Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Sue you, sue me blues

Peavy and Behringer are at it:

http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group

http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer


  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Sean Conolly Sean Conolly is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 638
Default Sue you, sue me blues

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Peavy and Behringer are at it:

http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group

http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer


Eh, just another day in the life of a large corporation. Thanks to the way
the way the US Patent office will allow patents on broad technical concepts,
it's pretty hard to develop anything without infringing on someone's
patents. As a result, patent suits are more of a poker game with two sides
presenting their vioalted patents on the other guy, and the result is
usually an award for the guy holding the most patents and a cross licensing
agreement.

Some years back I worked for a company that had purchased a patent for (wait
for it ) - selecting mutiple items on a website and paying for them
electronically (aka the ubiquitous 'shopping cart'). The patent was granted
to cover anything which allowed a terminal on the customer end to purchase
more multiple items through a terminal on the vendor end, if it was
completed with an electronic payment of any kind.

When I left the company they were busily pursuing lawsuits against pretty
much every e-retail company on the planet.

Sean


  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default Sue you, sue me blues

On 5/4/2011 9:04 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
Peavy and Behringer are at it:


So Behringer is suing Peavey, and Peavey is suing Behringer?
Or was one of those articles reversed?

It wasn't too long ago that Behringer was sued by somebody
regarding selling gear that was improperly tested for EMI.
What's new?


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] 0junk4me@bellsouth.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,027
Default Sue you, sue me blues


Mike Rivers writes:
It wasn't too long ago that Behringer was sued by somebody
regarding selling gear that was improperly tested for EMI.
What's new?

That somebody was the FCC iirc.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com


  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Sue you, sue me blues

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message


On 5/4/2011 9:04 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
Peavy and Behringer are at it:


So Behringer is suing Peavey, and Peavey is suing
Behringer?


So it seems.

It wasn't too long ago that Behringer was sued by somebody
regarding selling gear that was improperly tested for EMI.


And this time Behringer tries to blow the whistle on Peavy for a similar
thing.

What's new?


Exactly




  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default Sue you, sue me blues

Sean Conolly wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Peavy and Behringer are at it:

http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group

http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer


Eh, just another day in the life of a large corporation. Thanks to
the way the way the US Patent office will allow patents on broad
technical concepts, it's pretty hard to develop anything without
infringing on someone's patents. As a result, patent suits are more
of a poker game with two sides presenting their vioalted patents on
the other guy, and the result is usually an award for the guy holding
the most patents and a cross licensing agreement.

Some years back I worked for a company that had purchased a patent
for (wait for it ) - selecting mutiple items on a website and paying
for them electronically (aka the ubiquitous 'shopping cart'). The
patent was granted to cover anything which allowed a terminal on the
customer end to purchase more multiple items through a terminal on
the vendor end, if it was completed with an electronic payment of any
kind.
When I left the company they were busily pursuing lawsuits against
pretty much every e-retail company on the planet.

Sean


That's like suing Safeway for providing their customers with a shopping cart
and suggesting to them that they browse the store and put whatever they want
into the cart for future checkout.... Ridiculous!

  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Sue you, sue me blues

"Bill Graham" wrote in message

Sean Conolly wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Peavy and Behringer are at it:

http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group

http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer


Eh, just another day in the life of a large corporation.
Thanks to the way the way the US Patent office will
allow patents on broad technical concepts, it's pretty
hard to develop anything without infringing on someone's
patents. As a result, patent suits are more of a poker
game with two sides presenting their vioalted patents on
the other guy, and the result is usually an award for
the guy holding the most patents and a cross licensing
agreement. Some years back I worked for a company that had
purchased a patent for (wait for it ) - selecting
mutiple items on a website and paying for them
electronically (aka the ubiquitous 'shopping cart'). The
patent was granted to cover anything which allowed a
terminal on the customer end to purchase more multiple
items through a terminal on the vendor end, if it was
completed with an electronic payment of any kind. When I left the company
they were busily pursuing
lawsuits against pretty much every e-retail company on
the planet. Sean


That's like suing Safeway for providing their customers
with a shopping cart and suggesting to them that they
browse the store and put whatever they want into the cart
for future checkout.... Ridiculous!


Providing a recepticle of some sort for customers to use to collect their
purchases before paying is an idea, which is neither patentable nor
copyrghtable.

A particular implementation of that concept may be both patentable and/or
copyrightable.

Every time the context changes (as in brick and mortar store to web store)
the same basic idea may need to be re-implemented and the new implementation
might again be patentable.


  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default Sue you, sue me blues

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message

Sean Conolly wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Peavy and Behringer are at it:

http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group

http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer

Eh, just another day in the life of a large corporation.
Thanks to the way the way the US Patent office will
allow patents on broad technical concepts, it's pretty
hard to develop anything without infringing on someone's
patents. As a result, patent suits are more of a poker
game with two sides presenting their vioalted patents on
the other guy, and the result is usually an award for
the guy holding the most patents and a cross licensing
agreement. Some years back I worked for a company that had
purchased a patent for (wait for it ) - selecting
mutiple items on a website and paying for them
electronically (aka the ubiquitous 'shopping cart'). The
patent was granted to cover anything which allowed a
terminal on the customer end to purchase more multiple
items through a terminal on the vendor end, if it was
completed with an electronic payment of any kind. When I left the
company they were busily pursuing
lawsuits against pretty much every e-retail company on
the planet. Sean


That's like suing Safeway for providing their customers
with a shopping cart and suggesting to them that they
browse the store and put whatever they want into the cart
for future checkout.... Ridiculous!


Providing a recepticle of some sort for customers to use to collect
their purchases before paying is an idea, which is neither patentable
nor copyrghtable.

A particular implementation of that concept may be both patentable
and/or copyrightable.

Every time the context changes (as in brick and mortar store to web
store) the same basic idea may need to be re-implemented and the new
implementation might again be patentable.


But your, "basket" on a web page purchase is a virtual one. Can that be
patented? It is actually just a part of your order, and the word basket is
just a convenient way to refer to it. Patenting it is like patenting the
english language. If you patent the words "buy, checkout add, order,
quantity, send and carrier, you will be guranteeing that nobody can buy
anything on the web without paying you a comission.

  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Frank is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default Sue you, sue me blues

On Fri, 6 May 2011 15:04:45 -0700, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article Sue you, sue me blues,
"Bill Graham" wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message

Sean Conolly wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Peavy and Behringer are at it:

http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group

http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer

Eh, just another day in the life of a large corporation.
Thanks to the way the way the US Patent office will
allow patents on broad technical concepts, it's pretty
hard to develop anything without infringing on someone's
patents. As a result, patent suits are more of a poker
game with two sides presenting their vioalted patents on
the other guy, and the result is usually an award for
the guy holding the most patents and a cross licensing
agreement. Some years back I worked for a company that had
purchased a patent for (wait for it ) - selecting
mutiple items on a website and paying for them
electronically (aka the ubiquitous 'shopping cart'). The
patent was granted to cover anything which allowed a
terminal on the customer end to purchase more multiple
items through a terminal on the vendor end, if it was
completed with an electronic payment of any kind. When I left the
company they were busily pursuing
lawsuits against pretty much every e-retail company on
the planet. Sean

That's like suing Safeway for providing their customers
with a shopping cart and suggesting to them that they
browse the store and put whatever they want into the cart
for future checkout.... Ridiculous!


Providing a recepticle of some sort for customers to use to collect
their purchases before paying is an idea, which is neither patentable
nor copyrghtable.

A particular implementation of that concept may be both patentable
and/or copyrightable.

Every time the context changes (as in brick and mortar store to web
store) the same basic idea may need to be re-implemented and the new
implementation might again be patentable.


But your, "basket" on a web page purchase is a virtual one. Can that be
patented? It is actually just a part of your order, and the word basket is
just a convenient way to refer to it. Patenting it is like patenting the
english language. If you patent the words "buy, checkout add, order,
quantity, send and carrier, you will be guranteeing that nobody can buy
anything on the web without paying you a comission.


But let's not forget Amazon's (in)famous 1-Click patent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click

--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
[also covers AVCHD (including AVCCAM & NXCAM) and XDCAM EX].
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default Sue you, sue me blues

Frank wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2011 15:04:45 -0700, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article Sue you, sue me blues,
"Bill Graham" wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message

Sean Conolly wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Peavy and Behringer are at it:

http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group

http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer

Eh, just another day in the life of a large corporation.
Thanks to the way the way the US Patent office will
allow patents on broad technical concepts, it's pretty
hard to develop anything without infringing on someone's
patents. As a result, patent suits are more of a poker
game with two sides presenting their vioalted patents on
the other guy, and the result is usually an award for
the guy holding the most patents and a cross licensing
agreement. Some years back I worked for a company that had
purchased a patent for (wait for it ) - selecting
mutiple items on a website and paying for them
electronically (aka the ubiquitous 'shopping cart'). The
patent was granted to cover anything which allowed a
terminal on the customer end to purchase more multiple
items through a terminal on the vendor end, if it was
completed with an electronic payment of any kind. When I left the
company they were busily pursuing
lawsuits against pretty much every e-retail company on
the planet. Sean

That's like suing Safeway for providing their customers
with a shopping cart and suggesting to them that they
browse the store and put whatever they want into the cart
for future checkout.... Ridiculous!

Providing a recepticle of some sort for customers to use to collect
their purchases before paying is an idea, which is neither
patentable nor copyrghtable.

A particular implementation of that concept may be both patentable
and/or copyrightable.

Every time the context changes (as in brick and mortar store to web
store) the same basic idea may need to be re-implemented and the new
implementation might again be patentable.


But your, "basket" on a web page purchase is a virtual one. Can that
be patented? It is actually just a part of your order, and the word
basket is just a convenient way to refer to it. Patenting it is like
patenting the english language. If you patent the words "buy,
checkout add, order, quantity, send and carrier, you will be
guranteeing that nobody can buy anything on the web without paying
you a comission.


But let's not forget Amazon's (in)famous 1-Click patent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click


It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one click would
be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business they would get from folks
like me who don't mind paying a few bucks more to escape the hasstle of
doing all the peperwork should be reward enough without getting a patent on
the system, but, what do I know?



  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ben Bradley[_2_] Ben Bradley[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 81
Default Sue you, sue me blues

On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Frank wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2011 15:04:45 -0700, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article Sue you, sue me blues,
"Bill Graham" wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message

Sean Conolly wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Peavy and Behringer are at it:

http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group

http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer

Eh, just another day in the life of a large corporation.
Thanks to the way the way the US Patent office will
allow patents on broad technical concepts, it's pretty
hard to develop anything without infringing on someone's
patents. As a result, patent suits are more of a poker
game with two sides presenting their vioalted patents on
the other guy, and the result is usually an award for
the guy holding the most patents and a cross licensing
agreement.


I saw that about 15 years ago when I was involved in getting a
couple of patents as an employee of a large company. The more patents
a company has, the greater chance of finding another company
infringing on one when the other company sues the first company for
infringement, then they can sign a cross-license agreement and
everyone's happy. Apparently the most embarrassing thing that could
happen is a company having to pay a license fee to a competitor.

Some years back I worked for a company that had
purchased a patent for (wait for it ) - selecting
mutiple items on a website and paying for them
electronically (aka the ubiquitous 'shopping cart'). The
patent was granted to cover anything which allowed a
terminal on the customer end to purchase more multiple
items through a terminal on the vendor end, if it was
completed with an electronic payment of any kind. When I left the
company they were busily pursuing
lawsuits against pretty much every e-retail company on
the planet. Sean

That's like suing Safeway for providing their customers
with a shopping cart and suggesting to them that they
browse the store and put whatever they want into the cart
for future checkout.... Ridiculous!

Providing a recepticle of some sort for customers to use to collect
their purchases before paying is an idea, which is neither
patentable nor copyrghtable.


It may be patented under a "business method" or whatever it's
called, but those are recent (in the last 20 years or so) and somewhat
controversial patents.


A particular implementation of that concept may be both patentable
and/or copyrightable.

Every time the context changes (as in brick and mortar store to web
store) the same basic idea may need to be re-implemented and the new
implementation might again be patentable.

But your, "basket" on a web page purchase is a virtual one. Can that
be patented? It is actually just a part of your order, and the word
basket is just a convenient way to refer to it. Patenting it is like
patenting the english language. If you patent the words "buy,
checkout add, order, quantity, send and carrier, you will be
guranteeing that nobody can buy anything on the web without paying
you a comission.


Yeah, that looks like a patent a company would love to have, and
spend lots of attorney money if they though they had a reasonable
chance of getting and enforcing it.

A lot of "unreasonable" patents have been passed. Look up broccoli
patent to find one - it took a bunch of broccoli-growing companies
pooling their money together to challenge the one patent one company
had which covered the basics of how to grows broccoli.

I read a lot about the need to clean up the US Patent Office (it
was a year or two between applying for a patent and it being granted,
and a huge number of patents like the broccoli thing were granted) in
recent decades, but I don't know if anything became of that.


But let's not forget Amazon's (in)famous 1-Click patent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click


It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one click would
be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business they would get from folks
like me who don't mind paying a few bucks more to escape the hasstle of
doing all the peperwork should be reward enough without getting a patent on
the system, but, what do I know?


The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same thing
(or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every time a
competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring that those who
like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon.

  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default Sue you, sue me blues

Ben Bradley wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Frank wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2011 15:04:45 -0700, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article Sue you, sue me blues,
"Bill Graham" wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message

Sean Conolly wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Peavy and Behringer are at it:

http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group

http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer

Eh, just another day in the life of a large corporation.
Thanks to the way the way the US Patent office will
allow patents on broad technical concepts, it's pretty
hard to develop anything without infringing on someone's
patents. As a result, patent suits are more of a poker
game with two sides presenting their vioalted patents on
the other guy, and the result is usually an award for
the guy holding the most patents and a cross licensing
agreement.


I saw that about 15 years ago when I was involved in getting a
couple of patents as an employee of a large company. The more patents
a company has, the greater chance of finding another company
infringing on one when the other company sues the first company for
infringement, then they can sign a cross-license agreement and
everyone's happy. Apparently the most embarrassing thing that could
happen is a company having to pay a license fee to a competitor.

Some years back I worked for a company that had
purchased a patent for (wait for it ) - selecting
mutiple items on a website and paying for them
electronically (aka the ubiquitous 'shopping cart'). The
patent was granted to cover anything which allowed a
terminal on the customer end to purchase more multiple
items through a terminal on the vendor end, if it was
completed with an electronic payment of any kind. When I left
the company they were busily pursuing
lawsuits against pretty much every e-retail company on
the planet. Sean

That's like suing Safeway for providing their customers
with a shopping cart and suggesting to them that they
browse the store and put whatever they want into the cart
for future checkout.... Ridiculous!

Providing a recepticle of some sort for customers to use to
collect their purchases before paying is an idea, which is neither
patentable nor copyrghtable.


It may be patented under a "business method" or whatever it's
called, but those are recent (in the last 20 years or so) and somewhat
controversial patents.


A particular implementation of that concept may be both patentable
and/or copyrightable.

Every time the context changes (as in brick and mortar store to
web store) the same basic idea may need to be re-implemented and
the new implementation might again be patentable.

But your, "basket" on a web page purchase is a virtual one. Can
that be patented? It is actually just a part of your order, and
the word basket is just a convenient way to refer to it. Patenting
it is like patenting the english language. If you patent the words
"buy, checkout add, order, quantity, send and carrier, you will be
guranteeing that nobody can buy anything on the web without paying
you a comission.


Yeah, that looks like a patent a company would love to have, and
spend lots of attorney money if they though they had a reasonable
chance of getting and enforcing it.

A lot of "unreasonable" patents have been passed. Look up broccoli
patent to find one - it took a bunch of broccoli-growing companies
pooling their money together to challenge the one patent one company
had which covered the basics of how to grows broccoli.

I read a lot about the need to clean up the US Patent Office (it
was a year or two between applying for a patent and it being granted,
and a huge number of patents like the broccoli thing were granted) in
recent decades, but I don't know if anything became of that.


But let's not forget Amazon's (in)famous 1-Click patent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click


It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one click
would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business they would
get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few bucks more to
escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork should be reward
enough without getting a patent on the system, but, what do I know?


The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same thing
(or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every time a
competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring that those who
like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon.


Sounds like something that might be judged, "In restraint of trade" to me.
Not to change the subject, but I'd sure like to free up some of the music
written before 1950. After all, its over 60 years ole by now, and the
original composers are mostly dead and gone, so who is profiting from
selling this stuff? Someone who'se only claim to fame is they have a faster
lawyer. I used to go down to our local pizza place once a month and listen
to a 5 piece dixieland band while I ate my pizza. Then BMI sued the pizza
place and now the guys can't play there without the owner paying BMI $1000
every year for songs that were written before Louis Armstrong was born.

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default Sue you, sue me blues

Bill Graham wrote:
Ben Bradley wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Frank wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2011 15:04:45 -0700, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article Sue you, sue me blues,
"Bill Graham" wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message

Sean Conolly wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Peavy and Behringer are at it:

http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group

http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer

Eh, just another day in the life of a large corporation.
Thanks to the way the way the US Patent office will
allow patents on broad technical concepts, it's pretty
hard to develop anything without infringing on someone's
patents. As a result, patent suits are more of a poker
game with two sides presenting their vioalted patents on
the other guy, and the result is usually an award for
the guy holding the most patents and a cross licensing
agreement.


I saw that about 15 years ago when I was involved in getting a
couple of patents as an employee of a large company. The more patents
a company has, the greater chance of finding another company
infringing on one when the other company sues the first company for
infringement, then they can sign a cross-license agreement and
everyone's happy. Apparently the most embarrassing thing that could
happen is a company having to pay a license fee to a competitor.

Some years back I worked for a company that had
purchased a patent for (wait for it ) - selecting
mutiple items on a website and paying for them
electronically (aka the ubiquitous 'shopping cart'). The
patent was granted to cover anything which allowed a
terminal on the customer end to purchase more multiple
items through a terminal on the vendor end, if it was
completed with an electronic payment of any kind. When I left
the company they were busily pursuing
lawsuits against pretty much every e-retail company on
the planet. Sean

That's like suing Safeway for providing their customers
with a shopping cart and suggesting to them that they
browse the store and put whatever they want into the cart
for future checkout.... Ridiculous!

Providing a recepticle of some sort for customers to use to
collect their purchases before paying is an idea, which is
neither patentable nor copyrghtable.


It may be patented under a "business method" or whatever it's
called, but those are recent (in the last 20 years or so) and
somewhat controversial patents.


A particular implementation of that concept may be both
patentable and/or copyrightable.

Every time the context changes (as in brick and mortar store to
web store) the same basic idea may need to be re-implemented and
the new implementation might again be patentable.

But your, "basket" on a web page purchase is a virtual one. Can
that be patented? It is actually just a part of your order, and
the word basket is just a convenient way to refer to it. Patenting
it is like patenting the english language. If you patent the words
"buy, checkout add, order, quantity, send and carrier, you will be
guranteeing that nobody can buy anything on the web without paying
you a comission.


Yeah, that looks like a patent a company would love to have, and
spend lots of attorney money if they though they had a reasonable
chance of getting and enforcing it.

A lot of "unreasonable" patents have been passed. Look up broccoli
patent to find one - it took a bunch of broccoli-growing companies
pooling their money together to challenge the one patent one company
had which covered the basics of how to grows broccoli.

I read a lot about the need to clean up the US Patent Office (it
was a year or two between applying for a patent and it being granted,
and a huge number of patents like the broccoli thing were granted) in
recent decades, but I don't know if anything became of that.


But let's not forget Amazon's (in)famous 1-Click patent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click

It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one click
would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business they would
get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few bucks more to
escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork should be reward
enough without getting a patent on the system, but, what do I know?


The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same thing
(or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every time a
competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring that those
who like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon.


Sounds like something that might be judged, "In restraint of trade"
to me. Not to change the subject, but I'd sure like to free up some
of the music written before 1950. After all, its over 60 years ole by
now, and the original composers are mostly dead and gone, so who is
profiting from selling this stuff? Someone who'se only claim to fame
is they have a faster lawyer. I used to go down to our local pizza
place once a month and listen to a 5 piece dixieland band while I ate
my pizza. Then BMI sued the pizza place and now the guys can't play
there without the owner paying BMI $1000 every year for songs that
were written before Louis Armstrong was born.


Sorry. Armstrong was born in 1901. So the songs were written before he was
30. But that's still bad enough when you consider that the songwriters were
about as old as Louis was, if not older.....

  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ben Bradley[_2_] Ben Bradley[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 81
Default Sue you, sue me blues

On Mon, 9 May 2011 17:43:36 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:
Ben Bradley wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


....


It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one click
would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business they would
get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few bucks more to
escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork should be reward
enough without getting a patent on the system, but, what do I know?

The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same thing
(or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every time a
competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring that those
who like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon.


Sounds like something that might be judged, "In restraint of trade"
to me.


Ordinarily, perhaos so, but it's my understanding that's what a
patent is, a LEGAL way for a company to restrain what other companies
do. If it's considered overbroad, other companies can go to court to
challenge the patent.

Not to change the subject, but I'd sure like to free up some
of the music written before 1950. After all, its over 60 years ole by
now, and the original composers are mostly dead and gone, so who is
profiting from selling this stuff? Someone who'se only claim to fame
is they have a faster lawyer. I used to go down to our local pizza
place once a month and listen to a 5 piece dixieland band while I ate
my pizza. Then BMI sued the pizza place and now the guys can't play
there without the owner paying BMI $1000 every year for songs that
were written before Louis Armstrong was born.


Sorry. Armstrong was born in 1901. So the songs were written before he was
30. But that's still bad enough when you consider that the songwriters were
about as old as Louis was, if not older.....


So these are songs in the 1925-1930 era? Apparently this is within
the "Mickey Mouse" era (where copyright was extended back to the
creation of that character), and that's enough for a performing rights
organization to demand performance royalties.


  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default Sue you, sue me blues

Ben Bradley wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2011 17:43:36 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:
Ben Bradley wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


...


It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one click
would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business they would
get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few bucks more to
escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork should be reward
enough without getting a patent on the system, but, what do I know?

The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same thing
(or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every time a
competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring that those
who like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon.

Sounds like something that might be judged, "In restraint of trade"
to me.


Ordinarily, perhaos so, but it's my understanding that's what a
patent is, a LEGAL way for a company to restrain what other companies
do. If it's considered overbroad, other companies can go to court to
challenge the patent.

Not to change the subject, but I'd sure like to free up some
of the music written before 1950. After all, its over 60 years ole by
now, and the original composers are mostly dead and gone, so who is
profiting from selling this stuff? Someone who'se only claim to fame
is they have a faster lawyer. I used to go down to our local pizza
place once a month and listen to a 5 piece dixieland band while I ate
my pizza. Then BMI sued the pizza place and now the guys can't play
there without the owner paying BMI $1000 every year for songs that
were written before Louis Armstrong was born.


Sorry. Armstrong was born in 1901. So the songs were written before he was
30. But that's still bad enough when you consider that the songwriters were
about as old as Louis was, if not older.....


So these are songs in the 1925-1930 era? Apparently this is within
the "Mickey Mouse" era (where copyright was extended back to the
creation of that character), and that's enough for a performing rights
organization to demand performance royalties.


Real life is just irritating sometimes.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default Sue you, sue me blues

Ben Bradley wrote:
On Mon, 9 May 2011 17:43:36 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:
Ben Bradley wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


...


It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one
click would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business they
would get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few bucks
more to escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork should be
reward enough without getting a patent on the system, but, what
do I know?

The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same
thing (or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every time
a competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring that
those who like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon.

Sounds like something that might be judged, "In restraint of trade"
to me.


Ordinarily, perhaos so, but it's my understanding that's what a
patent is, a LEGAL way for a company to restrain what other companies
do. If it's considered overbroad, other companies can go to court to
challenge the patent.

Not to change the subject, but I'd sure like to free up some
of the music written before 1950. After all, its over 60 years ole
by now, and the original composers are mostly dead and gone, so who
is profiting from selling this stuff? Someone who'se only claim to
fame is they have a faster lawyer. I used to go down to our local
pizza place once a month and listen to a 5 piece dixieland band
while I ate my pizza. Then BMI sued the pizza place and now the
guys can't play there without the owner paying BMI $1000 every year
for songs that were written before Louis Armstrong was born.


Sorry. Armstrong was born in 1901. So the songs were written before
he was
30. But that's still bad enough when you consider that the
songwriters were about as old as Louis was, if not older.....


So these are songs in the 1925-1930 era? Apparently this is within
the "Mickey Mouse" era (where copyright was extended back to the
creation of that character), and that's enough for a performing rights
organization to demand performance royalties.


I know. They bought the rights of every popular song written after 1927. And
so all that music can't be leagally performed in coffee houses, bars and
pizza joints and the like anywhere in the US. (and perhaps anywhere in the
world) This is a crock! The original composers of these songs are long dead
and gone. why should Walt Disney and BMI get any money from them?

A much more reasonable way to do it would be to make any composition the
sole property of the composer for some reasonable period, like say 60
yeaqrs. So he/she could reap the profits for essentially the rest of their
life. After that, the music should revert to the public domain. Th3e idea
that some third party can buy it and keep the public from enjoying it for
the rest of time is disgusting to me.

  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Sue you, sue me blues

Bill Graham wrote:
Ben Bradley wrote:
On Mon, 9 May 2011 17:43:36 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:
Ben Bradley wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


...


It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one
click would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business they
would get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few bucks
more to escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork should be
reward enough without getting a patent on the system, but, what
do I know?

The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same
thing (or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every time
a competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring that
those who like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon.

Sounds like something that might be judged, "In restraint of trade"
to me.


Ordinarily, perhaos so, but it's my understanding that's what a
patent is, a LEGAL way for a company to restrain what other companies
do. If it's considered overbroad, other companies can go to court to
challenge the patent.

Not to change the subject, but I'd sure like to free up some
of the music written before 1950. After all, its over 60 years ole
by now, and the original composers are mostly dead and gone, so who
is profiting from selling this stuff? Someone who'se only claim to
fame is they have a faster lawyer. I used to go down to our local
pizza place once a month and listen to a 5 piece dixieland band
while I ate my pizza. Then BMI sued the pizza place and now the
guys can't play there without the owner paying BMI $1000 every year
for songs that were written before Louis Armstrong was born.

Sorry. Armstrong was born in 1901. So the songs were written before
he was
30. But that's still bad enough when you consider that the
songwriters were about as old as Louis was, if not older.....


So these are songs in the 1925-1930 era? Apparently this is within
the "Mickey Mouse" era (where copyright was extended back to the
creation of that character), and that's enough for a performing rights
organization to demand performance royalties.


I know. They bought the rights of every popular song written after 1927.
And so all that music can't be leagally performed in coffee houses, bars
and pizza joints and the like anywhere in the US. (and perhaps anywhere
in the world) This is a crock! The original composers of these songs are
long dead and gone. why should Walt Disney and BMI get any money from them?


He who has the gold makes the rules.

A much more reasonable way to do it would be to make any composition the
sole property of the composer for some reasonable period, like say 60
yeaqrs. So he/she could reap the profits for essentially the rest of
their life. After that, the music should revert to the public domain.
Th3e idea that some third party can buy it and keep the public from
enjoying it for the rest of time is disgusting to me.


--
Les Cargill
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default Sue you, sue me blues

Les Cargill wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Ben Bradley wrote:
On Mon, 9 May 2011 17:43:36 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:
Ben Bradley wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

...


It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one
click would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business
they would get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few
bucks more to escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork
should be reward enough without getting a patent on the system,
but, what do I know?

The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same
thing (or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every
time a competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring
that those who like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon.

Sounds like something that might be judged, "In restraint of
trade" to me.

Ordinarily, perhaos so, but it's my understanding that's what a
patent is, a LEGAL way for a company to restrain what other
companies do. If it's considered overbroad, other companies can go
to court to challenge the patent.

Not to change the subject, but I'd sure like to free up some
of the music written before 1950. After all, its over 60 years ole
by now, and the original composers are mostly dead and gone, so
who is profiting from selling this stuff? Someone who'se only
claim to fame is they have a faster lawyer. I used to go down to
our local pizza place once a month and listen to a 5 piece
dixieland band while I ate my pizza. Then BMI sued the pizza
place and now the guys can't play there without the owner paying
BMI $1000 every year for songs that were written before Louis
Armstrong was born.

Sorry. Armstrong was born in 1901. So the songs were written before
he was
30. But that's still bad enough when you consider that the
songwriters were about as old as Louis was, if not older.....

So these are songs in the 1925-1930 era? Apparently this is within
the "Mickey Mouse" era (where copyright was extended back to the
creation of that character), and that's enough for a performing
rights organization to demand performance royalties.


I know. They bought the rights of every popular song written after
1927. And so all that music can't be leagally performed in coffee
houses, bars and pizza joints and the like anywhere in the US. (and
perhaps anywhere in the world) This is a crock! The original composers of
these songs
are long dead and gone. why should Walt Disney and BMI get any money
from them?


He who has the gold makes the rules.

A much more reasonable way to do it would be to make any composition
the sole property of the composer for some reasonable period, like
say 60 yeaqrs. So he/she could reap the profits for essentially the
rest of their life. After that, the music should revert to the public
domain.
Th3e idea that some third party can buy it and keep the public from
enjoying it for the rest of time is disgusting to me.


If you paint a painting, and then make prints of that painting and sell the
prints, I can buy one of your prints. then I can hang that pring in my bar,
so my patrons can look at it. You don't have the right to come into my bar
and say, "you are selling more drinks because of my painting, so you have to
pay me more money because you are hanging it on the wall in your commercial
business".

But you can write a song, and sell me a CD with your song on it. And then,
at some later time, BMI can come into my bar and sue me for playing that
song for my customers, even though I have had the CD (or record) of the song
for many years. Why is this? Why is the song different from the painting?
Why should some third party have the right to dictate when and where I play
my recording any more than they should have the right to say where I hang my
painting? This is a logical error in the law. The copyright laws should be
changed.

  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
vdubreeze vdubreeze is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default Sue you, sue me blues

On May 15, 3:37*am, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Ben Bradley wrote:
On Mon, 9 May 2011 17:43:36 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


Bill Graham wrote:
Ben Bradley wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


...


It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one
click would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business
they would get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few
bucks more to escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork
should be reward enough without getting a patent on the system,
but, what do I know?


The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same
thing (or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every
time a competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring
that those who like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon.


Sounds like something that might be judged, "In restraint of
trade" to me.


Ordinarily, perhaos so, but it's my understanding that's what a
patent is, a LEGAL way for a company to restrain what other
companies do. If it's considered overbroad, other companies can go
to court to challenge the patent.


Not to change the subject, but I'd sure like to free up some
of the music written before 1950. After all, its over 60 years ole
by now, and the original composers are mostly dead and gone, so
who is profiting from selling this stuff? Someone who'se only
claim to fame is they have a faster lawyer. I used to go down to
our local pizza place once a month and listen to a 5 piece
dixieland band while I ate my pizza. Then BMI sued the pizza
place and now the guys can't play there without the owner paying
BMI $1000 every year for songs that were written before Louis
Armstrong was born.


Sorry. Armstrong was born in 1901. So the songs were written before
he was
30. But that's still bad enough when you consider that the
songwriters were about as old as Louis was, if not older.....


So these are songs in the 1925-1930 era? Apparently this is within
the "Mickey Mouse" era (where copyright was extended back to the
creation of that character), and that's enough for a performing
rights organization to demand performance royalties.


I know. They bought the rights of every popular song written after
1927. And so all that music can't be leagally performed in coffee
houses, bars and pizza joints and the like anywhere in the US. (and
perhaps anywhere in the world) This is a crock! The original composers of
these songs
are long dead and gone. why should Walt Disney and BMI get any money
from them?


He who has the gold makes the rules.


A much more reasonable way to do it would be to make any composition
the sole property of the composer for some reasonable period, like
say 60 yeaqrs. So he/she could reap the profits for essentially the
rest of their life. After that, the music should revert to the public
domain.
Th3e idea that some third party can buy it and keep the public from
enjoying it for the rest of time is disgusting to me.


If you paint a painting, and then make prints of that painting and sell the
prints, I can buy one of your prints. then I can hang that pring in my bar,
so my patrons can look at it. You don't have the right to come into my bar
and say, "you are selling more drinks because of my painting, so you have to
pay me more money because you are hanging it on the wall in your commercial
business".

But you can write a song, and sell me a CD with your song on it. And then,
at some later time, BMI can come into my bar and sue me for playing that
song for my customers, even though I have had the CD (or record) of the song
for many years. Why is this? Why is the song different from the painting?
Why should some third party have the right to dictate when and where I play
my recording any more than they should have the right to say where I hang my
painting? This is a logical error in the law. The copyright laws should be
changed.




The law is there to collect monies for published songs played in
commercial establishments, not to punish the artist playing. BMI is
just saying that if you are using that music to enhance the experience
in your establishment you should pay a nominal fee for it. Paying
$15 buys you the license to play the music for your own enjoyment, it
doesn't give the buyer the right to use it in any other way, as stated
on the label. It was so for LPs and cassettes as well. This is why
even department stores have to pay for the Muzak piped in because they
do it to make shopping more enjoyable and sell more wares. It's a
good law. It's not to line BMI/ASCAP's pockets, it's part of what
the songwriters/publishers get back for writing commercial music that
can't be classified as sales.

It's different from paintings because paintings are sold with the
express notion that you can hang them wherever you want for whatever
purpose you want. Commercially released music has never been sold
with this agreement, that you can use the $15 thing you bought to keep
customers from getting bored and stop buying drinks spending money,
and this is has always been clearly expressed on the LP/CD.

It's not a perfect system, but the establishment paying for the right
to use the music isn't the problem.

  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default Sue you, sue me blues

vdubreeze wrote:
On May 15, 3:37 am, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Ben Bradley wrote:
On Mon, 9 May 2011 17:43:36 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


Bill Graham wrote:
Ben Bradley wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


...


It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one
click would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business
they would get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few
bucks more to escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork
should be reward enough without getting a patent on the
system, but, what do I know?


The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same
thing (or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every
time a competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring
that those who like shopping that way can only do it with
Amazon.


Sounds like something that might be judged, "In restraint of
trade" to me.


Ordinarily, perhaos so, but it's my understanding that's what a
patent is, a LEGAL way for a company to restrain what other
companies do. If it's considered overbroad, other companies can go
to court to challenge the patent.


Not to change the subject, but I'd sure like to free up some
of the music written before 1950. After all, its over 60 years
ole by now, and the original composers are mostly dead and
gone, so who is profiting from selling this stuff? Someone
who'se only claim to fame is they have a faster lawyer. I used
to go down to our local pizza place once a month and listen to
a 5 piece dixieland band while I ate my pizza. Then BMI sued
the pizza place and now the guys can't play there without the
owner paying BMI $1000 every year for songs that were written
before Louis Armstrong was born.


Sorry. Armstrong was born in 1901. So the songs were written
before he was
30. But that's still bad enough when you consider that the
songwriters were about as old as Louis was, if not older.....


So these are songs in the 1925-1930 era? Apparently this is within
the "Mickey Mouse" era (where copyright was extended back to the
creation of that character), and that's enough for a performing
rights organization to demand performance royalties.


I know. They bought the rights of every popular song written after
1927. And so all that music can't be leagally performed in coffee
houses, bars and pizza joints and the like anywhere in the US. (and
perhaps anywhere in the world) This is a crock! The original
composers of these songs
are long dead and gone. why should Walt Disney and BMI get any
money from them?


He who has the gold makes the rules.


A much more reasonable way to do it would be to make any
composition
the sole property of the composer for some reasonable period, like
say 60 yeaqrs. So he/she could reap the profits for essentially the
rest of their life. After that, the music should revert to the
public domain.
Th3e idea that some third party can buy it and keep the public from
enjoying it for the rest of time is disgusting to me.


If you paint a painting, and then make prints of that painting and
sell the prints, I can buy one of your prints. then I can hang that
pring in my bar, so my patrons can look at it. You don't have the
right to come into my bar and say, "you are selling more drinks
because of my painting, so you have to pay me more money because you
are hanging it on the wall in your commercial business".

But you can write a song, and sell me a CD with your song on it. And
then, at some later time, BMI can come into my bar and sue me for
playing that song for my customers, even though I have had the CD
(or record) of the song for many years. Why is this? Why is the song
different from the painting? Why should some third party have the
right to dictate when and where I play my recording any more than
they should have the right to say where I hang my painting? This is
a logical error in the law. The copyright laws should be changed.




The law is there to collect monies for published songs played in
commercial establishments, not to punish the artist playing. BMI is
just saying that if you are using that music to enhance the experience
in your establishment you should pay a nominal fee for it. Paying
$15 buys you the license to play the music for your own enjoyment, it
doesn't give the buyer the right to use it in any other way, as stated
on the label. It was so for LPs and cassettes as well. This is why
even department stores have to pay for the Muzak piped in because they
do it to make shopping more enjoyable and sell more wares. It's a
good law. It's not to line BMI/ASCAP's pockets, it's part of what
the songwriters/publishers get back for writing commercial music that
can't be classified as sales.

It's different from paintings because paintings are sold with the
express notion that you can hang them wherever you want for whatever
purpose you want. Commercially released music has never been sold
with this agreement, that you can use the $15 thing you bought to keep
customers from getting bored and stop buying drinks spending money,
and this is has always been clearly expressed on the LP/CD.

It's not a perfect system, but the establishment paying for the right
to use the music isn't the problem.I


t was the problem for my friend Blake, whose dixieland band can no longer
play their Monday Night gig at the local Pizza house. BMI didn't want any
$5. they wanted $1000 a year from the pizza house's owner, and he couldn't
afford to pay that. So, Blakes group hit the road. How much of that $1000
would get into the hands of anyone who ever wrote a dixieland song? I'll
answer you that.....ZERO! Thats how much.



  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Sue you, sue me blues

Bill Graham wrote:

t was the problem for my friend Blake, whose dixieland band can no longer
play their Monday Night gig at the local Pizza house. BMI didn't want any
$5. they wanted $1000 a year from the pizza house's owner, and he couldn't
afford to pay that. So, Blakes group hit the road. How much of that $1000
would get into the hands of anyone who ever wrote a dixieland song? I'll
answer you that.....ZERO! Thats how much.


Maybe Blake should have talked to the BMI rep and explained the situation. All
of these things are negotiated and nobody pays the first fee they are offered.
Especially when most of the music (though not all) is PD. Another alternative
is for Blake to decide to play only PD music and arrangements (or his own
arrangements), which is a fairly easy thing to do for Dixieland.

BMI is there to make sure everybody plays fairly and everybody gets paid for
their work, they are not some evil organization out to "get" musicians.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default Sue you, sue me blues

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

t was the problem for my friend Blake, whose dixieland band can no
longer play their Monday Night gig at the local Pizza house. BMI
didn't want any $5. they wanted $1000 a year from the pizza house's
owner, and he couldn't afford to pay that. So, Blakes group hit the
road. How much of that $1000 would get into the hands of anyone who
ever wrote a dixieland song? I'll answer you that.....ZERO! Thats
how much.


Maybe Blake should have talked to the BMI rep and explained the
situation. All of these things are negotiated and nobody pays the
first fee they are offered. Especially when most of the music (though
not all) is PD. Another alternative is for Blake to decide to play
only PD music and arrangements (or his own arrangements), which is a
fairly easy thing to do for Dixieland.

BMI is there to make sure everybody plays fairly and everybody gets
paid for their work, they are not some evil organization out to "get"
musicians. --scott


BMI is there to make sure BMI gets paid. Period. No composer of anything
written before around 1950 is still alive. This music should be in the
Public Domain. Fifty years is a pretty good number. Anything written more
than 50 years ago should be in the public domain. That gives any songwriter
50 years to sell and reap the profits from his work. That would sure be long
enough for me. 1927 was 84 years ago......

  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
vdubreeze vdubreeze is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default Sue you, sue me blues

On May 18, 12:03*am, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:



Maybe Blake should have talked to the BMI rep and explained the
situation. *All of these things are negotiated and nobody pays the
first fee they are offered. Especially when most of the music (though
not all) is PD. *Another alternative is for Blake to decide to play
only PD music and arrangements (or his own arrangements), which is a
fairly easy thing to do for Dixieland.


BMI is there to make sure everybody plays fairly and everybody gets
paid for their work, they are not some evil organization out to "get"
musicians. --scott


BMI is there to make sure BMI gets paid. Period. No composer of anything
written before around 1950 is still alive. This music should be in the
Public Domain. Fifty years is a pretty good number. Anything written more
than 50 years ago should be in the public domain. That gives any songwriter
50 years to sell and reap the profits from his work. That would sure be long
enough for me. 1927 was 84 years ago......



This is getting far afield of the original post, but I would
definitely not want the music I wrote in 1970 to become public domain
in 2020. Yeesh.
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default Sue you, sue me blues

vdubreeze wrote:
On May 18, 12:03 am, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:



Maybe Blake should have talked to the BMI rep and explained the
situation. All of these things are negotiated and nobody pays the
first fee they are offered. Especially when most of the music
(though not all) is PD. Another alternative is for Blake to decide
to play only PD music and arrangements (or his own arrangements),
which is a fairly easy thing to do for Dixieland.


BMI is there to make sure everybody plays fairly and everybody gets
paid for their work, they are not some evil organization out to
"get" musicians. --scott


BMI is there to make sure BMI gets paid. Period. No composer of
anything written before around 1950 is still alive. This music
should be in the Public Domain. Fifty years is a pretty good number.
Anything written more than 50 years ago should be in the public
domain. That gives any songwriter 50 years to sell and reap the
profits from his work. That would sure be long enough for me. 1927
was 84 years ago......



This is getting far afield of the original post, but I would
definitely not want the music I wrote in 1970 to become public domain
in 2020. Yeesh.


So you'd prefer 60 years? Or 70?. but, in fact, even 84 isn't enough for
BMI. They will keep the copyrights to that music forever, as near as I can
figure out. This is the music written in the 30's, 40's and 50's... The
music of my generation. Maybe that doesn't mean anything to you, but to me
and my friends, it means a lot. We can't perform our own music. The music we
were raised with and learned to love, anywhere without the BMI police
cutting us off at the pass. This is a crock....

  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default Sue you, sue me blues

vdubreeze wrote:

On May 18, 12:03 am, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:



Maybe Blake should have talked to the BMI rep and explained the
situation. All of these things are negotiated and nobody pays the
first fee they are offered. Especially when most of the music (though
not all) is PD. Another alternative is for Blake to decide to play
only PD music and arrangements (or his own arrangements), which is a
fairly easy thing to do for Dixieland.


BMI is there to make sure everybody plays fairly and everybody gets
paid for their work, they are not some evil organization out to "get"
musicians. --scott


BMI is there to make sure BMI gets paid. Period. No composer of anything
written before around 1950 is still alive. This music should be in the
Public Domain. Fifty years is a pretty good number. Anything written more
than 50 years ago should be in the public domain. That gives any songwriter
50 years to sell and reap the profits from his work. That would sure be long
enough for me. 1927 was 84 years ago......



This is getting far afield of the original post, but I would
definitely not want the music I wrote in 1970 to become public domain
in 2020. Yeesh.


Mr. Graham rants about this stuff because he doesn't write songs. I sure
hope he isn't collecting any retirement money. After all, he's not
working anymore.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default Sue you, sue me blues

On 5/18/2011 12:13 AM, vdubreeze wrote:

This is getting far afield of the original post, but I would
definitely not want the music I wrote in 1970 to become public domain
in 2020. Yeesh.


Still waiting to strike it rich, eh?

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
vdubreeze vdubreeze is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default Sue you, sue me blues

On May 18, 12:34*am, "Bill Graham" wrote:


So you'd prefer 60 years? Or 70?. but, in fact, even 84 isn't enough for
BMI. They will keep the copyrights to that music forever, as near as I can
figure out. This is the music written in the 30's, 40's and 50's... The
music of my generation. Maybe that doesn't mean anything to you, but to me
and my friends, it means a lot. We can't perform our own music. The music we
were raised with and learned to love, anywhere without the BMI police
cutting us off at the pass. This is a crock....



??? Methinks you don't have any idea of what BMI is.
  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
vdubreeze vdubreeze is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default Sue you, sue me blues

On May 18, 8:04*am, Mike Rivers wrote:


Still waiting to strike it rich, eh?



I hope you're just making a playing poke at the general scene today,
Mike. : )

Otherwise I will wait 50 years and publish all of your fine "Useful
Audio Stuff" since it should be in the public domain then. You have
no reason to need it, right? : )


  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default Sue you, sue me blues

ll I know is what I need to know. They bought off our congressmen in the
past to make laws in restraint of trade, and my friends and I are suffering
for it. What else should I know besides that? But if you think that's OK,
(to give them money for playing music whose rightful owners are long dead
and gone) then please tell me why. You know, if we were printing and selling
their music, or reaping some profit on a large scale, perhaps I would see
your point. But these ass holes are going around to little one horse bars
and dance halls that are barely scraping by in this failing economy and
hasstling people over the few bucks they can squeek out by playing some
music to draw in a few more pitiful customers. And, if they were getting the
money to the composers and/or their wives.... But, in fact, they don't give
qa dime to any of those people. They are just padding their own pockets with
it. First, they bought off our government to make3 laws in restraing of
trade, and now they are going to hasstle the little people for the rest of
time. How the hell can you justify that?

  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
vdubreeze vdubreeze is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default Sue you, sue me blues

On May 18, 5:35*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:

ll I know is what I need to know. They bought off our congressmen in the

past to make laws in restraint of trade, and my friends and I are suffering
for it. What else should I know besides that? But if you think that's OK,
(to give them money for playing music whose rightful owners are long dead
and gone) then please tell me why. You know, if we were printing and selling
their music, or reaping some profit on a large scale, perhaps I would see
your point. But these ass holes are going around to little one horse bars
and dance halls that are barely scraping by in this failing economy and
hasstling people over the few bucks they can squeek out by playing some
music to draw in a few more pitiful customers. And, if they were getting the
money to the composers and/or their wives.... But, in fact, they don't give
qa dime to any of those people. They are just padding their own pockets with
it. First, they bought off our government to make3 laws in restraing of
trade, and now they are going to hasstle the little people for the rest of
time. How the hell can you justify that?


BMI, ASCAP and SESAC are U.S. performing rights organizations. Their
sole job, and the reason people join them voluntarily, is to collect
royalties when a song owner's music is used in TV, radio, or any shape
or form of performance. They have zero to do with ownership,
copyrights or publishing of music, nor sales of music. There is no
law that says one must join them. You simply don't know what you're
talking about.


  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default Sue you, sue me blues

vdubreeze wrote:
On May 18, 5:35 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:

ll I know is what I need to know. They bought off our congressmen
in the

past to make laws in restraint of trade, and my friends and I are
suffering for it. What else should I know besides that? But if you
think that's OK, (to give them money for playing music whose
rightful owners are long dead and gone) then please tell me why. You
know, if we were printing and selling their music, or reaping some
profit on a large scale, perhaps I would see your point. But these
ass holes are going around to little one horse bars and dance halls
that are barely scraping by in this failing economy and hasstling
people over the few bucks they can squeek out by playing some music
to draw in a few more pitiful customers. And, if they were getting
the money to the composers and/or their wives.... But, in fact, they
don't give qa dime to any of those people. They are just padding
their own pockets with it. First, they bought off our government to
make3 laws in restraing of trade, and now they are going to hasstle
the little people for the rest of time. How the hell can you justify
that?


BMI, ASCAP and SESAC are U.S. performing rights organizations. Their
sole job, and the reason people join them voluntarily, is to collect
royalties when a song owner's music is used in TV, radio, or any shape
or form of performance. They have zero to do with ownership,
copyrights or publishing of music, nor sales of music. There is no
law that says one must join them. You simply don't know what you're
talking about.


I know that any song written after 1927 (84 years ago) can't be played by
anybody in any establishment that makes any money selling anything to any
customers. This is what I am "talking about". Not just the songs written by,
"members". All songs. And even the ones written before 1927, (if you can't
show the original sheet music with the pre 1927 date printed on it.) Now, if
I write a song, and want that song to be protected. So I join BMI and pay
them dues to protect it for me, then I would agree with you. but that's not
what's going on. They bought the right to hasstle people over all songs
written after 1927. And, the burden of proof is on you, and not BMI to prove
that the song was written before then. IOW, all music written after 1927 is
the property of BMI and they can hassle people who perform it anywhere that
money changes hands for any reason. And you are happy with that?

  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
vdubreeze vdubreeze is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default Sue you, sue me blues

Bill,

Start a new thread if you want to rant more about BMI. This is way
OT.

But just to clear up some of your misstatements:



I know that any song written after 1927 (84 years ago) can't be played by
anybody in any establishment that makes any money selling anything to any
customers. This is what I am "talking about".


??? You're leaving out the entire issue. If an establishment pays a
set nominal fee they can play anything they want. If they insist they
deserve the world for nothing (and maybe they're paying you nothing
when you should be getting $300) they should try that with the AC
installer. I guess you're saying that music, including your own,
isn't worth paying for, but I've never been in that camp, as a player
or as a business owner.


I write a song, and want that song to be protected. So I join BMI and pay
them dues to protect it for me, then I would agree with you. but that's not
what's going on.



??? You don't pay any dues as a writer to be a BMI member, Bill.
In fact, I don't think they have ANY dues except if you set up a
publishing company for them to deal with, and that is the grand sum of
a $150 one time fee. I'm a BMI member and I've never paid anything
besides that fee 25 years ago.

They bought the right to hasstle people over all songs
written after 1927. And, the burden of proof is on you, and not BMI to prove
that the song was written before then. IOW, all music written after 1927 is
the property of BMI and they can hassle people who perform it anywhere that
money changes hands for any reason. And you are happy with that?


Ay yi yi. Let's take this elsewhere, Bill. But, and pardon the all
caps, BMI DOES NOT OWN ANYTHING!!! EVER!!! THEY DON'T OWN MUSIC
BEFORE, AFTER OR DURING 1927!!!!!! The song owners own them!! The
writers!! The publishers!!! The songwriters who self publish!!!
That's not even close enough to be an Urban Myth! : )

You're on Bizarro world with this one : ) But please start a
new thread for further fun misfacts.

v


  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
timewarp2008 timewarp2008 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default Sue you, sue me blues

On May 18, 6:46*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
vdubreeze wrote:
On May 18, 5:35 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:


ll I know is what I need to know. They bought off our congressmen
in the
past to make laws in restraint of trade, and my friends and I are
suffering for it. What else should I know besides that? But if you
think that's OK, (to give them money for playing music whose
rightful owners are long dead and gone) then please tell me why. You
know, if we were printing and selling their music, or reaping some
profit on a large scale, perhaps I would see your point. But these
ass holes are going around to little one horse bars and dance halls
that are barely scraping by in this failing economy and hasstling
people over the few bucks they can squeek out by playing some music
to draw in a few more pitiful customers. And, if they were getting
the money to the composers and/or their wives.... But, in fact, they
don't give qa dime to any of those people. They are just padding
their own pockets with it. First, they bought off our government to
make3 laws in restraing of trade, and now they are going to hasstle
the little people for the rest of time. How the hell can you justify
that?


BMI, ASCAP and SESAC are U.S. performing rights organizations. *Their
sole job, and the reason people join them voluntarily, is to collect
royalties when a song owner's music is used in TV, radio, or any shape
or form of performance. *They have zero to do with ownership,
copyrights or publishing of music, nor sales of music. *There is no
law that says one must join them. * You simply don't know what you're
talking about.


I know that any song written after 1927 (84 years ago) can't be played by
anybody in any establishment that makes any money selling anything to any
customers. This is what I am "talking about". Not just the songs written by,
"members". All songs. *And even the ones written before 1927, (if you can't
show the original sheet music with the pre 1927 date printed on it.) Now, if
I write a song, and want that song to be protected. So I join BMI and pay
them dues to protect it for me, then I would agree with you. but that's not
what's going on. They bought the right to hasstle people over all songs
written after 1927. And, the burden of proof is on you, and not BMI to prove
that the song was written before then. IOW, all music written after 1927 is
the property of BMI and they can hassle people who perform it anywhere that
money changes hands for any reason. And you are happy with that?


The problem is that "all [you] know" is all you want to know,
and it doesn't matter to you whether you have your facts straight.
You're deep into voluntary bull-headed ignorance. The actual
facts have been explained to you, repeatedly, often by people
who deal with these issues on a regular basis. But you don't
care, you don't want to be educated. You haven't bothered to
read and understand, even when you've been given good pracitical
suggestions for how you can legally play dixieland music in
your pizza pub, affordably or even free. But you don't care,
because your goal is not to play dixieland music in the pizza
pub.

Your goal is to rant and whine, and prove to people who already
know it, that you've decided to be an ignorant troll, and you
won't bother to use any fragments of brain that may still
remain in that block of concrete above your shoulders. Rather
than understanding and trying to resolve your complaints with
prefer perfectly reasonable explanations and work-arounds in,
you obviously prefer whining about problems that are your own fault.

No, I won't get off your lawn, Numpty. Are you happy with that?
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default Sue you, sue me blues

vdubreeze wrote:

On May 18, 12:34 am, "Bill Graham" wrote:


So you'd prefer 60 years? Or 70?. but, in fact, even 84 isn't enough for
BMI. They will keep the copyrights to that music forever, as near as I can
figure out. This is the music written in the 30's, 40's and 50's... The
music of my generation. Maybe that doesn't mean anything to you, but to me
and my friends, it means a lot. We can't perform our own music. The music we
were raised with and learned to love, anywhere without the BMI police
cutting us off at the pass. This is a crock....



??? Methinks you don't have any idea of what BMI is.


Perhaps Bowel Movement Initiator would help.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default Sue you, sue me blues

Bill Graham wrote:

ll I know is what I need to know. They bought off our congressmen in the
past to make laws in restraint of trade, and my friends and I are suffering
for it. What else should I know besides that? But if you think that's OK,
(to give them money for playing music whose rightful owners are long dead
and gone) then please tell me why. You know, if we were printing and selling
their music, or reaping some profit on a large scale, perhaps I would see
your point. But these ass holes are going around to little one horse bars
and dance halls that are barely scraping by in this failing economy and
hasstling people over the few bucks they can squeek out by playing some
music to draw in a few more pitiful customers. And, if they were getting the
money to the composers and/or their wives.... But, in fact, they don't give
qa dime to any of those people. They are just padding their own pockets with
it. First, they bought off our government to make3 laws in restraing of
trade, and now they are going to hasstle the little people for the rest of
time. How the hell can you justify that?


See? Now he thinks BMI is Walt Disney.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri


  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default Sue you, sue me blues

timewarp2008 wrote:

On May 18, 6:46 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
vdubreeze wrote:
On May 18, 5:35 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:


ll I know is what I need to know. They bought off our congressmen
in the
past to make laws in restraint of trade, and my friends and I are
suffering for it. What else should I know besides that? But if you
think that's OK, (to give them money for playing music whose
rightful owners are long dead and gone) then please tell me why. You
know, if we were printing and selling their music, or reaping some
profit on a large scale, perhaps I would see your point. But these
ass holes are going around to little one horse bars and dance halls
that are barely scraping by in this failing economy and hasstling
people over the few bucks they can squeek out by playing some music
to draw in a few more pitiful customers. And, if they were getting
the money to the composers and/or their wives.... But, in fact, they
don't give qa dime to any of those people. They are just padding
their own pockets with it. First, they bought off our government to
make3 laws in restraing of trade, and now they are going to hasstle
the little people for the rest of time. How the hell can you justify
that?


BMI, ASCAP and SESAC are U.S. performing rights organizations. Their
sole job, and the reason people join them voluntarily, is to collect
royalties when a song owner's music is used in TV, radio, or any shape
or form of performance. They have zero to do with ownership,
copyrights or publishing of music, nor sales of music. There is no
law that says one must join them. You simply don't know what you're
talking about.


I know that any song written after 1927 (84 years ago) can't be played by
anybody in any establishment that makes any money selling anything to any
customers. This is what I am "talking about". Not just the songs written by,
"members". All songs. And even the ones written before 1927, (if you can't
show the original sheet music with the pre 1927 date printed on it.) Now, if
I write a song, and want that song to be protected. So I join BMI and pay
them dues to protect it for me, then I would agree with you. but that's not
what's going on. They bought the right to hasstle people over all songs
written after 1927. And, the burden of proof is on you, and not BMI to prove
that the song was written before then. IOW, all music written after 1927 is
the property of BMI and they can hassle people who perform it anywhere that
money changes hands for any reason. And you are happy with that?


The problem is that "all [you] know" is all you want to know,
and it doesn't matter to you whether you have your facts straight.
You're deep into voluntary bull-headed ignorance. The actual
facts have been explained to you, repeatedly, often by people
who deal with these issues on a regular basis. But you don't
care, you don't want to be educated. You haven't bothered to
read and understand, even when you've been given good pracitical
suggestions for how you can legally play dixieland music in
your pizza pub, affordably or even free. But you don't care,
because your goal is not to play dixieland music in the pizza
pub.

Your goal is to rant and whine, and prove to people who already
know it, that you've decided to be an ignorant troll, and you
won't bother to use any fragments of brain that may still
remain in that block of concrete above your shoulders. Rather
than understanding and trying to resolve your complaints with
prefer perfectly reasonable explanations and work-arounds in,
you obviously prefer whining about problems that are your own fault.

No, I won't get off your lawn, Numpty. Are you happy with that?


It's not his lawn anyway. It's BMI's lawn. He should know that already.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default Sue you, sue me blues

Bill Graham wrote:

I know that any song written after 1927 (84 years ago) can't be played by
anybody in any establishment that makes any money selling anything to any
customers.


So take it up with your elected representatives, just like Disney did,
and get the law changed in your favor, just like Disney did. They lost a
Senator from Disney in a skiing accident so your odss might be better
than you'd otherwise expect.

vdubreeze is correct in asserting that in this case you are without
cognizance of that whereof you nonetheless speak. The P.R.O.'s are not
your culprit, Mr. Friday.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] 0junk4me@bellsouth.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,027
Default Sue you, sue me blues


ONce again Bill Graham pollutes another thread.

On 2011-05-18 said:
You're deep into voluntary bull-headed ignorance. The actual
facts have been explained to you, repeatedly, often by people
who deal with these issues on a regular basis. But you don't
care, you don't want to be educated. You haven't bothered to
read and understand, even when you've been given good practical
suggestions for how you can legally play dixieland music in
your pizza pub, affordably or even free. But you don't care,
because your goal is not to play dixieland music in the pizza
pub.


I'm not sure that the owner of the pizza joint isn't just
using the agencies such as bmi to keep from telling this guy
that his close mic'd trumpet with the octave pedal sounds
like ****. HE's probably trying to be kind to this
bullheaded deaf octogenarian.

Your goal is to rant and whine, and prove to people who already
know it, that you've decided to be an ignorant troll, and you
won't bother to use any fragments of brain that may still
remain in that block of concrete above your shoulders. Rather
than understanding and trying to resolve your complaints with
prefer perfectly reasonable explanations and work-arounds in,
you obviously prefer whining about problems that are your own fault.
No, I won't get off your lawn, Numpty. Are you happy with that?


HE's too pig ignorant to understand what you're saying to
him, which is why I killfiled MR. Graham months ago. HE's
an obnoxious old geezer who doesn't have the guts to live up
to his so-called principles.



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see
www.gatasound.com


  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Sue you, sue me blues

hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

I know that any song written after 1927 (84 years ago) can't be played by
anybody in any establishment that makes any money selling anything to any
customers.


So take it up with your elected representatives, just like Disney did,
and get the law changed in your favor, just like Disney did. They lost a
Senator from Disney in a skiing accident so your odss might be better
than you'd otherwise expect.


I gather that Mr. Graham is all het up over some stuff he heard from a
venue owner who heard something from a BMI rep. Since the venue owner
almost certainly misunderstood the situation, the fact that he is dealing
with unreliable secondhand information would seem enough motivation for
him to actually do a bit of research and figure out what really went on.

But maybe he just likes being angry more than he likes solving problems.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Webb[_3_] Richard Webb[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 533
Default Sue you, sue me blues

Scott Dorsey writes:
I gather that Mr. Graham is all het up over some stuff he heard from
a venue owner who heard something from a BMI rep. Since the venue
owner almost certainly misunderstood the situation, the fact that he
is dealing with unreliable secondhand information would seem enough
motivation for him to actually do a bit of research and figure out
what really went on.


One would think so. That would be a reasonable course of
action, especially for one with the background he asserts he has.


But maybe he just likes being angry more than he likes solving
problems.


HE likes the sound of his own voice.


Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NY CD Blues Geoff Wood Pro Audio 5 January 2nd 07 12:58 AM
NY CD Blues Geoff Wood Tech 5 January 2nd 07 12:58 AM
HHB CD-R blues Chris Nagorka Pro Audio 18 June 9th 05 04:28 PM
Next-day blues Jay Levitt Pro Audio 31 March 2nd 05 12:49 AM
BLUES ON PBS Mkuller High End Audio 4 October 4th 03 04:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:58 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"