GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0988241490
Subject: Re: End of Tomlinson/ COPYRIGHT on posts
Date: 25 Apr 2001 23:31:30 GMT
>Were her writings copyholds as suggested by Robert Battle and the reason she
>did not want Dud Dudley to see them is because she did not want him to
I don't think Robert was trying to be specific to copyhold tenure. In this
usage, "writings" in this case simply meant written evidence and muniments,
such as deeds, charters, leases, etc.
Second, it was not a matter of Dud "inheriting" but getting his hands on
things. It is indeed possible that, as Dud claimed, she had agreed to give
certain lands to him, but later changed her mind.
***TO THE GROUP***:
Newer members may not be aware of this. There had been another long discussion
involving Ken on this group. At the end of the discussion,
Kenneth Harper Finton entered into a contract with me not to publish any of MY
posts, or the posts of Stewart Baldwin, without EXPLICIT permission.
Ken called me on the telephone. I made sure that I was at the home of someone
who was a lawyer, and that he was also on the line (with Ken's knowledge)
during the conversation.
Ken completely committed and agreed to NOT publishing anything of mine or
Stewart's in the future without our agreement, or against our wishes. IN
COMPENSATION for which I agreed that he could publish material which had been
posted up to that point on the Amie de Gaveston matter (which he has done), the
Dudley/Bagley discussion (which he has done), and ONE other SPECIFIC thread
(NOTHING ELSE). This was also acknowledged by Ken in public posts to this
Ken has not responded to my recent personal email or public posts on this
Perhaps he is consulting with a lawyer. I talked to one today, and he
reiterated that the contract between us was clear.
Paul C. Reed
PS Even though Ken never ONCE discussed ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES during that thread, the legal ramifications are clear.
|Re: End of Tomlinson/ COPYRIGHT on posts by (Reedpcgen)|