I defend radical free speech and access to ideas more than I support somebody getting to control property. Priorities, I guess.
Last word for me, because I like horse pudding as little as the next guy.
If I understand you, Frank, based on what you've said:
You are arguing that it's a matter of free speech and access to ideas for you to be able to stream for your own purposes an album that Prince records and AS THE ARTIST WHO CREATED IT chooses not to release but which you, completely uninvolved in the process, feel has merit.
This is NO DIFFERENT than if Harlan writes a piece that he feels for whatever reason he should not publish; but you - Frank Church - believe you are entitled (if you should come across it somehow and think it is utter brain dynamite that EVERYONE should read) to disseminate it, without regard for the wishes of the man who created it.
If you presume it is more important or vital than its creator does, then you believe you should have the right to make it communal property and do with it as you wish. Is this a fair assessment of the ideology you're tossing about?
(I know I'm not going to get a yes/no, kids - I'm going to get three new qualifiers, or a little backpedal, or a minor caveat. I already knew this going in. I really just needed to flex my fingers after an afternoon of fence painting and before I start dinner prep - sausage and peppers, if you're in the neighborhood.)