flyfisher

[quote name='Grangur' timestamp='1370871299' post='2106615'] because £750 will buy you another 14yr old SAAB. The fact that yours has new tyres, exhaust and pink furry dice doesn't come into it. It's illegal to profit from insurance. [/quote] I'm not expecting to profit from insurance, but if I've just paid £360 for a new set of tyres, £200 for new discs and pad, and £150 for a new exhaust system, then that's £710 alone, so unless £750 buys me a new 14 year old Saab WITH all those new parts fitted then I'm not profiting from insurance I'm actually LOSING from it. Surely the whole point of insurance is to put you EXACTLY back into the same position as you were before the claim - no gain and no loss. Fortunately, I've never had a car written off but all the people I know who have felt that they had actually lost out through absolutely no fault of their own. Why should I care that it costs £1000 to repair damage to my £750 car? If someone inflicts £1000 worth of damage then they should pay the cost of reinstatement. That doesn't give me a profit it just gives me back what I already had!

You're confusing the 3rd party cover for damage to others with the cover for damage to your own vehicle. When that 5 series BMW driver drives into my car, his insurer will pay our £1000s to repair his vehicle but only a maximum of £750 for the damage to mine by using the "write off" rule. The damage to his car is fully fixed but mine is not. How is that fair?

It's not about making a profit, it's about knowing where you stand in case of a loss. Car insurance is another example where we end up at the whim of insurers as far as value is concerned. Why, for example, do insurers always want to know the value of the vehicle when they'll only pay out the "market price" (which they seem to always know!) if it's written off anyway? And writing off is a whole scam in itself. I have a 14 year old Saab 95. it's probably not worth more than a grand, maybe only £750. This means that pretty much anyone bumping into it will result in a "write-off". But, I've had it almost from new, I know its service history, it has been well looked after and is in perfect running order - so it's worth a lot more than £750 to me. But I still get charged about 33% of it's "market value" for insurance! if someone damages my car I don't want the insurance company to be able to decide to simply write it off, I want it repaired to the condition it was in before it was damaged! In fact, if anyone DOES cause such accidental damage then I would seriously consider suing them personally for the cost of repairs and let them argue with their insurance company about who should pay for what.

[quote name='Grangur' timestamp='1370865700' post='2106476'] Don't forget the risk insurers have of being de-frauded. You could tell them you have a Wal. You don't own one, but you've got a pic of you holding one. You agree a value of £2K. You take out a policy with £2k as an agreed value and pay your £15 a month (theoretical sum, i don't know the price). 3 months later you call the insurance company and claim for a theft of the Wal that never existed. And you take their £2k and buy a nice Wal, or whatever. [b]This is why they want paperwork and evidence.[/b] House/car insurance is different at least there's loads of paperwork to verify the car/house existed and you DID own it. [/quote] Fair point about proof of ownership to help avoid fraud, but the actual value could still be separately agreed - the higher you want to insure it for, the more premium you'll have to pay.

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1370865829' post='2106480'] In my (shared) experience, most insurance is no less a gamble than taking your bass out to a gig. I don't have mine insured because the cost of it balanced against the actual likelihood of a payout makes is pretty pointless Insurnace is about minimising risk and, in truth, after 33 years of gigging with only one potential claim, I would consider gigging without insurance to be no grave risk. Sensible precautions such as making sure the instrument isn't too accessible to sticky fingers and, number one, never actually letting it out of your (or a trusted bandmate's) sight pretty much cover it. [/quote] Yep . . . [quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1370865829' post='2106480'] As for venues where there is a likelihood of trouble, why would I play there anyway [/quote] . . . and double yep.

[quote name='iconic' timestamp='1370861999' post='2106360'] Would/could household insurance cover [i]anything[/i] out of the house when damaged/lost/stolen? [/quote] Yes. Most household policies have provision for "all risks" cover for items likely to be taken out of the house, e.g. cameras, phones, ipods, bikes, guns etc. Some require them to be explicitly named if they are above a certain value - it all depends on the policy. BUT, read the conditions very carefully because musical equipment being used for [u]commercial[/u] purposes will probably not be covered.

[quote name='Kev' timestamp='1370815294' post='2106016'] Again, it is because on the higher risk of a more expensive risk. The Underwriters would indeed reduce settlement by the percentage of inder insurance, but they can also declare under insurance so great that they will void the policy from inception. how about this: If the house was only insured for half it's value and, for the sake of discussion, half of the house suffered fire damage and would cost half the house's value (or the full sum insured) to repair, why should the insurers pay as if it were a total loss? They would quite appropriately pay 50% towards the repairs, as you have chosen to insure 50% of the value of your house. [/quote] Sorry to keep on about this but it's interesting to talk it through with someone from the insurance industry. Is a more expensive risk always a higher risk though? I can see a possible relationship with theft, when a more expensive item is more likely to be targeted, but am I really at higher risk of having an accident in an expensive car than in a cheap car? Regarding the house example, is a big house really likely to be at greater risk of burning down than a small one? Perhaps the issue is concentrating too much on value rather than the insured amount. Suppose I want to insure my house against fire damage up to a maximum limit of, say, £100k. Why does it matter how much the house is actully worth? The underwriters will know the risks of house fires and they know their maximum payout is £100k - isn't that enough information to set a premium for the requested cover? Isn't this the same sort of thing as life insurance? I can buy a life policy for any amount of payout depending on the premium I wish to pay. Same with musicians who choose to insure their hands against injury for any amount they wish. I'm not having a go at the insurance industry, I just don't understand why simple 'agreed value' policies are not more widely available. It would surely save a lot of argument in the event of a claim? it would also avoid the policy buyer from the risk of valuing something that they are not really competent to do. For example, buildings insurance generally requires you to insure for the full rebuilding cost, including site clearance etc etc. How many householders really know how to determine that? So they can either pay for a professional valuation or just make a guess and risk being under-insured in the even of a claim. So perhaps they 'over guestimate' just to be safe, but then end up paying a higher premium than they really need. it's all very unsatisfactory.

[quote name='White Cloud' timestamp='1370857759' post='2106252'] This is wisdom. [/quote] Indeed. It makes one wonder about a society that legalises alcohol, which generally turns people into fighting machines, but bans cannabis, which generally chills them out.

[quote name='Kev' timestamp='1370811199' post='2105942'] Insurers will always opt to replace the instrument, rather than give a cash settlement. Almost always, if cash in lieu of repair/replacement is considered, it will be on a contribution basis only. That's certainly one reason why things need to be insured for what they are worth. [/quote] Perhaps they treat instruments differently then, but I've made claims for a stolen camcorder and a lost diamond our of an engagement ring and in both cases the insurers paid a cash amount and didn't require me to buy a replacement item. [quote name='Kev' timestamp='1370811199' post='2105942'] Why should an insurer allow you to under-insure? For example, if you choose to insure a £5000 bass for £100, yes the insurance company will only pay £100 in the event of a claim for theft. But think also of the increase in risk, a bass worth £5000 is a lot more likely to be stolen than a bass worth £100, so the insurer would want a higher premium for that extra risk. [/quote] Fair point about the extra risk element of an expensive bass, but I'd expect the insurer to adjust the premium to account for that regardless of the insured amount. it shouldn't be difficult for a specialist insurer to do, should it? it could be that someone has a very expensive bass that they can't afford to insure for full value, so they might decide that, say, £500 would pay for an adequate replacement instrument. So yes, they would be under-insured in terms of the instrument value, but not in terms of the underwriter's risk, which would be limited to £500 and the premium would be priced accordingly. I know insurers don't like things to be under-insured but, frankly, insurance is now becoming stupidly expensive that it's worth considering 'self- insurance' in a lot of instances. I knew someone who lived in a big old house. In the late 80s it was listed and insurance suddenly became much more expensive. The person concerned could not afford the premiums so asked if they could insure the house for a fixed amount so that in the event of a catastrophic fire they would receive enough money to at least move to a smaller house. They couldn't find any insurance on this basis because they all said that under-insurance would mean that in the event of a total loss the payout would be reduced by the percentage of under-insurance. Eg, assuming the house was £200k but it was insured for only £100k the insurance companies would regard that as 50% under-insured so instead of paying out the £100k insured value, they would actually only pay out 50% of that, i.e. £50k - even though premiums would have been set for a £100k insured value. I've never really understood this.

[quote name='mentalextra' timestamp='1370794398' post='2105600'] That would be my concern? There are no agreed values with second hand instruments [/quote] Surely it's possible to just agree an insured value to be paid out in case of loss? Actually, I don't even see why it has to be a particularly accurate value as long as it is agreed up front. if you want to insure a bass for £5,000 you'll just have to pay a much higher premium than if you insure it for £500. But at least both parties will have agreed the sum insured and wouldn't have to argue the toss in the event of a claim.

Too much integrity perhaps?

[quote name='clashcityrocker' timestamp='1370768951' post='2105201'] The idea is buy it for as close to 1k as possible then sell it in 15 years for 10k ;-) [/quote] Nice idea, but you'll be at the mercy of fashion and market sentiment and a lot can happen in 15 years. It's just a bet really and the golden rule (to avoid financial problems) is to only bet what you can afford to lose.

[quote name='Kev' timestamp='1370793029' post='2105567'] Yes, always worth checking Policies very carefully. In fact, new changes by the FCA have abolished utmost good faith and the requirement to disclose material facts, so the position of the Insured has actually improved, particularly in cases like yours. Had you not disclosed the competition, and had they not specifically asked if at any point during the holiday there would be any sort of competition, the ombudsman would almost certainly rule in your favour. [/quote] That's good to hear, but the policy DID specifically exclude competitions. The issue for me was that I would have interpreted that as meaning that any claim arising directly out of the competition itself would not have been covered. But the insurer's interpretation was that the [u]entire trip[/u] was for the purpose of competition so there would be no cover. I can't argue against their decision, it's up to them after all, but it's an example of how misunderstandings can arise. So I cancelled the policy (for a full refund, so fair play to them in that respect) and am now looking for one that will rovide the cover I'm looking for - but it makes it a much more involved and time-consuming process.

I use Audigy to simply record any audio as it is being played to a wav file and then convert to any format I want. it's the equivalent of plugging a recorder into the audio output and therefore is pretty much immune to any form of content management/protection system.

A good warning for everyone to read their policies very carefully. I'm currently having a little insurance issue of my own. I wanted an annual family travel insurance policy and spoke to a broker who found a seemingly good one that would also provide cover for various sports such as diving (to 30m), sailing and kayaking. However, it did specifically exclude 'competitions', which doesn't affect me and Mrs FF but it did affect FF junior as he represents GB in kayaking competitions. I declared this as a 'material fact' and explained that insurance while taking part in competitions is already provided by the GB team via the British Canoe Union. However, I was then informed that ANY competition element would void his ENTIRE trip because they would not accept that the purpose of the trip was for holiday purposes - even though the policy was described as 'travel insurance' and not 'holiday insurance'. So, it turned out that his recent three week trip through across Europe, stopping off at various places, was not covered at all because one weekend was for a kayaking competition, which made the entire trip a 'competition' as far as the insurance company is concerned. OK, this is not a music gear example, but it is an example of how policyholders and insurance companies can interpret very common circumstances in very different ways. Caveat emptor!

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1370728088' post='2105007'] ...and yet it was the punks who have the lasting musical legacy. [/quote] . . . .and the butter adverts.

She should have thrown the frying pan as well.

Come on people . . . there must be someone out there who thinks Liam Gallagher is a rock god. Someone? Anyone? Don't be shy. Not that I'm drumming up support for him. I'm firmly in the 'Liam-is-a-talentless-knob-riding-on-his-brother's-coat-tails' camp - I'm just a little suprised it seems to be a universal opinon.

[quote name='JellyKnees' timestamp='1370702761' post='2104638'] It was a kick up the arse for a turgid rock music scene - all those dire metal, prog and aor 70s bands that were still around peddling all that tired overblown rubbish. It was an exercise in back to basics simplicity. A lot of it was crap but it served a necessary purpose. [/quote] Well yes, but don't forget that all that 'turgid rock' hadn't been around for very long itself and was just another short-term manifestation of the general desire for something different - whatever that means. Punk may have a been a refreshing change when it first appeared (same as prog rock) but it soon became commonplace (same as prog rock) and finally became tedious and boring (same as prog rock). Both were of their own times and those times inevitably changed. Although there the analogy ends because prog rockers were musically talented and could actually play their instruments.

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1370684703' post='2104305'] It was just another way of a generation of disaffected yoof to say saying 'F*** you'! We all did it one way or another. [/quote] Yep, that's my take on punk as well. it followed the well-trodden path of mods, rockers, teddy boys, hippies, skinheads, goths, emos, whatever. And like all fashionable things it flowered briefly and then died when its participants grew up and something different came along for the next 'yoof' generation to join in with. C'est la via.

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1370645187' post='2104044'] They say Beethoven wasn't a nice man either. That doesn't diminish his contribution. [/quote] Indeed. You don't have to like someone in order to like/dislike/appreciate their creativity. More to the point, who really 'knows' all these artists/celebs anyway?

[quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1370622770' post='2103646'] Did you read my OP mate? Or are you intent on causing trouble? If you read my OP you would realise it was not to cause arguments but to explore a train of thought. [/quote] One man's debate is another man's argument is another man's trolling.

Last time I saw BB King in concert, he played sitting down. But there again, he's a music legend and can do whatever he likes.

[quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1370546351' post='2102574'] There was nothing like the Beatles before them, they innovated, they are the most iconic, successful and enduring pop band ever unless I'm mistaken. [/quote] . . . Which is probably the answer to your questions. Is it so surprising that such a band should be a big influence on e music industry for so long? Could we perhaps be a bit more generic and focus on the genre rather than particular band? You could probably re-phrase your basic point in terms of 'rock and roll' rather than a particular band. Look at 'popular' music pre and post the 1950s (roughly) - perhaps Elvis was the big influence, or Buddy Holly etc etc?

[quote name='Gust0o' timestamp='1370468707' post='2101592'] Lot of time for Jethro Tull - prog rock was a real cornerstone of growing up and some of my first musical experiences. [/quote] Ditto. [quote name='RhysP' timestamp='1370469140' post='2101598'] Don't forget "Skating away on the thin ice of the new day" - probably my Favourite Tull song & one of my favourite songs by anybody ever: [/quote] Ditto.