I wonder if he ever felt a tiny pang of guilt sending bailiffs round to squeeze the last drops of blood out of his former friend.it seems I am an unreliable narrator, I really should have done my research before posting my potentially libellous contribution to this thread - the damages awarded to Vangelis were only £200,000
I wonder if he ever felt a tiny pang of guilt sending bailiffs round to squeeze the last drops of blood out of his former friend.
Are you sure was Brix?
That looks like a rotten theftI'd love to hear the arguments that the lawyers made that were able to convince judge and/or jury that there was no similarity between the tunes - and that in fact it was so ludicrous of the plaintiff to claim that there was, that his action in bringing the case had to be seen as a malicious attempt to extort the legitimate profits an innocent man had earned from his original work of art - not to mention as a huge waste of the court's time. It seems that the lawyers were able to further persuade the judge that the only moral and legal course of action open to him was to apply punitive damages against the plaintiff at such a massive level that it would dissuade anyone from even thinking of trying this scam again. They must have reasoned that although hitting a penniless artist with such a large fine would mean that he would never be able to pay it back and thus it would, sadly, completely destroy his life, that was a necessary evil that could be borne to rid the world of such spurious cases.
Seems like he copied him there for the second time, er, I mean for the first time of course. To any lawyers reading this, let me be clear that no-one with ears could think that the Vangelis tune was in any way influenced by the other version of it that his flatmate did before his version and which he definitely played to him.