Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 02:23:04 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; U) To: "matthew j. rapaport" <mjr@crl.com> CC: colinm@earthlink.net, urantian@concentric.net, msiegel@ctea.com, urantial@ubook.org Subject: Re: The UF in SF on 3/20. First impressions Sender: owner-urantial@ubook.org

matthew j. rapaport wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Phil Eversoul wrote: > > > > As for betrayal, I must still reject your argument. Believing that the > > > copyright is a good idea, or that the UF has a legitimate claim to it > > > whether good or bad, does not constitute denial of the UB's superhuman > > > authorship. > > > > Frankly, I don't see how such advocacy DOESN'T deny the superhuman > > authorship, since to > > declare copyright is to declare human origin. You have the burden of proof > > of showing me > > how, under American law, this is not true. > > You seem to have understood my point about copyright in other countries > because you say... > <snip>

Yes, I understand that copyright requirements in different countries are different. Some countries apparently allow superhuman authors to have copyrights through their human claimants.

I also want to make it clear that if American copyright law allowed superhuman authors to obtain a copyright through a human claimant, then I would have no complaint about the Foundation's American copyright.

> So while you recognize the distinction between the issue of protection in > the abstract, and the specific strategem used to obtain it under U.S. > law, you choose to emphasize the ethical implication (presumably of > spiritual import) as it relates to the volitile laws of a transitory > entity on planet earth. The way I see it, the issue of whether or not > protection is/was a good idea is much more important, and a technical lie > that fed a legal strategem is immaterial by comparison. It does not > constitute a "betrayal of the revelation" >When you refer to "a technical lie that fed a legal strategem is immaterial by comparison," you are confirming what I have believed all along about your position, namely, that when it comes to the Foundation's actions and policies, particularly about copyright issues, you give no importance to questions of morality or ethics. It has always struck me that you refuse to consider morality in this area. You justify this by saying that whatever morality may be involved is of almost no consequence in light of the greater issue of text protection.

Let me tell you what the moral issue is, although you give it no real importance. The Foundation has accepted a copyright renewal based on the premise, although not stated in court, that the founders of the Urantia revelatory dissemination (Dr. Sadler, Christy, Hales, Mills, et al.) were liars when they declared that the FER was purely of superhuman authorship. The Foundation's copyright is based on impugning the integrity of these founders. In doing so, the Foundation has instead actually destroyed its own integrity and the basis for its continuity. Those who control the Foundation are actually revolutionaries who destroyed the original premise of the FER. I think betrayal is a very apt word for what they did.

In your view the ends justify the means. The fact that the Foundation has defamed its founders seems to mean nothing to you. The fact that the Foundation has declared to the world, through the public record, that humans contributed to the authorship of the book, seems to mean nothing to you. Somehow you think that the Foundation can "protect" the book by destroying its integrity in the public mind.

Copyrights are not intended to protect text. The purpose of copyrights is to gain remuneration and recognition for the author or his assigns. The author (or the proprietor) is entitled to change the text as much as he wants and to reapply for a revised copyright. Now, an author may not want to do that, and in the case of the Foundation, it is not supposed to happen, but the point is that copyrights are not designed to insure the inviolability of the text. That is not their nature or purpose.

Copyrights are essentially commercial in nature and purpose, to insure that the author gets paid and in the process to recognize the author.

There is a very important point about copyright that has almost never been remarked upon, directly, in all the vast amount of discussion about it that we on these lists have engaged in over the years. A copyright is a monopoly. When you have a monopoly, you are perfectly entitled to stop other people from using your property. In fact, if you don't stop them, or if they don't agree to be licensed by you to use your property, then that property is no longer yours and it enters the public domain. Hence uncooperative violators of a copyright must be stopped by whatever legal means necessary. This is perfectly proper in the COMMERCIAL realm.

However, a monopoly, in particular a monopoly of a religious text that happens to be no less than the FER, when exercised in the religious realm, becomes odious. It inherently breeds resentment and antagonism and bitterness. In order to keep a copyright, you must act as a monopoly. It is this need to act as a monopoly that corrupted the Foundation and the original Brotherhood. A very clear line became drawn between "us," who are approved to use the copyright, and "them," who are not. This is the origin of the paranoid and self-righteous cult that I have dubbed "the Church of the True Copyright." It comes from the need to act religiously AS A MONOPOLY. The monopoly functions in the area of COMMERCIAL requirements.

The First Amendment is supposed to guarantee religious freedom; at least that was the original intention. Now, if a group of "unapproved" people goes around using the Urantia Book and its trademarks any way they please under the protection of freedom of religion, they should be able to prevail in court. After all, they were not acting commercially. They view the UB as a religious book to be used religiously. How can they, in justice and truth under the Constitution, be stopped from exercising their constitutionally protected rights?

Well, guess what the Foundation came up with: "This is not a religious book." "We are not a religious organization." "These religious kooks, your honor, are violating our COMMERCIAL rights." This is how the Foundation (and the licensed Brotherhood) always had to present its cases in court. If they had admitted to the religious nature of the book and their organizations, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD NO CASE, in any court, at any time. They always had to, and still have to, DENY THE MASTER in order to keep their commercial monopoly. Personally, of course, all these Foundation and Brotherhood members professed to believe in God. But they couldn't argue in that vein in court or they would lose their commercial monopoly. Their only possible line of argument had to be a commercial argument that denied their religious basis.

Hence the hypocrisy. Hence the corruption. Hence the betrayal. Basically, the people involved have betrayed themselves first of all. They have to state, on the public record, that they deny their Master. Having done that, they then pursue their commercial monopoly, thereby persecuting believers.

Of course, now we are being told that believers won't be prosecuted any longer. But there is no other way to keep the monopoly if the believers refuse to be licensed. If they agree to being licensed, they can say, "Wowee, the Foundation permits me to quote Jesus."

I hope that this addresses what you called "the substance of the issue, whether there is any need for the protections copyright affords."

Peace,

PhilEv