In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
The ones I know certainly wouldn't mind. Then again they are
talented artists and not money grubbing oiks.

Would you expect the more normal organist to play for free too?

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.

--
*Keep honking...I'm reloading.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article ,
Baggy wrote:
Would you expect the more normal organist to play for free too?

Completely irrelevant to the topic.

The way a person derives his income isn't to some. I realise you think
that a composer has no rights to his work, but then that's commonplace
these days.

--
*Dance like nobody's watching.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article ,
Baggy wrote:
Would you expect the more normal organist to play for free too?

Completely irrelevant to the topic.

The way a person derives his income isn't to some. I realise you think
that a composer has no rights to his work, but then that's commonplace
these days.

--
*Dance like nobody's watching.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

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.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:08:10 +0100, Bernard Hill
wrote:

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.


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

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.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:08:10 +0100, Bernard Hill
wrote:

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.


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

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.

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.

Oh great, another petty arsehole.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:03:01 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Baggy wrote:
Would you expect the more normal organist to play for free too?

Completely irrelevant to the topic.

The way a person derives his income isn't to some. I realise you think
that a composer has no rights to his work, but then that's commonplace
these days.

Oh great, another petty arsehole.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:03:01 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Baggy wrote:
Would you expect the more normal organist to play for free too?

Completely irrelevant to the topic.

The way a person derives his income isn't to some. I realise you think
that a composer has no rights to his work, but then that's commonplace
these days.

"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?