"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"
-
I believe his point is that it's irrelevant what the copyright of the original is. By changing anything at all. You create a new work, with a new copyright period. The specific edition is newly protected, under those conditions.
The original. Though, is its own thing.
There are various exceptions and special cases, but the above is widely true. (Don't get me started n the 'work in progress' exceptions.)
-
Yeah, that side of the equation is definitely true. My question (and deep seated discomfort with the whole thing) stems from motive. If the book has been in the public domain, then this controversy can be chalked up to honest scholarly disagreement (I think one side has the clear factual advantage, but I'm willing to give the other the benefit of the doubt).
If, however, this is a work that is currently under copyright but will be falling out within the decade... a motivation to retain copyright for another X number of years enters into the evaluation. Yes, as the law sees it, they are two separate works. The copyright holder, on the other hand, would experience it as an extension on royalties for their "Authorized Edition".
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
-
I decided, at the beginning of this question, not to speculate on motives. I can, however, see consequences of the actions
If I speculate on motives, I make this personal. I would also be ignoring the fact that multiple people were surely involved in this decision (it's the sort of thing that would have resulted in conversations among several people - some known to me, some not) - and that means motives are multiple, individual, not necessarily all of them being known to all parties.
Ah, unless it was a conspiracy! <vbg>
And I'm certain (from those parties I do know) that at least some motives, and perhaps the strongest motives, are positive (even when I disagree with the result).
So... I do get the discomfort on this, bro. I just wanted to distinguish my comments on consequences from any actual ascription of motive.
PS - In case it hasn't been answered here: Yes, the Crowley literary estate has, as far as I know, always accepted Liber Legis as public domain. Considering Crowley's repeated, unequivocal, sometimes emphatic statement that he wasn't the author, that isn't surprising.
-
I think I and Jim have answered your question, Gnosomai Emauton, regarding the "re-upping" of copyright authority. Legally speaking, one can currently publish ALL of Crowley's words (the 70 years didn't apply to his age of works, only those some years shortly prior to that copyright treaty, Crowley's works had a 25 year lifespan) as public domain. What the OTO can currently own copyright on are specific editions (ie with Indexes, annotations, footnotes, etc, which weren't published by Crowley in his life) - but his words themselves are now free to distribute as he wrote them. On the other hand, if you revise a work with a "correction," that correction is a new copyright held by whomever expended the effort - in the current case, the OTO.
Motives? "If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops & does nought."
-
Yep. That answers the question.
EDIT: Now that I'm home from my walk, I double checked UK copyright law and the updates in 1911, 1956, 1988, & 1995 were retroactive. The 1995 act stirred up a bit of controversy for reviving the copyright of works that had recently fallen into the public domain. So, in fact, all of Crowley's works are still under copyright in the UK until 1 Dec 2017 (I was incorrect on my previous statement of 75 years). Whether this applies to Aiwass is another matter but, unless the literary estate released them to the public domain, the rest still have a few years left to go.
-
Under American copyright law and the World Intellectual Copyright Treaty of 1996, the Geneva Text remains intact and those authorships expired after the 25 year period. You may want to research again.
-
A - I was referring to UK copyright law as that is the jurisdiction for Crowley's literary estate.
B - As I understand it, the WCT of 1996 updated the Berne convention to bring the language in line with digital publishing. The treaty itself doesn't stipulate any terms or limits, merely that any member state must extend the same protections to a work originally published in another member state as it would to one of its own. Thus, any work by authors from any member state get life-of-the-author plus 70 years' protection in the UK (except for Peter Pan).All of this is moot for this discussion since, as Jim points out, the estate has voluntarily placed Liber AL in the public domain but... Is my read of the law incorrect regarding his other works? That's certainly how it played out last time I tried to re-publish an edition of a work I thought to be in the public domain in the UK.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
-
This is getting off topic, but keep in mind it depends greatly on which edition you are trying to republish. I suppose this is the only reason I could see for wanting a first edition of something or another, because it's exact errors etc are now what is valuable for public domain. Any corrections, annotations, notes, and collections put together by other publishers are separate copyrights in themselves. This is why some bodies are in the habit of adding new "introduction by Christopher Hyatt" or "Forward by Frater Stuperious" or some such, as this now creates a "new" work to copyright.
-
This following link gives an interesting analysis and argument against Beta's changes. It's also interesting that Shiva's Australia OTO still claims to be part of Bill Breeze's Caliphate - even though they do not accept the change. How can 1 Order have 2 different Holy Books?
fnordzone.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/from-fill-to-kill-oho-ignores-command.html
-
It is both.
For if it fills you it kills you
As you are only THAT -
Where does it say shiva/ Australia doesn't accept change?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'd like to see the statement that Australia and shiva do not accept change. I have not seen this and in fact know the liber Al produced by aust caliphate has a blurb on the change etc. noting the change. unless you have evidence of this rejection, I'd love to see it and your source??? I personally do not accept the change as I took an oath etc blah blah and as well as the facts don't stack up for me but that's a personal thing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
@Thelemic oz said
"Where does it say shiva/ Australia doesn't accept change?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk"
The current published version of Liber AL - published by OTO Australia - says 'fill'.
I have personally been told that they will not change it to 'kill'. (that was a few months ago)
Who knows what will happen in the future.
I think HB has essentially just invoked his own downfall with this nonsense.Please read my complete analysis of why the OHO is completely wrong in his decision to change Liber AL:
[LINK REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR. IT ALREADY EXISTS ON THIS THREAD. STOP REPOSTING IT. POSTING IT ONE TIME ON THIS FORUM IS SUFFICIENT. JOIN IN THE CONVERSATION BUT (1) DON'T SPAM US WITH YOUR SAME LINK REPEATEDLY AND (2) DO NOT USE THIS FORUM AS A PLATFORM FOR A PERSONAL ATTACK ON O.T.O. OR ITS HEAD.]
-
@Archaeus said
"I think that this whole thing merely puts us into the mouth of Choronzon, divides Thelemites and drags the whole movement into the sort of sectarian stupidity that devises like Class A designations were supposed to avoid, for which reason Breeze has shown himself to be unpardonably stupid.
In 500 years Thelema will be just another divided cultus, much like Christianity and Islam are today. Truly the limits of human stupidity are boundless."
Yes! This was Bill's intention. He is a spanner in the works and should be removed immediately. It is very sad that other high ranking members don't see this. Maybe he doesn't even know it himself, but he has become possessed and become a 'black brother'. His actions have achieved Nothing but to divide the Order. He has truly invoked the curse of RHK. What a fool.
-
I think it's going to end up a footnote, despite the current seeming power it has.
Or, who knows, maybe it'll stick around and separate the wheat from the chaff. 'Cause there's playin' the Game, and there's playin' the Game right. Rules are rules.
But, you know, rage, and fight the fight if you must. As a matter of discernment, the instructions were quite clear.
-
I'll tell you everything I think about it and then shut up and sit down.
I think it makes a deal with the remnants of Osiris. Now, knowing my leanings for building bridges of communication between the two Aeons, you'd think I'd be all for it: "See, guys... 'kill me,' eh..? Ehh...? See it?"
But, in terms of Underland, those aren't the rules. And the rules are very important in Underland.
..so to speak.
-
-
When I've got a fox on top of me and I'm loaded on rum and coke and god knows what else, vibrating Ararita or Abrahadabra or whatever, I can truly admit I'm thinking "kill me, fulfill my commitment to my Angel and just do me in."
A woman might think differently..
but it is DIFFICULT to believe that Crowley let a printing of Legis go out without reading it once over, and the man was a prolific writer.. and editor.. letting something like that slide is highly unlike the man.
Hail Eris!
All Hail Discordia!! -
It would be an entirely different story if he would present it as Class B.
But to present it as Class A while claiming the authority of enlightened scholarship to do so instead of the Adept's own living action...
I mean, it's just Class B. Look at what it is, and use the system to classify it, and then you're free and clear - everything fits its definition.
Underland - See, I'm not the final judge of this; your own spiritual unconscious mind is.
It doesn't matter what I say. But I am doing you a favor by telling you.
-
FIRST WARNING. Blatantly off-topic and derailing (rather than barely skirting inside the boundary of relevance as usual). Time to stop trying to use this space as a place to practice derailing. - ADMIN