At 12:17 PM -0500 24/3/99, Jon Weisberger wrote:
>>From the clipped bit, it reads like he's looking for non-released
>>material, and wants to trade. As an artist, what's your take on
>>that?
>
>If a record label released material without the consent of the artist,
>wouldn't it be obvious that something rotten was going on? If so, what's
>the difference here? The financial principle is an important one, but it's
>not the only one; the principle of an artist's control over what material
>gets into the marketplace is another one, and there's a pretty obvious
>violation of it here.
>
But even that principle of artistic control isn't cut and dried,
I think. I guess the much used counter-example (so much so
that it's become something of a cliche) is the case of Kafka.
Is it unethical to read "The Trial" because Kafka's death-bed
wish to his publisher Max Brod was to destroy the manuscript?
And then there's the question of what is meant by "the marketplace".
If someone is simply trading tapes/CDs of Todd Snider performances,
with no cash changing hands, are those tapes/CDs in a marketplace
at all? I think it is important to reiterate here that the bulk
(perhaps even the entirety) of the pro-tape trading crowd on
this list do *not* make a single dime on any of their transactions.
The notion of sleazy bootleggers getting rich on the intellectual
property of uncompensated artists is a bit of a straw dog as it
pertains to the discussion here.
Ross Whitwam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Molecular Pharmacology & Therapeutics Program
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NYC
