From thelema93-l-owner@hollyfeld.org Sat Oct 11 07:38:09 1997 Received: from veracruz-gw.customer.itw.net (veracruz-gw.customer.ITW.NET [208.211.5.42]) by bay2.bjt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA10661 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 07:38:08 -0700 Received: from www.hollyfeld.org ([204.130.199.143]) by veracruz-gw.customer.itw.net (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAA173 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 10:44:17 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by www.hollyfeld.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA01207 for thelema93-l-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 09:30:43 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: www.hollyfeld.org: majordom set sender to owner-thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org using -f Received: from smtp.well.com (smtp.well.com [206.80.6.147]) by www.hollyfeld.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id JAA01186 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 09:30:25 -0400 Received: from LOCALNAME (sf3-ppp44.well.com [206.15.84.44]) by smtp.well.com (8.8.6/8.8.4) with SMTP id GAA20867 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 06:27:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19971011061524.33572892@mail.well.com> X-Sender: heidrick@mail.well.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (16) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 06:15:24 To: thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org From: Bill Heidrick Subject: Re: SOTO manifesto In-Reply-To: References: <19971010223446.9575.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org Status: RO 93, John Tarnowski wrote: >Quite right, as far as I know.. is there anyone (Caliphate member or >otherwise) who has information to the contrary (ie. that the OTO _has_ >defended and been granted copyright in other countries?). I would be >especially interested as to whether the COTO has been able to claim this >copyright in England... OTO has the copyright in England, but some litigation will probably be necessary. Likewise in most other European Countries, Canada and other places. OTO didn't stop with the '85 e.v. case. >> does anyone on the list have a good justification as to why >> >the COTO should have exclusive rights to the publication of any of >> >Crowley's texts, much less those that many consider religious works? > >> Quality control, editing rights and cash benefits. But, then again, > >Those are the three we usually hear (and I'm sure that's what the COTO >members will be responding). Add: Crowley's expressed wish in his Last Will and Testament. For some of the works, add that they were written for OTO directly. More, major publishing houses want clear title in their contracts, not ambiguous ownership. >However, upon closer analysis none of them hold up. Partly a matter of opinion. Partly a question of fact, but that's something better taken up by 3rd parties in this place. >Second, editing rights. Why is this a justification at all? This point could be expanded a good deal. Interpretation is complex. Where notes help, they can be added. Some editors, including Motta, re-write or insert notes without proper distinction. Some editors alter to suit their own views in more drastic ways (e.g. Level Press changing "Do what thou wilt shall be..." to "Do what thou wilt is...". Proper edit should include acquisition of source MSS and TSS -- for that money is needed, such as can be obtained via royalties and a dues base (e.g., next edition of _Book 4_ will have still more missing Crowley text restored from a TSS that cost OTO $20,000). OTO trys to provide straight Crowley text, as complete as possible, with clearly distinguished additional information in notes attributed to sources. >Is the OTO >saying only it can properly 'edit' (read: interpret) Crowley's work? No. Also OTO editions do not alter text for the sake of interpretation. >Or is >it saying that other "shady" individuals, in abscense of the copyright, >would in some way edit their version of a Crowley work to "pervert it's >intent"? Frequent problem. Sometimes entire texts are made up from patch work or whole cloth, e.g. Liber Apocalypsos and Jimmy Rocket's Book of Perfection -- the latter at least does not claim be by Crowley, but the former falsely does. >But others would produce editions that would >amaze and appeal to me or you. It would be a free market, and I feel that >it would add both diversity and publicity to the efforts >towards promulgation of Thelema. Surprise! OTO does authorize such editions from time to time. Hardly a month goes by without someone sending in a permission to print request through me. About half of those (paper and WWW) are granted by OTO HQ. >Finally, cash. Yes, well, that's not really a justification for why the >Caliphate should have the copyrights, its just the real reason why they >_want_ the copyrights. Crowley felt differently. >I can understand the desire to have the copyright on the name "OTO", Nope, Trademark. Important technical distinction. >But the books that were meant for mass consumption, _especially_ the holy >books (and among those _ESPECIALLY_ the Book of the Law) should be free of >restriction (its the word of sin, you know...). For the COTO to try to >enforce a copyright of these texts (especially the 'holy' texts) strikes >me as the highest of immoral and hypocritical actions. We are taking it under advisement, regarding the Holy Books. 93 93/93 Bill ____________...oooOOO---thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org---OOOooo..._____________ To subscribe send: 'subscribe thelema93-l' to majordomo@hollyfeld.org To unsubscribe send: 'unsubscribe thelema93-l' to majordomo@hollyfeld.org http://www.hollyfeld.org/heaven