Meeting with Georges & Co

Dan Massey's personal notes on meeting with Georges & Co, April 8

ORD, Ambassador West, Georges duPont, Tonia Baney, Nancy Schaeffer, Seppo Kanerva, Steve Hll (late just after opening prayer)

                Nancy--meeting is not recorded--discussion for purpose of infringement discussion--confidentiality asked in that whatever is said will be open discussion not to be taken to court. Take it in form of settlement conference. Federal rule of evidence 408 holds that settlement conferences cannot be taken to court. We can tell the general council about this but they must treat it as confidential. Ditto for Executive Committee Only things discovered exclusively in this meeting are confidential.
                The Foundation (NS) will not issue additional licenses in the future. Deeply troubled by difficulty over licensing arrangements with Fellowship. Problems will not proliferate by issuance of new licenses. The UF is very clear that it will defend the copyright and trademarks born out of deep sense of belief it is required by declaration of trust. The only way to get everyone to get inviolate text and perfect translations of the inviolate text. That is the commitment of the UF. UF is uncomfortable in role of having to act or be accused of acting as parents or policemen. Want not to be in that position wrt. web site stuff. Have detailed explanation of infringements on web site.
                UF asks based on info provided that we take it back and make decisions about what we will to do resolve these issues and implement them. For 30 days the UF will take no action wrt these infringements. Asks for liaison w/Tonia during this time. At end of 30 days UF will review the web site and make decisions going forward, which are unknown at this time. On a personal note--license has provided "sand in the saddle"--tell us how important copyright & trademark are and thus eliminate that as a source of contention. Passes out big book of stuff.
                The only thing in the book that is considered confidential for the purpose of mediation is the summary sheet at the beginning of the volume. The rest they claim neither copoyright nor confidentiality in.
                LDM gives slack talk about objectives. MJK wants to know agenda focus. NS says take it differntly and not have first vision session. TB says personal OK if we are willing to. Which I guess we are. MG--summarizes our shared, joint commitment to revelation, etc. But differences on what is wise in terms of methology for revelation. Moved together then more recently apart on the wisdom spectrum. UF methodology based on assumptions & procedures--it is property. Law & tools are property related. (NS says that's a misunderstanding) Community is strongly evangelistic. UB is like a sacred text. Historically, what will work best and what's wisest is what need to be considered in framing the larger issues. Complaints are likely to be property violations but may be appropriate to spiritual calling. May be exceptions since we haven't looked at it yet. Is best way greater and more detailed control or grant of broader permission. Jesus said don't stop them even if we disagree. Bad stuff will fail of its own. GDP--saying end justifies the means. MG--no. We have in common goal of text dissemination and preservation (in component form). Different ways to do that. Thinks organizations are polarized by this methodological issue. GDP--says it is that the end justifies the means. SD--that's not what MG meant to say. GDP--been arguing with MG for two years. SD--an understanding on this is not likely at this point. Twisted summarization leads to confusion. Accept what people say. SH--is there an example of a bad means of spreading the text? MG--end we agree on is to spread the text and keep it from being distorted or changed. Differ in judgment of wisdom of means. Take JANR as an example. It addresses the common goal, but people will disagree about whether it'a a good idea. UF wants control. TUBF prefers to give broad permission.
                MJK--saddened by "contract settlement" and 30 days to comply opening. Is there is a business relationship the organizations can have to address our means? What are the kinds of relationships we think of between the organizations? Business, social? NS--there is a business relationship that exists. It is a license agreement. We want to talk about it. UF has questions about history of license relationship. SH--it's easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission. MJK--should not have to police the agreements. SH--difficult to retain confidence is business partners that behave this way.

TB on UF vision and objectives
Text inviolate
Spread the teachings (religion) (philosophy)
How we lead our lives and how be bring the text to the world
DOT is about a living religion and philosophy not crystallized in newsletters and organizations.                                Commensurate with man's understanding
How do you convey it to Islam, Buddhism, etc?
World wide spread of the teachings
70% of the world is illiterate

                                                We share this goal 100% value of Fellowship and IUA is having this goal as the key. The UF can take care of the book and get it out there. The UF offices can be used to get books out in the key areas so the fraternal organizations can go out to spread the teachings. Thinks the teachings will get us to the world, not the book. If we continue to argue about the text and ignore the teachings we will get nowhere. See concept in UF strategic plan. When you look at how to get book to planet there are lots of ways. Wants relationship to Fellowship to support worlwide spread of teachings, not interfere with UF job of getting books out there. Clarification--spread in your personal way with textual creativity as well as through personal moral example. SK--physical distribution is important, living implementation growing in importance.
                                                LDM--real problem is what is creative interpretation of the text. SH--looked at lots of documents at 533. During MM tenure there was effort to stifle creativity, using copyright as weapon against secondary works. Section 106 of copyright act gives owner exclusive rights but section 107 offsets it with fair use. Not here to figure out where to draw the line. As UF counsel attempted to make sure they are single minded in purpose of not inhibiting creativity in derivative works area. Not obsessiveness about control. UF has not said anything about Michael foundation index, but sued over JANR. People complain about too much control but don't realize how UF has moved away from excess of control. Previously inhibited large quotations in creative works. If we are talking about creativity need to recognize flexibility.
                                                MJK--is there distinction between spreading the book and spreading the teachings? Division between sales, translation, distribution, etc. with socio fraternal group elsewhere. NS--don't want fellowship to be booksellers, but OK to give them away. wants business world not disrupted. GDP--dividing line between social and business activities. SK--a clear agreement on roles of organizations would give readers freedom to spread teachings. SD--response to SH. Situation is so common it's like the air. UB readers see what they want to see. If they look at their own stuff, see only good. If they look at those with whom they disagree, they see only bad and ugly. A disease of the community--prejudice, bigotry, stereotyping, etc. People don't take the time to get the facts or talk directly to the person they are attacking or supporting. Pointless to talk about playing Beethoven when you can't play "Mary had a little lamb."

                                MJK--question of clarificaiton. SK said UF role is translator, distributor, seller for money. Do others agree? NS--probably wasn't a definitive statement. A lot more could be added. MJK--so how can we agree on roles? Where has UF invaded these roles. SK--sees TUBF assuming the role of being the only urantia organization. Wants to speak for the entire membership. But there is the IUA. Also wants to replace the UF. Translations close to heart. TUBF must know that DOT makes UF the sole body to translate the book into other languages. But there are translations performed by "elements within the Fellowship." Obstacles which prevent unstrained relationships between organizations. Anyone entitled to translate, but to get it published is another matter. Soliciting money is an indication they have intention of publication. Interprets it as intrusive because UF is exclusive publisher of book and all translations. Why does fellowship feel it is in charge of translations. Inviting people to do translations and be paid by fellowship. UF can work out modus vivendi with people anxious to translate. But making it competitive is problem.

TB--UF has published pamphlet that states its role clearly and states role of fraternal groups. UF offices are not to do social work, just to have business, legal role. Scientology and other cults create cult-negative image. Need office to be well received in country. Social group has readers, study groups, teachings, secondary works, etc. Eventually these offices will print and distribute their own book in that country. SD--does TB know their reps are not involving themselves heavily in the social issues. TB--have offices and representatives. Offices are where book is. Reps are to get book into bookstores and get people together where there is no office. SD--so reps don't make this distinction? TB--theycan't sell books, just place in bookstores, libraries. MJK--are they doing IUA work? GDP--when they are reps, they are where there are no social activities at all, no study groups, they are there to try to build social structure. A nucleus of attraction. Once book is well settled an office is issued and that ends social activities. NS--IUA is above study groups. UF seeds book in area and starts study groups. That is not done for IUA. Organization comes later. SK--we are concerned about study groups and they must be kept politically neutral. IUA imposes no politics.

                                LDM challenges this vision rather pointedly. SD starts to explain Brazil problem. Sees troublesome correspondence. Retelling of what people think they heard. GDP--translation problems? SD--there's something going on. Not clear what sides and issues are, but there's something going on. Situation in Brazil mirrors the USA divisions. Same elsewhere. Even in France, right? GDP rejects idea. SD--is there diagreement in Finland? SK--yes, but not about Fellowship. SD--UB people fight. Luis was "selected to do the Portugese translation before he was born." Many reports. TUBF in league w/cal...; speaks with universe authority. Was told by an official of the UF. But regardless, his activities are interpreted as act of UF. SK--an eccentric person, was he serious? Jester? Joker? NS--develop a channel for dealing with these problems. SD--SK said the fellowship wants to control everything conveys image to others, quite naturally.

                                NS--answer to MJK is provided by explaining the book of complaints about the web site. Can we close vision/policy stuff for now?

                                MG--there are places where a lot is going on and UF has appointed representatives. Are these people to support what's happening or to focus on IUA goals or what? Should we inform UF of problem areas? NS--open invitation to contact UF directly about these difficulties. Would like to hear and would like TUBF to reciprocate. SD--trying to overcome profound distrust. TB--disturbing emails that happened after David Kantor was down there. SD--we should not take definite positions without getting full story. TB--had letter from Luis asking TB to have DK stop harrassing him. TB--we as americans should stay out of their problems. Let them work it out. Luis tell DK not get TB in the middle. We shouldn't try to settle their disputes. SD--but the parties are making them UF/TUBF matters so we have to give it some attention. NS--try to keep dialog alive. LDM--historical reflection on field representatives. SK--handles it but some are better than others. GDP--Luis is good translator, maybe problem is broadened role. Concern about TUBF people not helping with translation. MJK--instigator role (UF representative) is doing things fellowship has typically done internationally. That's a source of friction. SK--partner for fellowship to talk to is IUA not UF. No parity with UF. TB--developing representative category as first move into marketplace--a book distributor. Create readers to create demand. Only person in country they knew to sign up, so their charter broadened. Then IUA comes in when more readers want to do things. No forming study groups, but to pick people from sgroups to do other tasks. How it evolved. Admits it is ideal view of what's happening. SD--get off the subject, but the source of Brazil situation seems to emerge from Bob Solone. Impression left by discussions and email, etc. David Kantor phenomenon in reverse.

GDP--Bob Solone in charge of South American contacts with representatives.

MG--in international conversations, perspectives are shared that reflect on our history and lead to continuation of our culture and its problems. How do we communicate to clean up these situations? NS--can't keep them from occurring and may not be able to clean up, but we can work together to keep it from becoming destructive. SK--uneasy that people want it remedied as though they are innocent. Confess that we are in competitive situation. Way to proceed is to remedy competitive situation. Dreams we could cooperative.                                 SH--in legislative bodies when senate comes up with one thing and house tries to solve it a different way you have a conference to resolve it and hammer out something people will agree to. Maybe a good exercise to address international conflicts before they spiral out of control. GDP--not a problem if we can solve problem at head. Split acts as cancer everywhere. Division makes sad. SD--there is a whole Chilean thing the UF knows nothing about because of polarization. GDP visited them. Shocked by how they viewed UF. Thought it twisted. Propaganda by people who came before. SD--not saying they are right. SK--local problems must be settled locally. There is class distinction in Chile that is very strong. No communication across class barriers. Rep to be office manager lives in poorer area and people shun because it isn' t "prestigious". Probably a lot worse in India.

           MG--return to MJK frames of reference and try to work with them.                                 Discussion of the big book of infringements and issues                                                An issue they want to discuss no enumerated is the name of TUBF. Maybe under 13, 14, 15.

                                                NS--nobody thinks what is important about the UB has anything to do with the law. The ability to control translations is to prevent distortion and confusion throughout the world. International copyright and trademark are dynamic areas. The only thing that stands between inviolate text and wholesale everything is the copyright. Expressive of UF value on the copyright. Offensive to think of reducing the UB to level of the commodity. Only reason is to protect the text. The UF does not want to control or trip up the fellowship.

                                                #1--"derived" is troublesome--says it isn't the original or the current edition. Fellowship asserts copyrights on web site. MJK--what would solve the problem. NS--concern "derived" implies "derivative work" in the sense of copyright law. And that other claims of copyright interest by Fellowship interact in some way with that. Look at "personal browser edition" vs. "online reference text". Point to entry "format...copyright". Now the "derived" appears to be creating copyright interests in various presentations of the UB outside the licensing agreement. Not consistent with spirit of license.

                                                                Further concern that popup footnotes render the text violate. On 4 of 22 36.2.4. Also 8 of 22 59.1.14. Says it is in the text. Pops up in the text. Concern is that there is a popup flag and also that the mode of presentation violates the text. But split screens would remedy this. Keep commentary separate from text.

                                                                It is possible to get into certain parts of the text without seeing the copyright notice.

                                                                Copyright notice in ascii files. Not just the click-through.

                                                                Thinks there is no point in downloading the ascii text. No italics. GDP--should go to UF and work with them. Thinks it is a variance from the license. GDP wants to know why ascii text? How about RTF if you want it? Concern is loss of italics.

                                                                Janet's letter to Mo said "display copyright in first few pages of UB". Where is it? Why do we have police?

                                                                Page 5 of 5 claims "images copyright by UBF"--concern about George's family, concern about marks, what it refers to. GDP--pattern by DK of taking everything without consent and knowledge. Removed picture of GDP father, not mother. Put picture of Begemann family. Would they think it's OK. John Ploetz. Ethical background. Personal request? In SFO? Ploetz? GDP thinks people should be asked before their stuff is published. SD--large part devoted to history. NS--wants assistance in fielding photo complaints. Fellowship decision about how to approach history, as well as spin, is fellowship matter. Thinks it should be embarrassing. But that's how they feel about it. Not an issue on the list. GDP thinks there are dates and facts wrong in DK history.

                                                                Final 36pp document. Where are papers 120 and 121?

                                                #2 & 3--Foundation thinks none of the translations on web site comply with license and should be removed.

SK--3 versions of Foreword. Translations are constantly corrected and revised. There should be only one source that the UF can control and update for every change that has been made in the text. Does not think translations should be freely distributed over Internet. There should only be one source. Freely linked into. Should not name Sanchez-Escobar.

                                                                Unpublished translations in progess by Foundation and others. Premature display gives a distorted view of the book. Partial translations give a distorted view of what the book is about. The only way to display translations is to have entire text available.

                                                                There is no problem with translations of secondary works and study aids.

                                                #8 in above context                                                                offer to form collaborative teams to
translate the book. GDP--this is a source of possibility for common work. Not duplicative. Appear to be competitive. NS--hits concern about copyright. Right of copyright holder to control all translations. If they give up control, then could have no control at all. MG--what's this mean? NS--opens door to "inventive" translations. LDM addresses whose DOT the DOT is. And also "inventive". SH--a few points about moral right and fair use. Not all countries have fair use. Most have moral right. Congressional concerns about interaction. Maybe "inventive" really meant "poor quality". NS--parody, criticsm protected. MJK--can we return to these things in depth later? Are they saying they don't want us to encourage translation of the UB for groups? Philosophy is grounded in different fundamental assumptions. Resolution is hard in this kind of case. GDP--so idea is to have three Spanish translation is OK? MJK--no, doesn't think so, but some people think it would be desirable.

                                                                TB--suppose there are three translations in India--one from UF one from TUBF one from Cal. Which do I pick. I don't know one from the other? Is it people from US or outside? SD--some have experience in totalitarian countries. See analogies that may or may not be accurate. People feel they were mistreated. GDP--we are open to anyone who comes to use genuinely to translate the book. Has been propaganda that has prejudiced the translators. SD--most readers don't care but the ones that care care deeply. It leads to the problem. They are annoyed with UF so they call TUBF. NS--what is vision for translations? MG--appreciate Seppo re virgin area to avoid confusion. In spanish speaking world are zillions of sophisticated readers. Care passionately about translation quality. Any translation can be greatly improved. Would imagine UF and TUBF collaborated to produce a UF fixed work with ongoing electronic populist process to evolve socially derived translation. Would like alternative versions, original and derived. SK--thinking about this sort of thing after the original team has created the baseline translation. MG--but not what was described. Funnels into UF end product. SK thinks it is impractical even if implementable. GDP--SK description in place for French translation improvement. Forms to send revision suggestions. SK--99% of input is rubbish. MG--not getting point. Needs more discussion. SD--issue is not techniques, but politicization. Mixed up with organizational thinking. Many are not supportive of either organization.
                                                                We talk about GPL issues in context of translations and dissemination. GDP doesn't see wisdom of multiple translations. Coming back to the point? Wants text in other languages that is inviolate in some sense. Causes study group problem. MJK--why people translate. Access to the book. Dialects. Need a safety valve for division. Design must allow for personal expression. For dialect. For access. Access means affordability. But it costs an arm and a leg to get there. How can you help most people to get free access to the inviolate text. GDP--good point, but come to August conference hear different story. A reader in Dakka who has spread the teachings from one book. NS--best to have one official translation at a time, modulo dialects. Don't force translator's art on all the readers. Educate the translators to support the process. Get people not to over personalize their versions. Get one version and a forum for intellectual debate. Thinks these issues can be discussed rationally. MG--removing our translations from the web site would not solve the problem the Foundation has. A lot of people want to translate outside Seppo's structure. Challenge is to do well, with fixed end product while allowing wider participation. Be cooperative and interactive with UF. GDP--but UF has to control the quality of the translation. The people have to come to UF to work on it. Must have consent of the UF. MG--key step is UF has responsibility to publish what it wants, but do they have to stop everything outside that? What do we do with the rest of the creative ferment? Find a solution that the UF doesn't have to control. SD--idea is only one translation will be published and the UF will publish it? GDP--as long as the copyright is valid, only one. No so after. SD--only worried about the situation now. Is idea that anyone translating has to work with UF?

GDP--can't deal with them all as translators. Need capacity. 8 years of 4-5 hours a day to do it. A devotion of time. Most people when asked to translate 3-4 papers go away. Very few are really devoted. Only interested in the few. SD--the ones who make a difference. Want one translation published by UF. Would UF be willing to accept realities of social situation and deal with temperamental people to manage social process to deal with that result. If you approach them with attitude of insensitivity you guarantee a hassle. If someone goes to these people and tells them things are different, are they different? NS--limitations on how big a team can be. There is receptivity and willingness, but can't just accept people who call. GDP--process of qualification. Want people responsible for their work. Have guidelines for people who want to translate. Only two people who weren't qualified. Need people but can't accept 20 people.

SD--number of people is very small. But they have a passion to do it one way or another. But they feel marginalized. They should be engaged, but they are alienated. Whole thing is theoretical and involves only a few people. If someone is doing a Chinese translation, win that person over. SK--says they have one. TB--SK and TB talk about how to do this. Idea to have private area on web site where people log in and have discussions. Apart from another team and/or bring together. SD--would pay great dividends. TB--have regular translators with contracts. Want to make it work and have a place for everybody. SK--need language of the angels to convince of sincerity in this business. Mistrust deplorable. Open to all suggestions. Concern that the translation is excelled with minimum number of mistakes. Many people who speak translations are poor translators, although they think they are good. Translation is hard. An enormous job. Once translated there is developing readership. Vast need for secondary works. Need them translated from English. Russians have no secondary works. Once they start they can produce works.

                                                                MG--they want all translations removed from TUBF web site. Are there other solutions they might offer? MJK--there is no solution unless we can address the translation process and the access issues. If you reduce access, it will trigger more translation. People will feel UF is closing down access. GDP--wants people to link to UF web site.

#4--will they license?
#5--understand
#6--question about concentric circles graphic. No attribution of copyright on last pages. Are graphics infringing? Word count? What is issue?
#7--21 steps violates word count without permission. In three languages.
#9--hyperlink advertises JANR.
#10--anti foundation material
#11--Urantianet disclaimer not used in some placed. Put in all places is fix.
#12--infringing use of Urantian without permission. Objection extend to dancing letters.
#13--source issue--makes it appears this is where to get the book. Disclaimer appropriate. Say publisher is UF. Getting stuff in UF office that should go to TUBF and vice versa. SH--the pages on Fellowship web site that provide hyperlinks to "the Urantia Book shop" are of concern. Wants page modified to eliminate this confusion.
#14, 15, 16--violation of UF trademark in domain names. A big issue for UF. Claims metatags are capturing people who want Foundation. Problem is not Urantia, but Foundation. TB--the UB is not a trademark. SH--shuns question. There is a cumulative effect of all these problems. Concerned about cumulative effect. Combination with "real name" adds to concern. Thinks there is litigation covering unfair competition in meta-tagging.
#17--concentric circles--self evident?
#18--we have documents that are protected?
#19--Mind at Mischief copyright.
#20--inaccurate. Has changed now. Thinks it shows how bad UF is. It was before 1995 says GDP. Discussion of agreement on web site. NS thinks it is used to vilify the UF>
#21--name change to TUBF. No problem with FFROTUB, which is descriptive. SH--since the change have documented a number of instances of confusion between the two organizations. Timing makes it appear that this change is the source of the confusion. MJK--we get zillions of letters for UF. SH--that shows the confusion is longstanding and ongoing. May have been sincere in avoiding confusion, but has transfered problem to UF? Thinks there is case law that clarifies trademark rights in book and publication titles. No certain TUB is a "lead pipe cinch" common law trademark of UF. Claims in federal litigation anecdotal evidence of confusion is central. Case is "Sugarbusters" in fifth circuit. For consideration of law as it pertains to common law trademark rights in published book titles. TB--has policy statement that SH prepared for the IUA.

                                                SH--some are pickier than others. Bottom line is cumulative weight and level of invasion. UF cannot assess motives and rationales. If it weren't for overall cumulative effect, some might not be big issues.                                                Meeting w/UF reps continues

                TB--what's TUBF concerns? SD--what are the priorities? NS--what do you care about between the two organizations that you would like to see addressed? SD--see their approach as commercial and ours as spiritual and non-commercial. Social issues, pluralism, etc. To do the work need to be able to work with the text. But support inviolate text idea for the most part across a broad spectrum of opinion. But need text for evangelical purposes. Internet raises issues. If hyperlinks make text violate, that is going to be a constant source of irritation. Showing people where Mesopotamia is can hardly corrupt the text. Relevance to source material. 900 source volumes. GDP--any but English? SD--a little French and German. Mostly Egnlish. Has deepened personal sense of book authenticity. But other people will react differently. We are wasting energy by not working together. No problem with copyright. Big problem with lawsuits. More is lost than is gained. GDP--so SD accepts copyright but denys enforcement. A funny way of thinking. SD--problem of fusing commerce and religion. NS--to have that lawsuit position to have intellectual integrity you have to consider how far you will go to avoid litigation. Golden rule assumes you are dealing with moral people. SK--but there is an extensive system of celestial litigation. SD--not the same. SK--so the fellowship isn't trying to enforce copyright claims. GDP--troubled by commercial word to describe approach. Lose money on each book. Defending the possibility of keeping the text inviolate. Not commercial. Twisting the truth. SD--you misunderstand. NS--no, you are being very insulting in nice words. SD--our law is purely secular. NS--we come at it from a religious perspective, too. Don't disregard entirely the secular aspects. Need a dialog exchange. Need to solve problems. Personal reactions are irrelevant. discussion degenerates into pissing contest between Nancy and Steve (mostly Nancy). NS--can't be so naive as to think we are the only people with good intent. SD--an example of how difficult communication is. GDP--the web site creates the impression of being the Foundation web site. Has commercial things there that look commercial. The web site is a perfect example of confusing people. The issue is ethics, not commerce. SD--would it be ethical if the problem were reversed.

                LDM--is the motive to dissolve the license? SH--denies it. Thinks there is a misunderstanding about scope and what is conferred. Six translations that have no copyright license. Concern is cumulative effect of things done on web site in last 6-9 months. Want to clear the air. Tell them what we are prepared to do. They will consider the overall message and reduction of confusion issue. Not just web site confusion, but also organizational confusion. Have sent letters about problems so it's not new. Have to prepare thoroughly for meeting. Perhaps should have said "alleged".

                NS--are we here to clear the air on the license? Actually here to ask a prequestion. Given the fellowship organizational philosophy can we look forward to an ability to clear the air. Can we have agreements we can rely on that make policing less necessary? Secondly, there is the fellowship and foundation relationship. A lot of discussion of philosophy. UF talks about trademark and copyright in worldwide picture as servants to the DOT. Limits on accommodation of Fellowship is ability of UF to maintain worldwide mission.

                NS--as to the "scoring hits" in the enumeration of issues, concerned about HMc as member of EC and his personal agenda. Concerned DK is linking our stuff to HMc stuff (e.g., because of omission of first two papers of part IV and link to HMc). GDP--also has concern about DK. He runs web site and affects thinking. MG--need larger meeting with Trustees to discuss these things. GDP--meeting with trustees won't solve anything because it is TUBF problem. MJK--early days muddled organization differences. MM actions then potentiated disagreements with UF policies. Everyone confused. Perhaps Fellowship should disappear. Need to settle roles and relationships. We'll keep going over the line if we can't figure this out. Not good for either. What do they think of Fellowship disappearing and IUA taking over? GDP--a good thing to think about, but too hard to start this kind of discussion because so many people are involved. MJK--we don't have organizational relationship, we have a license. NS--and that's the problem (and why it gets "commercial"). Would actually like to have higher level discussion. But all we could officially discuss was web site stuff. MJK--if list of issues is the only basis for relationship, and we can't make it fit, then we would have to dissolve relationship or one of the parties (TUBF). Speaks further with passion. Let us know if the "organizational commitment" to all these things is the only basis for an organizational relationship. NS--agrees we need a relationship instead of a license. SH--a lot of problem is the way the license was done in the first place. Very back door. Negotiation process very dysfunctional. Scope and meaning is all unclear. Question about revocation or continuation of license leads to larger issues. Need to come at this from different direction. Perhaps create a broader relationship agreement that serves everyone's purposes and provides a framework for an understandable licensing of the specifics. Mo and Janet were trying to get to the top by starting at the bottom. LDM comments on topdown vs. bottomup. SH--web site is good, but web manager is vocal about whether licenses exist, etc.GDP--fellowship has split between people who support copyright and people who don't which creates problem with license. This is a fellowship problem. If fellowship accepts copyright, then there should be no license problem, or only what can be worked out.

                TB--on IUA. Don't want to see TUBF go away. All three organizations should be healthy. Choose different or same goals and frame alliance. If fellowship goes away it will cause more fragmentation. Third organization will cause split. UBF going away will cause more problems. Thinks there is problem of diverging opinion in EC so it can't speak as one voice. Have bent over backwards to make UBF legal, but it's a mess. Should have never done it. Don't want UBF to feel like victims. Don't want it to be victimization of each other. Must do best possible job to keep text safe for future generations in other countries. That should be the only concern. That is the larger vision. That is what the IUA people think. Have fringe elements that we have given a voice to to our discredit. It is pulling us apart. We need to clean our closets. MG--thinks UBF disappearance would be disastrous. Would lead to unsolvable problems. Need to move forward down the right fork. Could be in big trouble . Relationship broke and needs to be healed. Need for right people to be in that process. Cannot heal without the right parties. Things will change only when relationships change. Took J&J apostles 3 weeks. Have to have contentious and powerful parties at the table. Leaders. Not now or next week. But need process so that relationships actuallly change. Next point is that UF has tried to protect text as responsibly as it knows how. Paid attention to priorities in certain ways. Need to evolve a better understanding of DOT application. Not know what, but could evolve over time from changed relationships. Need time procedures shifting roles to work on change. Have to find way to take the next step or we won't succeed and revelation will suffer. MJK--

      TM change? Claim of common law trademark that may or may not be registered. Are we going to see "The Urantia Book" with an R in a few months? TB--yes. But allow use descriptively. TB--avoid problems in other countries where cal. will name his organization "UB..." LDM--don't plans for future depend on good will? TB--absolutely not. Goodwill comes from secondary works, ministry, etc. Allowing TUB as ID without license makes it possible for anyone to do anything.

                Zero tolerance? LDM mentions "the Matthew project" as an example. The point is made, I think.

                MJK--your behaviors reflect your most fundamental assumptions. You can say one thing but act in a way that contradicts that. How does this relate to the request for UBF to change name. Say we want a relationship, but say we need to change our name because of confusion. IF they don't want confusion, sounds like they don't want a relationship after all. Does not make sense. We need our actions to align with what we believe. GDP--so UF doesn't align doing with what they say? MJK--basis was confusion. NS--may be area we need discussion. From secular view of what UF needs to do imposes limits on their ability to enter into agreements. A motive not to cause difficulty with UBF will undermine goal of maintaining control of text and translations. Although we think will of god is our guide, if someone wants to... MJK--we get that point. They will protection the text any way they consider best. But when we take that to our organization there will be the question of what if they demand we take the word out entirely. NS--can't have UBF live in fear of having the rug pulled out. SH--do estoppel agreements in business world. If UBF goes back to previous name agree it cannot be a matter for future litigation. Even if confusion arises. "Go along to get along." Echoes NS sentiment. Looking at overall picture. If had to be addressed individually, wouldn't need to be discussed. Concerned about cumulative impact. May be getting wrong message. LDM points out we've used the name for two years. GDP wants to know why we changed it. NS--if we can clarify our relationship that would be good.

                MG--on behaviors vs. asumptions and relationships.

                Priorities? SH--priority is to reduce the number issues. NS--some are big, like trademark. Also translation. Main problem is that there is so much, tends to point against copyright and license. TB--some may seem silly and they weren't priorities. Maybe three are insignificant. SH--don't assume that fixing these things will lead to more of the same stuff. If we fix most of this stuff we should request a status quo OK for the rest of the web site. NS--would be nice to have a conflict resolution mechanism. TB--it really isn't that much. The web site is OK, generally speaking. GDP--would be nice to have a committee to resolve these things. LDM--reflects on the attempt to set up teams re web site in past. TB--recallls DK assaulted RK after that. SD--not that simple. Still squabbling about nonparticipation. GDP--there were other issues. SD--some people want to bring people together, so to bring them apart. MG--could we link web site stuff informally through LDM and TB? NS--point people a good idea. TB--need two point people?

                GPL discussion. LDM will send draft notions to SH--email is sgh@hklaw.org

                TB--what is difference between linking to UF web site and freely downloading? MG--idea of gpl to allow free use of text in secondary works. TB--so allows for part IV to be published separately? MG--struggling with idea that some group needs to make a decision and apply it, but should not be decided by small group of readers. UF used to making a wisdom call on these things. Whether something is wise or destructive, whether someone should be stopped. We can't make the call. People are unwilling to accord this to the UF. It's already occurring electronically. Physical text will be side issue. GDP--what is understanding of term "integrity". MG--must be some group to reproduce and flood the market with entire text in inviolate form. UF is doing it well. Could do better if licensed other groups to do the same. Would have a bigger flood and better results with text and marks. GDP--why did revelators impose tasks on UF? Revelation is like little child. Needs protection. 7% of world speaks English. Had a chance to get the book out. During a period of time have to translate the book and get it to most of the planet. Once that is secured, second step is broad dissemination. May fit in future. But this push is impatience. Pushing too fast and not giving other countries a chance to see the book. Creating confusion. MG--but there is transition from childhood to adulthood that need to be done in a way that prevents rupture of relationship. Our movement is in its adolescence. SH--would a gpl for reproduction of the complete text of the book would be supported? MG--maybe. Anything is possible. SH--we haven't attacked secondary works.

                NS--we really need everything out on the table.                 TT meeting? GDP--got meeting request twice, answered twice they would meet with representatives. Called Janet. She insisted on meeting. GDP rejected. She said still want to meet. GDP said only committee. Private correspondence distributed without GDP consent. Said wouldn't meet with trustees. Made clear this was not tt meeting. Then became SD meeting. The GDP said representatives would meet Left impression they agreed. MJK--GDP feeling about tt meeting says something about the relationship. We owe everyone the maturity to get together. GDP--for the particular matter he is appointed as the person to deal with copyright. NS--don't understand the false inducement. SD--we have limitations on how we can do business. We work with 14 people who give approval on certain terms. We made it perfectly clear to everyone. NS--friday night sent message concerned that was problem. Then got response.

                Steve concludes with review of sources. The book authors stole some 900 works to create the UB (my phrase). There are questions of continuing copyright, of moral right for non US authors, of the views of Christian ministers and theologians whose work has been appropriated, etc. Some works are as late as 1942-45. Many theories, etc., etc.