|
|
|
|
OML Archives-
Subject: Re: call from WRM - Wed, 24 Jan 1996 15:06:22 -0500
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 15:06:22 -0500
From: Jim Martin <flatland@mail.mcn.org>
To: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: call from WRM
Sender: owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Jogg, & OML,
First, apologies to jogg for addressing the mail to him personally. It was
really an open letter, and I was using you as a sounding board because, well,
you brought it up.
> First Jim, I also am a member of Friends WRM and I didn't say they said
> someone was stealing. I said that those who publish copyright material are
> stealing.
If you look at my email again, you'll see I said the WRM accuses people of
"stealing" even when the documents are in the public record. I've gotten several
letters from Kolleeny referrring to "theft" of "property". Somehow that language
sticks in my craw. If someone called you a thief, wouldn't that "strike a
chord?" Especially maddening when in fact the WRM is trying to restrict people's
access to public "property". Stealing from the public. I was just asking you if
you agreed with that view. I'm glad to hear that you don't.
The Who was Mary Henderson at the WRM who called me and was
> asking about what was going on with someone on the internet proposing to
> use a scanner to publish Reich's books and/or publishings on the internet.
> They did not infer anything about Contact with Space. I asked them what
> their interpretation of the copyright of that book was since it was part of
> public record in the courts. You or Ken refer to material in Boston. What
> about the material in Portland, Maine federal court where the trial took
> place? I also asked about the will of Reich being public record and she
> said "they have copyright to everything they sell at the bookstore" . She
> also referred me to contact MBH about the will etc. as she will be in Maine
> in early February.
Well, whoever passed on this misinformation to Henderson should please step
forward and be accounted for. Obviously, most people on the OML think that would
be a bad idea (or at least more trouble than anyone needs.) Whoever is passing
posts to the WRM should at least get the story straight. Plus, hasn't someone's
copyright been violated here? Hmmmm. Rather than put jogg in the middle, maybe
the person who thought the WRM should be alerted to the OML should step into the
open and articulate the WRM's position.
> "Nothing but suppress" you say. I think this is an exaggeration but I agree
> that I would like to see much more available as I have said that I
> mentioned to MBH that it would be great to have his works put on CD-ROM.
At first I was going to agree that phrase is an exaggeration, but upon further
reflection, I can't. The books now in print aren't true to Reich's work. I know
the WRM has been having more workshops, but from what I can tell an awful lot of
time there is being spent squashing people who don't agree with Higgins' narrow
views.
> After thinking more about the conversation she mentioned it was to be
> published by Farrar Straus. I only assumed it in German as I had posted a
> note in the pore recent book section that I received from germany by email
> about several books being published in german of WR's later work. But upon
> checking that post it appears those works are published by some other
> source. So maybe Mary Henderson was referring to a publishing in English.
> She actually didn't say what language.
I don't think FSG publishes in German, so if this is true, I'm elated. That's
all I'm asking: let's keep the books in print.
> "It's like talking to a stone" you say. Well I don't agree totally.
I'm glad there's another side, but in my experience it's been one Bad Day at
Black Rock after another.
> As for copyright rules I am not
> a lawyer but I feel if WR had a copyright on a book that he submitted as
> evidence it doesn't mean he signed away his copyright to the book. Does a
> person have to sign away all rights to their copyright to make it fully
> public??
I would say so, either something is fully public or it is private "property". In
the last issue of Flatland (#12) Eva Reich stated that she believes that Contact
is public domain. That is her opinion, and it is mine. We are allowed our
opinions, but Higgins' lawyer wrote demanding a retraction! It is a fact that
the National Archives in Boston will make copies for anyone who asks. The
document has a different title than Contact With Space, but the contents are the
same. The easy solution is for WRM to republish it. For the record, I have no
intention of publishing it. Even if it is a public document, the WRM should make
some roylaties, or better yet, real proceeds if they publish it themselves.
I do not know these answers and do not portend to know. I
> certainly feel that his Will and Testament is public record just like his
> Response to the Court, but that is a far cry from what they were concerned
> about when they called me to ask about someone wanting or suggesting that
> WR work be scanned and published on the Internet.
Why shouldn't Reich's writings like his Response to the Court be scanned and
published on the internet? He was writing to, and for, everybody.
> I agree that the above would be unheard of in any estate not to catalogue
> all the contents of the estate upon death. MBH wasn't the trustee at the
> time of death and wasn't the trustee until Eva Reich appointed her. Eva
> Reich was the trustee for a a few years. Did Eva catalogue it all??
Eva didn't have any royalties at all to work with. She also had to try to eke
out a living. It's my understanding that she worked very hard to place the
published work on microfilm. And she wasn't trustee more than 3-4 years. Higgins
has been there over thirty years.
> I feel like I hit a cord here by your reaction. But did I ever say that Jim
> Martin was stealing?? Please quote me where I said that. I am sorry but I
> don't know where or when you reprinted "New Laws Needed to Restrain
> Pathological Power Drunkenness" and I haven't seen your reprint to make
> such a comment.
You didn't say I was stealing. Higgins does. I reprinted the court document in
Flatland #12. If Higgins asserts that public domain materials are her "property"
then who's the thief? She's stealing from the public trust.
Jogg, I appreciate your thoughts on this and am glad to have a chance to vent my
frustration with the handling of Reich's estate. I'm sure I'm not alone, but
given the climate, I don't blame anyone who chooses to avoid the whole mess. I
think Higgins attitude toward the estate makes orgonomy seem secretive and
cultish, and I'm glad to have the opportunity to get this out in the open.
Obviously, in a public forum like this, she's taken notice.
-Jim Martin
--- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Many thanks for Geocities providing this free space
Get your own Free Home Page
bravenet.com