Dave,

The Yorke collection is available on microfilm (at least much of it) in
several libraries in the United States, and at least one lodge makes it
available to any serious researcher for a small usage fee.

http://sekhetmaat.com/wiki/Library

I helped set up the policies for the usage of the archive. During those
discussions, we specifically identified that any serious researcher,
whether they were connected to OTO or not, should have access, but that
we were going to charge a small fee to help with future acquisitions and
development of the library. You can access the microfilm for free,
though, here in Austin at the Ransom Center. I understand that OTO was
instrumental in negotiating the microfilming and in gaining the deposit
off this microfilm at the Ransom center.

The restrictions you list may be from the Warburg library, and not as a
result of OTO--I'm not sure--I was given the impression it was the
former, but I don't think the people who were informing me knew for sure
either. I know when we were discussing access to the microfilm archive,
we had restrictions to consider that came from the Warburg.

Unfortunately, the restrictions you face are not atypical of many
archival collections. I have a colleague who went to use the Derrida
archives in California, and faced many issues accessing the
materials--and I had similar problems when I went to use the William S.
Burroughs archives at Arizona State--without a letter from my Dean, I
just couldn't get access to the most precious materials. Since my
research was purely personal at that point, I was unable to do much
except look at some out of print books I hadn't been able to spend much
time with outside the archive, but that I probably could have tracked
down through interlibrary loan if I had wanted to. And although I've
never used British archives, I've been told they are often worse then
American archives. I know people have singled out in conversations with
me the Warburg for being particularly fickle with their materials.

The Ransom archive here in Austin is *extremely* easy to access. You
have to watch a film on proper use of archival materials, identify your
purpose for research, and sign a paper. It's more comprised of
manuscripts, and has very little specifically OTO related materials, but
it does have a few gems (so, if you ever want to come to Texas to use
it, let me know and I'd be delighted to show you around town). I think
the Ransom archive is also a gem for their commitment to giving access
to the materials to the public. I think this, in part, comes from being
part of a large State school with a very explicit mission of providing
educational resources to the public. I know if I had extra money to
give to an institution, they would be at the top of my list of places to
donate that money.

Anyway, my point was not that this material is not hard to get at. My
point is that, at least from the observations I have been able to make,
OTO seems more interested in providing scholarly and journalistic access
to materials than restricting it, like Scientology does (the original
point of comparison). This just doesn't seem to gel with the claims
that OTO's claim on its trademarks is about silencing others or
restricting access to materials, a point that has been put out there on
the list so far (primarily through insinuation).

Dave, do you have reason to believe that the restrictions you faced at
Warburg were put in place by OTO or its leadership, or are they more
likely restrictions placed by the archive itself?

Note that despite its seemingly centralized structure, OTO is a fairly
complex organization with many actors, many of whom have different
agendas. I know that there are many of us within OTO working to try to
make research materials more available, both by trying to create more
archives, more copies of collections, and more critical editions of
materials. The control of copyrights and trademarks may be motivated by
many things, including potentially something as base as profit, but I
don't think that it is really about silencing critics or alternative
streams of Thelema. I stand to be corrected, though, with the proper
evidence and argument.

Regards,
Grant