>He admits that they KNEW UR wouldnt grant them a license to the
>recording, which is what they really wanted to do (just re-release the
>original recording and make even more money that way), so they did the
>weasely next best thing, they re-recorded it. It's most definitely not a
>"tribute". sheesh.
The fact that he knew they would say "no" basically shows me that he did a
little research into the band prior to deciding what to put on the
compilation. And deciding that the track was worth having on the
compilation, versus getting some other generic track (and you know there
are a million to choose from out there) shows that they did respect UR's
track in at least some fashion. If they just wanted a quick cheap comp,
why not just grab a bunch of generic house tracks (which is what labels
like Hypnotic/Cleopatra have made a living out of). I think their choosing
the UR track, and going through the trouble of re-recording it, at least
shows they had some respect for the track.
>I'm sorry, I don't have a dictionary handy right now, but i've always
>thought "unethical" is basically equivalent to "wrong".
>please explain the difference to me, i'm really curious.
Not "wrong" in the sense that covering someone shouldn't be against the rules.
"unethical" perhaps in that they knew the artist wished to not be on the
compilation, but tried to force them on anyway.
Just like it isn't "wrong" for ECC to cover/sample "1999", but it is
perhaps "unethical" given Prince's choices.
>2. I've never advocated the freedom to copy something wholesale and make a
>bunch of money selling the copies.
So, basically doing a cover song is against your rules, eh? Suppose that
is your right to think so, but I've always seen doing a "cover" song on the
same level of "sampling".
>3. again, even if you think you're
>talking about the same rights, Sony doesnt DESERVE the same rights that
>humans do, because Sony is not a person.
Bah. Now you are getting silly. Sony is a company representing the
interests of several people. Those people DO have the same rights as me
and you. They also have the same responsibilities.
If you want to fight to make them uphold those same responsibilities, then
I'll support you.
But this fight to deny them the same rights that we have is silly dumb
backwards.
>->The argument that respecting a underground artists rights, while
>->disregarding those of the major label artist, just seems kind of silly. I
>->just don't understand how anyone on rumori can defend UR without feeling a
>->bit hypocritical. Umm, yeah.
>
>If you think everyone has the same intent, that it's all about money for
>everyone, then you're right. but that's not true.
?? How does intention change whether one can sample or not?
BTW--When reading UR's statements, I'm a bit confused. Are they upset
because they don't wish their track heard via a major, or because of the
money factor? The first would be a valid argument, but as for the
latter...do you really think that someone who would buy the vinyl would
decide not to because it is available on the compilation? Don't
compilations normally spur sales of releases by an artist? I really don't
think UR and SOny have competing markets....
JJTar.
---
Peace Hugs and Unity Jason J. Tar
W. W. J. D?
(What would Jason Do?)
http://www.msu.edu/user/tarjason
ICQAT13792120
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori list archives & other information are at
http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
----------------------------------------------------
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.