>We did this in the altruistic belief that our work was constructed
>from the previously 'finished' works of others, and so the least we
>could do is stay poor and seek only to cover our monetary outlay in
>making and maintaining our public presence.
do others hold this belief as well? that because a work samples it
should be given away free? is it somehow a lesser art that isn't
deserving of compensation and financial support?? artists who don't
sample can make a living from their music, but samplers shouldn't??
never mind the fact that most of us couldn't make a living from music
even if we really wanted to. i'm all for giving music away, but i
prefer other motives.
philo
http://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
----------------------------------------------------
"Art is a synthesis of everything that came before it. Garry Trudeau told me that in 1982, just before he asked me to stop making my characters look like his, goddammit." - Berkeley Breathed