I meant a cup of tea actually. Sorry Doc, it must be another of those confounded English expressions lost in translation.
Thank you Peter. I used the term unperson as Orwell used it and you have correctly interpreted how I meant it to be used.Apologies if I have missed something in the reference, but I am sure the term used was 'a non-person', and not 'unhuman'. These two phrases are radically different, the first not denying any aspect of humanity, but indicating that the writer intends to ignore what the 'non-person' has to say.
Thank you Peter. I used the term unperson as Orwell used it and you have correctly interpreted how I meant it to be used.
Sorry that you cannot tell the difference between unperson and unhuman. Another difference between English and American English?. I replied to your original post thinking it might be a sensible debate or discussion. Obviously I was totally wrong. Goodbye.Peter missed the quote. Hmmm... Again Euphman2, I apologize for reading too much into it. I wish you just would have explained yourself, as I asked a question (with a question mark). I said I wanted to shut the door on this, and again you bring it up. You could have thanked Peter in a PM.
It is April 3rd. I have been back on this board 3 days. This is too much. The only way for me to have a stiff upper lip is to be gone. Euphman2, unless shamed into it, will never apologize for calling me "unhuman." I put my toe in the water. I do not like it. See you next month with the radio station update.
Sorry, ignoring you now. To use Orwell, you are now an "unperson" to me
I believe the use of the word " Orangejuice" might have had something to do with it.I think most of us have played "that arrangement of Aranjuez" although I did have one re-arranged to be exactly like the film version. Would you remind me please why it was illegal? Was it the family who decided to stop it?
For those who are not familiar. From Wikipedia.
"Goodwin's Law is an Internet adage which asserts that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches —that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler.
Promulgated by American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990, Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions. It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.
In 2012, "Godwin's law" became an entry in the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary."
I am guilty as charged for the most part. I did it very early in the thread which does not quite fit the definition.
But again, I apologized. It seems I am unhuman. I do not get enough respect to be treated as I treat others. I hope I am a big enough person to admit my mistakes.
All our packs have the correct music (photocopy) whilst the pristine originals stay safely in the properly purchased pack.
Send it airmail . I have not had a beer in 20 years and it is something I miss. Some will not believe this, I have never been drunk (an alcoholic father who beats you has a strong influence). But I would have a pint every so often. I have been on a medication (a life important one) that does not allow me to drink.
Maybe we should stick to darts.
I can understand the reasoning behind this, (even thought I believe it's technically still illegal unless you have the publisher's express permission) but out of interest, what do you do at a contest? All contests have rules that say the use of photocopied parts is a disqualification offence, and the majority of players that I know will end up with a significant number of pencil markings on their part by the time contest day comes around. Does someone have to transfer all the markings to the original copy so it can be used on the day? Someone once told me that it's OK to use a copied part on the stand at a contest provided you also have the original part with you, however I wouldn't stake my life on that information being correct ...
In the US ... if you buy an original you can make copies for your own band.
I guess the family could have done what the Sousa heirs did -- they simply gave up all rights to the marches and put them in the public domain.
Hmm ... not what they taught us in school - that you could make a copy for your own organizations use if you bought a legal copy (fair use has to fit somewhere). It was not in the law, it was an appellate decision I read the information.
Some of the top orchestras use electronic "folders". Do they buy two copies so they can use these devices?
If you want a course that is bulletproof on copyright, I could write a book. But in my quick research, "fair use" in most cases makes me right. But I am not a lawyer, or enough of a know-it-all to presume I am always right. I at least try to be polite.
Mr. O'Briant, you direct a brass band in the United States. I run a radio station and a website that's primary purpose to promote brass bands.
I think I could be treated with a little respect.
People can and do call me names, and a guess that is fine.
In defence of the Doc's maybe OTT reaction the statements in responses #53 and #54 did seem a bit bald and abrupt to me too : "Doc Fox is mistaken is this statement" and "another mis-statement of fact by Doc Fox". ..... might take offence when non was actually intended.
"... maybe OTT reaction..."??? I'd call it completely out of proportion to any slight, intended or otherwise.
If I'd called him stupid or demeaned his experience in the Brass Band world, he might have had reason to jump down my throat. But I didn't. I disagreed with two statements that he presented as fact, but which were not accurate. In a subsequent private message to me he insisted once again that performing from copies to save the originals is legal in the USA because he learned that in school. I don't know when he went to school, but the law and the case law on this (which he claims to know inside-out) have changed.
I will add here that my statement in reply # 53 states clearly that I was writing about copyright law in the USA. It may vary in other countries; I make no claim to knowing all the details of copyright in countries other than the USA, though I have some knowledge (which comes from purchasing brass band music from publishers outside the USA).
Incidentally, in that same private message, Doc Fox admitted that I was absolutely correct in my statement about the Sousa copyrights. I see no such admission here, in public.