fan and did it only to share it with other fans. As I have stated, this attitude, no matter how legitimate or logical on the part of the artist, certainly defies every definition given for fans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_%28person%29This is pretty peculiar because Toto are famous and have a vast fanbase, which actually follow them through the years and consumed even the not so good work of the band. So Mr. Lucather, should join the dots and understand what a fan is and what a fan is bound to do. It is his right to deny the presence of any recorders and torrents of his music, but he is crossing a thin line on the front of fans when he makes such statements. Because yes, they are the same fans that buy his official released music.
Of course this is a matter of symantics. I mean that obviously, when you call names, someone you don't really know, you are probably pissed with a certain action or behaviour of the person. So when you say idiot or twat, you probably mean idiotic action, or twatty behaviour. Let me also say that some phrases do create very deep impressions and cast meanings, without using any "French". You translated the "twat" phrase as "preposterous and elitarian". Words that were not in the text whatsoever! But it is normal, I got the same impression as well. And it is probably the real meaning he was trying to convey!
Using the Internet the boundaries of private and public are blurred. This is a site, private and public at the same time. Every opinion written is public if you care to search and find it, but public in the sense that very few people actually come here knowingly and post their opinion. And even in this case, they interact with people that know them a bit better, or share a big part of interests or/and ideas, so their words are not misinterpreted. I mean that if you are a public figure, and scan the internet for opinions you will stumble upon such eventually. Do the authors have the right to express their opinion? YES. The use of words is the real issue here. But as I have stated, it is symantics. I wouldn't even bother to search for such opinions and even if I do, I certainly expect to see such things. Everything after that would be a childish behaviour.
Now, I may share the same feeling with you about Mick, but I wouldn't go as far as to express them in public, (now, have I expressed them or not?
) simply because I don't care and also because nobody else cares about my opinion! Even if I do I am still able to enjoy some of their records and have most of them. It is two different things! The only moral issue that I understand and recognise, is that by buying any records by such artists, I actually help them live a fancy life, and keep this behaviour. But we can't only reward the moral artists, can we? The western arts are full of sinners artists!
I have also written about the copyrights' issue and how art and intellectual property turns to rights and money. I will not go into that again, because if we want to differentiate, we should really wonder if the laws that affect and eventually shape our perception about things and the world are also just, logical and for the general interest. I see no reason for big companies to have the rights for 100 years! It is certainly illogical, unjust and surely against every sense of public interest. It is done only for the profit! And the same goes for other more important issues as pharmaceutical patents etc.
See, the problem is that even if I am allowed to express myself, I am in no position to influence anybody. The companies have the power to change the laws and our lives, without even saying so in public!
If we are dealing here with a moral issue and not a legal one, I believe that you should really take into account the "legacy after his death". Because what we call morals are actually very powerful unwritten laws, of a philosophical, metaphysical and social beliefs. And usually they were the pool from where the written laws were derived. But nowadays the written laws are dictated with other things in mind and from corporate pools.
Closing this issue, I will again say that your original point is valid and I understand it completely. But there are so many things on the other side (seemingly not related, but in reality very tight together) that actually counter balance it. Of course it is not up to me to deside!
