![]() |
THE |
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.thelema,alt.magick.order From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nigris (333)) Subject: Copyrighting, Crowley and Thelema Date: 23 Jul 1999 23:12:10 -0700 49990713 IVom a correspondent wrote: # Crowley copyrights has become central to the institutional geography of # Thelemic occultism. Accordingly I do consider it a legitimate area for # discussion for Thelema 93. where it can be related to the subject of Thelema I agree strongly. talking about the sociopolitical Thelemic landscape and examining the repercussions of the use of "vulgar" court systems to support an essentially elitist (spiritual/philosophical) objective that may wish to extend beyond such conventions of culture, we are wise to consider whether the actions of any particular 'Thelemic' organization are representative of the loftiest common ideals endemic to the philosophy and/or religion identified as 'Thelemic' per se. when does protest and noncompliance with the law of the land become an essentially Thelemic activity? when does the use of a legal system which does not operate by Thelemic principles (?) to support oneself or the position of one's organization begin to become contrary to the promulgation of the Law of Thelema, if ever? I have consulted with my best legal advisor, who offered this review in response to the claims made by Mr. Paul Smith .... "PSmith" (who subsequently disappeared after spamming secret text): # In 1973, when 'Secrets'was originally published, it # is not subject to the Berne convention, nor the # copyright revisions of 1976, the copyright revision of 1976 refers to US law only. a book published prior to 1976 could only have been protected by the newer, tougher law if its copyright was properly renewed at the time renewal was due. # and the term of copyright was 25 years, in America, if this indeed is the "non-Berne-Convention country" to which is referred, the term of copyright is not 25 years, but 27 years. it may allow a 1 year grace period for renewal. I suggest a visit to the website of the Library of Congress or the Copyright Office for the relevant documentation (provide URLs if you wish us to see what you found). # and was not,(to my knowledge) written as a work for hire, nor # was the copyright sold to OTO. whether true or not, this could be easily determined by a simple copyright search at the Library of Congress. # There fore according to the law under which it was written, # it should be now in the public domain. if King is dead and cannot renew, and the grace period for the renewal has expired, and if he did not bequeath the copyright to an "heir or assign" who renewed it, then indeed the work has fallen into the public domain. after a book has become public domain, it can no longer be copyrighted nor can a renewal be filed for it in the original edition. subsequent copyrights granted to public domain books invariably seek only to protect a revised "format", introductory materials, annotations, etc. the matter of dating is crucial here. one would need to know the actual date of copyright and the date of expiration. this information as well as any pertaining to a possible assumption of and/or renewal of the copyright by any individual or organi- zation is of necessity a matter of public record and can be determined by anyone with the time to walk into the Copyright Office of the US govt. (in or near Washington DC) and perform the research. end of my source's response. I urge those who are interested to carry this out and report back to us with an URL indicating your results. beyond this, quibbling over the fine details is a waste of all our time. here is the address of this copyright office: Register of Copyright Library of Congress Washington DC, 20559 the files are open to the public and it costs nothing to search them. if you cannot go there in person the Library of Congress maintains a list of professional copyright searchers to whom you can pay a small fee for accomplishing the job. correspondent #1 wrote additionally: # copy right law is not intended to prevent the transmission of # information, merely control who makes copies of things. Accordingly, # these attempts [to prevent the spread of OTO information] are # doomed to failure. I agree though I am not a lawyer. it would be fun to hear what the DC copyright office has to say about it, though. blessed beast! __________________________________________________________________________ (333) nagasiva@luckymojo.com; http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html -- emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired
![]() |
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
![]() |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|