Klarinet Archive - Posting 000019.txt from 2008/06

From: "Matthew Lloyd" <matthew@-----.uk>
Subj: RE: [kl] Rant du jour
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:32:04 -0400

Minimal is still a cost. Perhaps they could offer a higher cost option to
receive new parts? Seems fair.....

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph H. Fasel [mailto:jhf@-----.gov]
Sent: 02 June 2008 22:28
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: RE: [kl] Rant du jour

No, I think David has a point. The main thing the publisher is
getting out of renting is assuring that that the rental fee is paid
every time somebody needs the parts (and note there may still be a
performance license fee in addition to the rental fee). With today's
processes for producing printed scores and parts, the publisher might as
well print up fresh ones (without somebody's idiotic markings on them
that didn't quite get erased) for each rental. The cost of that is
minimal.

--Joe

On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 15:05 +0100, Matthew Lloyd wrote:
> How then do you avoid the publisher charging the same for rental as for
> purchase? Surely he has to do this to make money? Renting is based on the
> premise of reuse.
>
> Matthew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Blumberg [mailto:blummy@-----.net]
> Sent: 31 May 2008 13:51
> To: klarinet@-----.org
> Subject: RE: [kl] Rant du jour
>
> Personally I don't think that used parts should be rented at all. If
> somebody is paying top dollar for a musical rental, they should get new
> parts every time.
> But that's just my opinion.

------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------