> Completely irrelevant to this case. This is a site for discussing film
> music. We are talking about James Horner not Gustav Holst.

This is just dishonest nonsense. We are not talking about Gustav Holst??? The original poster (correctly) asserted that James Horner has "stolen some notes " from Holst's "Jupiter", but I belive that that melody is already closely patterned after an earlier work. This is HARDLY irrelevant!!!! If, for example, an architect were taken to court for allegedly stealing another architect's designs and it later transpired that those designs were originally stolen from the earlier workings of another person, this factor would have to be taken into consideration! True it would not dilute or justify the actions of the second thief but you would have to investigate both - maybe as seaperate cases but both would have to be dealt with. But, of course, you've subtly put a stopper on this by by saying that this is a site strictly limited to discussing film music - a cheap tactic. Claiming that something is a plagiarism of another thing automatically calls into question the reliability of both materials. You cannot surpress or wilfully ignore new information simply because you are uncomfortable with what it implies.