 |
 |
Mogg, mandrake wrote: > granted a license to republish. If you _know_ different then please > say - (For example - there are plenty who would prefer the Symonds / > Grant edition of Liber ABA) I don't know of this being any different--but I don't see it as much different then any copyright holder that issues critical editions not allowing republishing of earlier editions. The copyright holder of any edition is unlikely to allow earlier versions to be reprinted, purely with respect to the market. And it is harder for a holder to convince a publisher to put the cost of producing and distributing an edition when competing editions are on the market. I'm not suggesting that there is no ground for criticism of OTO here. What I contest is that there is evidence of any type of coordinated effort to suppress other views of Thelema. There does seem to be an effort to hold certain copyrights and trademarks, but that is different. As for releasing new critical editions being an attempt to somehow mediate conflicting views, such an argument would be better with a clear discussion of how a newer edition suppresses particular takes on Thelema. I'd love to know why people prefer the Symonds/Grant edition, and how it would produce a different take on Thelema; but those aren't the types of arguments I am seeing here. > I know the COTO, perhaps the majority, is full of very nice people, > such as yourself - but in the end - they either have no influence or > choose not to exercise any. I don't think this is about I or other people being "nice," but rather about a specific claim, one that I'm willing to entertain, but which I have yet to see evidence for, that OTO is holding its copyrights and trademarks in an attempt to suppress alternative strains of Thelema. As I've suggested, there are potentially many grounds to critique OTO's moves here, but I don't see the accusation of suppression as holding much water, based on my own observation of members and officers, and where I do see that argument it seems rooted primarily in insinuation or speculation--neither of which have much weight in reasoned discourse. I'm not seeking to defend the order's actions here, by the way. My own personal take on that is a different matter, and probably not really that important to this list. What I am suggesting is that particular claims put out on this list don't seem to have substance, and that my own experience both as a member and as a researcher seem to run contrary to the general strain of these claims. As a researcher, I'm certainly interested in other interpretations, though I don't find ones primarily rooted in insinuation, speculation, or hypothetical scenarios particular significant for an academic understanding of the situation. Regards, Grant