On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, jonesalley wrote:
> Yes, absolutely, although I think it is unfortunate that things
> worked out that way.
>
> However, my point is that he nonetheless is making money off of the
> productivity and creativity of others and he personally contributed
> nothing to said creation. That's fine. That's business, and I don't
> confuse ethics with business. But, don't you agree that anyone in
> those circumstances should at least act with some humility and
> understand that they are lucky that things went so badly for somebody
> else so they can be in that position in the first place? It's just a
> simple matter of not having a sense of "nyaa, nyaa" going on behind
> the scenes.
what you think he SHOULD do is according to YOUR judgement/values.
[ i make no comment on the judgment/values of mr jackson ;o) ]
i do agree completely that one SHOULD have some reverence for
something like that, but nobody ever told me that life would
be "fair" or even "reasonable"...
[if somebody told you that, then they was fibbin'!]
reasonable is all i could ever expect from anyone,
but that's still a definition according to my terms.
...as far as making money off the creativity of others...
ever see a major label recording agreement?
i've seen dozens...
they are one-sided beyond belief, but they still get people to sign them.
> As I have stated here recently, I feel very fortunate that there as
> many people as there are with the skills necessary to keep these
> beasts alive and healthy, and to continue developing and improving
> the breed.
well said, and i do, of course, concur 100%!!
peace,
yer pal jeff