David W. Fenton wrote:
On 24 Oct 2007 at 19:10, Martin Banner wrote:
I just felt compelled to comment on articles
like the one put forth on the Choralnet website from someone on the
other side of the fence.
Unless you're arguing (as UE did) that sites should take down any
music by composers that you have published, even if they aren't your
editions, then I don't think we're on the opposite side.
The problem with UE's demands was that they were unreasonable in
scope.
But the cost of fighting them was too great so the site closed.
This is a common legal tactic, threatening a lawsuit that you
probably couldn't win, but that the mere threat of is too great for
the party being sued to risk.
Indeed, it's the wealthiest who frequently win, not necessarily those
who have even the law on their side, to say nothing of justice.
Just think of all the money that could be saved, in addition to clearing
the huge backlog of lawsuits, if the courts would simply look at all the
real and potential assets of both parties and declare that party with
the greatest assets the winner since they can keep their lawyers working
longer than the other side, and have done with any pretence of actual
trials. Why go through all the bother of delays and frivolous motions
that the wealthier side's lawyers can create simply to end up at some
future point in the lawsuit with the poorer party simply having to cave
in and admit that he/she can't continue the fight.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
