Josh Lawrence wrote:
On 8/15/06, Patrick Shirkey <pshirkey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Maybe in your world we all get respect as artists and everyone has the
time to contact a major label to get permission to use a 5 second sample
in a remix they are making for a demo or to share with a few friends.
This argument doesn't seem to make sense. So what you are saying is:
1)Because the original owner is not conveniently accessible to you,
the rules do not apply. Therefore, any rule/law that is inconvenient
does not apply.
In the context of music as art I would say yes.
2)Because the use is personal (shared among friends), rules do not apply.
Try to stop the unwashed masses from sharing songs illegally. A
pragmatic approach says it is currently impossible without draconian
measures in place to monitor all forms of digital data transfer. If you
want to help big brother out keep going down that road...
3)Those who do see the value in a shared standard of rules/laws are
from another world.
Beep, Wrong. If you live in a world where all artists get respect and
have time (or even resources) to get permission to use samples of
licensed work for every little remix they do then you must be in a
different world.
This is situational ethics. Changing the rules in the middle of the
game, no matter how much the rules suck, is morally wrong. If you
disagree with the rules, don't play the game, or work to change them.
Or did I misunderstand this line of thinking?
So, if I have no morals or don't subscribe to the same set of standards
that you do does it mean I am a lesser artist than someone who does?
Lesser person maybe but what has it got to do with art?
If I actively work against the rules does that constitute working
towards change?
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://lau.linuxaudio.org - The Linux Audio Users guide
========================================
"Anything your mind can see you can manifest physically, then it will
become reality" - Macka B
