Mailtda's non-commercial use clause, was: Re: [matilda] crisisof consensus

[cuthbert at riseup.net]

joe, what is the difference between a band selling merchandise after their
gig (and charging people to get in and see them perform) and the proposed
art market?

In my opinion the difference is two fold on one level it is semantics
(alot of differences of opinion are based on language rather than
substance) and on a more practicle level at the proposed art market the
artist has offered at least 30% of any money made to go to matilda.

I would like to hear your opinion on this.

For the record i do think that being consistant is important, because if
we dont treat the bands the same as we treat the artists it is unfair and
hypocritical.  Further, i have been informed that musicians are just
artists of a different type, so by selling paintings it should be no
different from a band selling merchandise.

Lastly, i would like to point out that the purpose of an artist exhibiting
their work is partly so that they can eventually sell it.  To me it seems
odd that we have several rooms dedicated to this but when someone is open
and honest about selling their work they are told that they are
capitalists in the same league as mcdonalds etc...  With the artists that
are exhibiting at the moment they are national/international artists that
probably dont need this opportunity as much as steve.


cuthbert

P.S. joe, the bands have argued the poverty line and at a monday meeting
we agreed to their demands because of it.