So if enough intermediary agents exist between the consumer and the artist, then it's okay? The consumer is no longer complicit?
Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...hor-from-his-or-her-work/page11#ixzz39ihNwSrL
this part from Mallus got me thinking. use of the word "complicit" has got me thinking that this train of logic convicts me for somebody else's actions.
Am I complicit in supporting OSC's current politics because I read Ender's Game in the 90's?
Am I complicit because I wanted the movie last month on On Demand?
Am I guilty of a crime because I watched a Roman Polanski movie?
Am I guilty of a crime because I live in the US and am most likely on land formerly owned by natives?
While I would not recommend going to a new land and screwing the natives over to take their land, I am a beneficiary of that very tactic long before my time. If what they did was wrong, they should have been punished for it.
While I abhor what Roman did, isn't it the legal system's job to punish him, not mine?
I hate walmart, but the least skanky one in Houston is 2 miles from my house, and when everything else is closed, I can get an HDMI cable there. Am I "complicit" because I buy from them now and then, despite the fact that I usually avoid shopping there?
I don't think that's right to put on the average consumer in almost any shape or fashion. But there's probably reasonable exceptions.