>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.
I don't think it is any more unethical than The Washinton Post publishing
editorials without the permission of the people they write about. Artists
should be allowed the same creative freedoms as journalists. They should
be allowed to quote, recontextualize, etc. without the permission of Prince
or whoever. I think it is nonsense that someone should be allowed to put
information or art out in the public space and expect the public not to
respond. Sampling is a method of response (positive or negative) and
artists should be allowed to respond.
Philo
http://www.detritus.net/illegalart/
----------------------------------------------------
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.