Wolfgang's Vault sued
Kelly Humphries
Led Zeppelin, Doors members sue concert video site
By Yinka Adegoke
Reuters
Monday, December 18, 2006; 8:43 PM
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Some of rock 'n' roll's biggest names have teamed
up to sue the owner of a Web site that specializes in streaming rare
concert recordings.
Wolfgang's Vault offers thousands of recordings of rare audio and
video music performances collected over 30 years by Bill Graham, a
famous concert promoter who died in 1991.
On Monday, major rock names including Grateful Dead Productions,
Carlos Santana and members of Led Zeppelin and The Doors, sued the
current owner, claiming it was illegally offering recordings to
stimulate sales of other products.
Wolfgang's Vault representatives were not immediately available for
comment.
The site, (http://www.wolfgangsvault.com), also sells T-shirts,
pictures and memorabilia such as vintage concert posters and tickets.
The recordings were made at concert performances by a wide array of
artists from Bob Marley to Bob Dylan. The site's collection has been
described by some industry watchers as one of the most important
groupings of rock memorabilia and recordings ever assembled in one
business.
The suit was filed at the U.S. District Court in the Northern District
of California against William Sagan, who bought the assets of Graham
for $5 million from Clear Channel Entertainment more than three years
ago.
"Sagan simply doesn't have the legal rights to exploit and profit from
the extraordinary success of these musicians," Jeff Reeves, who
represents the artists, said in a statement.
Wolfgang's Vault derives from Graham's given name of Wolfgang
Grajonca. Over the course of his career as a promoter he is credited
within the music industry for helping create the modern concert
promotion business.
Live music performances, both in audio and video formats, are a
fast-growing area online for companies including Time Warner Inc.'s
AOL unit and Microsoft Corp.'s online unit MSN. Such companies say
advertisers are keen for original content which works well in the
online video format.
Bill
"Kelly Humphries" <kpiscesatspeakeasydotnet@> wrote in message
news:1hseo2d9o5ml2os5n...@4ax.com...
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801
045.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y46un4
>
> Led Zeppelin, Doors members sue concert video site
>
> By Yinka Adegoke
> Reuters
> Monday, December 18, 2006; 8:43 PM
>
> NEW YORK (Reuters) - Some of rock 'n' roll's biggest names have teamed
> up to sue the owner of a Web site that specializes in streaming rare
> concert recordings.
Damn! Has anybody, somehow, downloaded the killer Zep shows they have there
from '69 at the Fillmore West and wants to share???
If WV is smart, they'll work out a profit-sharing arrangement. It sucks
they're getting sued because without WV, some of those shows would *never*
see the light of day and those performers (except for possibly the Dead
since they sell some of their shows) aren't losing $ on shows they'll never
sell anyway (like Zep). The only ones who lose are the fans who want those
shows.
Bill
Mark Geiger
Bob chimes in.
Monday December 18, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) Some rock legends are taking a music memorabilia Web
site owner to court, alleging the unlawful reproduction and sale of
vintage recordings and concert memorabilia.
The plaintiffs Grateful Dead Productions, Carlos Santana and members of
Led Zeppelin and The Doors filed a federal lawsuit Monday against
William Sagan, operator of Wolfgang's Vault. The San Francisco-based Web
site sells material Sagan obtained after purchasing some of the assets
of Bill Graham, the famed concert promoter who died in a 1991 helicopter
crash.
Graham's holdings included thousands of concert posters, shirts,
photographs and recordings, which the artists never authorized for Sagan
to distribute, according to the lawsuit.
The suit seeks a judge to block any more sales and award unspecified
damages and attorneys fees.
``We have never given permission for our images and material to be used
in this way,'' Bob Weir, of the Grateful Dead, said in a statement.
``What Sagan is doing is stealing. He is stealing what is most important
to us our work, our images and our music and is profiting from the good
will of our fans.''
Sagan declined to comment, saying he had not been served with the suit.
The suit also accused Sagan of selling baby clothing showing the
artists' names which it claims is trademark infringement and offering to
illegally license recordings of live concerts.
No hearing has been set.
The case is Grateful Dead Production
band beyond description
"Mark Geiger" <mage...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:mLMhh.4562$yC5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
well, in this case, gotta go with Bob's view. however, in the 2005 case of
the soundboards being yanked from archive.org, amid the acrimonious and
conflicting views among GD members on the issue, as a rabid Deadhead and
music fan, I had objections.
--
Peace,
Steve
http://www.pilkey.com/cu_video.php?video=capunder_english_512.mov&w=500&h=375
band beyond description
going with Bob's view because: Wolfgang's Vault is two sales transactions
removed from being owned by the estate of Bill Graham. Former Bill Graham
client Santana is a plaintiff on the suit too.
Olompali4
DG wrote:
>
> Wahhh.... I've made millions and want more!!!!
>
> STFU bobby, you twit..
Mebbe he'd just liked to have some say so instead of being scammed.
august
"Kelly Humphries" <kpiscesatspeakeasydotnet@> wrote in message
news:1hseo2d9o5ml2os5n...@4ax.com...
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801045.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y46un4
It just figures that anything as great as WV that is free will be attacked
by a herd of lawyers seeking money for the "starving artists" AW
Brad Greer
Hmm, the guy who started Wolfgang's Vault had $5M to buy the contents
of the Bill Graham archives and sells the stuff but the artists are
the greedy ones? Sorry, try again.
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
My understanding was that the Wolfgangs vault people OWN the broadcast
rights to these recordings. If that is true - not only does he get no
say, he also isn't being scammed.
--
Aaron
Olompali4
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net wrote:
If that is true - not only does he get no
> say, he also isn't being scammed.
>
> --
> Aaron
A big "if" that Carlos Santana, Led Zeppelin, and others believe to
have not ever been true.
"Bill Graham was a man of great integrity who cared very deeply about
the artists he worked with as a manager and promoter," said
GRAMMY-award winning musician Carlos Santana, one of the artists --
along with his namesake band Santana -- affected by William Sagan's
activities on wolfgangsvault.com. "Bill was a close friend to me and
the Santana Band for many years, and I know that what Sagan is doing
would go against everything he believed in. I am fully committed to
joining with other artists to protect our work, our rights and our
legacy."
frndthdevl
Olompali4 wrote:
Carlos said
>
. I am fully committed to
> joining with other artists to protect our work, our rights and our
> legacy."
this has always been on the wish list.
some pretty heavy duty legacy going on there.
Would think a few free notes might make it a bit more palatable to
reach for the plastic.
no,I don't know how to tinyurl mea culpa
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
All of that is pretty irrelevant though as to whether he legally owns
broadcast rights, though - and that is all that matters.
--
Aaron
Olompali4
> It would be great if that was the case. I'm fed up with the RIAA and
> the artists acting like everyone owes them. Shut up and play ya
> monkeys...
Serigraph
Performers: Carlos Santana Bill Graham
Tour/Show: Santana '69
Venue: Woodstock (Bethel, NY)
Artist: Baron Wolman
Size: 28 1/4" x 38 1/2"
Date: Aug 16, 1969
Price: $1,601 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah Wolfgang's Vault isn't in this for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
He doesn't feel owed at all for his investments.
LOL!
frndthdevl
Don't you think Carlos and Bill were both paid for those signatures?
They have had time to invest that capitol in the years after signing
those, for other investments or whatever. They could have been paid
hundreds per sig, who knows. Perhaps they invested that money in Cali
real estate, Google, well no google for Bill. But they could have made
more money than he has so far. The poster art etc, well the artists
could have invested in themselves if they so wished, that art helped
put fans in the rooms they played. So they were paid for it. If he
has no rights to the music that is one thing, but if he does,what's the
dealio? Folks around here are savy enough to know they can find free
live performances, most do not. They listen to some Vault radio and
perhaps go out and buy some live releases. Derek and the Doms
live.Traffic On teh Road. ABB lIVe at the FE etc. I can't see wehre the
artists are gettting jammed. YMMV Hmm Walmart bad, making money bad,
eating McDonalds bad,thinking independantly politcally bad, sure is
getting to be a fun world. And surely YOUtube must be really bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRlVE2pNQ-s&mode=related&search=
Olompali4
frndthdevl wrote:
> If he
> has no rights to the music that is one thing, but if he does,what's the
> dealio?
I imagine that is the crux of the lawsuit. The rights.
>I can't see wehre the
> artists are gettting jammed.
More than anything it has to do with legal permission for use of
intellectual property. Control.
Mega wealthy rock stars not needing more money still won't appreciate
their art being used without legal rights being established.
Reagan tried to use Springsteen's Born in the USA to get votes and gain
the presidency.
The Boss nixed it due to lack of acquiring the right.
It's not always about the money as many would love to believe.
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
Totally irrelevant - if he owns the rights, he is welcome to make as much
money off it as he can. If he doesn't, he deseves to get hosed. His possible
greed couldn't be any more irrelevant.
--
Aaron
frndthdevl
Olompali4 wrote:
> More than anything it has to do with legal permission for use of
> intellectual property. Control.
> Mega wealthy rock stars not needing more money still won't appreciate
> their art being used without legal rights being established.
now are we talking the live streams or the graphic art? I thought I
have seen elsewhere they are also trying to keep him from selling the
posters,handbills etc. I thought it was only about him playing the
music to help sell his stuff. IF the suit is about making him stop
selling his posters, well that would be a bit fucked up imho. And there
is no way they will win in keeping him from selling the posters he
legally purchased. Does that mean they can keep individuals from
selling their posters on ebay if they win? What next, baseball players
going to sue baseball card profiteers?
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
If they are really going after legally purchased posters and art they've
completely lost it.
--
Aaron
Jim McVey
The original article only mentioned using the recordings. The later article
that quotes Bobby mentions that the artists never gave permission to
sell the posters, photographs and other items. That might just be
Bobby talking out of his a**.
The recordings are a bit of a grey area, but I don't see how they can possibly
stop these guys from selling the items they legitimately paid for. If
I go to a record store and buy a Grateful Dead poster and sell it on Ebay, I
don't need to get any sort of clearance from The Dead.
But if they're creating NEW items (there was something about baby clothes
with the bands names on them) or making copies of the photographs, they
may not have the right to do that.
And if they're so concerned about this, why didn't they sue Bill Graham's
people when they sold this lot to the highest bidder? They flat-out SOLD the
recordings - a big GD no-no. At least these guys are just streaming them.
They're probably doing a mix of things they are/aren't allowed to do.
The lawyers will figure it out - not the artists.
Jim
--
*********************************************************
Jim McVey
jmc...@panix.com
*********************************************************
JerseyMike
awesome!
10-23-70 Fillmore East
It will be interesting to see how this site pans out as the lawyers go
to war. Thanks for the update!
JimK
Maybe it might be a good idea to wait until there are some actual
facts known before speculating about whether anybody's lost anything.
It might save you a lot of needless aggravation.
JimK
JimK
wrote:
At this point, it's way too soon for speculation as to who's right and
who's wrong. What puzzles me is why all these issues weren't hashed
out long before now.
JimK
Olompali4
frndthdevl wrote:
> IF the suit is about making him stop
> selling his posters, well that would be a bit fucked up imho.
Absolutely agree.
Olompali4
DG wrote:
> Bobby should just shut up... Every time he opens his mouth he shows
> what a complete moron he is.
>
You are always trying to rationalize and justify your piracy. It is
you who should just shut up. No one likes a whining, cry baby thief.
Sly is more appropos. deal with what you can get on the qt.
"You either got or you haven't got.. style."
~Robin and the Seven Hoods
Joe
> I'm streaming the Derek and the Dominoes show right now and it's
> awesome!
> 10-23-70 Fillmore East
I have that and the next night on CD for trade - jo...@foxvalley.net
Joe
Lfh
DG wrote:
> Jim McVey wrote:
> >
> >The original article only mentioned using the recordings. The later article
> >that quotes Bobby mentions that the artists never gave permission to
> >sell the posters, photographs and other items. That might just be
> >Bobby talking out of his a**.
>
>
> what a complete moron he is.
See, this is what I can't understand. If Bobby *were* actually as much
of a moron and asshole as you continually paint him, the two of you
would have *so* much in common that I'd have thought you would be more
sympatico.
> Greedy rawk millionaires waving their viagra cocks...
. . . *still* come off better than a bitter ol' curmudgeon with a head
full of rocks.
Fred
Olompali4
DG wrote:
>
> I've never pirated anything.
>
At least you are smart enough to issue a piblic denial
> >No one likes a whining, cry baby thief.
>
>
> How did Mickey's dad get involved in this?
I don't recall Lenny whining or crying..and surely not nearly as much
as you.
> Everybody owes musicians 30 years after the concert! Send them money
>
Well, dem's basically da rules, until a change, the U.S. law (and even
Howard Stern) considers you, me and millions of others, pirates.
Now...be cool.
Brad Greer
wrote:
To a great extent the "rights" chain is twisted and confused. When
Vault Radio first started streaming stuff there were a number of
articles about what was going on. Bill Sagan (the guy who bought the
old Bill Graham stuff) indicated that he wanted to eventually sell the
concerts but finding out who he had to negotiate with for some of the
recordings wasn't easy. He implied that Graham had negotiated
broadcast rights for every concert in the vault as part of a standard
contract when artists played Graham's venues. Whether or not that is
true I have no idea. But that was his justification for streaming the
stuff.
Given that Vault Radio has been in operation for over a year and it's
just now that people are suing I'm speculating (with no facts to back
it up) that Sagan is getting ready to release some of the recordings
for sale. The streaming radio thing probably irks some artists a
little, but they're not going to sue over it necessarily, the thought
that Sagan might start selling the recordings will upset them (and
Sagan has indicated all along he doesn't have the right to do that for
the vast majority of the vault).
Brad Greer
wrote:
>In article <fT3nhit...@redshark.goodshow.net>,
Agreed - the whole memorabilia "industry" would be in trouble if you
couldn't resell stuff you legally purchased.
>But if they're creating NEW items (there was something about baby clothes
>with the bands names on them) or making copies of the photographs, they
>may not have the right to do that.
Yeah, that would be wrong - you can't profit off someone else's
trademark or image without permission.
>And if they're so concerned about this, why didn't they sue Bill Graham's
>people when they sold this lot to the highest bidder? They flat-out SOLD the
>recordings - a big GD no-no. At least these guys are just streaming them.
Nobody really knew what was in the vault - it was sold in a huge bulk
sale, take everything and figure out what it is later. I know a guy
who was responsible for organizing some of the Bill Graham collection
back when Uncle Bobo was still alive, he had no idea some of the stuff
they're selling (and streaming) existed.
>They're probably doing a mix of things they are/aren't allowed to do.
>The lawyers will figure it out - not the artists.
>
Yep, and the only people guaranteed to make money here are the lawyers
as well - although if there's enough money to be made then I think the
artists and WV will figure out a way to make money together.
Brad Greer
wrote:
>Brad Greer wrote:
>>
>>To a great extent the "rights" chain is twisted and confused. When
>>Vault Radio first started streaming stuff there were a number of
>>articles about what was going on. Bill Sagan (the guy who bought the
>>old Bill Graham stuff) indicated that he wanted to eventually sell the
>>concerts but finding out who he had to negotiate with for some of the
>>recordings wasn't easy. He implied that Graham had negotiated
>>broadcast rights for every concert in the vault as part of a standard
>>contract when artists played Graham's venues. Whether or not that is
>>true I have no idea. But that was his justification for streaming the
>>stuff.
>
>
>It's old shit. What's the big deal of him streaming it?
Because it's intellectual property. I notice you ask Google to not
archive your messages - what's the big deal with old shit?
>>Given that Vault Radio has been in operation for over a year and it's
>>just now that people are suing I'm speculating (with no facts to back
>>it up) that Sagan is getting ready to release some of the recordings
>>for sale. The streaming radio thing probably irks some artists a
>>little, but they're not going to sue over it necessarily, the thought
>>that Sagan might start selling the recordings will upset them (and
>>Sagan has indicated all along he doesn't have the right to do that for
>>the vast majority of the vault).
>
>
>I hope he takes it to a country where he can legally put it out and
>does so. These fucking "musicians" who don't want people to hear them
>are complete assholes.
>
Who said they don't want people to hear them? Sagan and Wolfgang's
Vault are using the recordings to try and make a profit (by drawing
people to his site to potentially buy memorabilia), why shouldn't the
people who made the music have a right to make money from it?
JerseyMike
Thanks for the offer Joe. Much appreciated! I'm going to buy it.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000001E3V/ref=m_art_li_2/002-9363577-5544813
frndthdevl
DG wrote:
>
> When did you stop raping children?
>
>
you really are an ugly asshole. I think the question "when did you
stop beating your wife ? " would have sufficed. So when did you stop
beating your wife?
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
New articles they almost certainly don't have rights to - photographs,
who knows? It's going to depend on who took the photo, and who they
sold the copyright to. Unless the band (or someone hired by the band) was
taking the photos it is doubtful they would be the photo copyright
holder.
> And if they're so concerned about this, why didn't they sue Bill Graham's
> people when they sold this lot to the highest bidder? They flat-out SOLD the
> recordings - a big GD no-no.
Why? They didn't own the physical recording. They own the copyright on that
performance (they have to give permission to sell copies of it), but
whomever owns the physical recording has the right to sell it - same as
if you bought an album at the store.
> At least these guys are just streaming them.
>
> They're probably doing a mix of things they are/aren't allowed to do.
> The lawyers will figure it out - not the artists.
Nah... if the artists lose the record companies will probably just lean on
their congressional stooges and get the law changed again.
--
Aaron
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
They should... unless they signed away broadcast rights, in which case -
tough shit.
As for using the recording to "draw people in to make a profit" - that is
irrelevant. If they have broadcast rights they are behaving no
differently than your standard radio station does with respect to
advertising.
--
Aaron
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
>
> DG wrote:
>
>> Bobby should just shut up... Every time he opens his mouth he shows
>> what a complete moron he is.
>>
>
> You are always trying to rationalize and justify your piracy. It is
> you who should just shut up. No one likes a whining, cry baby thief.
> Sly is more appropos. deal with what you can get on the qt.
If you go to another country with more lax IP laws, it isn't "piracy".
--
Aaron
Brad Greer
Agreed totally, although the rights to play the music seems to be in
dispute (none of us, of course, has any idea what types of contracts
were signed and where they stand in regards to broadcast rights). I
fully understand that radio stations play music to attract listeners
and that attracting listeners allows them to sell advertising but the
question of broadcast rights for offiically recorded and released
music is pretty clearly stated and understood.
I just happen to disagree with DG that an artist saying "hey, I don't
think you have the right to profit from my music" makes the artist
necessarily "greedy" or an asshole.
frndthdevl
DG wrote:
>
> You accuse me of something and can't take it back eh? When you start
> throwing sand, you should expect some to come back at you or get out
> of the box.
there is a diff between throwing sand and just being plain fucking
ugly. I never see anything humorous in the abuse of women or children.
Even "joking" about it. Sorry.
peace
jeff
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
Broadcast rights for both officially recorded and live recordings is
pretty straightforward.
> I just happen to disagree with DG that an artist saying "hey, I don't
> think you have the right to profit from my music" makes the artist
> necessarily "greedy" or an asshole.
It depends - if the artist believes he owns the rights I agree with you.
If the artist knows he doesn't own the rights but is just trying to use
a legal strong arm to get their way, I agree with DG.
--
Aaron
Brad Greer
I doubt that anyone who played at the Fillmore West worried about
Internet broadcasts of their concerts 35 years later. The vast
majority of the shows in the vault were not broadcast on the radio so
I don't know that the releases the artists signed included broadcast
rights or not - I doubt if you know either.
>> I just happen to disagree with DG that an artist saying "hey, I don't
>> think you have the right to profit from my music" makes the artist
>> necessarily "greedy" or an asshole.
>
>It depends - if the artist believes he owns the rights I agree with you.
>If the artist knows he doesn't own the rights but is just trying to use
>a legal strong arm to get their way, I agree with DG.
Again, see above. The artists may have signed away their rights, they
may not have. But they didn't sign away the rights for Internet
broadcasts because such a thing didn't exist at the time. I don't
think it's unreasonable, 35 years after the fact, to say "I couldn't
have anticipated this type of technology would exist and I'm not
comfortable allowing you to use my music this way." Sagan is (at
least attempting) to profit from the music, after all, and nobody's
calling him a greedy asshole.
Brian D.
"DG" <nos...@nospam.nospammmm> wrote in message
news:g4uno2hrgpq16sr8k...@4ax.com...
>
>
> When did you stop raping children?
>
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
I don't know - but this isn't a complicated subject (at least as far as
IP law is concerned), either he has signed releases or he doesn't. If
he does, the case is cut and dried and they have no chance. If he doesn't
the case is cut and dried and he has no chance.
>>> I just happen to disagree with DG that an artist saying "hey, I don't
>>> think you have the right to profit from my music" makes the artist
>>> necessarily "greedy" or an asshole.
>>
>>It depends - if the artist believes he owns the rights I agree with you.
>>If the artist knows he doesn't own the rights but is just trying to use
>>a legal strong arm to get their way, I agree with DG.
>
> Again, see above. The artists may have signed away their rights, they
> may not have. But they didn't sign away the rights for Internet
> broadcasts because such a thing didn't exist at the time. I don't
> think it's unreasonable, 35 years after the fact, to say "I couldn't
> have anticipated this type of technology would exist and I'm not
> comfortable allowing you to use my music this way."
Oh well. The law is clear. IF they signed away broadcast rights, they
signed away broadcast rights; radio, internet, or otherwise.
> Sagan is (at
> least attempting) to profit from the music, after all, and nobody's
> calling him a greedy asshole.
I could care less if he is a greedy asshole. All I care about is legally
correct. If he is greedy and legally correct, great. If the artists are
greedy and legally correct, great. People should be somewhat greedy about
their IP.
--
Aaron
eireann...@gmail.com
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801045.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y46un4
>
> Led Zeppelin, Doors members sue concert video site
>
> By Yinka Adegoke
> Reuters
> Monday, December 18, 2006; 8:43 PM
>
> NEW YORK (Reuters) - Some of rock 'n' roll's biggest names have teamed
> up to sue the owner of a Web site that specializes in streaming rare
> concert recordings.
>
> Wolfgang's Vault offers thousands of recordings of rare audio and
> video music performances collected over 30 years by Bill Graham, a
> famous concert promoter who died in 1991.
>
> On Monday, major rock names including Grateful Dead Productions,
> Carlos Santana and members of Led Zeppelin and The Doors, sued the
> current owner, claiming it was illegally offering recordings to
> stimulate sales of other products.
>
> Wolfgang's Vault representatives were not immediately available for
> comment.
>
> The site, (http://www.wolfgangsvault.com), also sells T-shirts,
> pictures and memorabilia such as vintage concert posters and tickets.
>
> The recordings were made at concert performances by a wide array of
> artists from Bob Marley to Bob Dylan. The site's collection has been
> described by some industry watchers as one of the most important
> groupings of rock memorabilia and recordings ever assembled in one
> business.
>
> The suit was filed at the U.S. District Court in the Northern District
> of California against William Sagan, who bought the assets of Graham
> for $5 million from Clear Channel Entertainment more than three years
> ago.
>
> "Sagan simply doesn't have the legal rights to exploit and profit from
> the extraordinary success of these musicians," Jeff Reeves, who
> represents the artists, said in a statement.
>
> Wolfgang's Vault derives from Graham's given name of Wolfgang
> Grajonca. Over the course of his career as a promoter he is credited
> within the music industry for helping create the modern concert
> promotion business.
>
> Live music performances, both in audio and video formats, are a
> fast-growing area online for companies including Time Warner Inc.'s
> AOL unit and Microsoft Corp.'s online unit MSN. Such companies say
> advertisers are keen for original content which works well in the
> online video format.
My name is Regina Cartwright, and I was BG's longtime companion, though not well-known - reason for which goes back to Bill's integrity. I informally helped Bill index the contents of WV, a labor of love for Bill, btw. In the aftermath of his death, his company, his life, Bill's legacy was savagely torn apart in a bitter feud between officers of his company, his family, and so called friends. I do know that he treasured WV -
Mark-T
> legacy was savagely torn apart in a bitter feud between officers
> of his company, his family, and so called friends.
broohaha over J Garcia's estate - they could have put
his ex and last wife into Thunderdome, that would've
settled it -
But of course they were all hippie free love Dead
heads, who loathed and fought the awful corporate
american tradition of buck chasing, who cared nothing
about $$, but only the finer higher spiritual artistic,
you know, IMPORTANT things in life, so what do you expect?
The never ending saga of The Human Comedy -
Mark