As most of you know I unsubscribed incorrectly in my frustration of last
night but I take solace in that at least I am not alone in doing so. This
morning I woke to find messages still coming in from the discussion group so
I am still here.
>Subject: Re: MD Authors Rights
>Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 17:50:37 +0000
>Is this MD or the OK Corral? Cool down, everybody! Nice that while many
>-not me- are saying (on MF) that maybe the self does not exist, here we
>find a lot of people arguing about who is the legal owner of ideas.
> [and they say that Latins have hot minds!]
>By the way, copyright rules are not the same all over the world, I guess.
>On this point, I think that sometimes the copyright has something of
>immoral, when it's an economic pattern which is devouring an intellectual
>one. Anyway, this is not the point. We have here an individual (Diana)
>defending *her own* ideas. In this case, a possible solution could be a
>pseudonymous for Diana on the book, but, and that's funny, all the messages
>are freely available by anyone on the net, and it's very probable that the
>number of sold copies of an eventual book will be less than the daily
>visitors to the site.
>This is not a discussion about the economic/legal rights of the MD/MF/LS
>posters. Moreover, Diana denied the permission and Dan said "ok, I will
>amend the book".
>What's really the matter?
>This is a discussion about a project known as Lila's Child. The idea of the
>project was seemingly by Bodvar, and Dan made a huge work. Many years
>long. Good or bad? Clearly Diana's denial comes from a precise point:
>she thinks that Lila's Child is not a good job, and she's using the only
>weapon she has to contrast Dan's project. She has such a right: more an
>intellectual right than legal, 'cause she is not just one of the
>contributors; she has been the promoter of the mailing list.
>But let's not forget that even Bodvar (are you around, Bo? ) is one of the
>old promoters of the mailing lists. And that even RMP demonstrated interest
>on the project.
>I think that it is impossible to delete Diana's posts from the project, as
>well as Bo's, Horse's, Struan's and many of the early contributors. It
>would become incomplete. Take it, or leave it. As a whole. So Diana's
>right has consequences also onto the other's interests. The project, as
>intellectual entity, is not property of anyone particularly. It is
>property of all the contributors, and of all the people interested to read
>it. It's not a book by a single author. It's a collection by a moderator.
>Diana could be well right arguing it's crap, but the solution is to make it
>better, if it's possible. If not.... the project must be cancelled, but
>let's not forget that Dan worked on it about two years. Maybe it was
>possible to stop him before.
I appreciate your words. I have put a good deal of time and thought into LC
but that is neither here nor there. Do others find value in it? Apparently
they do as I have been fielding emails all morning requesting copies of a
book that does not exist and probably never will exist.
Can we use the MOQ to resolve a moral conflict whereby one person (or a
small group of people) deems a work of art (and like it or not that is what
LC is, good or bad) worthless and seeks to keep others from having the
opportunity to view the work themselves to make their own decision?
There were 37 contributors to LC. I wrote to each. Most were excited, a few
were hesitant but every one I managed to contact gave their approval. There
are still 7 contributors who I have not managed to contact. I hold out hope
of doing so yet but had planned on (after discussions with Bodvar) deleting
any posts from the print version that I did not have permission to use.
You are right about LC not being by a single author and it seems to me that
some contributors may take offence at Diana's pronouncement that it is
"crap." I find some of the writings in LC simply brilliant. Some aren't.
Isn't every book like that? Good and bad?
Some of the contributors I count as friends and it seems wrong to make such
a sweeping generalization about LC. Whatever anyone thinks about Struan,
calling him an "idiot" is wrong as well even if it were true. I challenge
anyone to read "The Sceptic" (while you may) to find out for themselves who
is the idiot and who is not.
>I think in this occasion too many people are not applying the MOQ to a real
>life event. We all are very clever to claim the MOQ when we talk about
>Reality, Quality, Universe and Falling Apples. And now that we *really*
>face an ethical problem, all we get is a furious donnybrook. And it's not
>the first time. Not good for MOQ.org: I think this is the reason for many
>are unsubscribing from the list.
Yes. It is obvious my intentions conflict with Diana's and others (who
really should have no say in the matter anyhow since they were not
contributors in the first place) so again, I will remove LC from my site
ASAP. I am having trouble with Tripod and cannot log in, otherwise it would
have been removed already. Diana can keep her links as they will do little
good to anyone soon anyhow.
I am unsubscribing correctly this time.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:17 BST