|[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]|
|[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
Dec 02, 1996 11:15 AM
by Patrick Alessandra Jr.
> 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 *** firstname.lastname@example.org / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html