Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00030)

> No it is *not* ... it was not claimed that the *email post* was
> copyrighted, but rather, clearly implied that copyright priviledges were
> being claimed for the 1900 Letter.

     No, there was no such claim, and as no one inquired of me as to
what I was doing, any perceived implications, are, by law, not
applicable.

> *Your own words* are all that you claim
> the right to, *not* those of the 1900 Letter, and to even imply such is
> not only against the spirit, but close to breaking the letter of the
> copyright law.

     No such implication was ever made, and the procedures followed are
legal.

> Besides, this is a TS list, with a considerable number of published
> authors in residence, and the continued insistance that no wrong was done
> by a member that actually attempted to *give us permission* to use an
> historical theosophical document so long as we used it according to
> conditions *he* articulated

     No such thing was ever done or implied, accusations of illegality
or wrong-doing are unnecessary when a civilized inquiry would resolve
the matter.

P
--
***  A.Priori  /  6524 San Felipe #323  /  Houston, TX  77057    USA
***  aprioripa@aol.com  /  http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html