Unethical? Absolutely. But Coulton's getting far more publicity, i.e., benefit, than he would have gotten had he been credited.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kevin M. Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 5:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Glee vs. Jonathan Coulton On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Melissa P <[email protected]> wrote: > So what? Maybe people like the Glee version better than the original. It isn't about likes or dislikes in this instance. It is about crediting an artist for his contribution. It is about the ethics of taking what doesn't belong to you, especially if you are a massive broadcasting corporation who has money to spend and doesn't need to steal from indie artists. This Forbes article sums it up nicely: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelecatalano/2013/01/27/jonathan-coulton-vs-g lee-its-about-the-ethics/ -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
