ACIM lawsuits, the short version
Tabitha K
>
> "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." wrote:
> >
> > Both of these articles are largely unintelligible.
> >
> > Can you describe what is happening in, say, 100 words or less?
>
> No, but my original post was clearer than these two, but got
> ignored.
>
> Let me try, though:
>
> 1) "A Course In Miracles" was originally given away without
> restriction for the first years, and then it was copyrighted
> after the fact. (Can the copyright be valid if the work was
> released into public domain first?)
>
> 2) Helen Schumann, who authored the Course swore and
> maintained to her dying day that she was *not* the author,
> but merely took dictation from an inner "voice" which
> identified itself as Jesus of Nazareth. (Can someone
> copyright something that they claim they did not write?)
>
> 3) This case seems to parallel
> http://www.whitmorelaw.com/Copyright/White.html very
> closely.
>
> 4) The copyright was recently sold to an organization set up
> to be "the teaching arm" of the organization that was
> previously the copyright holder. Suddenly, they started
> issuing "cease and desist" orders for simple mundane things
> as having "ACIM" on the title of your web page, like "My
> ACIM page," and saying that the previous policy of allowing
> up to 500 words was no more, and that *all* quotes must be
> preauthorized, whatever the use or reason.
>
> 5) When Robert Perry went to FACIM (copyright holder) for
> authorization of the quotes he was using for his book, he
> was denied right to use them. He asked for a court
> injunction as to whether it would be considered fair use so
> he could proceed. This facilitated a lawsuit against his
> organization for other quotes.
>
> 6) Endeavor Academy is attempting to get the copyright
> declared invalid because a) it was released into public
> domain, and b) Helen claimed it was authored by Jesus and
> she disclaimed any personal authorship.
>
> 7) The work itself is a 3 volume course study set, including
> Text, a Workbook for Students and a Teacher's Manual, and
> the Course states clearly and repeatedly that the students
> are to become its teachers. It is a "self-study Course in
> spirituality."
>
> 8) One individual, put out by the cease and desist letter he
> got and statements by the current copyright holder that the
> reason for the strictness was the absolute necessity of
> keeping the work intact to prevent dilution by quoting out
> of context, offered a free download on his website of the
> work in its entirety, with a link to FACIM's web page where
> they could purchase the work if they didn't already have it.
>
> 9) This individual is being sued for $11+million dollars.
> He is claiming in his court papers that he is not infringing
> on any copyright because he has permission from the work
> itself, which clearly instructs him to offer, free of
> charge, the words and ideas contained in the book, and that
> only by sharing them can anyone learn them. There are pages
> and pages of instances where the work repeatedly instructs
> the student to teach and to share freely everything they
> receive.
>
> (This individual is self-represented. He is a self-employed
> clown who makes balloon animals for voluntary donations
> while distributing spiritual handouts to anyone who wishes
> to take them, and as such supports his family. He lives
> near me, and I consider him a friend.)
>
> Not exactly 100 words, but the best I could do. Thanks for
> you input.
--
--Tabitha K.--
______________________________________________________
|
/\___/\ I am a free agent in the universe with the |
) ~( blessings of God Almighty and His court. |
=\~ /= (...and so are you!...) |
) ~ ( ----------------------------------------- |
/ \ I have now left the "Borg Collective." |
) ~ ( ----------------------------------------- |
/ ~ \ "There's no wrong way to eat a Reese's®" |
\~ ~/ (Rom.14:14) |
___\__~__/____________________________________________|
jgs))
//
((
\)
Tabitha K
http://www.whitmorelaw.com/CIM_Copyright.html. Except it
doesn't have the info about the second lawsuit, the one with
the free download claiming that the work itself authorizes
such.
ellen
>Tabitha wrote in part:
>When Robert Perry went to FACIM
> (copyright holder) for authorization of
> the quotes he was using for his book, he
> was denied right to use them. He asked
> for a court injunction as to whether it
> would be considered fair use so he
> could proceed.
And he asked the courts to "establish the invalidity of claimed
copyright and trademark of ACIM".
A bit more than a declaratory relief complaint about fair use it would
seem.
Please don't take this as an attack on COA or a defense of FACIM. It is
neither. But it is a statement of facts about the case. Facts that no
one seems to mention. That's all.
peace, ellen ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Love waits on welcome, not on time ACIM
dth...@golden.net
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, ellen wrote:
>
> >Tabitha wrote in part:
> >When Robert Perry went to FACIM
> > (copyright holder) for authorization of
> > the quotes he was using for his book, he
> > was denied right to use them. He asked
> > for a court injunction as to whether it
> > would be considered fair use so he
> > could proceed.
>
> And he asked the courts to "establish the invalidity of claimed
> copyright and trademark of ACIM".
>
> A bit more than a declaratory relief complaint about fair use it would
> seem.
Hmmmm .... there are two parts to the COA request that the court determine
what is and isn't legal with regard to the FACIM's numerous allegations of
copyright and trademark infringement. First off, is the copyright valid
and legally binding? Only if the court answers yes to that is the second
part, the explicit request for delcaratory relief, relevant.
There are, generally, these two legal issues outstanding. The questions
as to the validity of the FACIM's copyright arise because of the unusual
circumstances surrounding the writing and copyrighting of the work and the
unique nature of the work itself which claims a degree of "divine
authorship" in its own pages. Since "divinely authored material" can't be
copyrighted under US law and since many people believe that Jesus either
dictated it to Helen and later dictated corrections to Ken verbatim or at
least had a large role in shaping the text, the claim to own a copyright
appears to many to be very questionable. There's also the matter of
authorship, the copyright was secured listing Helen Shuchman as author but
Helen denied (repeatedly) having authored the work though she did
authorize a public domain distribution prior to the registration of
copyright which would, in itself, likely render the copyright null and
void. There are other relevant points but these are, I think, the biggest
ones.
The second issue is "fair use." Assuming the copyright FACIM claims to
own is valid, there are many who believe FACIM's efforts to limit use of
copyrighted material wildy exceed limitations that can fairly be imposed
by law. Similarly with the the trademark. Numerous uses which appear to
many lawyers to be perfectly legal even if the copyright and trademark are
valid are being disallowed by the FACIM.
So to clear the air legally these two questions must be resolved. The
question of what sort of use qualifies as "fair use" and is legal is moot
unless the copyright itself is legally valid. So there is no sense in
asking "what would be fair use if the copyright is valid" without first
asking the courts to determine if there even is a valid copyright. It
would be rather silly for the COA or anyone else to invest the time and
money (including the courts' (public) money) in drawing up "fair use
guidelines" for a copyright that ended up being ruled invalid!
It should further be noted that Robert Perry of COA has written several
books about ACIM and has sought and obtained permission from FIP (the
previous copyright owner). Perry also sought FACIM's permission for his
most recent book but this was denied with no reasons being given after
waiting about a year. This left COA in a difficult position. It added up
to "publish nothing at all" or seek to establish in court the parameters
within which it could legally publish since the FACIM was not prepared to
tell Robert what it *would* find acceptable.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, Robert seeks to write about ACIM
within the law and has previously sought to publish with the copyright
holder's permission and has been very flexible about accepting reasonable
limitations.
What's not clear at the moment is exactly what the FACIM does consider
"Acceptable" within it's understanding of the law as well as exactly what
is and isn't "legal." This creates a very large area of uncertainty for
those who wish to write and publish about ACIM. In the interests of a
healthy environment for scholarly work on ACIM, it is essential that
scholars and authors be able to know more or less what they can and can't
do with ACIM materials. At the moment it is not only unclear what is
"legal" in the view of the courts, it is equally unclear what is
"acceptable" or "permissable" in the opinion of Ken Wapnick, head of the
FACIM.
Ken's current rules are "write your book, send it to me, and maybe, a year
later, I'll tell you whether or not I will permit it, but I won't tell you
why or why not." This is rather like a railway company saying "you want
to go to Chicago, great! Well buy your ticket! Next year I'll tell you
whether or not I have trains that go there, but your ticket is
non-fundable either way."
I dunno about you, but if I wanted to go to Chicago my first question at
the train station would be "is there a train to Chicago?" My second
question would be "when does it leave, how much does it cost and what do I
have to do to board it?"
So if I wanted to write a book quoting ACIM, I'd like to know at the
beginning what the rules are, what is and isn't allowed!
It's come to appear to many that Ken is making up the rules as he goes
along based on whether or not he agrees with what your book says, and with
only minimal reference to case and statute law about copyright.
It's certainly my belief that if Ken were to publish guidelines for people
wanting to publish material relating to ACIM that observed both case and
statue law closely and clearly defined what was and was not permissible,
most of the current problem would vanish. The "fair use" provisions of
copyright law are sufficiently broad to permit most of what most people
want to do. All that's needed is a clear statement of how an author might
know in advance. Given moderately reasonable rules, most people will find
ways of living with them. For instance, if Ken were to say to Robert "I'd
permit that book if you made the following changes [x, y, z ]" then, I
suspect Robert would undertake to make the changes.
Ken has been asked to do that by quite a few people and Ken has refused.
As a result Robert has asked a court to write the rules with a strong hope
that it will never come to trial an that Ken would respond by publishing
reasonable guidelines.
Robert miscalculated because Ken's response was to sue Robert and demand
the burning of ALL his books, including those for which Robert had
permission.
Just what Ken's motivations are here and what he's trying to accomplish
with this arbitrary and capricious approach are the subject of much
speculation, quite understandably.
All the best,
Doug
Tabitha K
misc.legal and alt.religion.course-miracles... sorry for
not knowing which ngs these guys post to, since the thread I
met them on was so crossposted, and I don't want to
crosspost that much, but these people had interesting things
to say on another copyright case, so...)
Actually, I'm as interested in the topic of whether
copyright infringement can occur with a book which
deliberately tells the student of it to share it freely. Is
there some legal precedent for permission granted by the
work itself? I mean, can you get any clearer than "Child of
God, my message is for you, to hear and give away as you
answer the Holy Spirit within you."
I was not aware that Ken claimed any inspiration, only
editing skills. Am I missing something?
--
dth...@golden.net
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, Tabitha K wrote:
> (trying to bring new perspectives to this... original in
> misc.legal and alt.religion.course-miracles... sorry for
> not knowing which ngs these guys post to, since the thread I
> met them on was so crossposted, and I don't want to
> crosspost that much, but these people had interesting things
> to say on another copyright case, so...)
>
> Actually, I'm as interested in the topic of whether
> copyright infringement can occur with a book which
> deliberately tells the student of it to share it freely. Is
> there some legal precedent for permission granted by the
> work itself? I mean, can you get any clearer than "Child of
> God, my message is for you, to hear and give away as you
> answer the Holy Spirit within you."
In 1969 Jerry Rubin wrote a book called "Steal this Book." Some people
stole it, some were charged with theft. The courts refused to convict
them.
In another, older case, Jesus of Nazereth was charged with blasphemy in
the year 29. He was tried before the religious court in Jerusalem, called
the Sanhedrim, he was tried in Herod's court and in Pilate's court. There
were major jurisdictional disputes. Finally Pilate, exasperated that he
couldn't fob the case off onto another court, aked the mob. Pilate found
no evidence of any crime. The mob shouted "crucify him." Pilate washed
his hands and regretfully acceded to the mob's opinion. He knew he'd
convicted an innocent man.
IT is noteworthy that all three courts shied away from convicting Jesus,
yet all wanted him convicted. Each fobbed the case off to another
court, wanting someone else to do the dirty work. Finally it was the mob
who delivered the verdict. Jesus was convicted in the court of public
opinion.
Before this had happened in time, Jesus had spoken prophetically. The
Broadway Musical "Godspell" expresses it most succinctly. "On this
nation, on this generation, shall fall the guilt of it all."
Here I read "guilt" as "responsibility." Thirty years later Israel
revelled against Rome and damn near won. It took Rome five years to
suppress the rebellion, and Rome nearly bankrupted itself in the effort.
Israel was levelled. The Temple was burned, the nation reduced to slavery
and ruin. The Church was born. For the Christians refused to join the
revolt and moved from Jerusalem to Greece. Most of those who were alive
to witness the sack of Jerusalem had been around for Jesus' crucifixion.
Jesus was 33 when he was crucified. Jerusalem was burned 33 years later.
Twenty years later the first book of the New Testament was written, Paul's
first letter to the Church at Thessalonika.
I think we see that when Jesus speaks, he's to be taken seriously. If He
says, "give it away" then it shall be given away. Forget the courts.
Remember Jesus. If Jesus said "give it away" then it shall be given away,
and there is no court which can stop it. Oh sure, there are courts which
might crucify people who say so but, so what? Did Pilate or the mob in
Jerusalem stop Jesus' message? Do you think Ken Wapnick can do what
Pilate failed to do?
The smart money is on Jesus here.
Yes, Tabitha, there are precedents.
All the best,
Doug
Richard Mallett
>own is valid, there are many who believe FACIM's efforts to limit use of
>copyrighted material wildy exceed limitations that can fairly be imposed
>by law.
The more things change (the year), the more it's more of the same (the
copyright issue). FACIM can not "limit" fair use. The fair use
provision of the law allows use of copyrighted material WITHOUT THE
PERMISSION of the copyright holder.
As copyright holder, FACIM can give permission to quote or deny
permission to quote, but that has nothing to do with the fair use
provision. Asking for permission to quote and the fair use provision
are completely separate issues.
Richard
8:12 am 1 jan 00
Richard Mallett
>copyright infringement can occur with a book which
>deliberately tells the student of it to share it freely. Is
>there some legal precedent for permission granted by the
>work itself?
I believe there was a book with the title "Steal This Book". Do you
suppose you could walk out of Barnes and Noble with it (without
paying) and not set off the alarms?
Richard
8:17 am 1 jan 00
Richard Mallett
>stole it, some were charged with theft. The courts refused to convict
>them.
Like so much other stuff that Doug posts to this group, I suspect that
he's making this up. Is there any way to verify 1. that there were
actually people charged with stealing the book and 2. that they
weren't convicted and 3., if they weren't convicted, why not?
Richard
8:20 am 1 jan 00
peggy.howland
Richard:
"Fair use" can only be determined in a court -- each writer take the risk
when he tries to determine "fair use" without specific guidelines from the
author. Like FACIM wants to check every word that use use of ACIM -- and no
one is not "safe" from being hauled in to court and having to pay court
costs if FACIM says "this is not fair use -- I am sueing." Even if the
court finally determines the author was indeed within the bounds of fair
use, the way I understand it is that they still have all of that expense of
court costs proving that they were within "fair use." It's a terrible
burden on the writers. I believe FACIM's requirements of all writings
sending them their writing, regardless of what they write and how much, plus
word count, etc. etc., is abusive of the copyright law. The way I
understand it, they have sat on Robert Perry's book for over a year and
haven't told him any thing about whether he abused what they believed fair
use and what he could do to fix it.
FAIM has abused the concept of fair use already! It is a given. What I
feel is wrong is that they have a false copyright in the first place -- so
how can they determine what is fair use?
Love and peace -- Peggy
Richard Mallett <mal...@telis.org> wrote in message
news:386e25f9...@news.inreach.com...
> >The second issue is "fair use." Assuming the copyright FACIM claims to
> >own is valid, there are many who believe FACIM's efforts to limit use of
> >copyrighted material wildy exceed limitations that can fairly be imposed
> >by law.
>
dth...@golden.net
On Sat, 1 Jan 2000, Richard Mallett wrote:
> >The second issue is "fair use." Assuming the copyright FACIM claims to
> >own is valid, there are many who believe FACIM's efforts to limit use of
> >copyrighted material wildy exceed limitations that can fairly be imposed
> >by law.
>
> The more things change (the year), the more it's more of the same (the
> copyright issue). FACIM can not "limit" fair use. The fair use
> provision of the law allows use of copyrighted material WITHOUT THE
> PERMISSION of the copyright holder.
Quite. The law allows but if you exercise your legal rights you get sued.
Ok, those suits can't succeed if you can afford the legal fees to defend
against them. Most people can't so the threats are very effective in
preventing legal, legitimate fair use. Numerous groups and individuals
have already been "persuaded" to stop completely legal ACIM related
activites on the net and elsewhere by such threats without any judge
having made any ruling about them.
So perhaps you are right that the FACIM can not "limit" fair use but
despite that, they are certainly achiving a great deal of success in doing
so!
> As copyright holder, FACIM can give permission to quote or deny
> permission to quote, but that has nothing to do with the fair use
> provision. Asking for permission to quote and the fair use provision
> are completely separate issues.
That's correct. One needs permission from a copyright holder in order to
quote more than that allowed by "fair use." Detailed commentaries, for
instance, require extensive quoting, virtually the whole text. I'm
thinking of some commentaries on the Bible I'm familiar with which include
the entire original text, paragraph by paragraph, followed by extensive
commentary. When any book is studied as closely as the Bible or ACIM,
such commentaries naturally emerge. Alan Watson's commentary on the
workbook is one such. It's this sort of activity which the FACIM is
currently preventing and which "fair use" provisions don't allow for.
"Fair use" is not clearly defined in statute law but has emerged from case
law and "standard industry practice." So far as I know, you certainly
can't quote the whole or even most of any work and still fall within "fair
use."
What is allowed by copyright law is the use of any idea so long as the
original wording is changed. It would be quite legal to publish a book
called "Another Course in Miracles" and use as many of the ideas in ACIM
as you wished so long as you substantially changed the wording. You could
also, of course, abridge it, remove all Christian references, actually
footnote all the quotes from the Bible (you can quote the Bible as much as
you want, it's not copyrighted) or even change it. Copyright law can't
prevent any of that. Yet we keep being told the purpose of the copyright
is to prevent that. Meanwhile Ken himself publishes abridgements in his
summaries of "What ACIM says."
So the copyright controversy really relates not to any idea in ACIM nor
even all the ideas and teachings, but to the specific wording and the
question of who owns it and who can legally prevent others from using it.
One solution would be a complete re-write in which none of the original
wording was preserved, or at least no more than allowed under "fair use."
If the copyright isn't ruled invalid by the courts I suspect we'll see
such a document emerge.
All the best,
Doug
dth...@golden.net
On Sat, 1 Jan 2000, Richard Mallett wrote:
> >Actually, I'm as interested in the topic of whether
> >copyright infringement can occur with a book which
> >deliberately tells the student of it to share it freely. Is
> >there some legal precedent for permission granted by the
> >work itself?
>
> I believe there was a book with the title "Steal This Book". Do you
> suppose you could walk out of Barnes and Noble with it (without
> paying) and not set off the alarms?
As I recall, Jery Rubin's book was published in 1969 or 1970 and some
people did steal it and some were charged but no one was convicted because
the title was held to be an instruction to steal. The book quickly went
out of print because no bookseller wanted it on his shelves!
So yes, it would set off the alarms and you might even get charged with
theft but you couldn't be convicted. But then the only place you're
likely to find a copy is at a garage sale. :)
All the best,
Doug
dth...@golden.net
On Sat, 1 Jan 2000, Richard Mallett wrote:
I remember it quite well because I ... well nevermind that part ... I
followed the story in the news media closely and it was quite extensively
covered. I *am* working from 30 year old recollections and you know how
memory is not always perfect.
I do know for certain that the book was frequently stolen, shoplifted that
is and that some people were charged but not convicted.
All the best,
Doug
Bob Stock
>> 1) "A Course In Miracles" was originally given away without
>> restriction for the first years, and then it was copyrighted
>> after the fact. (Can the copyright be valid if the work was
>> released into public domain first?)
When was the work first created? How many years was it given away
for? To whom?
>> 4) The copyright was recently sold to an organization set up
>> to be "the teaching arm" of the organization that was
>> previously the copyright holder.
According to the FACIM website, the copyright was transferred from the
Foundation for Inner Peace (FIIP). Was the FIIP the original
copyright holder? If so, how? If Schumann wrote it (putting aside
the inner voice stuff), how did it get from her to FIIP?
>> 5) When Robert Perry went to FACIM (copyright holder) for
>> authorization of the quotes he was using for his book, he
>> was denied right to use them. He asked for a court
>> injunction as to whether it would be considered fair use so
>> he could proceed. This facilitated a lawsuit against his
>> organization for other quotes.
I think you mean that Perry asked for a declaratory judgment.
From another of your posts:
>I mean, can you get any clearer than "Child of
>God, my message is for you, to hear and give away as you
>answer the Holy Spirit within you."
Yes, you could. That's hardly a legal direction. What is "my
message?" And what does "give away" mean? As licenses go, it has
more lyricism than most. :-)
Bob
Life is not withdrawing from life
> FACIM can not "limit" fair use. The fair use
>provision of the law allows use of copyrighted material WITHOUT THE
>PERMISSION of the copyright holder.
FACIM can and has limited fair use..... and lawsuits and threats of lawsuits
are a mighty effective weapon.
Isn't it time?
Amminadab
When I say 'you' I really mean 'me'.
Amminadab's Lantern of Truth
http://members.aol.com/amminadab2/
Tabitha K
I asked on misc.legal regarding what Doug said of this book,
and got confirmation. This is what the response was:
________
>I have heard that there was
> a book with that title, . . .
There indeed was and still is a book so titled ("Steal This
Book"),
and you will have done yourself a disservice if only in
terms of
remaining inadequately knowledgeable about an important era
in U.S.
political/cultural history if after reading this you fail
promptly to
obtain and read a copy.
(It or later editions are still in print and readily
findable/buyable
via any number of Web book sellers.)
> . . . and when people stole it, the
> courts refused to prosecute for theft.
> Is this true?
Basically, No. Possibly, there were a few instances when a
bookseller
complained about a (non)purchaser stealing "Steal This Book"
and a
court dismissed some minor charge in this respect; but the
notion that
in some measurably significant way "the courts refused to
prosecute"
is incorrect and for a very basic reason:
Abbie Hoffman, the author, and his publisher had an
understanding to
which most bookstores subscribed - for at least two other
good
reasons* - that there wouldn't be any such prosecutions.
And there
weren't.
________
end quote
AKaplan123
>are a mighty effective weapon.
>
I thought you are under no law but God? Why would lawsuits be an effective
weapon against you? Has is your law suit coming?
Tabitha K
> > >own is valid, there are many who believe FACIM's efforts to limit use of
> > >copyrighted material wildy exceed limitations that can fairly be imposed
> > >by law.
> >
> > provision of the law allows use of copyrighted material WITHOUT THE
> > PERMISSION of the copyright holder.
>
> Ok, those suits can't succeed if you can afford the legal fees to defend
> against them. Most people can't so the threats are very effective in
> preventing legal, legitimate fair use. Numerous groups and individuals
> have already been "persuaded" to stop completely legal ACIM related
> activites on the net and elsewhere by such threats without any judge
> having made any ruling about them.
>
> So perhaps you are right that the FACIM can not "limit" fair use but
> despite that, they are certainly achiving a great deal of success in doing
> so!
>
> > As copyright holder, FACIM can give permission to quote or deny
> > permission to quote, but that has nothing to do with the fair use
> > provision. Asking for permission to quote and the fair use provision
> > are completely separate issues.
>
> That's correct. One needs permission from a copyright holder in order to
> quote more than that allowed by "fair use." Detailed commentaries, for
> instance, require extensive quoting, virtually the whole text. I'm
> thinking of some commentaries on the Bible I'm familiar with which include
> the entire original text, paragraph by paragraph, followed by extensive
> commentary.
I am engaged in a similar work. Perhaps we could
collaborate? I am also engaged in another detailed
commentary, the thing I am running into is... well, the 5
kids I spoke of earlier, in answer to your other question.
I think, perhaps, co-writing might be beneficial. Email me
privately if you have any interest or desire in what I am
talking about. I have ideas and concepts fairly well worked
out, and also jumbled, and I could use someone to
guest-write or some such. Who knows?
> When any book is studied as closely as the Bible or ACIM,
> such commentaries naturally emerge.
They do indeed.
> Alan Watson's commentary on the
> workbook is one such. It's this sort of activity which the FACIM is
> currently preventing and which "fair use" provisions don't allow for.
>
> "Fair use" is not clearly defined in statute law but has emerged from case
> law and "standard industry practice." So far as I know, you certainly
> can't quote the whole or even most of any work and still fall within "fair
> use."
Fair use has, however, had some clear guidelines set down
and agreed upon, such as one complete chapter being fair
use. I checked out the Library of Congress' FAQ page, and
checked out circular... 21, I think it was, anyway, it has a
link from the fair use question on the FAQ page.
Also, on misc.legal there was stated instances where the
work in its entirety was indeed still considered fair use, I
can pass them along if it would be useful.
> What is allowed by copyright law is the use of any idea so long as the
> original wording is changed. It would be quite legal to publish a book
> called "Another Course in Miracles" and use as many of the ideas in ACIM
> as you wished so long as you substantially changed the wording. You could
> also, of course, abridge it, remove all Christian references, actually
> footnote all the quotes from the Bible (you can quote the Bible as much as
> you want, it's not copyrighted) or even change it.
I have on the back burner just such an effort. I want to
cross-reference and include the several books which have
been helpful with my emergence, such as the Course, with the
Bible, and with NDW and also with The Messengers, about Nick
Bunick. I think each have valuable pieces, but only by
overlaying them does the picture actually emerge.
Perhaps a mutual effort? or not? I have in mind an
electronic version, which allows multiple windows, and
personalized cross-referencing, along with personal edits.
> Copyright law can't
> prevent any of that. Yet we keep being told the purpose of the copyright
> is to prevent that. Meanwhile Ken himself publishes abridgements in his
> summaries of "What ACIM says."
"What ACIM says" is "Child of God, my message is for you, to
hear and give away as you answer the Holy Spirit within
you."
> So the copyright controversy really relates not to any idea in ACIM nor
> even all the ideas and teachings, but to the specific wording and the
> question of who owns it and who can legally prevent others from using it.
> One solution would be a complete re-write in which none of the original
> wording was preserved, or at least no more than allowed under "fair use."
> If the copyright isn't ruled invalid by the courts I suspect we'll see
> such a document emerge.
>
> All the best,
>
> Doug
--
Tabitha K
Bob Stock wrote:
>
> Tabitha K <tabithak@'nospam'uswest.net> wrote:
>
> >> 1) "A Course In Miracles" was originally given away without
> >> restriction for the first years, and then it was copyrighted
> >> after the fact. (Can the copyright be valid if the work was
> >> released into public domain first?)
>
> When was the work first created? How many years was it given away
> for? To whom?
I am getting my info from
http://www.whitmorelaw.com/CIM_Copyright.html#anchor198252
and
http://www.whitmorelaw.com/CIM_Copyright.html#anchor198252
To quote briefly,
_____
The earliest distribution or "publication" of the Course
transcript was evidently the several copies passed out by
Bill Theford and Helen Schucman, and the subsequent
redistribution of the transcript through Judith Skutch, Jim
Bolen and others as described above. These copies were
distributed in May-June 1975. Importantly, these copies were
distributed freely, without restriction and without any
copyright notice. It was not until the Criswell edition was
later published, in October 1975, that the copyright notice
was belatedly added. Under the copyright law as it existed
in 1975, if publication occurred by such distribution of
copies without the statutory "copyright" notice, the right
to secure copyright was irretreivably lost and the material
entered the public domain.
_____
And it references Circular 96, which says in part:
_____
(2) If before January 1, 1978, publication occurred by
distribution of copies or in some other manner, without the
statutory notice or with an inadequate notice, as determined
by the copyright statute as it existed on the date of first
publication, the right to secure copyright was lost. In such
cases, copyright cannot be secured by adding the notice to
copies distributed at a later date.
_____
> >> 4) The copyright was recently sold to an organization set up
> >> to be "the teaching arm" of the organization that was
> >> previously the copyright holder.
>
> According to the FACIM website, the copyright was transferred from the
> Foundation for Inner Peace (FIIP). Was the FIIP the original
> copyright holder? If so, how? If Schumann wrote it (putting aside
> the inner voice stuff), how did it get from her to FIIP?
If I understand it, Helen set up FIP to handle the copyright
when she copyrighted it, but I am sure the Coursers will
give you specifics.
ALso, even though Helen is listed as the author, she
maintained in legal statements that she was not the author
'til her dying day.
> >> 5) When Robert Perry went to FACIM (copyright holder) for
> >> authorization of the quotes he was using for his book, he
> >> was denied right to use them. He asked for a court
> >> injunction as to whether it would be considered fair use so
> >> he could proceed. This facilitated a lawsuit against his
> >> organization for other quotes.
>
> I think you mean that Perry asked for a declaratory judgment.
That is probably correct. From my limited understanding,
Perry requested permission, FACIM sat on his request for
over a year, then denied permission without giving reasons
why or what guidelines it wanted met. Perry asked the Court
to rule on whether the copyright was valid, and if so, what
would be the guidelines for fair use, so he could write his
book within those guidelines.
> From another of your posts:
>
> >I mean, can you get any clearer than "Child of
> >God, my message is for you, to hear and give away as you
> >answer the Holy Spirit within you."
>
> Yes, you could. That's hardly a legal direction. What is "my
> message?" And what does "give away" mean? As licenses go, it has
> more lyricism than most. :-)
>
> Bob
At least half of the book is directive to the student to
learn the Course being taught, and to then become its
teacher. The Course includes a Teacher's Manual. I have so
far gathered hundreds of quotes from the author instructing
the reader to share freely the words and teachings they are
now receiving.
Thank you for responding.
Life is not withdrawing from life
>I thought you are under no law but God? Why would lawsuits be an effective
>weapon against you? Has is your law suit coming?
>
Indeed, thus the lawsuit is an ineffective weapon against me..... but wouldn't
the chance of an $11 million judgment effectively alter your actions?
Nothing has happened in the lawsuit against me since I posted the paperwork on
my website.... The plaintiffs' emergency imediate need to get information from
my computer turns out to be just more smokescreen, presumably so they could
plant the idea in the judge's mind that I would destroy evidence.
I offered them immediate access.... we negotiated.... and I gave them about
everything they wanted in the Stipulated Preliminary injuction..... they
insisted they needed to look at my computer immediatly, at least preserve a
mirror image of the hard drive as it exists now... so I relented.
I guess this possibility was just more intimidation..... as they said they
would call early this week so they could send a technition.... oh wait.... that
was 3 weeks ago.
motions, motions, motions.... if the get them, no real desire to follow
through.... the entire strategy is to keep the defendant busy with busy work
and mounting lawyer fees. Justice through bankruptcy.
Moral bankruptcy.
The is no hint of integrity or ethical value in any of FACISM's actions.
peggy.howland
copyrighted:
The Author of ACIM says the Course presents us "thoughts with God" that we
will use to think with, to communicate with [and publishing is a form of
communication], to become our native tongue and our common language. If
this is so, then how can the Words that have been freely given to us to
become our language be copyrighted? How can you separate our the thoughts
that we use to communicate with that have been given to us by ACIM from
other thoughts in our mind?
The whole purpose of A Course in Miracles is the exact opposite of the goals
of copyright. When the direct purpose of a product is to be the "language"
and the "native tongue" of the children of God -- meaning ALL OF CREATION,
and we are to use this to form our very thoughts and with which to commune
with each other -- and communication means speaking, writing, etc., and
publishing is just a FORM of communication, then how can you copyright the
"words" of the Course when these "words" are to be our words from which we
speak and communicate with each other.
T-7.I.4. The ego . . . always demands reciprocal rights, because it is
competitive rather than loving. 2 It is always willing to strike a bargain,
but it cannot understand that to be like another means that no bargains are
possible. p112 3 To gain you must give, not bargain. 4 To bargain is to
limit giving, and this is not God's Will. 5 To will with God is to create
like Him. 6 God does not limit His gifts in any way. 7 You <are> His gifts,
and so your gifts must be like His. 8 Your gifts to the Kingdom must be like
His gifts to you.
Gift: A gift is that which is voluntarily bestowed without expectation of
return or compensation. Webster.
The Author of the Words of A Course in Miracles states in the Course itself
that "This course alone is open to your understanding and can be understood.
This is your language. You do not understand it yet because your whole
communication is like a baby's. The sounds a baby makes and what he hears
are highly unreliable. . But what he hears and does not understand will be
his native tongue, through which he will communicate with those around him,
and they with him . . ." T-22.I.6.
And,
3 For Your Voice will tell me what to do and where to go; to whom to speak
and what to say to him, what thoughts to think, what words to give the
world.
We have one Interpreter and through His use of symbols are we joined, so
they mean the same to all of us. Our common language lets us speak to all
our brothers. . . . and thus we can communicate again. T-30.VII.7.
The Author of the Course says in The Course that the Course is our language,
it will be our native tongue, and with it we will communicate with each
other.
This language and these Words: Thoughts with God: are a gift from the Author
to each of us who use the Course.
"God does not limit His gifts in any way. "
"Gift: A gift is that which is voluntarily bestowed without expectation of
return or compensation." -- Webster.
The Author of A Course in Miracles is Jesus; however, even if Penguin Books
and Wapnick can prove to a Court of Law that Helen Schucman is the
"Author" -- even when she herself said she wasn't -- it does not matter. The
Author of A Course in Miracles, Whoever it is -- Jesus or Schucman; or,
Jesus and Schucman -- whatever -- does not matter. The Author IN THE COURSE
ITSELF STATED THAT THESE WORDS ARE GIVEN TO US TO BE OUR LANGUAGE WITH WHICH
TO COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER. The Author of ACIM tells me "what to do and
where to go; to whom to speak and what to say to him, what thoughts to
think, what words to give the world."
And for over twenty years, those who read these words IN GOOD FAITH BELIEVED
THE AUTHOR and used these words in their language and their communication
and began teaching and writing and sharing, etc. -- that is, following
through with the ORIGINAL AND STATED PURPOSE OF THE COURSE WHICH WAS
COMMUNICATED BY THE AUTHOR IN THE BOOK ITSELF.
If a gift has been given, and, "God does not limit His gifts in any way,"
and,
"A gift is that which is voluntarily bestowed without expectation of return
or compensation," then the Words in A Course in Miracles belong to any
person who picks it up and reads it, because the Words have been given to
him or her by the Author as a gift to be used as his or her language and
means of communication.
And if the purpose of a copyright is to restrict the use of the words of an
Author and aren't supposed to be used by anyone else without the
"permission" of the Author; however, if the Author has already given the
Words away, then the book written by said Author Who gave the words away
can't be copywritten.
The actions of the Author in giving away His Words to the reader by telling
him or her that "this is your language . . . it will be your native tongue .
. . to communicate with your brother . . . our common language . . .
PRECLUDES -- "renders it impossible or ineffectual by antecedent action"
[Webster] the Words of the Book later being copywritten by someone else who
IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK.
A Course in Miracles:
ACIM LESSON 83.
Today let us review these ideas:
W-83.1. (65) My only function is the one God gave me.
2 I have no function but the one God gave me. 3 This recognition releases me
from all conflict, because it means I cannot have conflicting goals. 4 With
one purpose only, I am always certain what to do, what to say and what to
think. 5 All doubt must disappear as I acknowledge that my only function is
the one God gave me.
W-83.2. More specific applications of this idea might take these forms:
W-131.11. This we acknowledge as we start upon our practice periods. 2 Begin
with this:
3 I ask to see a different world, and think a different kind of thought from
those I made. 4 The world I seek I did not make alone, the thoughts I want
to think are not my own.
W-162.4. Today we practice simply. 2 For the words we use are mighty, and
they need no thoughts beyond themselves to change the mind of him who uses
them. 3 So wholly is it changed that it is now the treasury in which God
places all His gifts and all His Love, to be distributed to all the world,
increased in giving; kept complete because its sharing is unlimited. 4 And
thus you learn to think with God. 5 Christ's vision has restored your sight
by salvaging your mind.
W-275.2. <Your healing Voice protects all things today, and so I leave all
things to You. 2 I need be anxious over nothing. 3 For Your Voice will tell
me what to do and where to go; to whom to speak and what to say to him, what
thoughts to think, what words to give the world. 4 The safety that I bring
is given me. 5 Father, Your Voice protects all things through me.>
ACIM: T-22.I.6. Of all the messages you have received and failed to
understand, this course alone is open to your understanding and can be
understood. 2 This is <your> language. 3 You do not understand it yet only
because your whole communication is like a baby's. 4 The sounds a baby makes
and what he hears are highly unreliable, meaning different things to him at
different times. 5 Neither the sounds he hears nor sights he sees are stable
yet. 6 But what he hears and does not understand will be his native tongue,
through which he will communicate with those around him, and they with him.
7 And the strange, shifting ones he sees about him will become to him his
comforters, and he will recognize his home and see them there with him. p469
Tabitha K <tabithak@'nospam'uswest.net> wrote in message
news:Blub4.111$104....@news.uswest.net...
AKaplan123
>
There was no integrity left. You used it all up when you published the
copywrited edition of the Course. I bet you wont do that again.
AKaplan123
>copyrighted:
>
Only one problem with your reasons. It is copywrited.
Sorry about past post I said Elaine was part of the Doug, Gene and Peggy trio.
Tabitha K
As you can see, those who love the Course have valiantly
chosen up sides, most of them anyway, and will use quotes to
prove their point, each in a different way. However, I am
looking for legal insight here and so I ask, for the
purposes of this thread only, which is cross-posted to
misc.legal, that we confine ourselves with things which can
be proven in a court of law. Things like, for ACIMers, when
was the Course first distributed, when was it copyrighted,
how many prior copies existed, and, for you legal-types,
what would it take for a work to give express permission to
be used, overriding any copyright laws, valid or not?
Thanks. I'm sure Ryan, who is a self-employed clown
supporting his family by making balloon animals for donation
and distributing freely spiritual pamphlets would like to
know what court examples he can take to the Judge who will
be ruling on the $11+million lawsuit against him because he
took the words of the author as definitive.
Thanks.
Bob Stock
>To quote briefly,
>_____
>The earliest distribution or "publication" of the Course
>transcript was evidently the several copies passed out by
>Bill Theford and Helen Schucman, and the subsequent
>redistribution of the transcript through Judith Skutch, Jim
>Bolen and others as described above. These copies were
>distributed in May-June 1975. Importantly, these copies were
>distributed freely, without restriction and without any
>copyright notice. It was not until the Criswell edition was
>later published, in October 1975, that the copyright notice
>was belatedly added. Under the copyright law as it existed
>in 1975, if publication occurred by such distribution of
>copies without the statutory "copyright" notice, the right
>to secure copyright was irretreivably lost and the material
>entered the public domain.
This gets complicated because the work was created prior to the 1976
Act, and I am less familiar with the 1909 Act than I am with the
current one. Below is how I *think* it works, but I could be wrong.
Unfortunately, common law copyright also rears its arcane head.
Assuming that the notice was not accidentally omitted (Section 21 of
the 1909 Act), and assuming that the distribution described above
constituted a publication under the 1909 Act, what you quote above
sounds right. Here is Nimmer's description of publication under the
1909 Act:
"[P]ublication occurs when by consent of the copyright owner, the
original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased, loaned, given
away, or otherwise made available to the general public, or when an
authorized offer is made to dispose of the work in any such manner
even if a sale or other such disposition does not in fact occur."
1 Nimmer sec. 4.04 at 19 (footnotes and emphasis omitted).
However, common law copyright was also possible back then, and as I
understand it, "[o]nly a general publication divested a common law
copyright." Brown v. Tabb, 714 F.2d 1088, 1091 (11th Cir. 1983). The
Brown court explains the nuances of publication in the following
manner:
"A general publication occurred when a work was made available to
members of the public at large without regard to their identity or
what they intended to do with the work. Conversely, a non-divesting
limited publication was a publication 'that communicates the contents
of a [work] to a definitely selected group and for a limited purpose,
and without the right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution or
sale. . . . The circulation must be restricted both as to persons and
purpose, or it can not be called a private or limited publication.'"
Id. (quoting White v. Kimmell, 193 F.2d 744, 746-47 (9th Cir.1952)).
So whether the work was placed in the public domain because of its
initial distribution depends on whether the May-June 1975 distribution
was in fact a publication that divested the work of both its statutory
and common law protection. Assuming that all of these cases you
mentioned are pending, the courts will have to sort all of that out.
Bob
peggy.howland
would help!
Peace and Joy. Peggy
Tabitha K <tabithak@'nospam'uswest.net> wrote in message
news:rwvb4.127$104....@news.uswest.net...
peggy.howland
Oops! I meant legally! The copyright was acquired based on a lie; so
therefore, I was going by the law's basis that a spiritual entity's work
can't be copyrighted. If I was married and never got a divorce; and got
married again; then it would have been illegal for me to have gotten married
the second time and therefore my second marriage would not be legal. Same
thing with the copyright. If it was illegal to get it in the first place,
even though there is a "[false] copyright" then it truly isn't copyrighted.
Love and Peace -- Peggy
AKaplan123 <akapl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000101175048...@ng-cp1.aol.com...
> >Tabitha and Bob Stock: Here are some thoughts on why ACIM can't be
> >copyrighted:
> >
>
AKaplan123
decided the the copywrite is not valid. Lots of luck. The Court will determine
the copywirte question and Ken will prevail and the trio will then say the
Court system doesnt work. Always a victim the trio and always blaming others
for their unhappiness.
Tabitha K
>
> Tabitha: Sorry! I thought some of the things ACIM says in the book itself
> would help!
>
> Peace and Joy. Peggy
Please, Peggy, no apologies are ever necessary. However, I
am compiling a list specific to being told to share the
words. Perhaps we could collaborate? But what I am looking
for from the legal community is whether there is any
precedent that such would legally help Ammi.
Tabitha K
>
> >I did not decide the copyright was not valid. Endeavor's attorneys have
> >found that it is not valid
>
> This gets more and more absurd. Now it is Endeavors attorneys that can decide
> that a copywrite is not valid. Apparently that is no longer a Court function.
> Good luck with your thought process. This make-believe3 world simply dopesn't
> work that way.>And as far as the Court's decision: when it comes to a
> spiritual book like
> >ACIM that was given to the Sonship by God to be used as our language and our
> >means of communication -- I do believe a Court's decision either way is
> >meaningless --
>
> When the Court speaks and issues permament injunctions and people will be
> jailed if they are violated we all will see just how meaningless the Courts
> decision is. Notice that our friend Bryon no longer publishesd the Course on
> the web. It looks like he was stopped very quickly from violating the
> copywrite. And I dont see any of the others saying that the copywrite is
> meaningless putting the Course on the web. Why not?
Because I'm still working out the bugs of becoming a legal
entity called a library, and getting the legal bugs worked
out of the site which will be opened when I am. Be calm,
everything that can happen already has. I will not take the
next step until the Spirit prompts me to, but the
preliminaries are in place, and the preliminary lineup of
lists of books I wish to begin with are being edited.
ellen
Please read the interview with Jonathan Kirsch at
www.fearlessbooks.com/FeatureLine11.html
He is an attorney who specializes in entertainment and publishing law.
He has written 2 books "Kirsch's Handbook of Publishing Law" and
"Kirsch's Guide to the Book Publishing Contract". He was asked about
the current CI. My guess is that he just might know what he is talking
about. Do you? :)
peace, ellen ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Love waits on welcome, not on time ACIM
Richard A. Thayer
Life is not withdrawing from life wrote:
> al wrote:
>
> >I thought you are under no law but God? Why would lawsuits be an effective
> >weapon against you? Has is your law suit coming?
> >
>
> Indeed, thus the lawsuit is an ineffective weapon against me..... but wouldn't
> the chance of an $11 million judgment effectively alter your actions?
>
> Nothing has happened in the lawsuit against me since I posted the paperwork on
> my website.... The plaintiffs' emergency imediate need to get information from
> my computer turns out to be just more smokescreen, presumably so they could
> plant the idea in the judge's mind that I would destroy evidence.
>
> I offered them immediate access.... we negotiated.... and I gave them about
> everything they wanted in the Stipulated Preliminary injuction..... they
> insisted they needed to look at my computer immediatly, at least preserve a
> mirror image of the hard drive as it exists now... so I relented.
>
> I guess this possibility was just more intimidation..... as they said they
> would call early this week so they could send a technition.... oh wait.... that
> was 3 weeks ago.
>
> motions, motions, motions.... if the get them, no real desire to follow
> through.... the entire strategy is to keep the defendant busy with busy work
> and mounting lawyer fees. Justice through bankruptcy.
>
> Moral bankruptcy.
>
> The is no hint of integrity or ethical value in any of FACISM's actions.
>
ellen
>Ammi wrote:
>You are not a body. You are a mind. [snip]
>Every moment that you believe yourself
> an individual mind, you are investing in
> a lie. Every moment you associate as a
> single body/character within the dream,
> you are investing in a lie. [snip]
>Fragmentation is illusion.... look at it, see
> for yourself. One Mind. One Life.
>One Dream.... never two..... never many.
>And you never left reality..... so don't use
> fragmentation as a foundation from
>which to argue your opinion.
I DON'T HAVE TO ARGUE ANYTHING. YOU PROVE MY POINT WITH YOUR OWN WORDS.
lLLUSIONIST, HEAL THYSELF.
>Ammi wrote:
>Then you would lose. I am not the
> spineless, frightened, little weasel that
> you would profess to be.
>and wrote:
>Ken wants total control.... he cannot
> have total control.... so he punishes us
>with threats and legal action.
>and wrote:
>How many of us do you wish to see in
> jail, al?
>and wrote:
>That is his smokescreen.... else why
> would he sue me for $11 million for
> offering the unchanged Course, eh?
>and even wrote:
>Or become martyred by imprisonment in
> a federal penitentiary for sharing the
> words of Jesus.
>Either way.... I'm willing.
>Are you?
NOPE
peggy.howland
I did not decide the copyright was not valid. Endeavor's attorneys have
found that it is not valid based on the application for the copyright being
false. It said Helen Schucman was the author; however, Helen never said she
was the author, that Jesus was. I am only going by what has already been
determined by Helen herself and Endeavor's attorneys. It was not my idea
that the copyright situation is in the courts -- it is FACIM's abuses that
got it into the courts. None of us have worried about the copyright for 25
years years until it started being abused.
You know, why are you so against the truth? How do you know Ken will
prevail. He has been in the law suit with Endeavor for five years now. It
seems that if it was a "cut and dried" issue of FACIM owning the copyright
and Endeavor clearly being in violation of it, that it would have been
settled long ago.
And as far as the Court's decision: when it comes to a spiritual book like
ACIM that was given to the Sonship by God to be used as our language and our
means of communication -- I do believe a Court's decision either way is
meaningless -- because worldly law will never stifle the free use of ACIM!
There aren't enough courts and laws in the world to accomplish this!
Anyway, I hope you have a wonderful and peaceful New Year. I'm just happy
that the Y2K bug didn't attack my computer and keep me from posting on the
n.g.
Love and peace -- Peggy.
AKaplan123 <akapl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000101185028...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
AKaplan123
>found that it is not valid
This gets more and more absurd. Now it is Endeavors attorneys that can decide
that a copywrite is not valid. Apparently that is no longer a Court function.
Good luck with your thought process. This make-believe3 world simply dopesn't
work that way.>And as far as the Court's decision: when it comes to a
spiritual book like
>ACIM that was given to the Sonship by God to be used as our language and our
>means of communication -- I do believe a Court's decision either way is
>meaningless --
When the Court speaks and issues permament injunctions and people will be
peggy.howland
ways to help the copyright situation!
Love and Peace: Peggy
Tabitha K <tabithak@'nospam'uswest.net> wrote in message
news:mzxb4.1201$%R2.3...@news.uswest.net...
peggy.howland
I did not know if you were aware of a web site called "Books on-line".
There are a lot of neat books you can download in their entirety -- I don't
know if they are all public domain, or what! Here is the site:
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/makeauthorpage
There are lots of books and many of them are classics. It is like a public
library on-line. Perhaps you can contact the organization that sponsors
this web site for information about an internet library!
Love and Peace: Peggy.
Tabitha K <tabithak@'nospam'uswest.net> wrote in message
news:l7yb4.1218$%R2.2...@news.uswest.net...
> Because I'm still working out the bugs of becoming a legal
> entity called a library, and getting the legal bugs worked
> out of the site which will be opened when I am. Be calm,
> everything that can happen already has. I will not take the
> next step until the Spirit prompts me to, but the
> preliminaries are in place, and the preliminary lineup of
> lists of books I wish to begin with are being edited.
>
peggy.howland
read what Kirsch had to say on Fearless Books Web Site several months ago,
and it is very interesting.
Peace and Love. Peggy
ellen <miracl...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21248-38...@storefull-621.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> To all CI people:
>
> Please read the interview with Jonathan Kirsch at
> www.fearlessbooks.com/FeatureLine11.html
>
> He is an attorney who specializes in entertainment and publishing law.
> He has written 2 books "Kirsch's Handbook of Publishing Law" and
> "Kirsch's Guide to the Book Publishing Contract". He was asked about
> the current CI. My guess is that he just might know what he is talking
> about. Do you? :)
>
AKaplan123
Lots of luck. A library is not permitted to have multiple copies of books
dispersed to the general public unless they purchase them and then they are
returned to the library without copies being made and returned. Being a library
hardly helps in accomplishing what the trio wants to do or is it now a quartet?
Life is not withdrawing from life
>There was no integrity left. You used it all up when you published the
>copywrited edition of the Course. I bet you wont do that again.
Then you would lose. I am not the spineless, frightened, little weasel that you
would profess to be.
Isn't it time?
Life is not withdrawing from life
>When the Court speaks and issues permament injunctions and people will be
>jailed if they are violated we all will see just how meaningless the Courts
>decision is.
How many of us do you wish to see in jail, al?
Richard Mallett
>feel is wrong is that they have a false copyright in the first place -- so
>how can they determine what is fair use?
Hi, Peggy
And what if, as has happened in a German case dealing with the Course
and it's copyright, FACIM prevails?
Richard
AKaplan123
>>jailed if they are violated we all will see just how meaningless the Courts
>>decision is.
>
>How many of us do you wish to see in jail, al?
None. Just pay attention to the Court holding. you don't then you will have
choosen jail. Is that what you want? A lot of martyrs do want that and you
play that role so well.
AKaplan123
>>copywrited edition of the Course. I bet you wont do that again.
>
>Then you would lose. I am not the spineless, frightened, little weasel that
>you
>would profess to be.
>
Then why are you not putting the Course up on the net again. You know how to do
it.
Richard Mallett
>even all the ideas and teachings, but to the specific wording and the
>question of who owns it and who can legally prevent others from using it.
>One solution would be a complete re-write in which none of the original
>wording was preserved, or at least no more than allowed under "fair use."
>If the copyright isn't ruled invalid by the courts I suspect we'll see
>such a document emerge.
Thank you, Doug. This is exactly what needs to be done. What we call
"A Course in Miracles" is a specific form, a group of symbols arranged
in a certain order. That is what's protected by the copyright.
Richard
Life is not withdrawing from life
>
>And what if, as has happened in a German case dealing with the Course
>and it's copyright, FACIM prevails?
>
>
Then the CI will always be with us.... for there will always be some willing to
go beyond the line kenny has drawn.
Richard Mallett
>are a mighty effective weapon.
"Fair use" is, in reality, a defence used in court proceedings in
copyright cases. It is decided by the court and not by the copyright
holder. The copyright holder can suggest guidelines, give or with hold
consent to use copyrighted material, but does not determine what
constitutes fair use.
Richard
Richard Mallett
>transcript was evidently the several copies passed out by
>Bill Theford and Helen Schucman, and the subsequent
>redistribution of the transcript through Judith Skutch, Jim
>Bolen and others as described above. These copies were
>distributed in May-June 1975. Importantly, these copies were
>distributed freely, without restriction and without any
>copyright notice. It was not until the Criswell edition was
>later published, in October 1975, that the copyright notice
>was belatedly added. Under the copyright law as it existed
>in 1975, if publication occurred by such distribution of
>copies without the statutory "copyright" notice, the right
>to secure copyright was irretreivably lost and the material
>entered the public domain.
A discussion of this issue in paticular and others regarding the
Course and copyright can be found at
http://www.fearlessbooks.com/FeatureLine11.html
Richard
Life is not withdrawing from life
>Then why are you not putting the Course up on the net again. You know how to
>do
>it.
You're welcome to read the Court paperwork on my website.
In the interest of a non-adversarial adversary process.... in order that we
could communicate without animosity and suspicion, I offered to take down my
course pages and not offer the download, pending resolution of FACISM's
grievances.
This offer was then incorporated into a Stipulated Preliminary Injunction which
I am bound to abide by...... not because of force of law or jurisdiction of the
courts, but simply because I agreed to it.
Just as I bind myself through my agreement, the agreement expires with whatever
judgment the court imposes. Needless to say, I shall not be bound by even the
court.
Sometimes I'm even sorry for making the agreement.... everyday (almost) I get
email requests for the material.... I explain the agreement I made.
Do you think I should abide the court over HS?
AKaplan123
>>wording was preserved, or at least no more than allowed under "fair use."
>>If the copyright isn't ruled invalid by the courts I suspect we'll see
>>such a document emerge.
>
Why wait? No would could object to that and it would servr the purpose of the
quartet since it would not be copywrited (I assume) and Bryon could do what he
wanted with it. One possible problem would be if the person or persons who did
this then copywrited it. Well we then could just go through this exercise
again, no problem.
Life is not withdrawing from life
>Lots of luck. A library is not permitted to have multiple copies of books
>dispersed to the general public unless they purchase them and then they are
>returned to the library without copies being made and returned. Being a
>library
>hardly helps in accomplishing what the trio wants to do or is it now a
>quartet?
>
Don't be an idiot, al.
Do some research before you go spouting your rather uninformed legal opinion (I
hope you know your stuff better than this when counseling clients).
What exactly are the rights of a library..... are they responsible for the user
that makes their own copy? What is the legal definition of a copy? USC Title
17, section 108 suggests that a library can make one copy of the material, and
can offer it to patrons to copy..... as long as patrons are informed of the
copyright.
A local library offers cd roms.
Is a zipped file of computer code on a remote server legally a material copy in
a fixed medium? I'll guaranty that zipped code looks and reads substantially
different from the book or electronic media that roscoe offers.
Funny how mp3 thrives despite the persecution. Warez is a strong, viable means
to aquire programs. Hacking passwords is far superior to paying for porn.
What is it about real freedom that you detest?
Richard Mallett
>>jailed if they are violated we all will see just how meaningless the Courts
>>decision is.
>
>How many of us do you wish to see in jail, al?
I can't answer for Al, but I hope we see no one in jail. But jail, if
that were to be your decision, could be the consequence of your
actions. It's well and good to take a principled stand, but be
prepared to accept the outcome (without whinning).
Richard
Gene Ward Smith
>That's correct. One needs permission from a copyright holder in
order to
>quote more than that allowed by "fair use." Detailed commentaries,
for
>instance, require extensive quoting, virtually the whole text. I'm
>thinking of some commentaries on the Bible I'm familiar with which
include
>the entire original text, paragraph by paragraph, followed by
extensive
>commentary. When any book is studied as closely as the Bible or
ACIM,
>such commentaries naturally emerge. Alan Watson's commentary on the
>workbook is one such. It's this sort of activity which the FACIM is
>currently preventing and which "fair use" provisions don't allow for.
Watson does not do anything like a line-by-line commentary on the
Workbook. However, your flat declaration that fair use does not extend
to a Talmudic commentary is interesting. We are constantly being told
that the limits of fair use are determined by the courts, but that
cuts both ways. In the absence of case law (and it would be
interesting if someone could supply some) we can only go back to the
law, which in the US is Section 107 of the copyright code. This lays
out four factors to be considered:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished
shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made
upon consideration of all the above factors.
A line-by-line commentary fails the third consideration completely;
however, it is likely that it would pass (1) and (4) with flying
colors, and (2) also does not seem to work in FACIM's favor. Unless
someone can quote case law, it seems to me it is hardly clear that
even a line-by-line commentary is not fair use.
The case law aspect is important; Al Kaplan could explain why although
I doubt he will want to, since it is not helpful to FACIM's cause. The
fact remains that there have been cases in which it has been decided
that even very extensive quotation is fair use, and other cases in
which a relatively small amount of quotation was determined not to be
fair use. It depends on the other factors--none of which, it is worth
noting, work in FACIM's favor.
You could
>also, of course, abridge it, remove all Christian references,
actually
>footnote all the quotes from the Bible (you can quote the Bible as
much as
>you want, it's not copyrighted) or even change it. Copyright law
can't
>prevent any of that.
It seems to me that copyright law is quite likely to prevent
this--perhaps more likely than to prevent a line-by-line commentary.
You should take another look at the four factors, and also the comment
to the effect that fair use is "for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for
classroom use), scholarship, or research." Much as some people seem to
hate the fact, the purpose of the use (is it, for instance, for
scholarly purposes?) is of central importance.
>Yet we keep being told the purpose of the copyright
>is to prevent that. Meanwhile Ken himself publishes abridgements in
his
>summaries of "What ACIM says."
He could do so even without the copyright--that is fair use!
>One solution would be a complete re-write in which none of the
original
>wording was preserved, or at least no more than allowed under "fair
use."
This is not a "solution" for any scholarly purpose. Such a paraphrase
would be useless.
--
Gene Ward Smith
gsm...@frii.com
Gene Ward Smith
wrote:
>>If the copyright isn't ruled invalid by the courts I suspect we'll
see
>>such a document emerge.
>Thank you, Doug. This is exactly what needs to be done. What we call
>"A Course in Miracles" is a specific form, a group of symbols
arranged
>in a certain order. That is what's protected by the copyright.
I will take my rare opportunity to disagree with the pair of you and
opine that such a document would be useless, would be subject to a
lawsuit (quite possibly successful) by FACIM, and in any event isn't
likely to emerge.
Gene Ward Smith
>To Peggy, Gene and Doug the Court's decision is meaningless. They
have already
>decided the the copywrite is not valid.
There's no point in falsely attributing opinions to me, Al. I have not
not been shy about letting my actual opinions be known, after all. It
hardly can help you to misrepresent what people have said, and yet all
too often you do. Unlike Robert Perry, I *am* reading what you write
and will call you on it.
Gene Ward Smith
withdrawing from life) wrote:
>>When the Court speaks and issues permament injunctions and people
will be
>>jailed if they are violated we all will see just how meaningless the
Courts
>>decision is.
>How many of us do you wish to see in jail, al?
What I'm wondering is what Al is going to say when things don't all go
in FACIM's favor? He's a defender of the law who seems to hate the law
as it actually is written, a paradoxical situation whose resolution
awaits in time.
Life is not withdrawing from life
>"Fair use" is, in reality, a defence used in court proceedings in
>copyright cases. It is decided by the court and not by the copyright
>holder. The copyright holder can suggest guidelines, give or with hold
>consent to use copyrighted material, but does not determine what
>constitutes fair use.
Richard,
Are you suggesting that the threat of lawsuit would not stop someone from
publishing even if they felt they were within the realm of fair use?
John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
> I do know for certain that the book was frequently stolen, shoplifted that
> is and that some people were charged but not convicted.
That's nonsense. Jerry Rubin didn't even write that book.
John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
> copyright infringement can occur with a book which
> deliberately tells the student of it to share it freely. Is
> there some legal precedent for permission granted by the
> work itself? I mean, can you get any clearer than "Child of
> God, my message is for you, to hear and give away as you
> answer the Holy Spirit within you"
You can't get much clearer than Abbie Hoffman having written _Steal This
Book_. I guarantee you that if follow those instructions on the cover, the
bookstore owner will be quite upset with you.
You can share all of the _ideas_ in the book to your heart's content. What
you cannot copy and give away is the sequence of words used in the book
itself. Hence, even though you might argue that the admonition to share the
"message" is some kind of disclaimer, the "message" can be shared without
copying the specific expression that is the subject of copyright.
Whether the person who first published the book claimed to be channeling a
spirit voice is irrelevant. You can, for example, claim a copyright in a
translation of a foreign work which you did not write.
Gene Ward Smith
Abbie Hoffman did. I seem to recall reading about it being shoplifted
at the time, so I don't know how complete the alleged nonsense is.
Gene Ward Smith
<jo...@johnberryhill.com> wrote:
>
>Whether the person who first published the book claimed to be
channeling a
>spirit voice is irrelevant.
So you say, but there is caselaw which says it *is* relevant.
Gene Ward Smith
withdrawing from life) wrote:
>Richard wrote:
>>"Fair use" is, in reality, a defence used in court proceedings in
>>copyright cases. It is decided by the court and not by the copyright
>>holder. The copyright holder can suggest guidelines, give or with
hold
>>consent to use copyrighted material, but does not determine what
>>constitutes fair use.
>Are you suggesting that the threat of lawsuit would not stop someone
from
>publishing even if they felt they were within the realm of fair use?
Publishers do not often go out of there way to court trouble--"Steal
This Book" had great difficulty in finding a publisher, even though it
was considered likely to sell well. Nabokov had to publish "Lolita" in
Europe--people recalled incidents such as the conviction of the Little
Review for publishing excerpts from Joyce's "Ulysses", These are, of
course, now recognized as some of the greatest masterpieces of the
last century, but people recognized the high literary quality of these
works at the time, and still hesitated.
The suggestion that no difficulty attends publication of works on the
Course which rely on fair use is like the suggestion , sixty years
ago, that all we need to do is go ahead and publish literary
masterpieces in the conviction that any eventual suit will be settled
in favor of the publisher. It may be true, but it also may not be
relevant, and to claim that no real problem exists seems like a _de
facto_ defense of censorship. It is the issue of censorship which
seems to be swept under the rug along with these sweeping claims.
dth...@golden.net
On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
> Whether the person who first published the book claimed to be channeling a
> spirit voice is irrelevant. You can, for example, claim a copyright in a
> translation of a foreign work which you did not write.
Whether a work is claimed to be "channeled" may or may not be irrelevant.
First off, some classes of material may not be copyrighted, and those
include documents already in the public domain, documents where the author
is not known (anonymous's large body of work for instance :)), and
divinely authored documents. Copyright is associated with authorship.
That is associated in law with an "original creative contribution." Many
things have multiple authors. Many channeled works are copyrighted by the
channeler who claims, in essence, joint authorship with a spirit voice.
In a recent, much celebrated Canadian copyright trial, Candian courts
turned to British and US precedents because there were no relevant
Canadian precedents. A man who worked on the production of a very
successful and lucrative musical recording claimed "joint authorship" some
years after the fact and sued for some share of the royalties. The court
had to determine if he really was a "joint author" and could claim a share
of or interest in the copyright. There were four tests that British and
American case law suggested to the court and the court chose to use those.
One test is "was there original creative contribution" by the copyright
claimant? A second and more interesting test is "was their a claim to
authorship at the time the work was created." Our litigant passed the
first test but failed the second. While it was shown that he did make an
original creative contribution, he didn't claim authorship until several
years later. This is a form of the estoppel argument, you can't suddenly
change your mind on certain things. He lost the suit on that basis, that
he didn't make a claim to owning part of the copyright or authorship until
years later.
Now in the case of ACIM, no one disputes that Helen Shucman and Bill
Thetford *wrote* it. Helen made notes, we know that. She dictated these
to Bill who typed them up, there is no dispute on these facts. What Bill
typed is a first person account in which the author clearly identifies
himself as the historical Jesus. No one disputes that, it's pretty
obvious and in your face. Helen asserted, very emphatically and
repeatedly to her dying day that she was NOT the author, tht the author
was Jesus. There is no dispute about that fact.
In the subsequent editing, Helen and Ken Wapnick and others made "original
creative contributions" to the final published result, removing some
things, altering others, even adding a bit. They could all meet the test
of "original creative contribution." However it was not until last year,
many years after Helen's death, that Ken began to claim authorship by
Helen Shucman. On the basis of the previously described case, Ken's claim
would fail on the basis that Helen not only didn't claim authorship at the
time the work was written, she disavowed authorship until she died.
It would appear to me that if courts in the US actually employ this test
to ascertain authorship and therefore some right to claim copyright, Ken's
claim to own a copyright which is based on Helen being the author would
fail on Helen's own oft-recorded testimony that she was not the author.
In the Urantia case where similar issues were raised, the court found that
while the bulk of the material was of "divine origin" based on the
testimony given the court by both sides, the copyright claimants had made
"an original creative contribution" and had claimed authorship from the
outset. Therefore their copyright was upheld. There was much fuss in
that trial about the original channeling which had been destroyed.
Perhaps it was "divinely authored" and not subject to copyright but the
extant version, reflecting "original creative contributions" by living
humans was copyrightable.
This might apply to ACIM also because the current published version
reflects numerous changes from the original. While the copyright holder
has made great efforts to remove the 300-odd copies of the pre-copyright
public domain distribution of ACIM, some copies are in existence and have
not been surrendered. This pre-copyright, pre-editing version was, when
it was published, in the public domain and people were in fact encouraged
to copy it and pass it around. It's dissemination was commenced in the
Spring of 1975. The copyright application is dated October 1975. So
unlike the Urantia case where the original was lost, ACIM's originals are
intact. Indeed, even Helen's original notes still exist, locked in a
vault in New York. Between that and the published version there were
several intermediate drafts created by the editors, a fairly normal thing
in editing. Most, if not all of those predate the copyright and some, at
least, were circulated freely without any restrictions. I happen to
possess a copy of one of those.
It would *appear* to me that what I possess is a public domain document.
Now as for translations, are you saying that if I write a novel in French
and copyright it and you translate it into English, you can copyright your
translation and not pay me a penny? This is not a question I've
researched at all but my understanding is that you can't publish a
translation of a copyrighted work without permission of the copyright
holder. Do you have reason to believe that understanding is incorrect?
All the best,
Doug
Bob Stock
>
>Whether the person who first published the book claimed to be channeling a
>spirit voice is irrelevant. You can, for example, claim a copyright in a
>translation of a foreign work which you did not write.
I don't see how the translation is analogous to the channeling; the
latter is closer to an author and a secretary than an author and a
translator. The secretary simply types what the author dictated,
serving as nothing more than an instrument. The translator adds
creative input to the translation.
Bob
Bob Stock
>
>In the Urantia case where similar issues were raised, the court found that
>while the bulk of the material was of "divine origin" based on the
>testimony given the court by both sides, the copyright claimants had made
>"an original creative contribution" and had claimed authorship from the
>outset. Therefore their copyright was upheld. There was much fuss in
>that trial about the original channeling which had been destroyed.
>Perhaps it was "divinely authored" and not subject to copyright but the
>extant version, reflecting "original creative contributions" by living
>humans was copyrightable.
In Urantia, the court held that the book was copyrightable as a human
compilation. The court actually compared the revelations contained in
the book to facts, which are not copyrightable, but the selection,
arrangement, and coordination of those revelations (facts) were.
Bob
peggy.howland
This idea is what I posted about a month ago:
I have a secretarial background. I have transcribed words that were spoken
to me by an author of a book, which I took down, typed them up, and handed
the pages back to him. He was the author, not me, although I was an
"instrument"
in taking the words down as a stenographic service to him -- a "scribe", as
it were [like Helen
did for Jesus in ACIM]. If later "I" determined that the words that I took
down needed to be copyrighted, how could I claim ownership and authorship of
the words? The Words, if copyrighted, should have been copyrighted under
the name of the true Author, not the scribe.
And because such is the case re. ACIM, then the copyright can only be placed
in Jesus as the
true Author; however,the U.S. Copyright laws do not allow a spiritual
entity's Words to be copyrighted. Therefore, legally, there can be no
copyright. It was secured under false pretenses.
Love and Peace -- Peggy.
Bob Stock <bst...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:eovu6s08qn6f7hgse...@4ax.com...
Tabitha K
>
> Tabitha: You are a doll! Thank you so much for taking the effort to find
> ways to help the copyright situation!
>
> Love and Peace: Peggy
<grin> Actually, I don't want to "help" any situation, I
wish to make the situation dissolve, so that we can see what
it hides... :ş
> Tabitha K <tabithak@'nospam'uswest.net> wrote in message
> news:mzxb4.1201$%R2.3...@news.uswest.net...
> > "peggy.howland" wrote:
> > >
> > > Tabitha: Sorry! I thought some of the things ACIM says in the book itself
> > > would help!
> > >
> > > Peace and Joy. Peggy
> >
> > Please, Peggy, no apologies are ever necessary. However, I
> > am compiling a list specific to being told to share the
> > words. Perhaps we could collaborate? But what I am looking
> > for from the legal community is whether there is any
> > precedent that such would legally help Ammi.
> >
--
--Tabitha K.--
______________________________________________________
|
/\___/\ I am a free agent in the universe with the |
) ~( blessings of God Almighty and His court. |
=\~ /= (...and so are you!...) |
) ~ ( ----------------------------------------- |
/ \ I have now left the "Borg Collective." |
) ~ ( ----------------------------------------- |
/ ~ \ "There's no wrong way to eat a Reese's®" |
\~ ~/ (Rom.14:14) |
___\__~__/____________________________________________|
jgs))
//
((
\)
Tabitha K
>
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
>
> This might apply to ACIM also because the current published version
> reflects numerous changes from the original. While the copyright holder
> has made great efforts to remove the 300-odd copies of the pre-copyright
> public domain distribution of ACIM, some copies are in existence and have
> not been surrendered. This pre-copyright, pre-editing version was, when
> it was published, in the public domain and people were in fact encouraged
> to copy it and pass it around.
If this is so, wouldn't this make what is currently
copyrighted a "derivative work" of the original, public
domain work? In that case, my understanding of
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/103.html "(b) The
copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only
to the material contributed by the author of such work, as
distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the
work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the
preexisting material." Wouldn't that mean, then, that the
only thing which is actually copyrighted are the *changes*
themselves, namely, what is included in the "errata"? I
doubt that would make the copyrighted stuff be more than a
few thousand words. So then, what are the odds that what is
being quoted is copyrighted and what are the odds it is
public domain?
> It's dissemination was commenced in the
> Spring of 1975. The copyright application is dated October 1975. So
> unlike the Urantia case where the original was lost, ACIM's originals are
> intact. Indeed, even Helen's original notes still exist, locked in a
> vault in New York. Between that and the published version there were
> several intermediate drafts created by the editors, a fairly normal thing
> in editing. Most, if not all of those predate the copyright and some, at
> least, were circulated freely without any restrictions. I happen to
> possess a copy of one of those.
>
> It would *appear* to me that what I possess is a public domain document.
Wow! After this is over and if it has been determined that
either the copyright is invalid or does not cover the work
you have in your hands, do you own a scanner and have a web
page? Do you wanna borrow mine?
> Now as for translations, are you saying that if I write a novel in French
> and copyright it and you translate it into English, you can copyright your
> translation and not pay me a penny? This is not a question I've
> researched at all but my understanding is that you can't publish a
> translation of a copyrighted work without permission of the copyright
> holder. Do you have reason to believe that understanding is incorrect?
This would be a "derivative work" and "derivative works" can
only be done with the copyright holder's permission.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html says that one
of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder is "(2) to
prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;"
> All the best,
>
> Doug
Tabitha K
>
> "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <jo...@johnberryhill.com> wrote:
> >
> >Whether the person who first published the book claimed to be channeling a
> >spirit voice is irrelevant. You can, for example, claim a copyright in a
> >translation of a foreign work which you did not write.
>
> I don't see how the translation is analogous to the channeling; the
> latter is closer to an author and a secretary than an author and a
> translator. The secretary simply types what the author dictated,
> serving as nothing more than an instrument. The translator adds
> creative input to the translation.
>
> Bob
"Answers From a Grander Self," a channeled book, describes
channeling as the channeled entity communicates thoughts,
which then either the channeler or channeled uses the words,
phrases and experiences of the channeler to find a way to
communicate the pure thought that is trying to be
expressed. It sounds like translation to me.
nos...@isp.com
>
>> . . . there was a book with the title "Steal This Book".
>> Do you suppose you could walk out of Barnes and Noble
>> with it (without paying) and not set off the alarms?
>
>As I recall, Jery Rubin's book was published in 1969 or 1970 and some
>people did steal it and some were charged . . .
The author wasn't Jerry Rubin.
(To avoid repetition, refer to my prior posts re. why the rest of your
comments in this respect are largely incorrect.)
> The book quickly went out of print because
> no bookseller wanted it on his shelves!
> * * * [T]hen the only place you're
> likely to find a copy is at a garage sale. :)
Well worth reading, Abbie Hoffman's "Steal This Book" has been printed
in numerous editions and still is in print. Indeed, there are at
least two presently available editions in print.
It is a more than more than safe bet that "Steal This Book" readily
may be found at Amazon.com and Buy.com and barnesandnoble.com among
other sources such as, almost certainly, Ebay.com
Bob Stock
>
>"Answers From a Grander Self," a channeled book, describes
>channeling as the channeled entity communicates thoughts,
>which then either the channeler or channeled uses the words,
>phrases and experiences of the channeler to find a way to
>communicate the pure thought that is trying to be
>expressed. It sounds like translation to me.
Actually, it doesn't. A translator, in the usual sense, takes
expression in one language and translates it into expression in
another language. As you describe a channeler, she takes the ideas of
someone else and conveys those ideas with her own expression. Unless,
of course, the entity is expressing himself in some language that the
channeler understands *as expression*, and the channeler is
translating that expression into her own language. Gets a little
weird, doesn't it?
Bob
Bob Stock
>I have a secretarial background. I have transcribed words that were spoken
>to me by an author of a book, which I took down, typed them up, and handed
>the pages back to him. He was the author, not me, although I was an
>"instrument"
Yes.
>in taking the words down as a stenographic service to him -- a "scribe", as
>it were [like Helen
>did for Jesus in ACIM]. If later "I" determined that the words that I took
>down needed to be copyrighted, how could I claim ownership and authorship of
>the words?
You couldn't.
>And because such is the case re. ACIM, then the copyright can only be placed
>in Jesus as the
>true Author; however,the U.S. Copyright laws do not allow a spiritual
>entity's Words to be copyrighted. Therefore, legally, there can be no
>copyright. It was secured under false pretenses.
Depends on whether Jesus conveyed his thoughts as English words which
Helen took down purely as a scribe and nothing more.
Bob
Okeewap
><grin> Actually, I don't want to "help" any situation, I
>wish to make the situation dissolve, so that we can see what
>it hides... :þ
And I my dear, thank you for that. :)
Love, elaine :)
Gene Ward Smith
wrote:
>In Urantia, the court held that the book was copyrightable as a human
>compilation. The court actually compared the revelations contained
in
>the book to facts, which are not copyrightable, but the selection,
>arrangement, and coordination of those revelations (facts) were.
The net effect of this, which might very well turn out to be the net
effect when the ACIM copyright is settled, is that the protection is
very weak--if we have a similar ruling with respect to ACIM, the cases
against Endeavor and COA would collapse, and we would be left with
Ryan. One difference between the two, incidentally, is that there
seems to have been more editing of Urantia, which can hardly help
FACIM.
The bottom line is that it *does* make a difference, as the Urantia
case among others shows.
By the way, the ARE has long allowed extensive quotations from the
Edgar Cayce readings--I wonder what arrangements they have with the
authors of books on Edgar Cayce, and whether that would be a useful
model. These readings are all edited in that names have all been
removed and replaced by case numbers, so I suppose one can argue they
are under copyright.
Gene Ward Smith
wrote:
>Depends on whether Jesus conveyed his thoughts as English words which
>Helen took down purely as a scribe and nothing more.
This is what Helen said. However, one of her "special messages" as I
recall said that the language itself was shaped by what Helen and Bill
knew and liked--they served as a point of reference, which makes sense
since obviously one is needed.
Tabitha K
able to keep possession of it? :ş Maybe a plain book
cover?
--
Tabitha K
Very. I was exploring the theory that the channeler is
translating from the language of pure thought into the
language of words.
Tabitha K
>
> "peggy.howland" <peggy....@mciworld.com> wrote:
>
> >I have a secretarial background. I have transcribed words that were spoken
> >to me by an author of a book, which I took down, typed them up, and handed
> >the pages back to him. He was the author, not me, although I was an
> >"instrument"
>
> Yes.
>
> >in taking the words down as a stenographic service to him -- a "scribe", as
> >it were [like Helen
> >did for Jesus in ACIM]. If later "I" determined that the words that I took
> >down needed to be copyrighted, how could I claim ownership and authorship of
> >the words?
>
> You couldn't.
>
> >And because such is the case re. ACIM, then the copyright can only be placed
> >in Jesus as the
> >true Author; however,the U.S. Copyright laws do not allow a spiritual
> >entity's Words to be copyrighted. Therefore, legally, there can be no
> >copyright. It was secured under false pretenses.
>
> Helen took down purely as a scribe and nothing more.
>
These are Helen's words, as I read them in the Preface of
ACIM.
"Although I had grown more accustomed to the unexpected by
that time, I was very surprised when I wrote, 'This is a
course in miracles' That was my introduction to the Voice.
It made no sound, but seemed to be giving me a kind of
rapid, inner dictation which I took down in shorthand
notebook. The writing was never automatic. It could be
interrupted at any time and later picked up again. It made
me very uncomfortable, but it never seriously occurred to me
to stop. It seemed to be a special assignment I had
somehow, somewhere agreed to complete. It represented a
truly collaborative venture between Bill and myself, and
much of its significance, I am sure, lies in that. I would
take down what the Voice 'said' and read it to him [Bill]
the next day, and he typed it from my dictation."
Helen also took down this by the same inner dictation: "I
have already told you in connection with [Edgar] Casey [sic]
that ut of respect for his great efforts on My behalf I
would not let his life-work lead to anything but truth in
the end. These notes are part of your life-work, and I will
treat them with equal respect."
Once the book was published, Helen rapidly lost all interest
in it, feeling that her job had been done.
Leads me to wonder why FACIM thinks they can do a better job
than Jesus with regards to protecting it?
Jay
>Please read the interview with Jonathan
> Kirsch at
> www.fearlessbooks.com/FeatureLine11.html
>He is an attorney who specializes in
> entertainment and publishing law. He has
> written 2 books "Kirsch's Handbook of
> Publishing Law" and "Kirsch's Guide to the
> Book Publishing Contract". He was asked
> about the current CI. My guess is that he just
> might know what he is talking about. Do you?
Thanks ellen that was very informative.
I think this shows that legal debate is best
left to experts on legal matters.
There are laws and there are interpretations
of the law, interpretation as practiced in a legal sense is not
necessarily in agreement with lay interpretation of the law.
So as I have said before, IMO the CI is best dealt on an individual
basis by each consulting the
guide God gave us and acting accordingly.
Love Always
Jay
Tabitha K
>
> >FAIM has abused the concept of fair use already! It is a given. What I
> >feel is wrong is that they have a false copyright in the first place -- so
> >how can they determine what is fair use?
>
> Hi, Peggy
>
> And what if, as has happened in a German case dealing with the Course
> and it's copyright, FACIM prevails?
>
> Richard
Can you point me to where I might read some balanced
non-biased information on this court case?
peggy.howland
which
> Helen took down purely as a scribe and nothing more.
Bob: I am sending you two essays of a very scholarly work written by Robert
Perry of Circle of Atonement. The first one, which I reproduce here, is
called "Who Wrote A Course in Miracles? Part I; and the next one I send you
via post will be Part II.
The reason I believe this would be good readings is because it has to do
with "Jesus conveying his thoughts as English words." I believe these
essays of Roberts make a very good point in Who is the Author of the English
Words of ACIM!
Love and Peace -- and appreciate your contributions! -- Peggy Howland
Here it is, Part I:
Who Wrote A Course in Miracles?
Part I
by Robert Perry
Introductory remarks by Allen Watson
Robert Perry's two-part article on the authorship of the Course is, in my
opinion, important reading for Course students. Although the question of who
authored the Course could be a controversial topic, Robert's article does
not aim at controversy. It merely explains what the Course, and related
"scribed" material, says about itself. It leaves the decision of what to
make of that statement up to the reader.
The Course itself does not make our belief about its authorship central to
its thought system or to our salvation, although it does (as Robert points
out) make some very clear statements about it. Neither Robert nor I believe
that in order to be a good Course student, one must believe Jesus wrote it;
such an insistence would be contrary to the whole spirit of the Course.
However, we both believe that accepting Jesus as the author does have
significant benefits for the student.
The question of who wrote the Course may not seem to have any practical
application. Yet I know that when I have read the Course while accepting it
as the actual words of my elder brother, Jesus, I have felt myself coming
closer to him, and experiencing his helping me "yet a little more." I have
come to know him better by observing how he interacts with me through these
words. In the Course itself, as well as in an invisible, spiritual form, I
have felt the truth of his words: "I am with you always" (see
T-7.III.1:7-8). Through the pages of the Course, I have encountered Jesus,
himself. So I urge you to consider Robert's article carefully. The question
of who wrote the Course can have a significant effect on our experience with
the Course, and beyond that, on our sense of relationship with Jesus.
* * * *
The issue of who authored A Course in Miracles has been a sticky one from
the beginning. The claim that Jesus authored it through a human scribe has
inspired a broad spectrum of responses, ranging from lifelong devotion and
commitment to outright disgust and dismissal. It has helped make the Course
popular as well as controversial and even offensive. And, to one degree or
another, this claim has been problematic for everyone, for it is completely
impossible to physically verify. How can one ever prove that a historical
figure who died 2,000 years ago has written a book through a contemporary
New York psychologist?
This long-standing issue has taken a surprising and dramatic new form. It
has gone to the courts, where, quite possibly, the Course's copyright will
stand or fall based on it. A legal suit has been filed by Penguin, the new
publishers of the Course, against Endeavor Academy in Wisconsin. While this
suit is about copyright infringement, Endeavor is seeking to make the
central issue the authorship of A Course in Miracles. It claims that since
Jesus of Nazareth authored the Course, it is not copyrightable.
Penguin has come back with a startling response: Helen Schucman, not Jesus,
is the author of the Course. It claims that Helen merely reconnected with
the same Love of God that Jesus did 2,000 years ago, and having witnessed
that Love, reflected it to the world in forms she was familiar with--English
language, Christian symbology, psychodynamics, curricular format, and
Shakespearean blank verse. The Course is thus "Schucman's expression of the
idea or concept of the eternal Love of God as she understood it." And what
of Jesus? "...Schucman often employed the most recognized Christian symbol
of the Love of God, Jesus." Helen merely used Jesus as a symbol. The actual
Jesus had nothing to do with it.
I person ally don't think that what Penguin's lawyers say while trying to
defend the Course's copyright has a great deal of relevance to Course
students. If the Foundation for Inner Peace were saying this through
Penguin, that to me would be a different matter. But the Foundation is not
part of the lawsuit and has assured me that they have not at all guided
Penguin in the stance it has taken. So while I wish that Penguin, as the
current publisher of the Course, was not saying this, I see this lawsuit
primarily as a stimulus for addressing the whole question of authorship.
Penguin and Endeavor are actually embodying two poles that have been in
tension ever since the Course came out. On the one side are those who take a
more literal approach and really believe that the historical Jesus of
Nazareth dictated the actual words of the Course through Helen Schucman. On
the other side are those who find it implausible that Jesus of Nazareth
would magically reappear off the pages of the Bible and whisper an entire
book into the ear of a human "scribe." This side contends that Helen must be
the one responsible for the Course, that she must have made contact with
some formless, diffuse spiritual inspiration, which her mind then shaped
into the words, paragraphs and volumes of A Course in Miracles.
Some very intelligent people have held this latter view. I recall reading
Ken Wilber, the great transpersonal theorist, flatly state that Jesus did
not author the Course. He basically chalked the Course up to Helen's
"genius." I also recall reading John White (author in the fields of
consciousness research and higher development), who had initially offered to
publish the Course, say that it was impossible for Jesus to author a book
since he no longer existed as a personal entity. And then there is Ken
Wapnick, the most respected interpreter of the Course, whose published works
have apparently been consulted by Penguin's lawyers in forming their
statement. Ken's stance is that Helen's mind made contact with the formless,
transcendental mind of Jesus, and that his abstract love then took the shape
of Helen's familiar forms, as water takes the shape of a glass. As a result,
Jesus was responsible for the content, Helen for the form.
THE RELEVANCE OF THE COURSE'S AUTHORSHIP
Yet, honestly, what real relevance does this have to practicing Course
students? I believe it has great relevance. Every Course student goes
through a process of coming to terms with this issue of authorship. For many
of us this process took, or is still taking, quite a long time. Although
some students end up deciding that they do not care where the Course came
from, for others the idea that it came from Jesus is central to their whole
relationship with it--and with him. I believe that how we end up seeing the
authorship of the Course affects how we see the Course itself and how we see
spirit's ability to reach us in this world. There are three ways in which I
see the question of authorship affecting our picture of things.
The authority of the Course
If Jesus of Nazareth dictated the actual words of the Course, it takes on a
very powerful authority. If instead we think the Course was distilled by
Helen's mind from some formless inspiration, it will carry less weight. The
reason is simple: We as a race do not trust Helen Schucman as much as we
trust Jesus Christ. You may think it should not matter to us where the
Course came from, that it should carry weight based strictly on the merit of
its words. Yet even so I suspect that if you truly imagine that its specific
words came from Jesus, you will find yourself feeling differently about the
Course. In evaluating words and ideas, we humans always consider the source.
Our ability to contact Jesus through the Course
For many students, a personal relationship with Jesus is a central aspect of
the Course. And the Course itself values this relationship, saying at one
point that accepting him into our lives will allow him to help us more
(C-5.6:6-7). Now, this relationship can occur whether or not Jesus wrote the
Course. Yet how much the Course itself can facilitate this relationship is
affected by how directly and specifically we think he wrote it. If he wrote
its words, then by simply reading those words we are contacting him, we are
touching him. If he didn't write its words then we are that much more
removed from him, and will have to find some other way to bridge the gap
between us and him.
How actively and specifically can spirit help us in this world?
How we view the authorship of the Course makes broader statements about life
in this world. If Jesus can author the exact words of the Course, this
implies that spirit can reach all the way down to our level, helping us very
actively, specifically and personally. If Jesus cannot author a book in this
way, then the opposite is implied: Spirit will not translate itself down to
our level and so we will have to do what Helen supposedly did. We will have
to hike ourselves up to its level and make contact with it. And then we
ourselves will have to translate its abstract light into specific forms that
suit our needs. This may in fact be the case, but to me this is a cold and
comfortless picture. It amounts to nothing less than the idea that we have
been left alone and have to get back home on our own.
WHERE DO THE WORDS THEMSELVES SAY THEY CAME FROM?
I would like to contribute something on this question of authorship. In my
opinion, an ideal starting place in approaching it is finding out what the
Course itself says. If we are wondering where those words came from, perhaps
we should first find out where they claim they come from. Once we know that,
we can decide whether we accept or reject their claim. This article will
therefore seek to answer the question: Where do the words that Helen
Schucman heard and wrote down say they came from?
The great thing about this question is that it is not so hard to answer.
Clear answers are communicated in the Course itself. And extremely clear
answers are communicated in the personal guidance to Helen and Bill which
did not make it into the Course. Much of this guidance, as many Course
students know, was published in Ken Wapnick's Absence from Felicity.
In part I of this article I will examine Jesus' role. Then, in part II I
will move on to Helen's to Bill's roles. My initial points will draw from
the Course itself. However, as we move into Helen's role and finally Bill's,
I will be drawing on the personal guidance in Absence from Felicity. Along
the way I will explore a series of twelve questions or issues. After
exploring each one I will formulate a conclusion. And at the end of part II
I will put all twelve conclusions together into a total picture and discuss
the implications of that picture.
THE ROLE OF JESUS
1. Who do the Course's words claim that the author is?
No one debates this one. Ken and Gloria Wapnick express the obvious fact in
their book, The Most Commonly Asked Questions About ACIM:
Almost the entire text of A Course in Miracles is written in the first
person, where the "I" is clearly identified throughout as Jesus (p. 97).
In other words, the voice that speaks in the Course clearly identifies
itself as that of Jesus of Nazareth, the very Jesus whose story is told in
the Bible. Whoever wrote the Course is either totally convinced he is
Jesus--which seems to be the case--or is deceptively passing himself off as
Jesus. This, then, will provide us with our first conclusion:
1. The words of the Course claim that they in some sense come from the
individual known as Jesus of Nazareth.
From here on, I will call the author "Jesus," not in the assumption that he
truly is Jesus of Nazareth (which I believe, but not everyone does), but
simply because that is what he calls himself.
2. How can a disembodied, fully awakened being author a book?
Many believe that if Jesus has truly awakened, then he no longer exists as
an entity that can act within time and space. When his body and his ego
vanished, the individual character we knew as Jesus disappeared as well. Now
"he" is merely a seamless part of the transcendental whole, a whole which is
void of any trace of personal identity, including that of Jesus.
This is a very reasonable perspective, yet one which has literally no
support in what the Course itself says. Throughout the Course, the author
speaks as if the same person that appeared bodily 2,000 years ago as Jesus
is still somehow acting within time and space. He says that he is still
helping, teaching, healing, giving assignments, guiding, working and
planning. He says specifically that time and space are under his control
(T-2.VII.7:9).
What is especially important are several passages in which he specifically
says that he has remained with us. Most of the passages below are from the
Manual, where Jesus speaks about himself in the third person. In them I have
bolded variations of the word "remain."
I take the journey with you. For I share your doubts and fears a little
while, that you may come to me who recognize the road by which all fears and
doubts are overcome. We walk together. I must understand uncertainty and
pain, although I know they have no meaning. Yet a savior must remain with
those he teaches, seeing what they see, but still retaining in his mind the
way that led him out, and now will lead you out with him (W-pI.rV.IN.6:1-5).
Is he still available for help? What did he say about this? Remember his
promises, and ask yourself honestly whether it is likely that he will fail
to keep them....Would the greatest teacher be unavailable to those who
follow him? (M-23.3:5-11).
He has remained with you (M-23.5:9).
Arise with him who showed you this because you owe him this who shared your
dreams that they might be dispelled. And shares them still, to be at one
with you.
Is he the Christ? O yes, along with you. His little life on earth was not
enough to teach the mighty lesson that he learned for all of you. He will
remain with you to lead you from the hell you made to God (C-5.4:3-5:4).
These passages weave a highly consistent picture. Let's summarize it. In
these passages the author claims that his bodily life as Jesus was simply
not enough to accomplish his mission. Therefore, he has not completely
disappeared into formless infinity of Heaven, leaving us here alone. He has
remained with us, walking with us, journeying with us, so that he can keep
helping us, keep teaching us his one lesson, keep leading us to God. He is
still available for help, just as he promised us in the gospels. On this
journey he shares our dreams, our fears and doubts. He sees everything we
see and understands our inmost uncertainty and pain. In short, he has
remained with us, very intentionally and very personally.
Think of that word "remained." It implies that he is still with us in a form
or capacity not so utterly unlike how he was with us before. He was with us
personally before and, even though his body is gone, he is with us
personally now. This, it seems, is how he can author a book even though
fully awakened. And this leads to our second conclusion:
2. The words claim that Jesus, though awakened, has remained with us in a
personal way and thus is able to do things within time and space, such as
author a book.
3. How can Jesus be distinct from other awakened helpers?
A related assumption is that Jesus, being awakened, must be absolutely
indistinguishable from other non-physical helpers. After all, they all are
one, aren't they? How, then, can a book be authored by Jesus as distinct
from the rest of them? The Course sketches a subtle position here. It
consistently gives two sides of the same issue, saying that all helpers are
one, yet that there is still some kind of distinction between them, because
this is appropriate to the realm of form.
Helpers are given you in many forms, although upon the altar they are one
(C-5.1:3).
In the world of separation each [savior] is appointed separately, though
they are all the same. Yet those who know that they are all the same need
not salvation (T-20.IV.5:4-5).
This oneness-yet-distinction has a particular result in the case of Jesus.
Of all the saviors in the world--both in the body and out of it--Jesus is
actually the leader in the plan for salvation because he was the first to
complete his part in that plan (C-6.2:2). He is one with all the world's
saviors, yet he is their leader. This gives us our third conclusion:
3. The words claim that Jesus has remained with us as some kind of distinct
identity, who is one with all other (physical and non-physical) saviors yet
is still in some way distinct from them and is their leader.
4. Did Jesus formulate and dictate the specific English words of the Course?
The above conclusions still leave open a tiny remaining crack for the
possibility that Helen was responsible for the words of the Course. I
remember reading, for instance, a similar thing about Dorothy Maclean, of
Findhorn fame. She would receive inner guidance from the "nature spirits" as
a flow of wordless impressions, and she says that she herself would put the
words to this flow. Ken Wapnick takes a somewhat related position in Absence
from Felicity:
Therefore, again, Helen was responsible for the Course's specific form; the
abstract love of Jesus--the source--for its content (p. 481).
Thus what Helen heard was the content of his love in the shape of her forms,
including her English words. According to this theory, Jesus did not select
particular English words and speak them into Helen's mind.
What does the Course say about this? Whose words are they? Did Jesus
actually select the words, or did Helen? I will treat this question in
several parts. I will begin by pointing out that Jesus several times calls
the words of the Course his words. I have bolded the phrases that indicate
this below:
My brothers in salvation, do not fail to hear my voice and listen to my
words (T-31.VIII.8:1).
For this alone I need; that you will hear the words I speak, and give them
to the world (W-pI.rV.IN.9:2).
It is possible to read his words [meaning Jesus' words in the Course] and
benefit from them without accepting him into your life (C-5.6:6).
So Jesus claims they are his words. But just what does that mean? Couldn't
he mean "my words" in a very loose sense? Couldn't "my words" really mean
"the expression of my ideas (whether in my words or someone else's)"? The
following passage answers this question decisively and unequivocally.
I have made every effort to use words that are almost impossible to distort,
but it is always possible to twist symbols around if you wish (T-3.I.3:11).
This passage is so significant because Jesus depicts himself as making
"every effort" to carefully choose his words. "Words" here clearly does not
mean ideas or thoughts. It specifically refers to symbols of ideas or
thought, symbols that can potentially be twisted or distorted and seen as
symbolizing the wrong ideas and thoughts. So here Jesus does not portray
himself as providing the content with Helen providing the form, the words.
He claims that he provided both, and for a very good reason: He chose forms
that were particularly suited to his content, words into which it would be
particularly hard to read the wrong ideas. In other words, his choosing of
the words was essential to the proper communication of his content.
This idea is borne out by the rest of the Course, in which Jesus displays an
acute awareness of the words being used, and often comments on them. He will
comment on the appropriateness of a certain term, saying, "The word 'within'
is unnecessary," (T-4.III.1:3), or, "The word 'know' is proper in this
context..." (T-5.I.4:8), or "The word 'create' is appropriate here..."
(T-5.V.2:2).
He is also acutely aware of the normal usage of a word. At one point he
says, "There has been much confusion about what perception means, because
the word is used both for awareness and for the interpretation of awareness"
(T-11.VI.2:5). If you think about it, this is true. The English word
"perception" stands both for your awareness--your raw sense experience--and
for your interpretation of that sense experience. You both perceive a tree
in front of you with your eyes, and you also perceive it--interpret it--in a
certain way, you read a certain meaning into it.
He also comments on the difference between the conventional usage of a term
and his usage. He has this to say about the word "generosity":
The term generosity has special meaning to the teacher of God. It is not the
usual meaning of the word; in fact, it is a meaning that must be learned and
learned very carefully.....In the clearest way possible, and at the simplest
of levels, the word means the exact opposite to the teachers of God and to
the world (M-4.VII.1:1,2,8).
And he is aware of the impressions that his readers might receive from his
words. After saying, "You can "see reason" he clarifies this, saying, "This
is not a play on words..." (T-22.III. 1:4-5). About the term "the real
world," he says, "And yet there is a contradiction here, in that the words
imply a limited reality, a partial truth..." (T-26.III.3:). In other words,
the combination of "real" (which implies reality, eternity) and "world" (the
illusory realm of time and space) seems to be a contradiction.
He even lays out a sophisticated analysis of the effect of words upon the
mind. In the Manual he says that words call to mind a specific referent,
some concrete thing that we can picture. Then he says that the significance
of these specific things is that they are seen as "bringers of the desired
experience in the opinion of the asker" (M-21.2:5). For example, the word
"apple" brings to mind an actual apple (the specific referent), and this
apple stands for some desired experience that an apple can bring us (for
instance, that of eating one). "The words, then, are symbols for the things
asked for, but the things themselves but stand for the experiences that are
hoped for" (M-21.2:6). He says that unless a word brings to mind a specific
thing that in turn stands for a desired experience, "the word has little or
no practical meaning, and thus cannot help the healing process" (M-21.2:3).
The author, then, has a deep understanding of which words are apt to have
psychological impact and why. One can only assume that he has used this
understanding in choosing his words in the Course.
Altogether, Jesus claims that these are his words and that he has chosen
them very carefully to convey his meaning. Furthermore, he displays an acute
awareness of words and their psychological effect: where certain words are
appropriate, what they conventionally mean, what he means by them, and what
meanings they might arouse in the minds of his readers. All of this is
completely incompatible with the idea that he only supplied pure content,
which was left up to Helen to put into words. Let's condense this into our
fourth conclusion:
4. Jesus claims that he carefully chose the specific English words of the
Course, which is reflected in the acute awareness of words that he displays
in the Course.
5. Jesus' puns
I want to take the previous point one step further. Ken Wapnick, in Absence
from Felicity, has pointed out that the Course uses a veritable "plethora of
puns" (p. 239). My Webster's Dictionary defines a pun as "the humorous use
of a word in such a way as to suggest different meanings or
applications...." A pun is made possible by the same word having more than
one meaning. Quite often these meanings bear no conceptual relationship to
each other. That they are both found in the same word is often a complete
accident of language, an accident that may occur in only one language.
Here, for instance, is an example from the Course:
Remember that "yoke" means "join together," and "burden" means "message."
Let us restate "My yoke is easy and my burden light" in this way; "Let us
join together, for my message is Light" (T-5.II.11:3-4).
Here he switches "yoke" from a noun to a verb, transforming it from
something that goes around the neck of a draft animal to an act of joining
together. He switches "light" from "not heavy" to "spiritual illumination."
And he changes burden from "a load that one carries" to the archaic usage
(which comes from a different root word) of "message" or "central theme."
I especially want to focus on the following pun, recorded in Absence from
Felicity, which was a personal communication to Helen and Bill:
By the way, it is not true that you are both "just scribes." You might
remember that the Scribes were very wise and holy men and are even spelled
sometimes with a capital S. If you want to go further, you could even shift
"just" from "merely" to "honest," a term used in the Bible in association
with "might." Tell Bill you couldn't make the pun if the original phrasing
had been singular (p. 228).
This pun depends entirely on three specific details of language. First, it
depends on the word "scribe" being able to signify either a mere "penman or
copyist" or "one of the group of [ancient] Palestinian scholars and teachers
of Jewish law and tradition" (both from Webster's Dictionary).
Second, it depends on the fact that two unrelated meanings--"mere" and
"righteous"--both happen to converge on the word "just."
Third, it depends, as Jesus notes, on the small detail of the phrase being
plural. The singular version, "just a scribe," would not have allowed the
pun.
These three details allow Jesus to turn the phrase "just scribes" from
meaning "mere penmen or copyists" to meaning "honest, mighty, wise and holy
men." The whole paragraph rests on these details of language, which allow
the same phrase to double for two radically different meanings. It certainly
appears, then, that Jesus has done what anyone does in making a pun; that he
has constructed his message based on an intimate knowledge of the capacities
of particular English words. It appears that his knowledge of those words
suggested a particular message, and that this message was then expressed
through words. In short, it looks as if he formulated both words and content
together, each one guided by the other. Let us, then, state our fifth
conclusion, remembering that the Course is filled with a "plethora of puns":
5. In the case of the puns Jesus makes, the specific content expressed
depends on the multiple meanings of particular English words, suggesting
that he formulated both the content and the words together.
* * * * *
This concludes my examination of the role of Jesus in the authorship of A
Course in Miracles. In part II I will explore the roles of Helen Schucman
and Bill Thetford, where we will find that their roles do not contradict
Jesus' role as presented here, but merely flesh out more of the same
picture. Yet even here, before we get to Helen and Bill, we can see that the
words Helen heard regard Jesus as a true author. They do not portray him as
a kind of abstract inspiration for the Course, but as the author of the
specific train of words that makes up A Course in Miracles.
Please remember that I am not saying that this view is the truth, simply
that this view is the claim of the words that Helen heard. Yet if we do
accept this view as true, what does that mean? What relevance does it have?
Well, I personally accept this view as the truth, and for me it means the
following: that the Course is the specific expression of Jesus of Nazareth,
that therefore it carries the unparalleled authority that he does, that
through its words I can come to know him and experience him teaching and
healing me, and that spirit can come down to my level, can reach me and help
me in very specific forms and in a very personal way.
For the continuation of this article, go to Who Wrote A Course in Miracles?
Part II
THE END OF PART I.
http://nen.sedona.net/circleofa/
Bob Stock <bst...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ac4v6s0p8pf8iqv8k...@4ax.com...
peggy.howland
To read part I of this article, go to Who Wrote A Course in Miracles? Part I
Who Wrote A Course in Miracles?
Part II
by Robert Perry
This is the second part of an article exploring the authorship of the
Course. In the first part I said that this issue is relevant because it
profoundly affects how we see three issues: the authority of the Course, our
ability to contact Jesus through the Course, and how actively and
specifically spirit can help us in this world.
I also established that the goal of this article is not to decide who
actually authored the Course, but merely to ascertain what the Course itself
claims on this question. In other words, where do the words that Helen heard
claim they came from? Once we solve this question, we can decide whether or
not we personally believe that claim. To find out what the words that Helen
heard claim about their origin, I am turning to the words of the Course
itself, as well as to the personal guidance that Helen received for herself
and Bill, which is recorded in Kenneth Wapnick's Absence from Felicity.
In Part I, I dealt with the role of Jesus. I settled on five conclusions
which will be reviewed near the end of this article. Now, in Part II, I will
turn to seven conclusions about the roles of Helen and Bill. At the end I
will put all twelve conclusions together into a total picture and discuss
the implications of that picture.
THE ROLE OF HELEN
Now we will turn to Helen. What was her role? What part did she contribute?
Whereas the role of Jesus is clearly communicated in the words of the Course
itself, this is not so with Helen's role. To ascertain her role, we will
have turn outside the Course to personal guidance that is recorded in
Absence from Felicity.
6. A scribe
As we saw in Part I, the Course's author called Helen (as well as Bill--we
will return to him later) his "scribe." As we also saw, this word refers to
someone who is copying down words. It comes from the Middle English word,
scribere, which means "to write." Even the more exalted sense of the word
employed by Jesus, "one of a group of Palestinian scholars and teachers of
Jewish law and tradition" (Webster's Dictionary), includes this idea of
copying words, since this group "transcribed...the Bible."
Just by using this word to describe her, then, Jesus is implying that Helen
is copying down his words. This is certainly consistent with all that we
have seen above. This will be our sixth point:
6. Jesus said that Helen was his "scribe," which implied that she was
copying down his words.
7. Scribal errors
In the early months of the Course's dictation Jesus frequently corrected
what Helen had written down, saying that she had not heard him correctly. I
think this is one of the most fascinating things about the personal guidance
recorded in Absence from Felicity. I have read volumes of channeled material
and I have never seen anything like this. It has done a great deal to
reinforce my confidence in the integrity and accuracy of this material.
My favorite instance of this is with what would become miracle principle
#20. It is recorded on pages 227-228 in Absence from Felicity. It is
difficult to follow and so in my discussion of it here I have taken my best
shot at making sense of it. Here is what Helen initially heard:
Miracles are cobwebs of iron. They unite human frailty [symbolized by
cobwebs] with the strength of God [symbolized by iron].
Later, Jesus corrects this, saying that the part about human frailty and the
strength of God is all right, but that the part about cobwebs of iron is
upside down. He says that "cobwebs are associated with frailty and iron with
strength" (emphasis mine). Yet in truth it is reversed. The iron stands for
the body, crude and heavy, while the cobwebs stand for spirit, airy yet
"really stronger than the iron" (a thread of spider web, I believe, is
actually stronger than the same thickness of iron).
He goes on to explain that the cobwebs also stand for "how the body should
be regarded, i.e., as an airy and very temporary home, which can just be
blown away with a slight breeze." The cobwebs now symbolize the body's
fragile and temporary nature in the face of the breeze--presumably a symbol
for spirit. Having explained all this, he gives the proper wording for
miracle principle #20:
The point should read "A miracle reawakens the awareness that the spirit,
not the body, is the altar of Truth. This is the recognition that leads to
the healing power of the miracle."
Isn't this fascinating? Jesus is implying that this latter wording is what
he originally said, and that Helen distorted it into something else
entirely. He was talking about spirit and altars, and she heard cobwebs and
iron. He then explains why. As best as I can make out, he suggests that both
Helen and Bill feel like fragile physical cobwebs in danger of being
uprooted by their attraction to the "breeze" of spirit. He then says, "This
fear is why you couldn't get the point straight, too."
In other words, Helen had a fear that her bodily identity was being
threatened by the intense pull of spirit. This led her mind to distort
Jesus' point. His point was that the body is illusion and that the spirit is
the truth. Her distortion of that point confused the body with the spirit.
By associating iron with the spirit she subtly elevated the body--which,
like iron, is heavy, crude and ultimately weak--to the level of strength and
truth. This apparently came from her unconscious desire to protect her body
from strength and truth.
Another fascinating example is when Helen heard Jesus using incorrect
grammar (p. 256). She heard, "Neither you nor Bill have thought about it
very much..." Can you spot the mistake (I wouldn't have)? The proper grammar
would have been, "Neither you nor Bill has...." Helen notices this and
writes, "This real grammatical error makes me suspicious of the genuineness
of these notes."
Notice that she is assuming that the specific words are coming from Jesus,
and since it is Jesus Christ, she expects him to use flawless grammar. If he
does not, then it cannot be Jesus. Note also that this is an issue purely of
form. Whether it is "have" or "has" does not affect the content at all. It
is solely about Jesus using the proper grammatical forms. Jesus' response
says a world about the actual process of the scribing:
What it really shows is that you are not very receptive. The reason it came
out that way, is because you are projecting...your own anger, which has
nothing to do with these notes. You made the error, because you are not
feeling loving, so you want me to sound silly, so you won't have to pay
attention. Actually, I am trying to get through against considerable
opposition, because you are not very happy, and I wish you were. I thought
I'd take a chance, even though you are so resistant, because I might be able
to make you feel better. You may be unable not to attack at all, but do try
to listen a little, too....
His explanation is that she inserted the incorrect grammar, because she
wants thereby to discredit the notes. His remark, "I thought I'd take a
chance" is very revealing. He knows she is resistant and might distort his
words, but he is not sure if she will choose to do so. He is not sure what
her mind will choose to do with his words. So he takes a chance.
Note also that Jesus does not contest Helen's basic assumption at all. By
saying that he used proper grammar, that she inserted the bad grammar, and
that she did so to throw suspicion on the source of the notes, he implies
that he buys her whole theory. He implies that the words are coming from
him, that since he is Jesus they are coming in proper grammar, and that if
they were not in proper grammar their source would be up for question.
Jesus' implication here is that Helen's mind is able to insert words that he
did not say. She can replace his words with hers. This same idea is
supported by other examples. For instance, Helen was once told that of the
two parts of a message she received, "The second part was put in by you,
because you didn't like the first" (p. 237).
There is a saving grace here, however. Jesus is apparently aware of Helen
inserting her words in place of his. And later, when she is more receptive,
he can go back and give her the proper words, the ones he actually said. He
states all this clearly in the following paragraph:
As long as you take accurate notes, every word is meaningful. But I can't
always get through. Whenever possible, I will correct retroactively. Be sure
to note all later corrections. This means that you are more receptive than
you were when I tried before (p. 234).
Another time he said that, "Contradictions in My words mean lack of
understanding, or scribal failures, which I make every effort to correct"
(p. 231). Note that both this statement and the preceding one imply the same
three things:
* The words come from him.
* Helen's lack of receptivity (or understanding) can distort those words.
* He will try to correct them later.
To me, the above examples suggest an entire process behind the scribing of
the Course, which I will attempt to summarize. The following process is not
explicitly described in anything Helen heard, but it is the only explanation
I know of that fits what was explicitly described.
Jesus formulated both the content and the form, the specific ideas and the
particular words. Having done so, he then had to introduce the result, which
we could call "word/idea packets," into Helen's mind. This must have
occurred at some level below consciousness, because she did not always
consciously hear the actual words and ideas he gave her. Apparently, in
these deeper regions of Helen's mind, she had to accept the entire packet;
she had to join with the words and ideas. If she did not, for one reason or
another, the packet would be altered, replacing his words with hers and
distorting his content. As a result, what she would consciously hear and
write down would be a scribal error. However, Jesus would be aware of this
scribal error, and when she was open to hearing better, he would correct it,
replacing her words with his. Let's make this our seventh conclusion:
7. Jesus would introduce "word/idea packets" into Helen's mind. If her
unconscious mind was unable to join with these, she would consciously hear a
distorted version, in which her words had replaced his, distorting his
content. He, however, would be aware of these scribal errors and try to
correct them later, when she was more receptive.
8. The level of thought
There is a very important message that Helen received during the scribing of
the fifth chapter of the Text:
You will note that a lot of terms are used in the beginning that are later
clarified. This is because the beginning was written by a Scribe whose ego
was in strong dominance, and whose Soul [spirit] was dissociated most of the
time. You may not realize what a strong testimony to truth these notes are
without remembering that.
The sharp ascent upward in thought which the development of the notes shows,
and it is astonishing in human terms how steadily they evolve toward unity,
is due to only one sign of assent. I asked her to take notes, and she did
(p. 294).
Our previous point was about Helen actually distorting the words and ideas
Jesus gave her. This message adds another dimension onto how she affected
the material coming through. It says that in addition to distorting it, she
could allow through varying quality or levels of thought. As she became more
willing, the level of thought in the Course took a sharp ascent upwards; its
various ideas steadily evolved toward unity. This will become our eighth
conclusion:
8. Helen's willingness not only affected the accuracy of the words she
heard, it also affected the quality or level of thought that was able to
come through her.
9. Where did the forms of the Course come from?
I have focused a great deal on the question of where the specific words of
the Course came from. Let us broaden that question to other forms of the
Course. It has often been noted that many of the Course's forms seem to be
traceable to Helen's own interests, background and abilities. The Course is
in English, her native tongue. It uses Christian symbology; Helen had an
abiding connection with Catholicism. It is deeply psychological; she was a
psychologist. It comes in a curricular format; she was an educator. It uses
copious logic; she loved logic. Much of it is in Shakespearean blank verse;
she not only loved Shakespeare but had aspirations of being a great poet.
These facts are often cited to show that something in Helen's mind must have
placed these forms onto the Course. Some kind of formless content must have
flowed into her mind, which she must have unconsciously shaped using the
forms she knew well. How else can we explain the Course's forms looking so
much like hers? Certainly Jesus does not normally go around speaking in
iambic pentameter. What are the odds that he would be in the habit of using
so many forms that just happened to be favorites of this particular person?
However, there is another explanation for the exact same set of facts. What
if Jesus consciously chose to use forms that Helen could relate to, forms
that would be familiar to her, meaningful to her, and that would help his
message sink into her? This also makes sense. So here we have two hypotheses
to explain the same set of facts. The first says that Helen's mind somehow
put her familiar forms onto the Course's content. The second says that Jesus
intentionally put the Course's content into forms familiar to Helen. Both
hypotheses have just as much ability to explain the same set of facts.
However, the second hypothesis has one crucial advantage: It is the one that
Jesus himself uses.
You could not have a better example of the Holy Spirit's unified purpose
than this course. The Holy Spirit has taken very diversified areas of your
past learning, and has applied them to a unified curriculum (p. 482).
In this quote the Holy Spirit is clearly the active party. He "has taken,"
He "has applied." This quote, in fact, expresses our second hypothesis
precisely: To produce the Course the Holy Spirit (Who in this sense would be
synonymous with Jesus) intentionally shaped His content into forms that were
familiar to Helen. This brings to mind another advantage in this hypothesis:
It is a specific application of a major principle in the Course. This
principle is that the Holy Spirit takes what we have made for ego and uses
it for our awakening.
Even Ken Wapnick, who believes that Helen supplied the form of the Course,
admits that Helen's experience was different: "Helen's experience, as we
have seen, was that Jesus used her particular talents and abilities" (p.
482, italics mine). Yet this was not only Helen's experience, it was what
the words she heard claimed. And it was a specific application of the
overall thought system she heard. This, then, will be our ninth conclusion:
9. In order to reach her, Jesus intentionally shaped his content into a
"language" familiar to Helen. That explains why the Course uses so many of
Helen's forms (English language, Christian symbology, psychodynamics,
curricular format, and Shakespearean blank verse).
THE ROLE OF BILL
This concludes my exploration of Helen's role as scribe. My last points will
explore a truly significant aspect of the Course's scribing, yet one which
has, to my knowledge, been completely ignored. This is Bill Thetford's role.
He, too, was a scribe. Jesus called him that, as we saw in Part I in his
"just scribes" remarks (conclusion #5). But how was he a scribe?
In the common view, Bill was a scribe because it was his joining with Helen
that gave birth to the Course, it was their joining that the Course
specifically came to shepherd and heal, and it was their physical
collaboration that brought the Course into written form--she took shorthand
notes and he typed them up. In this typing he even fulfilled a literal
scribal role, albeit of a secondary sort.
However, Jesus' actual statements to Helen portray Bill as a more intimate
part of the actual transmission of Jesus' words through Helen.
10. Bill's special language
I need to qualify the last conclusion. There I said that Jesus chose the
Course's forms, including its language, because of what Helen was familiar
with. Actually, that is only one of the reasons that he gives. Jesus talks
openly about the language he uses, using the phrase "special language" to
describe the particular vocabulary and phraseology he chose for the Course.
And what he says is that he shaped the Course's special language to reflect
Bill's language as well as Helen's:
Note also that the special language here is a combination of both yours
[Helen's] and his [Bill's]. You two came together in My name (p. 228-229).
Later, Jesus speaks about Bill unconsciously pretending to not understand
the notes Helen was receiving:
Bill acts as if he does not understand even his own special language, let
alone Mine... (p. 258).
Notice here that the Course's special language is also Jesus' special
language ("Mine"). Apparently, the language that Jesus used was a three-way
melding of Helen's, Bill's and his own (whatever that means).
Finally, Jesus at one point gives Helen and Bill a kind of riddle (p.
225-226). He says, "Miracles rest on flat feet. They have no arches." He
then adds, "Bill will be better with this than you." And, just as he
suspected, Helen did not have a clue as to what it meant and even suspected
that communication had broken down. Then Jesus said,
Clue--it has something to do with "here I am, Lord." Bill knows [this is a
prayer that Jesus had given Bill]. The idea is that I don't want to
emphasize your special language too much.
The riddle here is consciously designed to reflect Bill's special language.
Helen doesn't get it at all, and this is appropriate in a way, because Jesus
has formed this riddle so as not to emphasize Helen's special language too
much. Jesus apparently wants to maintain some kind of balance between
Helen's special language and Bill's. Let's draw our tenth conclusion, then:
10. Jesus also shaped the Course's special language to reflect Bill's
language.
11. Bill limiting the quality of the material
Just as Helen's lack of willingness could limit the quality of the material
that came through, so apparently could Bill's. At one point, Jesus says
through Helen that Bill would not have made a particular error
...had he not been already literally "off the beam." Be sure to tell him
that this pun is to reassure him that I am not angry. If he does not get it,
or does not like it, I know it is not very good. The reason is that he put
Me in a position where I can really give him very little at the moment (p.
263).
Whatever this pun actually means (and I sure don't get it), the point is
that Jesus is admitting that the quality of the material Helen was hearing
here was limited by Bill's willingness. In essence, Bill was limiting what
Helen could hear. Now this may be very specific to this case. After all,
this material was personally addressed to Bill. Yet remember, the entire
Course was personally addressed to both Helen and Bill. Here, then, is our
eleventh conclusion:
11. Bill's willingness, like Helen's, was also able to affect the quality of
the material coming through Helen, at least at times.
12. Bill's scribal error
I can find one place in which Helen apparently heard a scribal error because
of Bill. Jesus is telling Helen and Bill (p. 265) that they wasted a lot of
time that day and that he would have liked to use the time to correct some
past notes. He then says, "A major point of clarification is necessary in
connection with the phrase 'replacing hatred (or fear) with love.'" The
notes then leave off and pick up later, with Jesus again speaking:
...Bill later suggested that "correct" or "correct for" should be used
instead of "replace." At the time, he was quite sure about this, and he was
perfectly right. The reason why it was essential that he make this
correction was that the word "replace" was his choice originally, and
reflected a temporary misunderstanding of his own (p. 265).
I find this incident amazing--so much so that I have doubted if it really
means what it seems to. For instance, Jesus does tell Helen not to "check
this against the prayer that Bill very kindly typed for you on the card" (I
understand that Bill was given to copying portions of Helen's dictation onto
note cards). Maybe, then, the error was not in Helen's notes, but in Bill's
typing. Yet Jesus specifically said that this error was in "the past
notes"--meaning, in Helen's dictation of the Course. And anyway, why would
Jesus be interested in correcting a prayer that Bill had typed up for Helen?
The most likely explanation is that Bill had typed onto the card the very
portion of Helen's dictation in which the error occurred.
I have also wondered if the error might not have been in the typed version
of the Course. It might have been a typographical error in which Bill
incorrectly typed out the notes Helen read to him. Yet in that case Helen
and Bill could have simply checked the typed version against Helen's
shorthand notes. As it happened, Jesus promised a clarification, Bill came
up with an inspired solution, and Jesus confirmed Bill's solution. None of
that would have needed to happen if the error was purely typographical and
they could have just consulted Helen's notes.
I conclude that the most likely explanation for this is just how it sounds:
Bill's unconscious mind was somehow involved in Helen's scribing process.
Note that Jesus says the word "replace" was Bill's "choice," which reflected
a "temporary misunderstanding of his." This implies that something in Bill's
mind could choose the wrong words, and that Helen would then hear Bill's
words instead of Jesus'. His choices, his misunderstandings, could throw off
the words she heard. Just as her mind could distort what she heard, so his
mind could also distort what she heard.
This point should not be too shocking, for it is closely related to our last
conclusion. There we decided that Bill's mind could limit what Helen heard.
Here we see that his mind could distort what she heard. These two ideas seem
to go together, just as they did in Helen's case (see points 7 and 8). Yet
think what this implies. If Bill's mind could both limit and distort what
Helen heard, then his mind must have been involved somehow in Helen's
receiving process. While her mind was receiving words from Jesus, Bill's
mind was in there too, joined with hers. Together, her mind and his either
faithfully passed on Jesus' words, or, like curved glass, bent and twisted
them--all before those words reached Helen's conscious mind.
We can now formulate our final conclusion, which is a bit more tentative
than the other ones, but still seems fairly solid to me:
12. Apparently Bill's unconscious mind, like Helen's, could also distort
Jesus' words, causing Helen to hear Bill's words instead of Jesus'. Thus (to
summarize the last two points about Bill), Bill's mind was to some degree
present inside Helen's mind as she received dictation, and was at times able
to influence that dictation.
Now we can draw all of these points together into a single summary
statement.
WHERE THE WORDS THAT HELEN HEARD SAY THEY CAME FROM
The role of Jesus
(1) The words Helen heard in some sense come from the individual known as
Jesus of Nazareth. (2) Jesus, though awakened, has remained with us in a
personal way and thus is able to do things within time and space, such as
author a book. (3) He has remained with us as some kind of distinct
identity, who is one with all other (physical and non-physical) saviors, yet
is still in some way distinct from them and is their leader. (4) He
carefully chose the specific English words of the Course, which is reflected
in the acute awareness of words that he displays in the Course. (5) In the
case of the puns he makes, the specific content expressed depends on the
multiple meanings of particular English words, suggesting that he formulated
both the content and the words together.
The role of Helen
(6) Helen was his "scribe," which implied that she was copying down his
words. (7) He would introduce "word/idea packets" into Helen's mind. If her
unconscious mind was unable to join with these, she would consciously hear a
distorted version, in which her words had replaced his, distorting his
content. He, however, would be aware of these scribal errors and try to
correct them later, when she was more receptive. (8) Helen's willingness not
only affected the accuracy of the words she heard, it also affected the
quality or level of thought that was able to come through her. (9) In order
to reach her, Jesus intentionally shaped his content into a "language"
familiar to Helen. That explains why the Course uses so many of Helen's
forms (English language, Christian symbology, psychodynamics, curricular
format, and Shakespearean blank verse).
The role of Bill
(10) Jesus also shaped the Course's special language to reflect Bill's
language. (11) Bill's willingness, like Helen's, was able to affect the
quality of the material coming through Helen, at least at times. (12)
Apparently Bill's unconscious mind, like Helen's, could also distort Jesus'
words, causing Helen to hear Bill's words instead of Jesus'. Thus, Bill's
mind was to some degree present inside Helen's mind as she received
dictation, and was at times able to influence that dictation.
***
This, of course, is a fairly traditional view of the genesis of the Course:
Jesus dictated words through Helen. Jesus is the author in the fullest
sense. He formulated both the Course's ideas and its specific words. I would
argue, however, that this is not a simplistic or naive view. A simplistic
view would be that Jesus is simply speaking words into Helen's conscious
mind. Yet in the view I have described there is a vast middle ground in
between his words and her conscious hearing of them, a middle ground in
Helen's unconscious through which these words must worm their way. In this
middle territory is a variety of subtle winds and climates that can affect
the depth and accuracy of what she consciously heard. These include her fear
and anger, her desire to discredit Jesus, the depth of her willingness, even
Bill's resistance and misunderstanding. Notice that these factors relate
primarily to her (and Bill's) resistance to the content that is
communicated, not merely to the words.
So, rather than merely having Jesus speak words into her conscious mind,
this view sees words and content travelling first through her unconscious
mind, where she had to actually join with the words and the content behind
them. Only if this happened did those words make it into her conscious mind
whole and intact.
Perhaps I am naive, but I honestly don't think that the words Helen heard
can easily give an impression too different from what I have described. What
those words claim is relatively straightforward. The question is: Is what
they communicate true? Once we grant that these words claim they were
written specifically by Jesus, we still must decide if we believe that
claim.
Many people, of course, will decide that they do not believe it, that what
those words say could not possibly be true. And they may be right--it may
not be possible for the real Jesus of Nazareth to author a book through a
human "scribe."
However, I want to state one caution about this. Many Course students will
decide that this view cannot be true, even though they believe the Course is
true--in fact, because they believe the Course is true. They will decide
that this view of authorship is impossible because it does not fit the
Course's overall thought system. For, they maintain, Jesus simply cannot
come down that far. For one reason or another he cannot conceive a thought
system, design a book to teach it, formulate the specific English words of
that book, telepathically transmit those words into the mind of a living
human, and then monitor and correct how accurately she writes them down. He
just cannot act in the world like that. Therefore, whether the Course claims
this happened or not, it simply cannot be. It contradicts the Course's
overall teaching. And therefore, in those places I have quoted, the Course
must not be really saying what it seems to be saying. Those passages can't
really mean what they appear to mean.
In my opinion, such a view is skating on extremely thin ice. Let me share my
reasons for saying this. The view that I have described here represents a
large and highly consistent web of thought, one that runs throughout the
Course, and throughout the personal material to Helen and Bill. Furthermore,
it hooks into larger webs of thought in the Course: into the Course's
overall view of Jesus, of the Holy Spirit, of God's relationship to the
separation, of our role in our salvation, of our special function, of the
holy relationship--the list could go on. Ultimately, this view of authorship
is an inextricable part of the entire web of the Course's thought system.
Further, I know of nothing that Helen heard that presents any sort of
different view whatsoever. Nowhere, for instance, does what Helen heard
describe how her mind shaped Jesus' abstract love into specific forms.
If we are to rule out such a consistent web of thought, then our reasons for
doing so must be incredibly strong. If we are ruling it out because we know
that Jesus cannot act in the world in this way, then as Course students we
had better be completely certain that the Course does in fact teach this. We
must find this view to be extremely well-attested in the Course, and to be
absolutely central to its entire system. Is this the case? Strangely, it is
nowhere near the case. The view that Jesus cannot act in the world does not
have a single line of support in the Course that I can find (and I have been
looking for ten years). The same is true with the view that the Holy Spirit
cannot act in the world. So far as I can tell, the only support for these
ideas is a logical inference, which goes something like this: If form is an
illusion, then Jesus and the Holy Spirit do not take on form, do not express
themselves through form and do not act in a world of form. This inference
sounds plausible, yet it is one that we must make on our own authority. The
Course provides no direct support for it.
This brings up the following questions, which I will leave in your hands: In
the absence of any direct support from the Course, is this inference so
strong, so sure, that we are willing to use it to rule out entire webs of
consistent thought that are openly stated in the Course? Is that how we
really want to approach the Course? Are we that sure of our own logic? And,
at that point, is it not more honest to simply admit that we disagree with
many of the statements in the Course?
IMPLICATIONS
By now you can tell what my opinion is. I believe the view that I have
distilled in this article. I buy every word of it. The human mind has a hard
time thinking that spiritual realities are real and immediate. Our tendency
is to either dismiss them entirely, or better, to make a compromise in which
we maintain that they are real but very far away. Perhaps the hardest thing
of all is to believe that they are not only real, but up close and personal.
And since my mind has this same tendency, it is difficult for me to fully
accept that Jesus of Nazareth dictated the Course, word for word. And yet
the Course is my authority, and it tells me that this is in fact what
happened. So I believe it. Now if I can only believe the rest of what it
says; for instance, that my brother is sinless.
So what does this mean? In the beginning of this article I sketched three
points of relevance for the question of authorship:
* The authority of the Course
* Our ability to contact Jesus through the Course
* How actively and specifically can spirit help us in this world?
So what are the implications of these three points for someone who accepts
that Jesus did in fact dictate the Course? Being such a person, I will use
myself as an example.
Since I believe that Jesus did consciously and intentionally write A Course
in Miracles, word for word, for me it carries every bit the authority that
he does. It carries as much authority as his words from 2,000 years ago,
except that the Course's words are contemporary, and we know what they are.
Who knows if we will ever accurately identify what he said back then? And
the Course carries more authority than anything Jesus might say to me
personally, because I think Helen's scribal abilities were light years ahead
of mine. The risk that his message has been contaminated is far greater in
my case than in Helen's.
Further, he does speak to me personally in the Course. He teaches me,
persuades me, counsels me, challenges me, encourages me, promises me, and
implores me. He does so in words like I have encountered nowhere else, words
that are enveloped by clouds of meaning and power, words that carry with
them the fragrant cloud of his presence and that reach right into me.
Through the Course I have come to know him. Through it I experience him
relating to me.
And therefore I believe that spirit can step itself down to my level. I
don't have to hike myself up to its level and then translate its formless,
unconcerned light into useable forms. In other words, I have not been left
alone here. And as a concrete example of this, Jesus is quite literally with
me all the time. Whether I can see him or hear him, he is still there,
seeing everything I see, knowing all I think and feel, helping me quite
actively and specifically, constantly shining on me his vision of me as a
sinless Son of God, always offering me his friendship.
END OF PART II
peggy.howland
in Miracles? by Robert Perry, these can be seen in original form at the
Circle of Atonement (COA) web site:
http://nen.sedona.net/circleofa/
Love and Peace -- Peggy
Bob Stock
>I was exploring the theory that the channeler is
>translating from the language of pure thought into the
>language of words.
If A is expressing B's ideas, A is entitled to protection of her
expression. (This is putting aside the possibility of joint
authorship.)
Bob
dth...@golden.net
On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> The net effect of this, which might very well turn out to be the net
> effect when the ACIM copyright is settled, is that the protection is
> very weak--if we have a similar ruling with respect to ACIM, the cases
> against Endeavor and COA would collapse, and we would be left with
> Ryan. One difference between the two, incidentally, is that there
> seems to have been more editing of Urantia, which can hardly help
> FACIM.
Perhaps Urantia had more editing but in that case the original channeled
work was destroyed. Thus the following hypothetical question did not
arise: If one were to publish the original ACIM (we know it still exists)
which is substantially different, indeed almost unrecognizable in the
first five chapters, according to one source which has seen the original,
would one be violating the alleged copyright on the edited "official"
version?
There are indeed several ACIMs loose in the world. There are Helen's
original notes, Bill's typescript, some photocopies of that, two or three
typescripts made by Helen, each including some editing, each of which was
photocopied and distributed to some extent, there is the Xerox edition
which was circulated in about 300 copies I understand and reflects more
editing, and then there is the first edition which was printed in 5000
copies and copyrighted.
All of these revisions, up to the "first edition" were created and
published in small numbers before the copyright and without any
restrictions. Copies of all of them, so far as I know, still exist and
copies of some of them, to my certain knowledge, not only exist but are
held by people other than Ken who won't restrict access to them. There
are at least two which are held by publically accessible libraries and two
which are in the private collections that I have personal knowledge of.
So how does the copyright on the later, "official" version, which is very
much different at the beginning and virtually identical at the end apply
to any or all of these pre-copyright versions?
As I read the Urantia case, the court determined that the editing was
suffiently extensive to make the edited result copyrightable although the
original (which had been destroyed) was not. In Urantia the original was
a moot point. In ACIM it's not because the original exists in Ken's vault
and copies that are very close to the original with very little editing,
copies which are very different than the "official" version, are
available.
Could it be that Ken's "official" version is copyrightable due to
extensive editing but the original or the only-slightly-edited original,
complete with original typos and spelling errors is not?
That's the question. Anyone got any answers?
All the best,
Doug
dth...@golden.net
On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 10:00:02 -0800, Bob Stock <bst...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Depends on whether Jesus conveyed his thoughts as English words which
> >Helen took down purely as a scribe and nothing more.
>
> This is what Helen said. However, one of her "special messages" as I
> recall said that the language itself was shaped by what Helen and Bill
> knew and liked--they served as a point of reference, which makes sense
> since obviously one is needed.
Right. "Purely as scribe and nothing more" has been a much debated topic
in ACIM circles. There was an element of conversation between Helen and
Jesus. In the original Helen sometimes asks very direct questions and
gets very direct answers from the "Voice" which clearly identifies itself
as Jesus. Most all of these have been removed from the "official" version
but a few have been published by Ken in other books about ACIM.
Now I know that when I wish to convey a specific message to Tom, to Dick
and to Harry and I speak to each of them separately, I'll not use the
exact same words. Because I know each man well, I'll word the message in
a particular way for each, so as to make it most clearly understandable to
him. I think this is the sense of what Helen meant when she indicated that
the "Voice" shaped its message using ideas and concepts with which she and
Bill were personally familiar and which would resonate most strongly with
them. This doesn't mean that Helen or Bill made a creative contribution
but that the "Voice" tailored his choice of words and concepts to their
own personal levels of understanding.
To make matters more complex, the original ACIM does contain Helen's
questions which were unquestionably her own "original creative work."
Some of the original is really the transcript of a conversation. She'd
ask a question and then write down the answer that she said she "heard."
This material has been removed from the "official" version which just
contains edited versions of the answers the "Voice" dictated to Helen.
She also asked questions for Bill and the "Voice" offered answers to
Bill's questions. So the original contains some of Bill's "original
creative work" too! This has also been edited out of the "official"
version.
Anyone care to try to sort out the legalities of that?
All the best,
Doug
Richard Mallett
>publishing even if they felt they were within the realm of fair use?
I guess it depends upon the individual. If, like you, he or she felt
led by the Holy Spirit, I assume the threat of a lawsuit would not
have a chilling effect.
Richard
Gene Ward Smith
<peggy....@mciworld.com> wrote:
>Who Wrote A Course in Miracles?
>Part I
>by Robert Perry
>The authority of the Course
>If Jesus of Nazareth dictated the actual words of the Course, it
takes on a
>very powerful authority. If instead we think the Course was distilled
by
>Helen's mind from some formless inspiration, it will carry less
weight.
I think this understates the difficulty. If Helen wrote it, Course
students need to confront the fact that the Course claims a different
authorship. This issue seems to cause some people to abandon their
intellectual integrity, and we may conclude it is touching on an area
where some people are inclined to erect defenses. One could argue the
issue *must* be important, or the ego would not be fighting so hard on
this front. I don't think the Course intended to give or has given an
easy way out here, and I think people should face the facts and the
fears those facts give rise to squarely.
>Here, for instance, is an example from the Course:
>Remember that "yoke" means "join together," and "burden" means
"message."
>Let us restate "My yoke is easy and my burden light" in this way;
"Let us
>join together, for my message is Light" (T-5.II.11:3-4).
>Here he switches "yoke" from a noun to a verb, transforming it from
>something that goes around the neck of a draft animal to an act of
joining
>together. He switches "light" from "not heavy" to "spiritual
illumination."
There is even more involved here--"yoke" did indeed originally carry
the implication of joining, and in fact "yoga" and "yoke" have the
same Indo-European root.
Interesting stuff--I wonder once again on reading this why some people
seem to hate Robert Perry.
dth...@golden.net
On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Tabitha K wrote:
>
> Very. I was exploring the theory that the channeler is
> translating from the language of pure thought into the
> language of words.
It's a topic I've explored too. Helen said she heard a "voice" speaking
in very specific words. The latter part of ACIM, the part that received
the least editing, is mostly in iambic pentameter, something that was only
noticed years after publication. Helen certainly didn't *consciously*
render the work into iambic pentameter in part, and then edit out the
iambic pentameter in other parts. This lends some credibility to the idea
of 'verbatim dictation' in my opinion.
This doesn't mean that Helen didn't make any errors in the early parts
which have been massively edited but it does suggest to me that the
original (which is very different from the published) version Helen took
down was for the most part "dictated word for word" to her and her
interpretation or translation of what she heard was minimal. The
subsequent editing is another story altogether and involved a very
different process and it involved people other than Helen.
Now Ken's theory on this, as I understand it, is that Helen made massive
errors at first, errors which Jesus subsequently instructed her and
himself to correct in the editing process, but that as the scribing
progressed, she made fewer and fewer errors so less and less editing was
required toward the end of the work.
An interesting question for scholars is, does Helen's unedited original
reflect the iambic pentameter found in the unedited later parts of the
work?
Perhaps the iambic pentameter was a kind of "checksum" Jesus inserted into
his dictation to enable the detection of errors. Iambic pentameter is
pretty difficult for a human to produce on the fly in a long, prose
discourse. The fact that it wasn't even noticed by the editors is
interesting too. They didn't even have the opportunity to "fake it" in
their editing.
So if Jesus actually dictated in iambic pentameter for the whole thing, we
can tell what's "authentic" and what is "an error" by the presence or
absence of that particular meter.
The very fact that large portions of the work really ARE in iambic
pentameter although otherwise the content is almost entirely prose and not
poetry, AND that the presence of this meter was not even detected for a
long time and isn't at all obvious suggests to me a meaning beyond mere
coincidence.
It strikes me as a kind of cosmic joke played by Jesus on those who would
presume to edit and change his words. He encoded in his words a device
for anyone to detect such alterations but didn't tell the editors about
it. If that's the scoop, my God, it's a divine jest!
I dunno if there is any merit to this observation at all, but it's an
intriguing hypothesis.
All the best,
Doug
Gene Ward Smith
>Could it be that Ken's "official" version is copyrightable due to
>extensive editing but the original or the only-slightly-edited
original,
>complete with original typos and spelling errors is not?
>That's the question. Anyone got any answers?
I think the only way to answer that would be to get a copy somehow,
publish it (the Internet might do), and see what happened.
Gene Ward Smith
>An interesting question for scholars is, does Helen's unedited
original
>reflect the iambic pentameter found in the unedited later parts of
the
>work?
I think this is very unlikely--pentameter even if messed about with
would read very differently than the early sections, which are not
very poetic in any sense.
>The very fact that large portions of the work really ARE in iambic
>pentameter although otherwise the content is almost entirely prose
and not
>poetry, AND that the presence of this meter was not even detected for
a
>long time and isn't at all obvious suggests to me a meaning beyond
mere
>coincidence.
If you rewrite the pentameter sections in the usual verse format and
read it as poetry you may began to wonder about your thesis that it is
really prose at all.
Life is not withdrawing from life
>I guess it depends upon the individual. If, like you, he or she felt
>led by the Holy Spirit, I assume the threat of a lawsuit would not
>have a chilling effect.
Thanks Richard, I found great respect in that response. Let me assure you of
this, if I was not led by HS..... this is not a fight I would have chosen for
personal reasons..... if I was not led by HS, I would have divested at the
first opportunity. Who needs it?
Isn't it time?
Amminadab
When I say 'you' I really mean 'me'.
Amminadab's Lantern of Truth
http://members.aol.com/amminadab2/
peggy.howland
Jesus on those who would
> presume to edit and change his words. He encoded in his words a device
> for anyone to detect such alterations but didn't tell the editors about
> it. If that's the scoop, my God, it's a divine jest!
>
> I dunno if there is any merit to this observation at all, but it's an
> intriguing hypothesis."
Doug: You are brilliant! I have always believed that ACIM came from Jesus
because of its iambic pentameter, among other reasons. As you know, I am a
Swedenborgian, and some of the parallels I discovered are as follows:
Re: the poetic nature of the Course being of spiritual origin:
Many of the parts he looked at were written in the same POETIC METER. [Bill]
. . . newly recognized rhythm of many of the passages seemed to make the
material even more beautiful and inspirational [Journey Without Distance,
pg. 70]
Swedenborg's Heavenly Doctrine: In angelic speech there is concord [as state
of agreement: HARMONY] with harmonious cadence [a rhythmic sequence or flow
of sounds in language; the beat, time, or measure of rhythmical motion or
activity]. AC 1648, 1649, 7191, HH 242]
In all angelic discourse (speech) there is a kind of harmony. AE 326a
Swedenborg was experienced in knowing what spiritual communication was like,
and so he stated dthat is had a harmonious cadence, etc. -- which I believe
is the same idea as iambic pentameter.
I believe this confirms your statement -- and I think it is why ACIM is from
Jesus; and how you can tell if other channeled works that claim they are
from Jesus can be measured against another characteristic of Jesus writings!
The internal dictation:
How do the words come? The Voice does not come from outside. It's all
internal. There's no actual sound, and the words come mentally but very
clearly. It's a kind of INNER DICTATION you might say [Helen Schucman].
(Journey Without Distance pg. 56)
Swedenborg's Heavenly Doctrine: The speech of an angel or spirit with man .
. . flows first into man's thought and by an INNER WAY into his organ of
hearing thus affecting it FROMWITHIN. CL Note 248.
Anyway, I appreciate your observations, Doug!
Love and Peace -- Peggy.
<dth...@golden.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.05L.100010...@shell.golden.net...
>
>
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Tabitha K wrote:
> >
> > Very. I was exploring the theory that the channeler is
> > translating from the language of pure thought into the
> > language of words.
>
> It's a topic I've explored too. Helen said she heard a "voice" speaking
> in very specific words. The latter part of ACIM, the part that received
> the least editing, is mostly in iambic pentameter, something that was only
> noticed years after publication. Helen certainly didn't *consciously*
> render the work into iambic pentameter in part, and then edit out the
> iambic pentameter in other parts. This lends some credibility to the idea
> of 'verbatim dictation' in my opinion.
>
> This doesn't mean that Helen didn't make any errors in the early parts
> which have been massively edited but it does suggest to me that the
> original (which is very different from the published) version Helen took
> down was for the most part "dictated word for word" to her and her
> interpretation or translation of what she heard was minimal. The
> subsequent editing is another story altogether and involved a very
> different process and it involved people other than Helen.
>
> Now Ken's theory on this, as I understand it, is that Helen made massive
> errors at first, errors which Jesus subsequently instructed her and
> himself to correct in the editing process, but that as the scribing
> progressed, she made fewer and fewer errors so less and less editing was
> required toward the end of the work.
>
> An interesting question for scholars is, does Helen's unedited original
> reflect the iambic pentameter found in the unedited later parts of the
> work?
>
> Perhaps the iambic pentameter was a kind of "checksum" Jesus inserted into
> his dictation to enable the detection of errors. Iambic pentameter is
> pretty difficult for a human to produce on the fly in a long, prose
> discourse. The fact that it wasn't even noticed by the editors is
> interesting too. They didn't even have the opportunity to "fake it" in
> their editing.
>
> So if Jesus actually dictated in iambic pentameter for the whole thing, we
> can tell what's "authentic" and what is "an error" by the presence or
> absence of that particular meter.
>
> The very fact that large portions of the work really ARE in iambic
> pentameter although otherwise the content is almost entirely prose and not
> poetry, AND that the presence of this meter was not even detected for a
> long time and isn't at all obvious suggests to me a meaning beyond mere
> coincidence.
>
Bob Stock
>As I read the Urantia case, the court determined that the editing was
>suffiently extensive to make the edited result copyrightable although the
>original (which had been destroyed) was not.
Your statement of your understanding of Urantia is misleading. As I
stated earlier, Urantia held that the Book was copyrightable as a
compilation of revelations because of the "human selection and
arrangement of the revelations." Any copying of the revelations
themselves (without copying the structure of the Book) would not have
been infringement because a revelation "would be analogous to a 'fact
. . . .'"
Bob
Tabitha K
>
> Richard wrote:
>
> >I guess it depends upon the individual. If, like you, he or she felt
> >led by the Holy Spirit, I assume the threat of a lawsuit would not
> >have a chilling effect.
>
> Thanks Richard, I found great respect in that response. Let me assure you of
> this, if I was not led by HS..... this is not a fight I would have chosen for
> personal reasons..... if I was not led by HS, I would have divested at the
> first opportunity. Who needs it?
>
> Isn't it time?
> Amminadab
You do understand, Ammi, that since all paths eventually lead back to
God, that the Holy Spirit leads us on the paths that we choose to
travel? I mean, free agency does indeed still enter into it. It's
like, 'Oh, you want to show how ridiculous this particular manifestation
of separation is? Okay, since doing such shows that all separation is
ridiculous, and fits my agenda, here is a wonderful nice safe path to
walk while you do it. All is well.'