here's my take on your articles (Only because you asked):

1) the first two discuss what's LEGAL, but that's not the issue here. A comparison that comes to mind is that of visiting the home of someone who has requested visitors not to smoke. The visitor may argue that it is legal to smoke, and he may even be right. But still it would be inappropriate to override the owner's request.

The rule I'm talking about is not the law, it is the condition for participation that PGMusic has set forth in clear writing.

2) My take on the last one (a collection of attaboys from Peter Gannon) is as follows:

It is important that they have clearly posted rules in case the music gestapo tries to make a fuss. But PGmusic has often winked at their own rules. The adage that it's easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission applies here.

Furthermore, Dr. Gannon has shown himself to be an amazingly tolerant person. He has no incentive to bear down on anybody, that's a lose-lose proposition for any businessman... and I think he'd rather people had fun, which you are clearly doing.

Plus, he clearly likes what you're doing, and rightly so. But that's a different discussion.

Obviously, I can't speak for the owner of the business. But I can point to the rules that apply to everybody else on the forum. Many people have bemoaned the fact that they aren't supposed to post their versions of other peoples' songs. Those who have asked for permission have been denied. On the other hand, those who have presumed approval and just posted have never been reprimanded as far as I can see.

Returning to the analogy, you may not be openly chastised for smoking in the non-smoker's house.. but all of the other smokers who have sucked it up and honored the owner's wishes will certainly take note.

Last edited by Pat Marr; 05/24/13 10:07 PM.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ey71h8ep047758h/AAC12jNM0Hz9Q8zsh5iDeqNHa?dl=0