legrec -> RE: Musicpad (Dec. 12 2006 11:56:21)
|
I understand your point and reasoning. And I agree with it. But only at 50%. Here's the "fine line" for me : Your primary teacher was the "guilty" man ! He made money with a material from a guy he didn't paid for that (and, at least, didn't ask for ?) and, very important argument for me : this particular guy "barely makes a living" with his work. You know, I'm a young university teacher, and we developp lots of online teaching tools on public founds (which are every year more limited in France). We discovered by chance that a private company was using our tools and supports in very expensive courses. For sure, without giving any money to my University and without having asked for a permission. It's not fair and it's not moral from my point of view. This is the concretization of the palabra : "Socialization of risks, privatization of profits". For me, the same process is going on with artistic (and scientific) things : very few people takes "all the profit" (fame and fortune) while most of the "actors" takes a lot of "financial" risks to go on their work (like most flamencos I know). This "ecological" situation (I mean from a global point of view) is rather important for me to perceive when I can share something without "paying" and when I cannot (and how to behave in the two cases). Speaking of artistic supports, for me it's rather clear : if the origin of the material is not from a "big" company, or an artist with international "fame and fortune", the moral responsabily lies in the hand of all the people who could be sharing this stuff with others. Each one have to decide if the hacking will really put the artist in a "bad situation", and could prevent him for going on his work, or if it'll be a "water drop in the ocean". Frankly, I'd love to live in a world with no money, no copyrights, etc. But it's not the case. But you see, my attitude in the end is not a 100% respectful behavior in front of copyrights problems. I'm not the "fully legit" type of guy. I have just to think (true story) about the fuc*** lawyers and company men who went one day in the Amazon jungle to impose paying a tax to some native folks because they were using a plant that had just been "copyrighted" by this company. It makes me want to hack and share all the big company material. In the case you have explained, I'm ok with it, and do not see a big crime from your teacher (unless he's relying 100% on the "borrowed" materials, for all his lessions, during a long long time). For the same reason, I sometimes share my affedis transcriptions, in a one-to-one share and with a small comment for my friend about this "responsability" issue. Flamenco (as every art and science) implies a sharing will and attitude, but, as my best friend Paracelsus have said long time ago "It's the dose that makes the poison". So my "fine line" is "sharing for sure, but not too much or too broadly without rewarding the artist/creator". And my first (but not alone) criteria to share is the "estimated financial status" of the artist/creator. It's not so objective (because I can't really know what's on Britney or Alain's banks accounts), but it's my criteria... Un saludo
|
|
|
|