Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Anonymous Python fan on Thu Aug 31 10:49:50 BST 2000:

A cunt

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By cunt saboteur on Thu Aug 31 11:31:27 BST 2000:

he's mrpither12@aol.com.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 12:47:21 BST 2000:

You know, for a bunch of people who profess to be such big fans of people like Graham, you sure don't seem to mind if his rights are violated. You aren't at all bothered that is material was posted illegally and probably downloaded many times, thus stealing his work. That's fine with you. Well, theft is theft, whether it's on the net or in a store. For thouse of you who don't understand that, it's most likely because you are a selfish, piggy, asshole whose only concern is your own wants and needs. You're not fans, you're a bunch of thieving cunts as far as I'm concerned.

Go cry somewhere else.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Stuart O on Thu Aug 31 13:06:33 BST 2000:

Who can argue with that?

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jon on Thu Aug 31 13:10:54 BST 2000:

If Jim Yoakum has ever written or recorded any music, I hope someone's posted it on Napster so that loads of people can hear it without him getting any royalties.

So there, ner ner.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jon on Thu Aug 31 13:12:02 BST 2000:

And I didn't read the script or bother downloading or even looking at it, so ner again.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By The Blues Project on Thu Aug 31 13:17:34 BST 2000:

If that was genuinely Jim Yoakum, get a grip. If you want people to show some appreciatiion of what you are doing, then at least treat them with a modicum of respect and intelligence and don't insult them. Previously I would have gone out and bought any GC book on the day of release (and I frequently did, which makes me a fan and not a "theiving cunt"), but now I have no intention of buying anything that your name is attached to.

If you aren't the genuine Jim Yoakum, I believe that the 11 O Clock Show is looking for new writers. You should fit in perfectly.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Stuart O on Thu Aug 31 13:26:24 BST 2000:

>And I didn't read the script or bother downloading or even looking at it, so ner again.

I read the script, thought it was very funny, and had the foresight to download it so I can read it again and again, so ner.

I bought A Liar's Autobiography, which was hilarious, and also own the complete Python script book, the Papperbok, the Big Red Book, the Meaning of Life and Holy Grail scriptbooks and the video of Holy Grail. I would buy Ojril if it was reasonably priced (£15.99 seems slightly overpriced for a book of ten, twenty, whatever-year-old scripts).

I consider myself a fan of Graham Chapman, but only to the "oh, there's a Graham Chapman/Monty Python/whatever book, I might buy that" level. I don't have bottomless pockets. If someone is kind enough to post unseen GC material on the web, I'll take a look, but if they don't, I really can't be bothered mounting any sort of a crusade to get it published.

I've lost track of the point of this post, but I've done all the work I can be bothered to do today, so what the fuck.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Ewar Woowar on Thu Aug 31 13:50:42 BST 2000:

>
>Go cry somewhere else.

No. You.






P.S.: It's "go AND cry", you illiterate cretin.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Sam D on Thu Aug 31 14:07:30 BST 2000:

>
>P.S.: It's "go AND cry", you illiterate cretin.
>

Fantastic!

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 14:15:16 BST 2000:

>And I didn't read the script or bother downloading or even looking at it, so ner again.>

As I said "For thouse of you who don't understand that, it's most likely because you are a selfish, piggy, asshole
whose only concern is your own wants and needs. You're not fans, you're a bunch of thieving cunts as far as I'm
concerned." If you didn't download the script, or post it, then that statement doesn't apply to you then, does it? Why so defensive if you are innocent?

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 14:19:09 BST 2000:

>If that was genuinely Jim Yoakum, get a grip.>

Get a grip? Why should people be allowed to steal? Are you defending theft? Are you saying this is NOT theft?

<If you want people to show some appreciatiion of what you are doing, then at least treat them with a modicum of respect and intelligence and don't insult them.>

I'm insulting the thieves who posted and who downloaded the script. Why should I show a thief respect?

<Previously I would have gone out and bought any GC book on the day of release (and I frequently did, which makes me a fan and not a "theiving cunt")>

Then my statement doesn't apply to you, does it?

<but now I have no intention of buying anything that your name is attached to.
>

No, you'd probably rather swipe stuff off the net. If you didn't dowload it then why so defensive?

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Sam D on Thu Aug 31 14:23:53 BST 2000:

><Previously I would have gone out and bought any GC book on the day of release (and I frequently did, which makes me a fan and not a "theiving cunt")>

>Then my statement doesn't apply to you, does it?

And then we get...

><but now I have no intention of buying anything that your name is attached to.
>

>No, you'd probably rather swipe stuff off the net. If you didn't dowload it then why so defensive?

.. so you are calling him a thief?* Or not?
Jesus.

The script has gone now. So why are you getting so offensive?


*NB position of "i" and "e" in the word thief. This also, I believe applies to "thieving".

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jon on Thu Aug 31 14:26:23 BST 2000:

"If you didn't download the script, or post it, then that statement doesn't apply to you then, does it? Why so defensive if you are innocent?"

I'm standing up for the underdog, something I think is more in keeping with the spirit of Python than trying to stop people read old scripts.

So ner again.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 14:30:57 BST 2000:

>>And I didn't read the script or bother downloading or even looking at it, so ner again.
>
>I read the script, thought it was very funny, and had the foresight to download it so I can read it again and again, so ner.>

So you are admitting that you are a thief. Your folks must be soooo proud of you.


> I would buy Ojril if it was reasonably priced (£15.99 seems slightly overpriced for a book of ten, twenty, whatever-year-old scripts).>

I didn't set the price for it. But I see you have no problem downloading a 25-year-old script of Out Of The Trees. Why? because it's free. More your price.

>I consider myself a fan of Graham Chapman>

Then you should support his work buy BUYING it. What do you think, just because he's dead he has no rights? You think because he was "a famous Python" he has given up his right to his own work? You think his family doesn't have the right to profit from his work? "Fans" like you no one needs.

<but only to the "oh, there's a Graham Chapman/Monty Python/whatever book, I might buy that" level. I don't have bottomless pockets.>

Which is why you nick from the net. You're a fan so long as it doesn't cost you anything.

< If someone is kind enough to post unseen GC material on the web, I'll take a look, but if they don't, I really can't be bothered mounting any sort of a crusade to get it published.>

Kind enough? You mean if someone is criminal enough. This attitude of ruthless plunder should extend to your property as well then. As I've said before, if you didn't participate in the posting or downloading of this material, then my statements do not apply to you. If you did, then you are a thief and there's no amount of justification on your part that can excuse your actions. True fans support the work of the artists they like, they don't pilfer. If you think otherwise, then you obviously condone robbery.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By MM on Thu Aug 31 14:34:25 BST 2000:

I'd take offence if someone called me a cunt, for no real reason.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Sam D on Thu Aug 31 15:03:43 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: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Anonymous on Thu Aug 31 15:06:23 BST 2000:

It isn't theft, because it's NOT FUCKING AVAILABLE and NOBODY IS MAKING ANY MONEY OUT OF THIS.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Anonymous on Thu Aug 31 15:08:36 BST 2000:

Pardon me Mr Yoakum, but are you one of these cunts who tabled the motion against Napster?

Of course you are. You're one of those people who believes that the rights of the lawyers and accountants are more important than those of the fans and the artists.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jon on Thu Aug 31 15:15:14 BST 2000:

And before you say it, the drummer in Metallica has no artistic rights, since he's never been involved in any art.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 15:15:52 BST 2000:

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

Thank you.

>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?

There's one basic flaw to this argument and that is that this script has never been commercially available, was posted by someone who did not own it and downloaded by people who had no right to do so. Any CD etc (per your argument) HAS been made commercially available so even if someone did tape it, they had to buy it first. Television programs and movies, same thing, the artists involved have been paid for their work. I do not buy bootleg recordings, I do not use Napster or any of its like-minded services.

>You don't even have to own any of these things, as your attack was to anyone who had read the script.>

My attack was for the man who posted the script and those who downloaded it.

>If you honestly have to answer "yes" to any of the above, then kindly refrain from referring to people as "thieving cunts".>

I refer to the above people as thieving cunts

<Copyright works both ways, not just when you can earn a few bob.
>

I don't understand this statement at all.

<If you honestly answered "no", then you, sir, are a gentleman. And therefore should conduct yourself with a little more decorum.
>

I do not condone nor respect theft.

>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: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 15:18:03 BST 2000:

>It isn't theft, because it's NOT FUCKING AVAILABLE and NOBODY IS MAKING ANY MONEY OUT OF THIS.>

Officer, it isn't theft because that bloke NEVER WATCHED THAT TV ANYWAY! It is theft because permission from the authors or their estate was not sought. Money does not have to exchange hands to constitute theft. You could steal someone's TV and never sell it, so you're not a robber?

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Sam D on Thu Aug 31 15:24:51 BST 2000:

>There's one basic flaw to this argument and that is that this script has never been commercially available, was posted by someone who did not own it and downloaded by people who had no right to do so. Any CD etc (per your argument) HAS been made commercially available so even if someone did tape it, they had to buy it first. Television programs and movies, same thing, the artists involved have been paid for their work. I do not buy bootleg recordings, I do not use Napster or any of its like-minded services.


So by your argument then, Mister Yoakum, we should all wait until the script BECOMES available, then photocopy and distribute among ourselves.
Fair point. Thanks.

If you want people to take notice of your points, kindly don't ignore the points of others. Have you OR have you not been party to the use of illegally copied material?

And stop calling people cunts, eh? Theres a good little fellah!

Goodnight.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By TJ on Thu Aug 31 15:26:54 BST 2000:

What do you mean it was never available? IT WAS ON THE FUCKING TELEVISION!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 15:31:02 BST 2000:

>Pardon me Mr Yoakum, but are you one of these cunts who tabled the motion against Napster?
>
>Of course you are. You're one of those people who believes that the rights of the lawyers and accountants are more important than those of the fans and the artists.>

The rights of the fans? What rights are those?

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Anonymous on Thu Aug 31 15:33:10 BST 2000:

The rights of the fans stem from the fact that they pay your wages.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 15:33:38 BST 2000:

>>There's one basic flaw to this argument and that is that this script has never been commercially available, was posted by someone who did not own it and downloaded by people who had no right to do so. Any CD etc (per your argument) HAS been made commercially available so even if someone did tape it, they had to buy it first. Television programs and movies, same thing, the artists involved have been paid for their work. I do not buy bootleg recordings, I do not use Napster or any of its like-minded services.
>
>
>So by your argument then, Mister Yoakum, we should all wait until the script BECOMES available, then photocopy and distribute among ourselves.
>Fair point. Thanks.>

You do that and you are a bootlegger.


>If you want people to take notice of your points, kindly don't ignore the points of others. Have you OR have you not been party to the use of illegally copied material?>

No I have not. I made that point quite clearly.


>And stop calling people cunts, eh? Theres a good little fellah!
>
>Goodnight.>

If you are offended by me calling robbers "cunts" then maybe I stuck a nerve.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By TJ on Thu Aug 31 15:34:54 BST 2000:

The most recent 'TJ' posting wasn't by me, by the way.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 15:36:52 BST 2000:

>What do you mean it was never available? IT WAS ON THE FUCKING TELEVISION!!!!!!!!!! >>

The script - which is the issue here - has never been made available by those who own it. Posting it was illegal. It violated their copyright. What part of this are you having trouble understanding>

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Ewar Woowar on Thu Aug 31 15:38:26 BST 2000:

That's a shame, TJ, cos I thought it was a good point.

Well, this Yoakum feller's a barrel of laughs, isn't he? Good to have a new wind-up toy around the place...

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Sam D on Thu Aug 31 15:39:44 BST 2000:

>>>There's one basic flaw to this argument and that is that this script has never been commercially available, was posted by someone who did not own it and downloaded by people who had no right to do so. Any CD etc (per your argument) HAS been made commercially available so even if someone did tape it, they had to buy it first. Television programs and movies, same thing, the artists involved have been paid for their work. I do not buy bootleg recordings, I do not use Napster or any of its like-minded services.
>>
>>
>>So by your argument then, Mister Yoakum, we should all wait until the script BECOMES available, then photocopy and distribute among ourselves.
>>Fair point. Thanks.>
>
>You do that and you are a bootlegger.

Then reason your arguments more clearly.
I have no intention of doing it, but it was the whole thrust of your 'point'.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 15:45:58 BST 2000:

>The rights of the fans stem from the fact that they pay your wages.>

They don't support ANYONE when they steal. No one has the right to do this, not even a fan.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 15:47:58 BST 2000:

>>>>There's one basic flaw to this argument and that is that this script has never been commercially available, was posted by someone who did not own it and downloaded by people who had no right to do so. Any CD etc (per your argument) HAS been made commercially available so even if someone did tape it, they had to buy it first. Television programs and movies, same thing, the artists involved have been paid for their work. I do not buy bootleg recordings, I do not use Napster or any of its like-minded services.
>>>
>>>
>>>So by your argument then, Mister Yoakum, we should all wait until the script BECOMES available, then photocopy and distribute among ourselves.
>>>Fair point. Thanks.>
>>
>>You do that and you are a bootlegger.
>
>Then reason your arguments more clearly.
>I have no intention of doing it, but it was the whole thrust of your 'point'.>

No, my point is a matter of rights.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Al on Thu Aug 31 15:49:32 BST 2000:

Theft it may be - but there is more than money involved here. The Chapman script is very funny, and deserves to be treated with respect and remembered. If it is not commercially available, then it would seem like the SOTCAA forum is the perfect place to put it.

I'm sorry but comparing downloading this script to stealing a television, whilst technically accurate, is highly disingenuous. Wouldn't it have been better for everyone if the owners of the rights to the script (is this you JY?) contacted the Corpses privately and sorted out some nominal payment or agreement? People should see this script - it's funny - it shouldn't be rotting away in some basement.

Furthermore - the idea that copying a CD or LP is different because one copy was sold just doesn't hold up. That's like me stealing 400 TVs and leaving the money behind to replace 2.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By TJ on Thu Aug 31 15:50:27 BST 2000:

OK, I've had enough now. It seems that I am not allowed to make a straightforward comment, that anyone could have chosen to ignore if they so desired, without being accused of an increasingly bizarre and potentially libellous string of felonies.

I've said what I wanted to say, and I have no intention of causing The Corpses to be landed with a lawsuit, so I won't be saying any more. A pity, because I was quite enjoying it.

The law may say this situation is right. I say it is wrong. But as I'm only a faceless poster on an internet messageboard, why should that worry you at all?

I've said my last on this, and I don't want any more said to/about me. So if Mr Yoakum responds to this with another of his smug postings, we'll know that he's an even bigger baby than we thought.

Have a nice day.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Sam D on Thu Aug 31 15:53:46 BST 2000:

>>If you want people to take notice of your points, kindly don't ignore the points of others. Have you OR have you not been party to the use of illegally copied material?>
>
>No I have not. I made that point quite clearly.
>
>

No. You didn't. You answered it with a flawed argument, ignoring the issue.
>>And stop calling people cunts, eh? Theres a good little fellah!
>>
>>Goodnight.>
>
>If you are offended by me calling robbers "cunts" then maybe I stuck a nerve.
>
>

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Sam D on Thu Aug 31 15:56:25 BST 2000:

>>
>>If you are offended by me calling robbers "cunts" then maybe I stuck a nerve.
>>
This is bollocks. You have no right whatsoever to infer that I am a robber. No more right than I have to call you a twat.
I'm with TJ on this one. Its no longer worth it.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 17:09:54 BST 2000:

>Theft it may be - but there is more than money involved here. The Chapman script is very funny, and deserves to be treated with respect and remembered. If it is not commercially available, then it would seem like the SOTCAA forum is the perfect place to put it.>

You're right, it should be treated with respect. As should he. Try doing it.

>
>I'm sorry but comparing downloading this script to stealing a television, whilst technically accurate>

Whatever. theft is theft.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 17:11:16 BST 2000:

>
>>>If you want people to take notice of your points, kindly don't ignore the points of others. Have you OR have you not been party to the use of illegally copied material?>
>>
>>No I have not. I made that point quite clearly.
>>
>>
>
>No. You didn't. You answered it with a flawed argument, ignoring the issue.
>>>And stop calling people cunts, eh? Theres a good little fellah!
>>>
>>>Goodnight.>
>>
>>If you are offended by me calling robbers "cunts" then maybe I stuck a nerve.
>>
>>
>
>
I thought you'd said good night.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Mogwai on Thu Aug 31 17:11:22 BST 2000:

Um, if Jim seems to have been a bit free and easy with the word "cunt" on this subject, I'm afraid it may have been partly my fault... witness the following:

*******************************

Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 12:46 am


Dear Jim

I am a regular visitor to the Some Of The Corpses Are Amusing website, although I have absolutely no connection with it. I have only just seen the Cease And Desist order you sent them on 29 August, and I am truly appalled. I truly regret that I did not have the presence of mind to copy and paste the entire script of Out Of The Trees as soon as I originally read it, but then I did not envisage that it might be necessary.

Your letter is mild-mannered and mellifluous, but it can't mask the brute fact that you have ensured that none of us is now able to read this (a) significant and (b) very funny piece of writing. By enforcing the copyright in this instance, you have made the show completely unavailable to the public. Surely it's tragedy enough that the bits that were filmed don't seem to exist any more - why withdraw the scripts from circulation too? Or are they due to be published at some point in the future in another extortionately-priced volume...?

Please don't think I'm being unreasonable or naive about this. There hasn't been any objection from Douglas Adams' people about the presence of the script on the site - possibly because he hasn't been made aware of it, but I like to think that it's because he knows there's no other way that we can get to read this stuff.

I know that you were a personal friend of Graham's towards the end of his life, and that you feel you are acting purely in the interests of his estate, but truly, honestly, would Graham really have been glad that you had banned an appreciative audience from reading some excellent Chapman material? Or would he, as a friend, have taken you to one side and told you that you were acting like a bit of a cunt?

Yours, disappointed


Received: Thursday, August 31, 2000 3:02 am

(Mogwai):

Explain to me please exactly why it is that you
believe it's right for you, or for anyone else, to
post, download and/or otherwise freely take (i.e.
STEAL), the property of another, via the Internet?

Perhaps you feel you have this nameless right because
the Internet is this great, faceless library of items
where you can just take what you want because you'll
never get caught? Or, maybe you feel all the
musicians, writers, film directors etc. who are
constantly being ripped off via the Internet are "so
rich" that they have somehow lost the right to their
own copyright?

Let me ask you, do you walk into a book store or CD
shop and say "what the hell, I want it" and just take
it? I dunno, maybe you do. Your comment: "are they due
to be published at some point in the future in another
extortionately-priced volume...?" all ready tells me
you're a cheap bastard who'd rather steal things than
support the artists. Steal from a store, or download
an illegally posted script - it's all theft. Justify
it all you like.

You're trying to hide behind a very weak argument that
I am somehow being a baddie for rightly enforcing the
copyright of Graham Chapman, and that you are somehow
the wounded goodie who has been "deprived of reading
this comic script." Come off it, you're merely sore
because you weren't able to steal it fast enough from
the site.

Finally, in regard to the to the imaginary
conversation with Graham, I'll tell you exactly what
he'd have said to me: "I died deeply in debt, Jim, and
feel badly that I have left so little for my family.
Please help safeguard my interests, and ensure that my
family will be all right." And if you don't like that
answer mate, you can piss off.

PS How the fuck DARE you write to me, whinging about
how I'm "depriving" you of reading this script, you
selfish, thieving, cunt. Go fuck yourself.

**************************************

Ahem.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 17:14:49 BST 2000:

>
>>>
>>>If you are offended by me calling robbers "cunts" then maybe I stuck a nerve.
>>>
>This is bollocks. You have no right whatsoever to infer that I am a robber. No more right than I have to call you a twat.
>I'm with TJ on this one. Its no longer worth it.>

'Tis funny how you all dared me to come here and "defend" myself and when presented with the truth - that it was robbery - you all have one by one agreed and then skulked away. Bottom line: If you didn't post or download the script, then my comments are not addressed to you. If you did, you know what you are and you should be ashamed to call yourself a fan. You can buy or not buy anything that may have my name on it, I don't really care because it appears that most of you people only like free stuff anyway.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Sam D on Thu Aug 31 17:29:47 BST 2000:

Hold on. If we go, we "skulk away". If we reply to you you answer with a (and I salute the wit) "I thought you'd said goodnight."

Okay, so people are irritated that they can't enjoy reading something that they may, or may not, find amusing. You don't want them to read it. You block it. Your right (notice I do not say "you're right").

You still need to learn to explain yourself in a reasoned and literate way. Don't avoid points by saying "I already said that", don't keep saying "theft is still theft you robbers you" and stop resorting to the "maybe this doesn't apply to you then.. but you're obviously a robbing cunt."

The bottom line is, the script has been removed, and therefore, technically, you've won. I suppose it is still theft, in your eyes, to stand in a book-shop (when you have made this material commercially available, of course) and peruse the scripts? Fine.

Hard though it might be for you to believe, that are many more people than just yourself (on this forum) who are affected by infringement of copyright. I am one of them. I accept it happens. I certainly don't launch a blanket attack which results in a lot of people, quite rightly, feeling insulted by tone and language.

I expect you will answer this with something along the lines of "haven't you gone yet?".

Best wishes,

Sam D

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 17:30:25 BST 2000:

>Um, if Jim seems to have been a bit free and easy with the word "cunt" on this subject, I'm afraid it may have been partly my fault... witness the following:
>
>*******************************
>
>Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 12:46 am
>
>
>Dear Jim
>
>I am a regular visitor to the Some Of The Corpses Are Amusing website, although I have absolutely no connection with it. I have only just seen the Cease And Desist order you sent them on 29 August, and I am truly appalled. I truly regret that I did not have the presence of mind to copy and paste the entire script of Out Of The Trees as soon as I originally read it, but then I did not envisage that it might be necessary.
>
>Your letter is mild-mannered and mellifluous, but it can't mask the brute fact that you have ensured that none of us is now able to read this (a) significant and (b) very funny piece of writing. By enforcing the copyright in this instance, you have made the show completely unavailable to the public. Surely it's tragedy enough that the bits that were filmed don't seem to exist any more - why withdraw the scripts from circulation too? Or are they due to be published at some point in the future in another extortionately-priced volume...?
>
>Please don't think I'm being unreasonable or naive about this. There hasn't been any objection from Douglas Adams' people about the presence of the script on the site - possibly because he hasn't been made aware of it, but I like to think that it's because he knows there's no other way that we can get to read this stuff.
>
>I know that you were a personal friend of Graham's towards the end of his life, and that you feel you are acting purely in the interests of his estate, but truly, honestly, would Graham really have been glad that you had banned an appreciative audience from reading some excellent Chapman material? Or would he, as a friend, have taken you to one side and told you that you were acting like a bit of a cunt?
>
>Yours, disappointed
>
>
>Received: Thursday, August 31, 2000 3:02 am
>
>(Mogwai):
>
>Explain to me please exactly why it is that you
>believe it's right for you, or for anyone else, to
>post, download and/or otherwise freely take (i.e.
>STEAL), the property of another, via the Internet?
>
>Perhaps you feel you have this nameless right because
>the Internet is this great, faceless library of items
>where you can just take what you want because you'll
>never get caught? Or, maybe you feel all the
>musicians, writers, film directors etc. who are
>constantly being ripped off via the Internet are "so
>rich" that they have somehow lost the right to their
>own copyright?
>
>Let me ask you, do you walk into a book store or CD
>shop and say "what the hell, I want it" and just take
>it? I dunno, maybe you do. Your comment: "are they due
>to be published at some point in the future in another
>extortionately-priced volume...?" all ready tells me
>you're a cheap bastard who'd rather steal things than
>support the artists. Steal from a store, or download
>an illegally posted script - it's all theft. Justify
>it all you like.
>
>You're trying to hide behind a very weak argument that
>I am somehow being a baddie for rightly enforcing the
>copyright of Graham Chapman, and that you are somehow
>the wounded goodie who has been "deprived of reading
>this comic script." Come off it, you're merely sore
>because you weren't able to steal it fast enough from
>the site.
>
>Finally, in regard to the to the imaginary
>conversation with Graham, I'll tell you exactly what
>he'd have said to me: "I died deeply in debt, Jim, and
>feel badly that I have left so little for my family.
>Please help safeguard my interests, and ensure that my
>family will be all right." And if you don't like that
>answer mate, you can piss off.
>
>PS How the fuck DARE you write to me, whinging about
>how I'm "depriving" you of reading this script, you
>selfish, thieving, cunt. Go fuck yourself.
>
>**************************************
>
>Ahem.
>

I appreciate you stepping up to the plate.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 18:10:45 BST 2000:

>Hold on. If we go, we "skulk away". If we reply to you you answer with a (and I salute the wit) "I thought you'd said goodnight."
>
>Okay, so people are irritated that they can't enjoy reading something that they may, or may not, find amusing. You don't want them to read it. You block it. Your right (notice I do not say "you're right").
>
>You still need to learn to explain yourself in a reasoned and literate way. Don't avoid points by saying "I already said that", don't keep saying "theft is still theft you robbers you" and stop resorting to the "maybe this doesn't apply to you then.. but you're obviously a robbing cunt."
>
>The bottom line is, the script has been removed, and therefore, technically, you've won. I suppose it is still theft, in your eyes, to stand in a book-shop (when you have made this material commercially available, of course) and peruse the scripts? Fine.
>
>Hard though it might be for you to believe, that are many more people than just yourself (on this forum) who are affected by infringement of copyright. I am one of them. I accept it happens. I certainly don't launch a blanket attack which results in a lot of people, quite rightly, feeling insulted by tone and language.
>
>I expect you will answer this with something along the lines of "haven't you gone yet?".
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Sam D

Haven't you gone yet?

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 18:13:04 BST 2000:

>"If you didn't download the script, or post it, then that statement doesn't apply to you then, does it? Why so defensive if you are innocent?"
>
>I'm standing up for the underdog, something I think is more in keeping with the spirit of Python than trying to stop people read old scripts.
>
>So ner again. >

You are confused. Python never once gave anything away so what is this "spirit" you are talking about?

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By The Blues Project on Thu Aug 31 18:26:54 BST 2000:

Two points:

1) Python did give something away. "The Tiny Black Round Thing" in 1974

2) None of the people who 'skulked away' appear to have conceded that it was theft.

Check facts first.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Sam D on Thu Aug 31 18:49:13 BST 2000:

>>Hold on. If we go, we "skulk away". If we reply to you you answer with a (and I salute the wit) "I thought you'd said goodnight."
>>
>>Okay, so people are irritated that they can't enjoy reading something that they may, or may not, find amusing. You don't want them to read it. You block it. Your right (notice I do not say "you're right").
>>
>>You still need to learn to explain yourself in a reasoned and literate way. Don't avoid points by saying "I already said that", don't keep saying "theft is still theft you robbers you" and stop resorting to the "maybe this doesn't apply to you then.. but you're obviously a robbing cunt."
>>
>>The bottom line is, the script has been removed, and therefore, technically, you've won. I suppose it is still theft, in your eyes, to stand in a book-shop (when you have made this material commercially available, of course) and peruse the scripts? Fine.
>>
>>Hard though it might be for you to believe, that are many more people than just yourself (on this forum) who are affected by infringement of copyright. I am one of them. I accept it happens. I certainly don't launch a blanket attack which results in a lot of people, quite rightly, feeling insulted by tone and language.
>>
>>I expect you will answer this with something along the lines of "haven't you gone yet?".
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>
>>Sam D
>
>Haven't you gone yet?


Boh!

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 19:29:29 BST 2000:

>Two points:
>
>1) Python did give something away. "The Tiny Black Round Thing" in 1974>>

Nope. They were paid to make it by Charisma and by Zig Zag. It was the magazine who gave it away, mate.
>
>2) None of the people who 'skulked away' appear to have conceded that it was theft.
>
>Check facts first. >>

Oh, so you think it was not theft. What is it then?

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By A Comedy Fan With a Reasonable Disposable Income on Thu Aug 31 20:41:19 BST 2000:

Actually, it's boki here, but that's nothing like as important as the above.

Listen up, Jim, this is a consumer talking. Before you dissect this for ammunition just glance downwards and check if there's anything left of your foot.

You could've done a *lot* better out of this situation. Here's the way it is - I enjoy comedy, and have very fond memories of catching Python and Hitch-Hiker's guide repeats in my teenage years, but perhaps through not being hard-core enough (smirk all you like at that if you must SOTCAA), I had no idea that Out of the Trees existed. Am I interested in the fruits of a collaboration between Adams and Chapman? You bloody bet I am!

So, the Corpses make this known to likes of me by making just a bit of this available for download.

Now, you control the rights to this and would rather people buy the book - strikes me as only fair, but what would've been a better way to do it would have been to request that the site draws attention to the GC Archives, provides a clickable link and suggest that people support your efforts, which visitors are more likely to do if there's an example of the material available, and there's a spirit of co-operation there between all concerned. I'd like to think that SOTCAA would have happily complied with such a suggestion (please confirm either way, chaps)

Instead, you've aggressively ordered the complete removal of the material, which whilst well within your rights, does not in any way show you (and therefore the GC Archives) in a good light. Surely you realise that there must be many people like me who were not even aware of the GC Archives' existance before all this and would have already put an order in by now had this been handled in a more level-headed manner?

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Anonymous on Thu Aug 31 20:59:09 BST 2000:

"Your comment: "are they due
to be published at some point in the future in another extortionately-priced volume...?" all ready tells me you're a cheap bastard..."


"...and feel badly that I have left so little for my family."


So it Okay for one man to express that he has no money, but if another tries, then you send an abusive e-mail calling them a cheap bastard? Not too hypocritical JIm?

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 21:13:23 BST 2000:

>
>Now, you control the rights to this and would rather people buy the book - strikes me as only fair>>

There is no book.

<<but what would've been a better way to do it would have been to request that the site draws attention to the GC Archives, provides a clickable link and suggest that people support your efforts, which visitors are more likely to do if there's an example of the material available, and there's a spirit of co-operation there between all concerned. I'd like to think that SOTCAA would have happily complied with such a suggestion (please confirm either way, chaps)
>
>Instead, you've aggressively ordered>>

No, I requested.

<< the complete removal of the material, which whilst well within your rights, does not in any way show you (and therefore the GC Archives) in a good light.>>

That doesn't bother me in the least that a few cranky people who whinge because they can't dowload an illegally placed script think ill of me enforcing Graham's rights.

<Surely you realise that there must be many people like me who were not even aware of the GC Archives' existance before all this and would have already put an order in by now had this been handled in a more level-headed manner?
>

When dealing with aggressive people who start out calling me a 'cunt', I tend to become aggressive back. I'm funny that way.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Jim Yoakum on Thu Aug 31 21:15:40 BST 2000:

>"Your comment: "are they due
>to be published at some point in the future in another extortionately-priced volume...?" all ready tells me you're a cheap bastard..."
>
>
>"...and feel badly that I have left so little for my family."
>
>
>So it Okay for one man to express that he has no money, but if another tries, then you send an abusive e-mail calling them a cheap bastard? Not too hypocritical JIm? >

he didn't say he had no money, he was just being a snide ass. Like you.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By The Blues Project on Fri Sep 1 11:20:32 BST 2000:

Two more points:

1) you started the cuntcalling. Refer back to your first post in the other thread.

2) It was NME, not Zig Zag. Again, check facts first.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Anonymous on Fri Sep 1 11:23:58 BST 2000:

Yoakum, I hope that your vast piles of money collapse on you.

My only regret is that my own money won't be among that which causes you injury.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Mogwai on Fri Sep 1 11:50:32 BST 2000:

>Two more points:
>
>1) you started the cuntcalling. Refer back to your first post in the other thread.
>
>2) It was NME, not Zig Zag. Again, check facts first.


Indeed. Zig Zag gave away 'Teach Yourself Heath'.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Mogwai on Fri Sep 1 12:37:06 BST 2000:

To be fair, Jim himself isn't making vast piles of money from this sorry debacle - he genuinely thinks he's acting in the interests of Graham's estate, family etc. It's just that he can't help but be American about it, which means threatening legal action first and not asking questions later. boki had it right.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By Bent Halo on Fri Sep 1 13:18:30 BST 2000:

Jim,

Hey! Remember me? I've posted a reply to you on the original OOTT thread. You seem to be answering every single remark, so maybe you can spare a couple of minutes to miss the point of my message and then call me a cunt?

Looking forward to the "discussion",

Bent

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By subbes on Fri Sep 1 23:22:50 BST 2000:

>As I said "For thouse of you who don't understand that, it's most likely because you are a selfish, piggy, asshole
>whose only concern is your own wants and needs. You're not fans, you're a bunch of thieving cunts as far as I'm
>concerned." If you didn't download the script, or post it, then that statement doesn't apply to you then, does it? Why so defensive if you are innocent?

All As are Bs.
Some Bs are Cs.

Does this mean that all Cs are As?

No, it doesn't. Therefore, please do not come into a forum and make such sweeping generalisations about its users. nowhere di you say "those of you that downloaded it are... everyone else is just fine, now, please go and buy something I'm selling!".


I am deeply saddened that the legacy of such a gifted man as C can be left in the hands of one who will make such comments and will quite happily charge as high a price as he possibly can for 30 year old scripts.

Of course, this is my opinion. I am not looking after the estate, and as such cannot decide what to do. i merely give my opinion as one who might have bought the scripts (or some other offering by your company) but now never will because of this outburst.

And no. I didn't view nor download the script.

Subject: Re: Jim Yoakum
Posted By jason hazeley on Mon Sep 4 11:48:59 BST 2000:

jim - i've asked this elsewhere. i'm the one who bought the oott script from the bbc archives.

two questions, and i'm asking these unprovocatively:

are you going to publish oott?

what percentage of the copyright of the script are you responsible for? and who retains the other rights?

j xxx