Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Yomlogs on Wed Aug 30 09:39:40 BST 2000:

What a twatting disgrace. That message looked somewhat unconvincing and feeble on its own though, did the correspondence go further?

He should take a look at the state of his own shoddy website and give it some decent content that fans would appreciate, rather than hope to cash in on Graham's work in the future. (Maybe we're spoilt by SOTCAA, though I like to think the annoying front-end balances things slightly :)

Tch, an' that.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Bent Halo on Wed Aug 30 13:45:05 BST 2000:

It is a disgrace. That guy has been swanning around for years on the basis that he was close personal chums with Chapman, when this could only really add up to a few unremarkable interviews in his latter years.

He does know the family and the estate and is in it for the money. I don't understand his problem. He can access the working drafts of subsequent OOTT scripts so he has an advantage with publication anyway. He may also find a longer version of the SOTCAA published script, given that the one Jason H kindly forwarded was a shooting script.

Python fandom went to America years ago. He is one of the worst culprits. Others are just enthusiasts, but he seems to be hijacking it. Too fucking precious.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By TJ on Wed Aug 30 13:57:15 BST 2000:

I've been ranting for years about how the music industry is now totally in the hands of the lawyers and accountants, and now it seems that it's happening to comedy too. Pathetic.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Jon on Wed Aug 30 15:11:56 BST 2000:

"The music industry is now totally in the hands of the lawyers and accountants"

I think the main problem with music is the periodic lack of press interest in new acts. The Stone Roses would not have been better if Sony had signed them up in 1987 - they might not even have got to make the album they wanted - but loads of money got chucked at Stone Roses-inspired bands once the ball was rolling. The press did their job properly, things started moving, and duly notice had to be taken. If press and radio kept looking for new stuff instead of wasting the good times supporting bandwagon-jumping rubbish (which nowadays includes "indie" rubbish), you wouldn't get the inevitable bust periods when the bottom drops out of the market, the likes of Sleeper vanish taking huge debts with them, and then no one decent can get signed for ages.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Jon on Wed Aug 30 15:16:48 BST 2000:

Music was shit in 1992 and agin 97/8 because NME etc. were happy to coast along with whatever corporate baggy/britpop was getting promoted in 90/1 and 95/6, instead of trying to move on from it. And then suddenly it wasn't selling and there was nothing much new around.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By TJ on Wed Aug 30 16:20:09 BST 2000:

Yes, Jon, but what do you think about the "Out Of The Trees" situation??????????

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Jon on Wed Aug 30 16:26:15 BST 2000:

What? Oh, terrible, yes.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Saturday Superstore on Wed Aug 30 23:29:53 BST 2000:

What's the matter with you all? This is bloody important, but only about three people seem to care about it.

Get a sense of perspective. You should be shouting and screaming about this, not just timidly accepting it.

You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By TJ on Wed Aug 30 23:57:12 BST 2000:

Question - when I was in sixth-form college, I had a band and wrote a song called 'Out Of The Trees', inspired by what I had read about the show. I believe that one of the former band members may have a copy of this on a tape recording of a rehearsal. Would I be correct in assuming that under the legal requirements of the Chapman estate, this constitutes a breach of copyright and should be erased at once?

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Raymond Luxury Yacht on Thu Aug 31 10:20:16 BST 2000:

Graham had a flagrant disregard for anything bureaucratic (indeed, it's the essence of his humour), so it's annoying that a bit of his legacy has been snatched away. He's probably laughing at the ridiculousness of it all in some great pub in the sky...

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By jason hazeley on Thu Aug 31 10:48:42 BST 2000:

right, since i was the one who bought the script in the first place, and was responsible for passing it to sotcaa, perhaps i should add my twopennyworth.

my yoakum, i'm aware of your work and on the whole i find it thoroughly respectful and (by publishing sketches that YOU wrote with graham chapman instead of any of his massive backlog of material - the film he was working on when he died, any of his hundreds of sketches with cleese, idle, barry cryer etc) totally opportunistic. i also reason that you're not about to publish the 'out of the trees' script, because (a) it wouldn't sell and (b) the copyright subsists not only with the estate of graham chapman (and i thought david sherlock was the literary executor) but with douglas adams and bernard mckenna and the bbc. so, at the risk of asking you to shit or get off the pan, why don't you grant permission for sotcaa post it? or, since you can't legally go that far (i'd guess - i'm not a lawyer), why not just retract your objection and let it slip quietly under the rug? after all, 'out of the trees' isn't remotely available anywhere else.

come on, yoakum. humour us.

j xxx

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Ewar Woowar on Thu Aug 31 10:58:38 BST 2000:

Exactly. What is the point of sitting on it like this when he can't possibly have plans to publish it himself? It's not like the corpses are profiting from it, there's no advertising on this site. I can't understand his actions here, it looks like it must be preciousness or pedantry.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By jason hazeley on Thu Aug 31 11:36:05 BST 2000:

i've just posted this elsewhere, but i might be wrong - i think he may well intend to publish it. he's published 'jake's journey' and 'the concrete inspector' on his own imprint, so maybe it will be happen. then, as i've said, we can all pay £20 for a badly designed book.

trouble is, i want to just call him a sodding graverobber, but he almost certainly (legally) has a point. if he's the executor...

j xxx

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By cunt saboteur on Thu Aug 31 11:36:38 BST 2000:

ask him. mrpither12@aol.com. Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Ewar Woowar on Thu Aug 31 11:47:01 BST 2000:

How do we know that address isn't just some personal enemy of yours, cunt?

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 14:37:55 BST 2000:

>I've just seen the message that's replaced the script in 'Archive Review', and I'm absolutely stunned. What possible harm can posting an otherwise completely unavailable script on a non-commercial website do? This isn't an exercise of copyright, it's an abuse, and like all abuses of copyright it deserves to be met with a torrent of outraged indignation. Let's see if the man who can't even spell 'cease' (and was it just me who thought that the tone of the message was unecessarily agressive?) correctly has the guts - or even the decency - to come on here and answer to us.
>
>Corpses, it's time for some of that direct action you've been talking about. Anyone know of any forthcoming Chapman-related releases that I can refuse to buy?
>

Yeah, I'm here. So what defense have you got for theft? Be stunned all you want. "What possible harm can posting an otherwise completely unavailable script on a non-commercial website do?" Well, geee, let me think... oh yeah, it is stealing. That's it. It's pummeling Graham's rights and the rights of his family. What is it about that that you don't understand?

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 14:41:19 BST 2000:

>What a twatting disgrace. That message looked somewhat unconvincing and feeble on its own though, did the correspondence go further?
>
>He should take a look at the state of his own shoddy website and give it some decent content that fans would appreciate, rather than hope to cash in on Graham's work in the future.>

My website is an informational site, unlike this one which seems geared toward outright robbery. My work with the estate is to ensure that their rights are not only protected but that they can profit from Graham's work. You got a problem with that? Perhaps you believe they too have no rights in the matter because your "right" to have because you want is more important? You obviously condone robbery.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 14:48:23 BST 2000:

>It is a disgrace. That guy has been swanning around for years on the basis that he was close personal chums with Chapman, when this could only really add up to a few unremarkable interviews in his latter years.>

You are speaking out of your ass, where your brain obviously resides.

>He does know the family and the estate and is in it for the money.>

Yeah, money for THEM. You got a problem with that?

>I don't understand his problem.>

You don't understand why I have a problem with people stealing someone's work? I see that the guys who run this site make no bones about saying how their words on this site are copyrighted.

<He can access the working drafts of subsequent OOTT scripts so he has an advantage with publication anyway. He may also find a longer version of the SOTCAA published script, given that the one Jason H kindly forwarded was a shooting script.>

Kindly forwarded? Yeah. Well, was it his script to "kindly forward"? Is his name on it as author? That script does not belong to him and by putting it on this site SOTCAA is publishing pirated material. Where I live that is against the law.

>Python fandom went to America years ago. He is one of the worst culprits.>

Yeah, I'm bad. I'm not the one stealing.

<Others are just enthusiasts, but he seems to be hijacking it.>

Hijacking what, your access to someone else's work. I'll do it any time I feel the need.

<Too fucking precious.>

Too fucking bad.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 14:49:24 BST 2000:

>I've been ranting for years about how the music industry is now totally in the hands of the lawyers and accountants, and now it seems that it's happening to comedy too. Pathetic.>

Where should it be, in the hands of bootleggers?

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 15:00:17 BST 2000:

>right, since i was the one who bought the script in the first place, and was responsible for passing it to sotcaa, perhaps i should add my twopennyworth.
>

Go ahead. Mr Thief...

>my yoakum, i'm aware of your work and on the whole i find it thoroughly respectful and (by publishing sketches that YOU wrote with graham chapman instead of any of his massive backlog of material - the film he was working on when he died, any of his hundreds of sketches with cleese, idle, barry cryer etc) totally opportunistic.>>

Until recently, most of this "backlog" has not been available. It is now.

<i also reason that you're not about to publish the 'out of the trees' script, because (a) it wouldn't sell>

And how do you know that?

< and (b) the copyright subsists not only with the estate of graham chapman>

You have absolutely no idea who owns the copyright.

<(and i thought david sherlock was the literary executor)>

No, Mr Sherlock is the estate and he made me the Literary Executor. I would have informed you of it at the time, but I didn't realize it was any of your fucking business.

<but with douglas adams and bernard mckenna and the bbc.>

Again, you have absolutely no idea who owns the copyright. And besides, it's none of your business.

<so, at the risk of asking you to shit or get off the pan, why don't you grant permission for sotcaa post it?>

Graham wrote to support himself and his family. He did not write merely to give things away. Where do you come off with this idea that it should be available for free?

<since you can't legally go that far (i'd guess - i'm not a lawyer)>

No, you're the asshole who posted a script you didn't own. You basically acted as an agent, using this site as a publisher. That was illegal. Book publishers would get sued from now until Doomsday if they published material they didn't not have clearance for. The Internet is not a no-man's land where anything goes, basic rules of law apply. And when you break the law, you are a criminal.

<why not just retract your objection and let it slip quietly under the rug?>

Why on earth would I want to do that?

<after all, 'out of the trees' isn't remotely available anywhere else.>

Yeah, and you know why? Because the people who OWN it (that does not include you) haven't made it available.

>come on, yoakum. humour us.
>
>j xxx >>

Did you enjoy my humor?

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 15:01:31 BST 2000:

>Exactly. What is the point of sitting on it like this when he can't possibly have plans to publish it himself? It's not like the corpses are profiting from it, there's no advertising on this site. I can't understand his actions here, it looks like it must be preciousness or pedantry. >

Because of one simple fact - IT'S ILLEGAL. What is it about this fact that you people fail to understand? Just because this is the Internet it doesn't mean "anything goes."

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 15:02:58 BST 2000:

>i've just posted this elsewhere, but i might be wrong - i think he may well intend to publish it. he's published 'jake's journey' and 'the concrete inspector' on his own imprint, so maybe it will be happen. then, as i've said, we can all pay £20 for a badly designed book.
>
>trouble is, i want to just call him a sodding graverobber, but he almost certainly (legally) has a point. if he's the executor...
>
>j xxx >>

Harsh words coming from a criminal such as yourself.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Sam D on Thu Aug 31 15:07:16 BST 2000:

Jim,

The truth of the matter is, you're in the right.

But, also, consider this;
Have you ever listened to music that has been recorded onto tape from a CD or LP?
Have you ever played on games on a PC that you haven't bought?
Have you ever watched a film that has been recorded from the TV?

You don't even have to own any of these things, as your attack was to anyone who had read the script.
If you honestly have to answer "yes" to any of the above, then kindly refrain from referring to people as "thieving cunts". Copyright works both ways, not just when you can earn a few bob.
If you honestly answered "no", then you, sir, are a gentleman. And therefore should conduct yourself with a little more decorum.

Perhaps if you had responded in a less aggressive matter in the first place, people would be quicker to take note that, when it all boils down to it, you were within your rights to ask for it to be removed.

Thankyou.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By TJ on Thu Aug 31 15:16:57 BST 2000:

Mr Yoakum,

I was the first person to post on this thread, and also the first that you called a thief, when in fact my posting made it plainly obvious that I hadn't downloaded the script at all, and at no point have I said anything that could rank with the other statements that you insist refer to crinimal actions. If you're going to keep quoting the law at us, then I'm going to do so to you: defamation of character is also illegal. I have done nothing of a criminal nature whatsoever, so you are sailing on extremely choppy legal waters if you are calling me a criminal.

I advise you to watch your mouth.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 15:27:15 BST 2000:

>Mr Yoakum,
>
>I was the first person to post on this thread, and also the first that you called a thief,>

I think my statement was "So what defense have you got for theft?" That is not calling you a thief, that is asking you to explain why it is that you do not understand why this is not stealing. A point that you don't seem to get.

<when in fact my posting made it plainly obvious that I hadn't downloaded the script at all, and at no point have I said anything that could rank with the other statements that you insist refer to crinimal actions.>

Then my statements don't apply to you, do they?

< If you're going to keep quoting the law at us, then I'm going to do so to you: defamation of character is also illegal.>

I haven't defamed your character at all, I merely asked you "So what defense have you got for theft?" Do you have a defese against people stealing? If so, I'm all ears.

< I have done nothing of a criminal nature whatsoever,>

Seems you are one of the only ones.

< so you are sailing on extremely choppy legal waters if you are calling me a criminal.>

I'm getting very tired of repeating myself.

>I advise you to watch your mouth.>

And I advise you to be an advocate for the rights of artists, if, as you say, you have not downloaded this material. If you want to be outraged, then be outraged at people who think nothing of doing criminal acts. Your original post didn't say much about this area.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By TJ on Thu Aug 31 15:29:43 BST 2000:

So I don't support the rights of artists then?

Channel 4's postroom may beg to differ...

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By TJ on Thu Aug 31 15:31:52 BST 2000:

Oh and I don't condone criminal acts or whatever it is you're accusing me of now. It's just that I believe that in the scheme of things, perhaps the legal system is better used for jailing rapists than for wasting its time on a few comedy fans who wanted to look at something out of no more than curiosity.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 15:38:24 BST 2000:

>So I don't support the rights of artists then?
>
>Channel 4's postroom may beg to differ...
>

Then I guess you just don't support Graham's rights, then.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 15:42:56 BST 2000:

>Oh and I don't condone criminal acts or whatever it is you're accusing me of now.>

You sure are defensive for such an innocent guy.

<It's just that I believe that in the scheme of things, perhaps the legal system is better used for jailing rapists than for wasting its time on a few comedy fans who wanted to look at something out of no more than curiosity.>

It is no less a crime to steal someone's intellectual property than it is to steal someone's car. Theft is theft. And, considering the fact of the scripts value, it's possibly grand larceny.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Anonymous on Thu Aug 31 15:44:15 BST 2000:

Grand Larceny??? You clearly have a screw loose.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Arrrr! I be a pirate! on Thu Aug 31 15:44:33 BST 2000:

A bit disjointed to the general discussion, bit if it were not for bootleg tapes, the shit I'd be forced to endure in the car would be unbearable.

Piracy makes the world a nicer place.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Stuart O on Thu Aug 31 15:53:13 BST 2000:

>A bit disjointed to the general discussion, bit if it were not for bootleg tapes, the shit I'd be forced to endure in the car would be unbearable.

I was going to stay out of this discussion, but, now that I think about it, I was listening to Blue Jam this morning in the car. Since the entire 18 hours are unlikely to get a commercial release, am I really a pirate?

I will buy the Blue Jam CD when it comes out though, for three reasons:

1. the sound quality will be better
2. it is an official release, thereby "ensuring" good editing, mixing, reproduction, packaging, etc.
3. it will be a remix/compilation, and I would like to hear what Morris has done to his own material.

Bye then.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Ewar Woowar on Thu Aug 31 15:54:11 BST 2000:

>
>Go ahead. Mr Thief...

*snort*

Christ, this guy's hilarious! Doesn't he realise how ridiculous he is? The irony is that his points are valid, but the hysteria...!!!

No, hang on, the irony is that Graham Chapman's material is in the hands of a man with no sense of humour. Tragic.

>
>Did you enjoy my humor?
>

*double snort*

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By The Blues Project on Thu Aug 31 15:57:39 BST 2000:

Good point there - Chris Morris doesn't seem to mind when his material that other people are forcibly making unavailable ends up bootlegged.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 17:17:19 BST 2000:

>Grand Larceny??? You clearly have a screw loose.>

Grand larceny is determined by the value of an object. I'd say the actual value of a script like this would fall well within the guidelines that constitute grand larceny.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 17:18:09 BST 2000:

>
>Piracy makes the world a nicer place.>

try telling that to the artists being ripped off.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 17:21:07 BST 2000:

>
>>
>>Go ahead. Mr Thief...
>
>*snort*
>
>Christ, this guy's hilarious! Doesn't he realise how ridiculous he is? The irony is that his points are valid, but the hysteria...!!!
>
>No, hang on, the irony is that Graham Chapman's material is in the hands of a man with no sense of humour. Tragic.
>
>>
>>Did you enjoy my humor?
>>
>
>*double snort*
>
>

I have enough of a sense of humor to realize that "snort" and "double snort" are pretty lame retorts.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Arrrr! I be a pirate! on Thu Aug 31 17:23:06 BST 2000:

>>
>>Piracy makes the world a nicer place.>
>
>try telling that to the artists being ripped off.


I don't know anyone being ripped off, although I am aware of artists that support internet distribution.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 17:23:45 BST 2000:

>Good point there - Chris Morris doesn't seem to mind when his material that other people are forcibly making unavailable ends up bootlegged.>

I don't give a toss what Chris Morris minds or not. If someone doesn't mind being ripped off that's their deal. I mind very much. You people don't seem to like it that I mind. That's tough, I suppose.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 17:40:28 BST 2000:

>>>
>>>Piracy makes the world a nicer place.>
>>
>>try telling that to the artists being ripped off.
>
>
>I don't know anyone being ripped off,>

You think artists get paid from bootlegs or pirated videos or from scripts ripped off the Internet?! What are you, an idiot?

< although I am aware of artists that support internet distribution.
>

This is not "Internet distribution" this is Internet piracy.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Bent Halo on Fri Sep 1 13:07:11 BST 2000:

Thanks for that Jim. Nice to know that in the event of a discussion on copyright you will be on hand to state the fucking obvious over and over again. Some of us are considering this a little deeper - the implications of such restrictions in changing media spheres, not just the literal and immediate aftermath.

'Out Of The Trees' is a terrific script. I know this because I've got a copy. Yes, I'm breaking the law but in the event of an official publication it will be replete with production photos, backstage gossip and Graham's inside leg measurement. I'll still buy it, even if no other fucker will.

And that's the point. No fucker will. Popular culture has sidelined a healthy interest in junked/archive programming so that it offers little or no commercial benefit to resurrect it. All the Python film rushes exist, but each new anniversary brings no such treasures. Tantalising scraps will not do either - all or nothing is the answer and this is precisely what SOTCAA keeps telling us. They too want to see this stuff available and will buy their copies with real money and everything! Don't believe me? Take a *proper* look around the site and you'll find that statement again and again.

In the initial message you suggested that you enjoyed the site, then refuted this on the forum by saying SOTCAA was "theft on a grand scale". How much have you researched this? The downloads are a fair point, but copyright is at least acknowledged wherever possible and in some cases, granted. Anything else is in a review context and thus valid. Check your copyright law.

If it is stealing, then they are only taking from an open skip of unloved nick-nacks.

I find this to be mere sniping. You've not bothered to consider the other side of the equation (alright, belatedly), instead opting for a bawling tantrum. Reiterating the same point and pointing out that you're reiterating the same point is tiresome and unproductive. People are reacting naturally with anger to the news - you should have had the dignity not to behave like you are. You're not winning any friends and you could have doneif you'd argued your case sanely and calmly. Shame on you.

Now to other points:

>>It is a disgrace. That guy has been swanning around for years on the basis that he was close personal chums with Chapman, when this could only really add up to a few unremarkable interviews in his latter years.>
>
>You are speaking out of your ass, where your brain obviously resides.

I take other people's heads up my arse, not my own - that's gay slang baby.

The thing is the quotes *are* unremarkable, suggesting that the questions were hardly predatory and made at a time when GC could hardly have been in peak condition. Your book is a waste of time and money. Sorry, but a punter speaks. You seem enormously protective of your association with GC as some kind of personal totem over others, which concerns me. Of course he was a great man and I have a huge amount of time for him, but a certain amount of detachment in this issue would be healthy - perhaps the length between his writing the foreword and date of publication, eh?

>>He does know the family and the estate and is in it for the money.>
>
>Yeah, money for THEM. You got a problem with that?

No. The point is that money tends to block realistic possibilities of release. Estates tend to overcharge, your tone invited this concern.

>>I don't understand his problem.>
>
>You don't understand why I have a problem with people stealing someone's work? I see that the guys who run this site make no bones about saying how their words on this site are copyrighted.

See above.

>Kindly forwarded? Yeah. Well, was it his script to "kindly forward"? Is his name on it as author? That script does not belong to him and by putting it on this site SOTCAA is publishing pirated material. Where I live that is against the law.

Get a fucking perspective, Jim. Jason H passed the script on for the benefit of others. I enjoyed it. SOTCAA stuck it on the site and took it down when asked. Got a problem with THAT? Jason, me, TJ, SOTCAA, anyone, will buy the script when it's bound in a book with loads of other bits. If you're taking care of it, when can we expect that - 2020? Plenty of time to forget we ever read it. Cheers.

>>Python fandom went to America years ago. He is one of the worst culprits.>
>
>Yeah, I'm bad. I'm not the one stealing.

You are, however, undignified. You're painting your own image.

><Too fucking precious.>
>
>Too fucking bad.

Still too fucking precious.


And I'll remind you of this - on this forum you speak on behalf of the Chapman estate (whether you like it or not) and are currently slurring his name by association. We're allowed to be angry and vent spleen, but you must behave with a little decorum. Then we will. You alone -rather than indifferent forum contributors - ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Yours in procul vision,

Bent

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Anonymous on Fri Sep 1 15:22:02 BST 2000:

>Thanks for that Jim. Nice to know that in the event of a discussion on copyright you will be on hand to state the fucking obvious over and over again. Some of us are considering this a little deeper - the implications of such restrictions in changing media spheres, not just the literal and immediate aftermath.>>

You are confusing the protection of copyright with the freedom of information. Not the same thing.

>'Out Of The Trees' is a terrific script. I know this because I've got a copy. Yes, I'm breaking the law but in the event of an official publication it will be replete with production photos, backstage gossip and Graham's inside leg measurement. I'll still buy it, even if no other fucker will.
>
>And that's the point. No fucker will. >

I didn't realize you were a marketing guru with such incredible foresight as to be able to fortell the future.

<In the initial message you suggested that you enjoyed the site, then refuted this on the forum by saying SOTCAA was "theft on a grand scale".>

That's not refuting anything. I can enjoy the site and still see it for what it is.

<How much have you researched this? The downloads are a fair point, but copyright is at least acknowledged wherever possible and in some cases, granted.>

May be, but not in this case, which what I am concerned about.

< Anything else is in a review context and thus valid. Check your copyright law.>

I am not concerned with any other's work here except Chapman's.


>If it is stealing, then they are only taking from an open skip of unloved nick-nacks.>

Justification for robbery. "But officer, the car door was OPEN!"


>I find this to be mere sniping. You've not bothered to consider the other side of the equation (alright, belatedly), instead opting for a bawling tantrum.>

Look, matey, the first email I got was from some guy who called me a "cunt", the first message I read in the forum was Q: "Who is Jim Yoakum" A: "A Cunt." So don't come talking to me about bad behavior.

< Reiterating the same point and pointing out that you're reiterating the same point is tiresome and unproductive.>

Reiterating the same point "I want it because I want it so ner" from your side is not only tiresome, it's a very weak argument.

< People are reacting naturally with anger to the news - you should have had the dignity not to behave like you are.>

You people shouldn't start out by slagging my name and acting like spoilt children because your favorite toy was taken away either. You attack me, you get attacked back. That's the way that is.

< You're not winning any friends and you could have doneif you'd argued your case sanely and calmly. Shame on you.>

I don't give one damn about winning any friends here. You people reacted to my simple email to the sitemaster (which I felt was a very nice and calm request) by slagging me. I came here to defend myself, which I will do whether you like it or not.


>
>NIt is a disgrace. That guy has been swanning around for years on the basis that he was close personal chums with Chapman, when this could only really add up to a few unremarkable interviews in his latter years.>
>>
>>You are speaking out of your ass, where your brain obviously resides.
>
>I take other people's heads up my arse, not my own - that's gay slang baby.
>
>The thing is the quotes *are* unremarkable, suggesting that the questions were hardly predatory and made at a time when GC could hardly have been in peak condition. Your book is a waste of time and money. Sorry, but a punter speaks.>

Then I suggest you return the book for your money. As the book stated in its foreword, it didn't start out as a book, but as a series of items gathered over the years.

<< You seem enormously protective of your association with GC as some kind of personal totem over others, which concerns me.>>

Enormously protective?! Look, part of my duties as the literary director of the estate is to protect Graham's work. From sites like this. From thieves and pirates. Sorry it concerns you, maybe you should try going out and getting a life.

<< Of course he was a great man and I have a huge amount of time for him, but a certain amount of detachment in this issue would be healthy - perhaps the length between his writing the foreword and date of publication, eh?


What are you, my mother?

>>>He does know the family and the estate and is in it for the money.>
>>
>>Yeah, money for THEM. You got a problem with that?
>
>No. The point is that money tends to block realistic possibilities of release. Estates tend to overcharge, your tone invited this concern.>

What the estate does or does not do with material is none of your concern. So don't worry about it.


>
>>>I don't understand his problem.>
>>
>>You don't understand why I have a problem with people stealing someone's work? I see that the guys who run this site make no bones about saying how their words on this site are copyrighted.
>
>See above.
>
>>Kindly forwarded? Yeah. Well, was it his script to "kindly forward"? Is his name on it as author? That script does not belong to him and by putting it on this site SOTCAA is publishing pirated material. Where I live that is against the law.
>
>Get a fucking perspective, Jim. Jason H passed the script on for the benefit of others.>

Still an illegal act. Them's the facts, bucky.

< I enjoyed it. SOTCAA stuck it on the site and took it down when asked.>

yes they did, and bravo for them.

< Got a problem with THAT? Jason, me, TJ, SOTCAA, anyone, will buy the script when it's bound in a book with loads of other bits. If you're taking care of it, when can we expect that - 2020?>

I'll let you know.

< Plenty of time to forget we ever read it. Cheers.
>
>>>Python fandom went to America years ago. He is one of the worst culprits.>
>>
>>Yeah, I'm bad. I'm not the one stealing.
>
>You are, however, undignified. You're painting your own image.>

Sorry if my defending myself from a lot of vicious attackers upsets you.

>
>><Too fucking precious.>
>>
>>Too fucking bad.
>
>Still too fucking precious>

Still too fucking bad.


>And I'll remind you of this - on this forum you speak on behalf of the Chapman estate (whether you like it or not) and are currently slurring his name by association.>

oh yeah? You should hear what THEY have to say about it!!!

< We're allowed to be angry and vent spleen, but you must behave with a little decorum.>

Oh, I must behave like some virtual punching bag for your venom? Screw you.

< Then we will. You alone -rather than indifferent forum contributors - ought to be ashamed of yourself.>

I'm only ashamed that I waited till now to call you a &#%#!.

>Yours in procul vision,
>
>Bent
>

Up yours in procul vision

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Anonymous on Fri Sep 1 15:49:09 BST 2000:

Oh, he said "get a life". I was waiting for that.

A shame that someone who professes to protect the literary rights of the argument sketch should be so incapable of holding an argument themselves.

And by the way, you attacked one person who hadn't attacked you but merely asked you for an explanation, and ended the posting by effectively saying 'now don't say anything back to me'. So where does your "you attack me and I'll attack you back" argument fit into this?

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Ewar Woowar on Fri Sep 1 15:51:47 BST 2000:

THEM'S THE FACTS, BUCKY!!???!!!


Jim, you are a deeply ridiculous man.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By The Blues Project on Fri Sep 1 15:55:51 BST 2000:

>That's not refuting anything. I can enjoy >the site and still see it for what it is.

Then at last you have confessed to enjoying something that clearly condones the 'theft' that you keep referring to, and thus have answered the question that you have been dodging all along. Thank you.

Oh and if you expect 'comedy fans' to buy your books, then I'm afraid what the estate does with material IS a matter of our concern.

You are now outargued on two counts, and nobody here will take you seriously any more on the basis of this.

You've got what you wanted, and the script has been taken offline, so shut up and leave us alone. Ceast and desist, and go and bother some other 'thieves'.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Bent Halo on Fri Sep 1 16:27:18 BST 2000:

I wondered whether there was much point responding in the first place, given that everyone else on the forum is doing an excellent job of pointing out what a self-contradicting, argument sidestepping fool you are.

I'd love to hear the estate's opinions, if there was any true relevance in doing so on this forum. But the script has been taken down and that's the end of it.

Don't you realise that venom feeds off venom? Shit, I'm doing it now! Damn me.
Stop posting responses to every single point under the sun and you'll seem a little less precious. THEN it will cease and desist and people will take you seriously.

And yes I do understand marketing, copyright and all the other things you suggest that I don't. Also, past present and the future are all the same thing. I've got a decent enough perspective at the moment thanks.

I am also your mother.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Justin on Fri Sep 1 17:28:46 BST 2000:

Incredible - Mr Yoakum may well be the most "powerful" comedy figure yet to have graced our forum. And yet he is the least amusing, and frankly, most tedious contributor we've ever had to endure. He makes Dan L read like Noel Coward.

I know you'll have to answer this, Mr. Yoakum. Your ego is just too large and misguided for you not to.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Justin on Fri Sep 1 17:35:38 BST 2000:

While I remember, Mr Yoakum (I'm going to pretend he's not here anymore, just to annoy him) has also bandied around the word "robbery" in relation to Out Of The Trees. Well, I'm not a legal expert, but my dictionary tells me that "robbery" means "theft with force, or violence". So not guilty, I feel? Any legal experts (not Mr Yoakum, he's bats and can't even write properly - "them's the rules, bucky" - yeah, he wrote that...unbelievable), please let me know.

Mr Yoakum still won't be able to stop himself answering this, though. Look at his temples. Purple, they are. I hope he was this entertaining when Graham (RIP) was around.

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By Simon Harries on Sun Sep 3 11:56:22 BST 2000:

I know it's completely irrelevant to the discussion above, but there's a clip of "Out of the Trees" on the BBC Video "Making of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", in which we see the first instance of Douglas Adams blowing up the Earth, aided and abetted by Chapman and Simon Jones I think... Still, that video has probably now been deleted...

By the way, I have been paying attention... I never cease to be amazed by the paucity of humor in some people...

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By jason hazeley on Mon Sep 4 11:31:21 BST 2000:

jim, old boy, don't lose your rag. and don't call me a thief, because i BOUGHT the script legitimately from the BBC. and because i have the same lawyer as john cleese.

exactly who does own the copyright, and by what shares? the BBC think they do, but chapman, mckenna and adams must have some share. so how big a share of the script's copyright are you responsible for? and will you publish it? (and these are not meant to be provocative questions.)

j xxx

Subject: Re: Out Of The Trees
Posted By PJ on Mon Sep 4 12:15:57 BST 2000:

I hope Jason is adressing that letter to the REAL Jim Yoakum.


Actually possible proof that the other was a fake. I'm guessing the real Jim live s in a American right (talking about plays in American etc.) If so, then some of the postings by the 'other guy' just don't really fit into the right timeframe for an MAerican citizen.