> would have been perfectly legal in 1569. i imagine this is true; legal matters were probably more centered on the thorny question of why my sheep are grazing on your land.
the article doesn't say what sort of contract dr. sawkins originally made with hyperion but presumably, if the recording was never made and his amendments to the lalande piece stayed in manuscript form, dr. sawyer would have been quite happy with the money he received for the services he rendered and never taken hyperion to court. i'll exclude the possibility that dr. sawyer was miffed because he wasn't given enough credit on the cover notes and assume that what he really wants is another, bigger piece of pie. if the elements of the dispute are substituted with something else, i just can't see the merit of his case. if, for example, you are hired as luthier to reconstruct the tuning mechanism of an antique instrument from a well known but long dead luthier and i get the grammy award for recording a disc with the instrument on it...are you entitled to more than than your original repair fee? etc., etc. on the face of it, with facts obtained from the article, i think what we have here is a greedy academic with an over-blown appreciation of his own worth who takes 1200 hundred hours (300 hundred hours for each of the four pieces = 150 days@ 8 hours per day) to write what was originally written (i presume) in much less time by a musician (as opposed to a musical scholar) with, you know, talent. three cents - bill
