Hi Tim and MMD.  Tim, you wrote:

> I close by stating that no criticism is intended or implied towards
> either Mr. Perry or Mr. Caulfield; the former asked in good faith.

I certainly don't take offence and found your post really enlightening.
Unfortunately, I didn't make my reasons for asking the question
particularly clear in the first place, so there's been some
misunderstanding.

In investigating the remains of the Reliance Music Roll Co. of
Auckland, New Zealand, we found, among their collection of other
company's rolls, some that had been edited, many extra notes added.
Although it isn't clear whether they released the edited rolls on one
of their labels, I thought I'd ask as to the legality of this.  I
certainly don't intend to go chopping up any of my old rolls!

The question about the recording piano was because the people who were
sorting out the Reliance estate said that the player piano there looked
like a normal player piano.  It was later destroyed by fire, and I was
wondering if it could in fact have been a recording piano, as the
majority of the Reliance rolls sound very hand played.

Tim, I'm still very interested about the legality question.  What if
someone, say Pete Wendling, heard an Edith Murn roll on the Mastertouch
label, and liked the performance so much he learnt it note by note and
mimicked the style, recording for QRS?  Would that have been legal, as
it *was* actually his fingers on the recording piano!

Regards,
Robert Perry