There are currently 0 users online.
Sun, 05/27/2012 - 18:42
AVO- great post! WHere did you find this?
Sun, 05/27/2012 - 18:51
Haha now we know why it is Clara's favorite book!
So what happened? Did he get his money?
Sun, 05/27/2012 - 19:02
What is the relationship between myself and this case? I doubt it went far. Why didn't he use an attorney instead of only using one to negotiate a deal? I thought everyone knew that writings become the property of AAWS. It's true of when people speak at conventions. You don't get paid for submissions to Grapevine.
Does anyone know if he legally prevailed?
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
Sun, 05/27/2012 - 19:12
When you first arrived Clara, you pushed the cult manual "Living Sober" rather heavily. How do you feel now that you know that the cult headquarters of AAWS at the Interchuch was paying royalties to Helen Wynn for her "services" to Bill Wilson but stiffing the writer of "Living Sober?"
Remember Clara, "principals before personalities" and remember you aren't supposed to be thinking about these things, you are supposed to pray for a miracle from the AA god.
"Tradition 10 - Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the AA name ought never be drawn into public controversy." Please follow orders from the Interchurch Center if you are an AA member and don't comment.
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 03:21
All of the corporate lawsuits and other harassing legal actions by A.A. trusted servants in New York have focused on protecting and defending the A.A. name and its A.A.-approved literature against perceived threats. Those lawsuits and other legal actions on the internet, eBay auctions, in Mexico and Germany and reactions to the publication of the first edition 1939 facsimile of the Big Book and the first paperback reprint of the original Big Book all involved A.A. literature and the Alcoholics Anonymous name itself. The legalists in New York have a very narrow definition of A.A. literature. If it isn’t “A.A. Conference Approved Literature” then it isn’t A.A. literature. If A.A.W.S. or the A.A. Grapevine doesn’t publish it, then it isn’t legally A.A. literature.
By that legal measure, many thousands of books, articles, pamphlets, tapes, videos, early original letters, etc. are not A.A. literature! Twenty-Four Hours a Day was the second largest best seller (behind the Big Book) to A.A. members from many years. Biographies of Sr. Ignatia, Ebby T., Clarence S., Sen. Hughes, Bill W., Dr. Silkworth, and others were never A.A. General Service Conference Approved and therefore, the legalists would say, are not A.A. literature. Many histories, from Ernest Kurtz’s NOT-GOD: A History of Alcoholics Anonymous onward, are not legally A.A. literature. We could fill the next fifty pages with hundreds of examples. We note that the A.A. Archives in New York City are bulging with these “illegal” works of A.A. literature.
God damn it, get me a whiskey
Bill W, Deathbed
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 08:01
Twenty Four Hours a Day is published by Hazeden. I don't think that AA would "protect" it, but a group can certainly use it per tradition if the group chooses to.
Obviously, you cannot hold the same standard to materials used prior to when AA starting "approving" its literature. Remember too that the suits came about when publishing AA works without permission or with unapproved changes.
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 08:26
Where are these magical and mysterious "conferences?" Trying to pull the "conference approved" card on AAWS literature would be like having Scientology saying that its grossly estimated 2005 estimate of 8 million members all approved a new version of Dianetics.
Incidentally, Scientology and Alcoholics Anonymous use the same kind of inflated numbers and counted anyone that even took a course in the cult as being a member, even if they didn't continue. Remember that 95% of the people in AA run from the cult after a few meetings, just like Scientology, so the numbers are extremely skewed and only about 5% of the real true believers in AA represent the actual membership and many of them are court or probation mandated.
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 09:00
"Remember too that the suits came about when publishing AA works without permission or with unapproved changes."
Both the Mexican and the German lawsuits were only possible because AAWS perjured itself. The BB was out of copyright. No legal action should have been possible. In Mexico AAWS lied and said Wayne Parks had written the book. An AA member subsequently went to prison for a year against all of AA's so called Traditions and Concepts.
They are a bunch of crooks Clara. Remember - you're often judged by the company you keep...lol
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 09:04
I understand that the original reasons for the suits was that the information was being changed. I wonder if these weren't being made, if there would have been any type of suit at all.
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 09:10
Knowing AAWS, they probably don't care about protecting any principles in the book. They just want the money. They'd probably sell a cocktail recipe book if they thought it would enhance overall profits.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 09:11
It's out of copyright. The Mexican case came about because they were reprinting and selling the same book at a fraction of the cost. AAWS were pissed at losing the money. The question of content didn't come into it.
You never tackled the question about the concepts stating that AA would never go to the courts to settle disputes. Or the question that AAWS deliberately lied to prosecute someone. The prosecution would have been impossible without the perjury. Do you condone that? Do you support such practices in the interests of maintaining the cult ?
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:35
Where in the concepts does it say that AA would never go to court? It appears the Beach didn't win with that, either. This sounds like Patti's "let's go to court and get lots of money because they settle quickly..." It doesn't sound as if AA settles anything quickly or backs down from court. I think people might have regretted taking on AA. Why didn't the guy that was prosecuted back down when asked? Perhaps his own ego and greed got in the way.
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:42
Concept Twelve: “…the GSC shall observe the spirit of the A.A. Tradition…never becomes the seat of perilous wealth or power…that none …shall ever be placed in a position of unqualified authority over any of the others…all important decisions be reached by discussion, vote, and whenever possible, by substantial unanimity…no Conference action ever be personally punitive or an incitement to public controversy… it shall never perform any acts of government…the Conference itself will always remain democratic in thought and action.
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 13:15
How is a suit necessariy incitement to public controversy? It doesn't involve the public. Do you interpret that Patti does, that you can accuse or sue AA with impunity, that they will just back down and give you money because they are so anxious to settle? Seems that isn't true.
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 09:19
Principles before personalities, but definitely cash before principles...lol
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:00
Ben, contrary to some that wait for some sort of "gotcha", we are having lunch. I don't really care what they did. The material was being changed. I don't care who makes any money.9
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:05
A living, breathing example.
They acted illegally Clara. The people you support so vehemently are a bunch of crooks...lol
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:30
I don't support people, Ben. I support the program of AA and this it can help people suffering from alcoholism. That is one reason why I never cared about any of the "WE know so much MORE than YOU will EVER know about the history of AA..." superiority of you and others because none of it mattered to me, anyway. The improvements in my life that can be directly attributed to AA didn't depend of if Bill took LSD, had a mistress, wasn't the kind of husband I would have wanted, if everyone puts a dolar in the basket, if the guy sitting next to me in a meeting had scrapes with the law, or if there is a meeting taking place in Florida in a park because they have for decades and no one stopped them from freely operating in public.
I don't care if there is money to be made in AA publishing. There is money to be made in publishing whether you are AAWS, Jim from SOS or Dolly Parton writing a song. It matters not to me. There seems to be a division on this board if it is all right to make money out of recovery or if the answers to addiction should just be made available for the good of mankind (hence the singular purpose argument). Then it becomes all right for others, but not AA. It is an old organization. I am sure there were mistakes made in the past and that some will be in the future.
Belies that little tirade...lol
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:36
I don't think so, Ben. Agree to disagree.
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:40
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 12:08
Well, I give you credit for admitting that you don't care about who AA screws over. It's reprehensible, but at least it's honest.
"[T]he needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." ~ Spock
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 12:17
Why can't you ever just stick to facts? It is always the same, someone proves you wrong and then you start in with your opinion as though it is somehow equitable to facts.
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 13:23
Anyone making you read them, Ironic?
I think there is plenty of wrong to go around, but I don't see why AA should just back down on anything. This is the concept that Patti cites as she breathlessly encourages people to bring suit, and all but assures them that it is money in the bank because AA will quickly settle to avoid controversary and has all those huge reserves that will make it worthwhile. Somehow, I don't think that is true.
What I have said is that I basically don't care one way or the other, but I think when the guy realized that AA was serious, he should have backed away or accepted that AA surely was and wasn't going to back off. Seems to me that he had a role to play, too. I notice that we continue to cite American law in international cases. I don't know all the facts and neither does anyone else on the forum. Even if we take away any of the rights and wrongs on the cases, then it comes to if AA should have sued at all for any reason.
Tue, 05/29/2012 - 10:15
“There seems to be a division on this board if it is all right to make money out of recovery or if the answers to addiction should just be made available for the good of mankind (hence the singular purpose argument). Then it becomes all right for others, but not AA.”
Personally I think it is fine to make money off legitimate methods of recovery. Researchers have put a lot of work into finding evidence based modalities and sound psychological principles that are proven to actually work, as well as finding what doesn’t work. They deserve to be compensated for their hard work. Much of what they are finding is actually out there in the public domain for free, although you can purchase it if you so desire. Still, they aren’t making the pretense that nobody makes a dime off their hard work.
AA, however, does make the pretense that nobody makes a dime off of AA, and this is extremely dishonest. AA has been proven repeatedly to not improve upon the rates of spontaneous remission, and therefore it doesn’t work. In fact, there are elements of AA that have been proven to actually be a hindrance to recovery. It’s not a system of recovery, it’s merely indoctrination into cult religion, yet it claims to be a quit drinking program. It deserves no money, in my opinion, any more than any other form of dishonesty deserves to profit.
All bill wilson did was join a cult religion and trip on some belladonna then proceeded to sell his hair-brained ideas to the world as a quit drinking program, despite ample evidence at the time that his ideas were wrong and his methods failed miserably.
By the way, clara, your post mentions addiction, but as you have repeatedly stated, singleness of purpose excludes addiction to anything other than alcohol.
Troll free AA critical forumhttp://www.expaa.org/
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
Tue, 05/29/2012 - 11:11
c&e said: "[Bill W.] Sell his hair-brained ideas to the world as a quit drinking program, despite ample evidence at the time that his ideas were wrong and his methods failed miserably."
That's worth repeating. During the course of a few conferences that were made about up of about 4-8 men that weren't professionals, Bill and Co. developed a series of plans to promote their idea of how to treat "alcoholism". Keep in mind that they knew it had a 5% or less success rate. They didn't care that it didn't help people, they saw an opportunity to make money and jumped all over it.
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:22
That is pretty messed up, Clara. But look, I don't know all the facts. Moreover, I don't really care if AAWS legitimately protects its copyrights. That's its right. However, wouldn't you agree that it would be fucked up IF AAWS lied (committed perjury) during the course of its copyright infringement case?
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:36
I don't know all of the facts, either. I would like to think that no one would lie, but I know that people do. For me, the issue is why the material would be changed, which was the reason for the German suits.
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:50
Because the original non-copyrighted edition was such a bad translation that it didn't make sense. Believe me, it was crap. They mixed up the words "mental" and "spiritual" throughout. I think anyone would agree it could change meanings significantly.
Clara - the longer you stay with your head in the sand, the more likely you are to get a boot in the ass...lol.
Keep standing up for the criminals. It's people like you that help them to get away with it. Well done.
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:48
"Believe me, it was crap." Believe you? Is it safe to say, then, that you have at your fingertips the original manuscript?
To clarify: AA is not an organization of criminals. Criminals exist and operate outside of AA.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Wed, 05/30/2012 - 10:53
You don't. Thanks for your opinion.
“The more I traveled the more I realized that fear makes strangers of people who should be friends.”
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 12:19
So you are saying since you cant find any rebuttal to the Mexico case, you'll just stick to the Germany case?
When I read your posts, I always wonder if it's an act or if you are legitimately this good at fooling yourself.
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 12:21
LOL! Totally, Ironic. I noticed that, too.
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 13:26
I didn't look for any rebuttal, Ironic. I just notice that we keep applying American standards to something that might not be true in other countries.
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 13:28
We are talking about the allegation that AAWS suborned perjury in a Mexican lawsuit that resulted in the defendant going to jail under Mexican law.
Wed, 05/30/2012 - 10:56
Penny you are far from an expert on law, you have not passed the bar...lol. Now I would not argue that you are an expert on handing out personal opinions that sound rational.....lol.
Tue, 05/29/2012 - 10:24
Wed, 05/30/2012 - 11:43
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 22:03
Mind if I ask who you're talking to, Ironic? It's hard to make connections on this forum, as you know. Thanks.
Tue, 05/29/2012 - 07:46
Marietta and Danny
I was living in Germany when all of the controversy was just starting. I was an active member of AA - I even chaired a meeting. Many Germans speak very good english and, being english myself, I was often asked about how things should have been translated. They knew it wasn't right but I was able to clarify certain things. I had my english version of the BB and it was very easy to see where the mistakes were.
The arguments and discontent took a few years to grow until the point where they produced their own, better, translation.
Tue, 05/29/2012 - 08:16
document. Do you understand that your credibility is in question here. Talk about a troll, Bennie you are the poster child of trolls on the OPF's.
Your nose may need a clip.....lol.
Tue, 05/29/2012 - 10:51
" I even chaired a meeting."
This brings to mind a lyric from a Haggard song: " . . . and I drove one railroad spike."
Sun, 05/27/2012 - 18:56
Yes they are thieves. Suck the breath out of people.
This is from the Brown U. Library Archives (I think)
I'm guessing they settled but I don't know.
Sun, 05/27/2012 - 19:06
Looks like the GSO made a million dollars out of the deal and only paid the Barry Leach 4,000.
If I remember correctly he was Lois's good friend.
The part I like best is where John Bragg said that they paid Bill lifetime royalties for his commitment to AA.
I understand that Sue Smith Windows wanted her father's royalties, but whose to say if that is property that can be willed to another. He actually refused them in 1940 in a letter to the trustees, athough Bill refused that.
It's my understanding that writings are gifts to the organization, much like when you write something and it gets accepted by HuffPo. I can't find anything where it shows that Beach prevailed.
Sun, 05/27/2012 - 19:23
Your thinking again Clara, remember that leads to relapse. Stop it immediately and go to the nearest church basement and chant to the AA god of your choice for a miracle.
Sun, 05/27/2012 - 19:41
The grapevine is a small, itty bitty booklet and the submissions in them are very brief. The Living Sober, however, is a complete book. Your comparison is incorrect.
It's my understanding that Helen Wynn got paid as the publisher of the grapevine... did she not?
Sun, 05/27/2012 - 19:45
As well as they paid Margaret Burger (Bobbie), Billy Butt's secretary 6 months sick leave begining in 1949, September. Paid with leave. Was she pregnant?
Sun, 05/27/2012 - 23:36
"As well as they paid Margaret Burger (Bobbie), Billy Butt's secretary 6 months sick leave begining in 1949, September. Paid with leave. Was she pregnant?"
Hear that, msafrany? Billy Butt, not to be confused with billybudd. OK?