Urgent request
 

"Bernard Hill" wrote in message
...
In article , Baggy
writes
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:18:44 +0100, Bernard Hill
wrote:

I'm with you John. What kind of an idiot would post such crap over a
funeral?

One who earns his sole livelihood by creating copyrighted products, and
who happens to be a member (and, indeed, treasurer) of a church which
takes the law and copyright responsibilities seriously.

In other words, a gr1 arsehole.

That I think is personal abuse. I am astonished that on a music
newsgroup some visitors are not aware of the importance of copyright
conformance.



Whoah! Whoah! Whoah! Enough already!

Lighten up Bernard - you're heading for total meltdown!

My original request (which I now regret since it has resulted in this
acrimony and especially since the tracks requested were, in fact, actually
supplied by my own son and a personal friend) mentioned that 'time was of
the essence'. If it makes you happier, a phone call this morning informs me
that neither my rips or the Amazon disk have turned up this morning and it
looks like they might miss the boat, as they are wanted Monday latest for
the funeral (of a *very* respectable Scottish woman) on Tuesday.

I already explained that a duplicate of an existing CD (but missing - due to
probably been loaned out) has already been purchased for only FOURTEEN QUID+
(not too bad for the sort of disk which can be had for 1.99 at any garage
hereabouts.....) so I don't see how anyone can be accused of trying to rip
the situation off in terms of paying one's dues to the MI as a whole. (Mel
Gibson and John Horner both phoned to express their regrets and said 'go
ahead'....... )

If the church and Funeral Director concerned haven't already taken the
necessary steps to 'legitimise' this sort of thing (given its apparent
prevalence) then it's bloody time they did!

The greedy MI as a whole needs to look to itself pretty smartish. To me the
whole concept of Royalties (especially in this day and age with the
profusion of recording devices and the ease of global distribution via the
'Net) is absolutely ludicrous and is the root of all the current problems.
(Study the Naxos concept for an example of a much better approach to the
sale and distribution of recorded music.)

(ukra and ukrav sunbscribers can a expect a rant about MI greed and its
effect on music generally in the very near future....)

As David Bowie said on the box - an organisation that is looking to sue its
own customers (see above references to Amazon in my case) is heading for
some sort of major disaster....



Bernard Hill
Braeburn Software
Author of Music Publisher system
Music Software written by musicians for musicians
http://www.braeburn.co.uk
Selkirk, Scotland


Really? You should know better then! - 'Music software'??? - You're a tiny
part of the whole bloody problem yourself, aren't you?

Urgent request
 

In article ,
Zipper wrote:
Oh great, another petty arsehole.

I'd be interested to know if it would still be petty if it were *your*
money. Somehow, I doubt it.

And, FWIW, I don't earn my living or any part of it by royalties.

--
*Time is fun when you're having flies... Kermit

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Urgent request
 

In article ,
Zipper wrote:
Oh great, another petty arsehole.

I'd be interested to know if it would still be petty if it were *your*
money. Somehow, I doubt it.

And, FWIW, I don't earn my living or any part of it by royalties.

--
*Time is fun when you're having flies... Kermit

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Urgent request
 

Zipper wrote:
Look you jerkoff, if it looks like an arsehole, and smells like an
arsehole, then it is an an arsehole. You look, smell, and act like an
arsehole. We were talking about funerals, nobody has to pay royalties
to play a tune at a funeral, and only a low-life piece of **** would
question that, or exopect them too.
Arsehole.

Wrong, you ignorant ****, funerals are not exempt from copyright law.

Urgent request
 

Zipper wrote:
Look you jerkoff, if it looks like an arsehole, and smells like an
arsehole, then it is an an arsehole. You look, smell, and act like an
arsehole. We were talking about funerals, nobody has to pay royalties
to play a tune at a funeral, and only a low-life piece of **** would
question that, or exopect them too.
Arsehole.

Wrong, you ignorant ****, funerals are not exempt from copyright law.

Urgent request
 

Baggy wrote:

The whole point is, nobodys playing for profit or making any money
over playing the tune, yet this jerk tells us we should be very
careful or we might get in trouble. Only a gr1 arsehole would post
something like that over a funeral. It's not enough someones loved one
is being laid to rest, but now the family is supposed to worry about
the cops showing up ands arresting them for playing a tune. What a sad
jerkoff he is...

You really are a **** aren't you? The OP was merely expressing a
reluctance to break copyright law by playing a commercial recording at a
funeral. Given that copyright law still applies and the church is unlikely
to hold a PRS licence, it seems a reasonable concern.

Urgent request
 

Baggy wrote:

The whole point is, nobodys playing for profit or making any money
over playing the tune, yet this jerk tells us we should be very
careful or we might get in trouble. Only a gr1 arsehole would post
something like that over a funeral. It's not enough someones loved one
is being laid to rest, but now the family is supposed to worry about
the cops showing up ands arresting them for playing a tune. What a sad
jerkoff he is...

You really are a **** aren't you? The OP was merely expressing a
reluctance to break copyright law by playing a commercial recording at a
funeral. Given that copyright law still applies and the church is unlikely
to hold a PRS licence, it seems a reasonable concern.

Urgent request
 

"Dave Plowman" wrote in

I'd be interested to know if it would still be petty if it
were *your*
money. Somehow, I doubt it.


In the words of the greatest usenet piper that ever lived,
"Shut the **** Up and just play!".

Urgent request
 

"Dave Plowman" wrote in

I'd be interested to know if it would still be petty if it
were *your*
money. Somehow, I doubt it.


In the words of the greatest usenet piper that ever lived,
"Shut the **** Up and just play!".

Urgent request
 

In article ,
Comp Piper wrote:
I'd be interested to know if it would still be petty if it were *your*
money. Somehow, I doubt it.


In the words of the greatest usenet piper that ever lived,
"Shut the **** Up and just play!".

A piper that plays with himself but virtually.

--
*42.7% of statistics are made up. Sorry, that should read 47.2% *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Urgent request
 

In article ,
Comp Piper wrote:
I'd be interested to know if it would still be petty if it were *your*
money. Somehow, I doubt it.


In the words of the greatest usenet piper that ever lived,
"Shut the **** Up and just play!".

A piper that plays with himself but virtually.

--
*42.7% of statistics are made up. Sorry, that should read 47.2% *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Urgent request
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:54:44 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Zipper wrote:
Oh great, another petty arsehole.

I'd be interested to know if it would still be petty if it were *your*
money. Somehow, I doubt it.

And, FWIW, I don't earn my living or any part of it by royalties.

Then you have no excuse for being a petty arsehole, now do you?

Urgent request
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:54:44 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Zipper wrote:
Oh great, another petty arsehole.

I'd be interested to know if it would still be petty if it were *your*
money. Somehow, I doubt it.

And, FWIW, I don't earn my living or any part of it by royalties.

Then you have no excuse for being a petty arsehole, now do you?

Urgent request
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:40:48 GMT, "Comp Piper"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman" wrote in

I'd be interested to know if it would still be petty if it
were *your*
money. Somehow, I doubt it.


In the words of the greatest usenet piper that ever lived,
"Shut the **** Up and just play!".

I don't recall saying that, but if you remember it I'll take your word
that I said it.

Urgent request
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:40:48 GMT, "Comp Piper"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman" wrote in

I'd be interested to know if it would still be petty if it
were *your*
money. Somehow, I doubt it.


In the words of the greatest usenet piper that ever lived,
"Shut the **** Up and just play!".

I don't recall saying that, but if you remember it I'll take your word
that I said it.

Urgent request
 

I Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:37:37 +0100, "Stimpy"
wrote:

Zipper wrote:
Look you jerkoff, if it looks like an arsehole, and smells like an
arsehole, then it is an an arsehole. You look, smell, and act like an
arsehole. We were talking about funerals, nobody has to pay royalties
to play a tune at a funeral, and only a low-life piece of **** would
question that, or exopect them too.
Arsehole.

Wrong, you ignorant ****, funerals are not exempt from copyright law.


I didn't say they were you flaming dingleberry! Only that a PETTY
ARESHOLE would consider harassing the family to get their 5 cent
royalty check.

Urgent request
 

I Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:37:37 +0100, "Stimpy"
wrote:

Zipper wrote:
Look you jerkoff, if it looks like an arsehole, and smells like an
arsehole, then it is an an arsehole. You look, smell, and act like an
arsehole. We were talking about funerals, nobody has to pay royalties
to play a tune at a funeral, and only a low-life piece of **** would
question that, or exopect them too.
Arsehole.

Wrong, you ignorant ****, funerals are not exempt from copyright law.


I didn't say they were you flaming dingleberry! Only that a PETTY
ARESHOLE would consider harassing the family to get their 5 cent
royalty check.

Urgent request
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:39:01 +0100, "Stimpy"
wrote:

Baggy wrote:

The whole point is, nobodys playing for profit or making any money
over playing the tune, yet this jerk tells us we should be very
careful or we might get in trouble. Only a gr1 arsehole would post
something like that over a funeral. It's not enough someones loved one
is being laid to rest, but now the family is supposed to worry about
the cops showing up ands arresting them for playing a tune. What a sad
jerkoff he is...

You really are a **** aren't you? The OP was merely expressing a
reluctance to break copyright law by playing a commercial recording at a
funeral. Given that copyright law still applies and the church is unlikely
to hold a PRS licence, it seems a reasonable concern.

Petty arsehole.

Urgent request
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:39:01 +0100, "Stimpy"
wrote:

Baggy wrote:

The whole point is, nobodys playing for profit or making any money
over playing the tune, yet this jerk tells us we should be very
careful or we might get in trouble. Only a gr1 arsehole would post
something like that over a funeral. It's not enough someones loved one
is being laid to rest, but now the family is supposed to worry about
the cops showing up ands arresting them for playing a tune. What a sad
jerkoff he is...

You really are a **** aren't you? The OP was merely expressing a
reluctance to break copyright law by playing a commercial recording at a
funeral. Given that copyright law still applies and the church is unlikely
to hold a PRS licence, it seems a reasonable concern.

Petty arsehole.

Urgent request
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:01:07 +0100
Dave Plowman wrote:

I dont think anyone was suggesting that artists be asked to
*perform* for free, It was merely said that most would not object to
their work being played (legally or otherwise) at a funeral.

I can't really see the difference between a funeral and anything else.
If the deceased was poor and those paying for the funeral also, then
maybe. But otherwise things have to be paid for in life or death.

Strictly yes.

But what happened to pride and honour?

I'd be *thrilled* if someone saw fit to play a composition of mine at a
friend / loved ones funeral. Money would not come into it.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

Urgent request
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:01:07 +0100
Dave Plowman wrote:

I dont think anyone was suggesting that artists be asked to
*perform* for free, It was merely said that most would not object to
their work being played (legally or otherwise) at a funeral.

I can't really see the difference between a funeral and anything else.
If the deceased was poor and those paying for the funeral also, then
maybe. But otherwise things have to be paid for in life or death.

Strictly yes.

But what happened to pride and honour?

I'd be *thrilled* if someone saw fit to play a composition of mine at a
friend / loved ones funeral. Money would not come into it.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

Urgent request
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:10:30 +0100
Bernard Hill wrote:

Profanity aside, I think that any decent musician would be HAPPY that
you played their work at a funeral, and wouldnt try to rob the
bereaved
blind either.


We are literally talking pennies per playing here. And in fact the
cost of the licence is borne by the church so the bereaved are not
even aware of any cost.

arguably.

But is it robbery when I am paid for my services in playing the organ
at a funeral in my church? Is the undertaker's fee "robbery"?

Undertakers earn their living from funerals, most musicians earn it
elsewhere, and can almost certainly afford to turn a blind eye.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

Urgent request
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:10:30 +0100
Bernard Hill wrote:

Profanity aside, I think that any decent musician would be HAPPY that
you played their work at a funeral, and wouldnt try to rob the
bereaved
blind either.


We are literally talking pennies per playing here. And in fact the
cost of the licence is borne by the church so the bereaved are not
even aware of any cost.

arguably.

But is it robbery when I am paid for my services in playing the organ
at a funeral in my church? Is the undertaker's fee "robbery"?

Undertakers earn their living from funerals, most musicians earn it
elsewhere, and can almost certainly afford to turn a blind eye.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

Urgent request
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 13:19:10 GMT
Zipper wrote:

We are literally talking pennies per playing here.

EXACTLY! It just illustrates what a petty arsehole you are.

You do realise you are weakening 'our' side of the argument with your
attitude?

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

Urgent request
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 13:19:10 GMT
Zipper wrote:

We are literally talking pennies per playing here.

EXACTLY! It just illustrates what a petty arsehole you are.

You do realise you are weakening 'our' side of the argument with your
attitude?

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

Urgent request
 

Zipper wrote:
I Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:37:37 +0100, "Stimpy"
wrote:

Zipper wrote:
Look you jerkoff, if it looks like an arsehole, and smells like an
arsehole, then it is an an arsehole. You look, smell, and act like
an arsehole. We were talking about funerals, nobody has to pay
royalties to play a tune at a funeral, and only a low-life piece of
**** would question that, or exopect them too.
Arsehole.

Wrong, you ignorant ****, funerals are not exempt from copyright law.


I didn't say they were you flaming dingleberry! Only that a PETTY
ARESHOLE would consider harassing the family to get their 5 cent
royalty check.

If the church were a member of PRS the money would be collected and
distributed by them. No-one would hassle the family for a royalty cheque

Urgent request
 

Zipper wrote:
I Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:37:37 +0100, "Stimpy"
wrote:

Zipper wrote:
Look you jerkoff, if it looks like an arsehole, and smells like an
arsehole, then it is an an arsehole. You look, smell, and act like
an arsehole. We were talking about funerals, nobody has to pay
royalties to play a tune at a funeral, and only a low-life piece of
**** would question that, or exopect them too.
Arsehole.

Wrong, you ignorant ****, funerals are not exempt from copyright law.


I didn't say they were you flaming dingleberry! Only that a PETTY
ARESHOLE would consider harassing the family to get their 5 cent
royalty check.

If the church were a member of PRS the money would be collected and
distributed by them. No-one would hassle the family for a royalty cheque

Urgent request
 

"Zipper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:39:01 +0100, "Stimpy"
wrote:

Baggy wrote:

The whole point is, nobodys playing for profit or making any money
over playing the tune, yet this jerk tells us we should be very
careful or we might get in trouble. Only a gr1 arsehole would post
something like that over a funeral. It's not enough someones loved one
is being laid to rest, but now the family is supposed to worry about
the cops showing up ands arresting them for playing a tune. What a sad
jerkoff he is...

You really are a **** aren't you? The OP was merely expressing a
reluctance to break copyright law by playing a commercial recording at a
funeral. Given that copyright law still applies and the church is
unlikely
to hold a PRS licence, it seems a reasonable concern.

Petty arsehole.

Hehehehe this thread is cracking me up. In one corner - the pious fine
citizen of society strictly adhering to the letter of the law; on the other
side - a dude who stands up for the "ordinary guy's" point of view, not so
worked-up over such matters. It's a wonderful tussle. Gotta love Usenet! :)

Urgent request
 

"Zipper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:39:01 +0100, "Stimpy"
wrote:

Baggy wrote:

The whole point is, nobodys playing for profit or making any money
over playing the tune, yet this jerk tells us we should be very
careful or we might get in trouble. Only a gr1 arsehole would post
something like that over a funeral. It's not enough someones loved one
is being laid to rest, but now the family is supposed to worry about
the cops showing up ands arresting them for playing a tune. What a sad
jerkoff he is...

You really are a **** aren't you? The OP was merely expressing a
reluctance to break copyright law by playing a commercial recording at a
funeral. Given that copyright law still applies and the church is
unlikely
to hold a PRS licence, it seems a reasonable concern.

Petty arsehole.

Hehehehe this thread is cracking me up. In one corner - the pious fine
citizen of society strictly adhering to the letter of the law; on the other
side - a dude who stands up for the "ordinary guy's" point of view, not so
worked-up over such matters. It's a wonderful tussle. Gotta love Usenet! :)

Urgent request
 

"Lebowski" wrote in

Hehehehe this thread is cracking me up. In one corner -
the pious fine
citizen of society strictly adhering to the letter of the
law; on the other
side - a dude who stands up for the "ordinary guy's" point
of view, not so
worked-up over such matters. It's a wonderful tussle.
Gotta love Usenet! :)

Your right, it is a pretty humorous thread!

Can't get excited or worked up over a few pennies of
copyright royalties!

On usenet, you survive by your wits only, nothing else
matters! ;-)

Urgent request
 

"Lebowski" wrote in

Hehehehe this thread is cracking me up. In one corner -
the pious fine
citizen of society strictly adhering to the letter of the
law; on the other
side - a dude who stands up for the "ordinary guy's" point
of view, not so
worked-up over such matters. It's a wonderful tussle.
Gotta love Usenet! :)

Your right, it is a pretty humorous thread!

Can't get excited or worked up over a few pennies of
copyright royalties!

On usenet, you survive by your wits only, nothing else
matters! ;-)

Urgent request
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 23:27:04 +0100, "Stimpy"
wrote:

Zipper wrote:
If the church were a member of PRS the money would be collected and
distributed by them. No-one would hassle the family for a royalty cheque


And if not? What would you do about it? N-O-T-H-I-N-G! You're just
spouting BS to line your pockets.

Urgent request
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 23:27:04 +0100, "Stimpy"
wrote:

Zipper wrote:
If the church were a member of PRS the money would be collected and
distributed by them. No-one would hassle the family for a royalty cheque


And if not? What would you do about it? N-O-T-H-I-N-G! You're just
spouting BS to line your pockets.

Urgent request
 

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:06:33 +1300, "Lebowski"
wrote:


"Zipper" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:39:01 +0100, "Stimpy"
wrote:

Baggy wrote:

The whole point is, nobodys playing for profit or making any money
over playing the tune, yet this jerk tells us we should be very
careful or we might get in trouble. Only a gr1 arsehole would post
something like that over a funeral. It's not enough someones loved one
is being laid to rest, but now the family is supposed to worry about
the cops showing up ands arresting them for playing a tune. What a sad
jerkoff he is...

You really are a **** aren't you? The OP was merely expressing a
reluctance to break copyright law by playing a commercial recording at a
funeral. Given that copyright law still applies and the church is
unlikely
to hold a PRS licence, it seems a reasonable concern.

Petty arsehole.

Hehehehe this thread is cracking me up. In one corner - the pious fine
citizen of society strictly adhering to the letter of the law; on the other
side - a dude who stands up for the "ordinary guy's" point of view, not so
worked-up over such matters. It's a wonderful tussle. Gotta love Usenet! :)

Watch it, you're coming periliously close to being called a petty
arsehole too!!!! G

Urgent request
 

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:06:33 +1300, "Lebowski"
wrote:


"Zipper" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:39:01 +0100, "Stimpy"
wrote:

Baggy wrote:

The whole point is, nobodys playing for profit or making any money
over playing the tune, yet this jerk tells us we should be very
careful or we might get in trouble. Only a gr1 arsehole would post
something like that over a funeral. It's not enough someones loved one
is being laid to rest, but now the family is supposed to worry about
the cops showing up ands arresting them for playing a tune. What a sad
jerkoff he is...

You really are a **** aren't you? The OP was merely expressing a
reluctance to break copyright law by playing a commercial recording at a
funeral. Given that copyright law still applies and the church is
unlikely
to hold a PRS licence, it seems a reasonable concern.

Petty arsehole.

Hehehehe this thread is cracking me up. In one corner - the pious fine
citizen of society strictly adhering to the letter of the law; on the other
side - a dude who stands up for the "ordinary guy's" point of view, not so
worked-up over such matters. It's a wonderful tussle. Gotta love Usenet! :)

Watch it, you're coming periliously close to being called a petty
arsehole too!!!! G

Urgent request
 

In article , Zipper
writes
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:10:30 +0100, Bernard Hill
wrote:

We are literally talking pennies per playing here.

EXACTLY! It just illustrates what a petty arsehole you are.



I consider, sir, that you are being abusive. It is possibly because of
the cross-posting going on here. On the forum I am visiting
(uk.music.misc) we tend to be polite.

The point is not what the cost is, but what the right thing to do is.



Bernard Hill
Braeburn Software
Author of Music Publisher system
Music Software written by musicians for musicians
http://www.braeburn.co.uk
Selkirk, Scotland

Urgent request
 

In article , Zipper
writes
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:10:30 +0100, Bernard Hill
wrote:

We are literally talking pennies per playing here.

EXACTLY! It just illustrates what a petty arsehole you are.



I consider, sir, that you are being abusive. It is possibly because of
the cross-posting going on here. On the forum I am visiting
(uk.music.misc) we tend to be polite.

The point is not what the cost is, but what the right thing to do is.



Bernard Hill
Braeburn Software
Author of Music Publisher system
Music Software written by musicians for musicians
http://www.braeburn.co.uk
Selkirk, Scotland

Urgent request
 

In article , Baggy
writes
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 01:38:36 +0100, Ian Molton wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 00:35:02 GMT
Baggy wrote:

In other words, a gr1 arsehole.

Profanity aside, I think that any decent musician would be HAPPY that
you played their work at a funeral, and wouldnt try to rob the bereaved
blind either.

The whole point is, nobodys playing for profit or making any money
over playing the tune, yet this jerk tells us we should be very
careful or we might get in trouble.

Actually I said nothing about getting into trouble. I was pointing out
the right thing to do.

Only a gr1 arsehole would post
something like that over a funeral. It's not enough someones loved one
is being laid to rest, but now the family is supposed to worry about
the cops showing up ands arresting them for playing a tune. What a sad
jerkoff he is...

Sir, you are being abusive. Please desist.

I suspect I attend and am involved in more funerals than you, since I
play the organ for them all in my church, so have considerable sympathy
for the bereaved. My comments were in fact aimed at the church, whose
responsibility it is to attend to these copyright matters.

I really don't remember any mention of "cops" or "arrest". In fact
copyright breach is a civil offence and not a criminal one.


Bernard Hill
Braeburn Software
Author of Music Publisher system
Music Software written by musicians for musicians
http://www.braeburn.co.uk
Selkirk, Scotland

Urgent request
 

In article , Baggy
writes
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 01:38:36 +0100, Ian Molton wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 00:35:02 GMT
Baggy wrote:

In other words, a gr1 arsehole.

Profanity aside, I think that any decent musician would be HAPPY that
you played their work at a funeral, and wouldnt try to rob the bereaved
blind either.

The whole point is, nobodys playing for profit or making any money
over playing the tune, yet this jerk tells us we should be very
careful or we might get in trouble.

Actually I said nothing about getting into trouble. I was pointing out
the right thing to do.

Only a gr1 arsehole would post
something like that over a funeral. It's not enough someones loved one
is being laid to rest, but now the family is supposed to worry about
the cops showing up ands arresting them for playing a tune. What a sad
jerkoff he is...

Sir, you are being abusive. Please desist.

I suspect I attend and am involved in more funerals than you, since I
play the organ for them all in my church, so have considerable sympathy
for the bereaved. My comments were in fact aimed at the church, whose
responsibility it is to attend to these copyright matters.

I really don't remember any mention of "cops" or "arrest". In fact
copyright breach is a civil offence and not a criminal one.


Bernard Hill
Braeburn Software
Author of Music Publisher system
Music Software written by musicians for musicians
http://www.braeburn.co.uk
Selkirk, Scotland

Urgent request
 

In article ,
Comp Piper writes

"Lebowski" wrote in

Hehehehe this thread is cracking me up. In one corner -
the pious fine
citizen of society strictly adhering to the letter of the
law; on the other
side - a dude who stands up for the "ordinary guy's" point
of view, not so
worked-up over such matters. It's a wonderful tussle.
Gotta love Usenet! :)

Your right, it is a pretty humorous thread!

Can't get excited or worked up over a few pennies of
copyright royalties!

On usenet, you survive by your wits only, nothing else
matters! ;-)

On uk.music.misc we are used to politeness and helpfulness.


Bernard Hill
Braeburn Software
Author of Music Publisher system
Music Software written by musicians for musicians
http://www.braeburn.co.uk
Selkirk, Scotland