Dear Friends;

Judging from recent communications, Urantia Foundation appears committed to

taking legal action related to the publication of JANR. This action could

very easily force the worldwide readership of The Urantia Book to endure

ten to fifteen years of court proceedings with unpredictable social

repercussions   And this will take place during a period of time in which

revelation awareness around the world is growing rapidly; the initial

internationalization of the revelation would thus take place in a context

of protracted legal struggle.  Is this desirable?  This is not an action

which affects only Harry (or whomever else might create works which run

afoul of Foundation policy) -- it is an action which will affect each of

us.  It will profoundly shape the context in which we each engage in

revelation community building during the next decade and possibly beyond. 

What is the purpose for this great expenditure of resources?  In Urantia

Foundation’s initial press release on this matter, justification is

provided in the comment: 

“We believe the copyright to be an important tool to preserve inviolate the

text of The Urantia Book for current and especially for future generations.

The preservation of the inviolate text has always been, according to the

Declaration of Trust, the Trustees' primary duty.“

It is important to appreciate that the use of copyright is a *strategy*

which the trustees have freely chosen and implemented as a means of

attempting to meet their perceived primary duty. While all of their public

relations statements emphasize their belief that a copyright is essential

to the meeting of this primary duty, no one has ever once explained to the

community how possession of a copyright might achieve this objective.

There have been no examples, no explanations, no comments whatsoever

forthcoming from Urantia Foundation to support this contention.  In fact,

knowledgable individuals such as Phil Geiger, Dan Massey, Fred Harris and

others have published well developed arguments showing that this strategy

can have no real effectiveness when applied to real world situations

involving distortions or misuse of the text.

Further attempts by the Foundation to provide justification for this

strategy have taken the following form:

"If the copyright in the English text is lost, enforceable copyrights could

be obtained on translations of poor quality and on translations which

amend, abridge, embellish, or purposefully distort the text. Once obtained,

such a copyright could be enforced against all other translations, even

against a translation of the original text. Only by maintaining and

enforcing the copyright can we ensure that the inviolate text will reach as

many of the world's peoples as possible."

Ignoring the tenuous legal assumptions contained in this statement, we

might ask, "What is meant by 'amend, abridge, embellish, or purposefully

distort?'"

Does it refer to someone who might take portions of the text and use them

in some other writing, for example a novel?  J.J. Benitez has done this

with his series of novels, the sixth of which has now been published.  His

first book sold over 2,000,000 copies and was on the New York Times

International Best Seller list for over two years.  In a public meeting in

San Francisco last year, when asked why the Foundation did not take Benitez

to court, Tonia responded that it would simply be a nightmare to try and

prosecute such a case in a court in a foreign country and the trustees had

decided that it simply wasn't worth it.  (Benitez is also reported to have

said privately that the attorneys for his Publishing company have indicated

that Urantia Foundation would not have a chance of prevailing in such a

legal action.) Sr. Benitez has made a substantial amount of money by

repackaging and selling portions of the revelation without paying a cent in

royalties or even acknowledging the source of his material.

Does it refer to someone who might add material to the text and grossly

misrepresenting its meaning?  Gabriel of Sedona has done this and his books

are readily available in bookstores around the country. 

Does it refer to someone who might write a vicious parody of The Urantia

Book?  The right to do so is protected by law and is supported by a record

of related judicial decisions.

Does it refer to someone who might write a distorting review of the book,

the readership, and its history?  Martin Gardner has done so and sold many

books -- copyright law provides liberal concessions to individuals writing

critical reviews or commentaries.

So just what is it that this copyright strategy is designed to achieve?  I

would like to hear some specific examples of reasonably plausable

situations in which the possession of a copyright would save the day

against someone whose work might be damaging to the revelation. So far, no

one has been able to provide such an example and yet Urantia Foundation

seems willing to devote vast resources and risk significant long-term

damage to the readership community in order to continue pursuing this

strategy.

The irony of all this, given the above, is that the Foundation is preparing

to go after a person whose derivative work has fully honored the original

text, preserved it "inviolate," and has carefully made sure that the reader

knows about the source of the work.  In fact, copyright laws are such that

the only people Urantia Foundation even have a hope of pursuing under this

strategy are those who honor the inviolate text.

Neither is it a matter of simply prevailing upon Harry to abandon his work

-- if it's not Harry, it will be someone else whose desire to create a

derivative work which honors the inviolate text will run into the

Foundation's copyright strategy.  It is this copyright strategy which must

be reconsidered -- does it really enable the trustees to meet the

obligations of their trust?  Exactly how does it do so? 

It would seem only prudent that the trustees develop a more viable strategy

which, in addition to assuring future generations of readers access to an

"inviolate" text, would also assure that future generations of readers

would find themselves operating in a social context more conducive to

planetary spiritual service than to the kind of sectarian hostility now

being promoted worldwide by Foundation efforts to mobilize support.

If we are to judge a tree by the fruit it bears, it would seem that a

half-century harvest of continous social dysfunctionality would lead us to

ask some serious questions about this one.

In the continuing struggle,

David Kantor