T - I'm one and the same. Just found another way to speed up the signature. Since the computer is so slow I need to cut corners here and there. Thanks for the post on Wm. Patry's observations. Had not seen the article, but sure is nice to see an articulate scholar addressing such problems. Was also moved by the piece that started this thread. Thanks for that as well. Chet - the creative artists certainly deserve payment for their product. On the other hand in many other areas of creation, except for music, there comes a point at which the personal or business ownership ceases. Even patents have a defined life span. Also, as the years wear on, less and less is paid to aging artists and their survivors since the focus of payments is on charted music. But the collection fees go on an on. Agencies collect for no other reason that ownership or a granted privilege to do so. To compare music to art is not quite the same. We do not pay by the look. Thirty cents everytime we view the painting. If Muzak or the radio is playing, however, while the painting is viewed a fee is owed to the licensing companies by the people who play the music and by the place which plays the music. While I think copyrights have been extended for too long a time, my real fear is what lies ahead if the power of licensing agencies and publishers is not checked.