JIM YOAKUM
- A LASTING TESTAMENT

Dear Some Of The Corpses are Amusing,

My name is Jim Yoakum and I am the Literary Executor of the Graham Chapman estate, as well as the Director of the Graham Chapman Archives (www.gcarchives.com).

While I find your site enjoyable and amusing, I hasten to remind you that the Graham Chapman script(s) posted on your site (http://www.notbbc.co.uk/corpses/) are copyrighted material belonging to the Chapman Estate and Chapman Archives.

You are posting them illegally.

I request that you remove them from your site immediately.

Kindest regards,

Jim Yoakum

cc: George Sheanshang

=====

Jim Yoakum

Director, The Graham Chapman Archives

www.gcarchives.com

Yo, Rob

Here's my e-mail to him...

Alan

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

From: A. Cheffie <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 00:46:21 +0100
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: FAO: Jim Yoakum

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

Alan Cheffie

... and here's his e-mail to me.

The address as given is wholly untampered with. I can understand, in the midst of the confusion, that eyes might turn to me - I can only tell you, hand on heart, that this is the mail I sent and the reply I received.

Perhaps the suggestion that he was being a bit of a cunt was overstating the case, but... well, if the "evil" Jim Yoakum turns out to be the real one, then it wasn't overstating the case at all, was it?

Alan

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

From: Jim Yoakum <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: "A. Cheffie" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: FAO: Jim Yoakum

Alan:

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.

PS Rob - I got the "gcarchives" address from the Chapman archives website.

Alan

I've just seen the message that's replaced the script in 'Archive Review', and I'm absolutely stunned. What possible harm can posting an otherwise completely unavailable script on a non-commercial website do? This isn't an exercise of copyright, it's an abuse, and like all abuses of copyright it deserves to be met with a torrent of outraged indignation. Let's see if the man who can't even spell 'cease' (and was it just me who thought that the tone of the message was unecessarily agressive?) correctly has the guts - or even the decency - to come on here and answer to us.

Corpses, it's time for some of that direct action you've been talking about. Anyone know of any forthcoming Chapman-related releases that I can refuse to buy?

What a twatting disgrace. That message looked somewhat unconvincing and feeble on its own though, did the correspondence go further?

He should take a look at the state of his own shoddy website and give it some decent content that fans would appreciate, rather than hope to cash in on Graham's work in the future. (Maybe we're spoilt by SOTCAA, though I like to think the annoying front-end balances things slightly :)

Tch, an' that.

It is a disgrace. That guy has been swanning around for years on the basis that he was close personal chums with Chapman, when this could only really add up to a few unremarkable interviews in his latter years.

He does know the family and the estate and is in it for the money. I don't understand his problem. He can access the working drafts of subsequent OOTT scripts so he has an advantage with publication anyway. He may also find a longer version of the SOTCAA published script, given that the one Jason H kindly forwarded was a shooting script.

Python fandom went to America years ago. He is one of the worst culprits. Others are just enthusiasts, but he seems to be hijacking it. Too fucking precious.

I've been ranting for years about how the music industry is now totally in the hands of the lawyers and accountants, and now it seems that it's happening to comedy too. Pathetic.

"The music industry is now totally in the hands of the lawyers and accountants"

I think the main problem with music is the periodic lack of press interest in new acts. The Stone Roses would not have been better if Sony had signed them up in 1987 - they might not even have got to make the album they wanted - but loads of money got chucked at Stone Roses-inspired bands once the ball was rolling. The press did their job properly, things started moving, and duly notice had to be taken. If press and radio kept looking for new stuff instead of wasting the good times supporting bandwagon-jumping rubbish (which nowadays includes "indie" rubbish), you wouldn't get the inevitable bust periods when the bottom drops out of the market, the likes of Sleeper vanish taking huge debts with them, and then no one decent can get signed for ages.

Music was shit in 1992 and agin 97/8 because NME etc. were happy to coast along with whatever corporate baggy/britpop was getting promoted in 90/1 and 95/6, instead of trying to move on from it. And then suddenly it wasn't selling and there was nothing much new around.

Yes, Jon, but what do you think about the "Out Of The Trees" situation??????????

What? Oh, terrible, yes.

What's the matter with you all? This is bloody important, but only about three people seem to care about it.

Get a sense of perspective. You should be shouting and screaming about this, not just timidly accepting it.

You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Question - when I was in sixth-form college, I had a band and wrote a song called 'Out Of The Trees', inspired by what I had read about the show. I believe that one of the former band members may have a copy of this on a tape recording of a rehearsal. Would I be correct in assuming that under the legal requirements of the Chapman estate, this constitutes a breach of copyright and should be erased at once?

Graham had a flagrant disregard for anything bureaucratic (indeed, it's the essence of his humour), so it's annoying that a bit of his legacy has been snatched away. He's probably laughing at the ridiculousness of it all in some great pub in the sky...

right, since i was the one who bought the script in the first place, and was responsible for passing it to sotcaa, perhaps i should add my twopennyworth.

my yoakum, i'm aware of your work and on the whole i find it thoroughly respectful and (by publishing sketches that YOU wrote with graham chapman instead of any of his massive backlog of material - the film he was working on when he died, any of his hundreds of sketches with cleese, idle, barry cryer etc) totally opportunistic. i also reason that you're not about to publish the 'out of the trees' script, because (a) it wouldn't sell and (b) the copyright subsists not only with the estate of graham chapman (and i thought david sherlock was the literary executor) but with douglas adams and bernard mckenna and the bbc. so, at the risk of asking you to shit or get off the pan, why don't you grant permission for sotcaa post it? or, since you can't legally go that far (i'd guess - i'm not a lawyer), why not just retract your objection and let it slip quietly under the rug? after all, 'out of the trees' isn't remotely available anywhere else.

come on, yoakum. humour us.

j xxx

Exactly. What is the point of sitting on it like this when he can't possibly have plans to publish it himself? It's not like the corpses are profiting from it, there's no advertising on this site. I can't understand his actions here, it looks like it must be preciousness or pedantry.

i've just posted this elsewhere, but i might be wrong - i think he may well intend to publish it. he's published 'jake's journey' and 'the concrete inspector' on his own imprint, so maybe it will be happen. then, as i've said, we can all pay £20 for a badly designed book.

trouble is, i want to just call him a sodding graverobber, but he almost certainly (legally) has a point. if he's the executor...

j xxx

Posted By cunt saboteur on Thu Aug 31 11:36:38 BST 2000:

ask him. [email protected].

How do we know that address isn't just some personal enemy of yours, cunt?

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> on Thu Aug 31 14:37:55 BST 2000:

>I've just seen the message that's replaced the script in 'Archive Review', and I'm absolutely stunned. What possible harm can posting an otherwise completely unavailable script on a non-commercial website do? This isn't an exercise of copyright, it's an abuse, and like all abuses of copyright it deserves to be met with a torrent of outraged indignation. Let's see if the man who can't even spell 'cease' (and was it just me who thought that the tone of the message was unecessarily agressive?) correctly has the guts - or even the decency - to come on here and answer to us.

>Corpses, it's time for some of that direct action you've been talking about. Anyone know of any forthcoming Chapman-related releases that I can refuse to buy?

Yeah, I'm here. So what defense have you got for theft? Be stunned all you want. "What possible harm can posting an otherwise completely unavailable script on a non-commercial website do?" Well, geee, let me think... oh yeah, it is stealing. That's it. It's pummeling Graham's rights and the rights of his family. What is it about that that you don't understand?

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> on Thu Aug 31 14:41:19 BST 2000:

>What a twatting disgrace. That message looked somewhat unconvincing and feeble on its own though, did the correspondence go further? 

>He should take a look at the state of his own shoddy website and give it some decent content that fans would appreciate, rather than hope to cash in on Graham's work in the future.

My website is an informational site, unlike this one which seems geared toward outright robbery. My work with the estate is to ensure that their rights are not only protected but that they can profit from Graham's work. You got a problem with that? Perhaps you believe they too have no rights in the matter because your "right" to have because you want is more important? You obviously condone robbery.

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> on Thu Aug 31 14:48:23 BST 2000:

>It is a disgrace. That guy has been swanning around for years on the basis that he was close personal chums with Chapman, when this could only really add up to a few unremarkable interviews in his latter years.>

You are speaking out of your ass, where your brain obviously resides.

>He does know the family and the estate and is in it for the money.>

Yeah, money for THEM. You got a problem with that?

>I don't understand his problem.>

You don't understand why I have a problem with people stealing someone's work? I see that the guys who run this site make no bones about saying how their words on this site are copyrighted.

<He can access the working drafts of subsequent OOTT scripts so he has an advantage with publication anyway. He may also find a longer version of the SOTCAA published script, given that the one Jason H kindly forwarded was a shooting script.>

Kindly forwarded? Yeah. Well, was it his script to "kindly forward"? Is his name on it as author? That script does not belong to him and by putting it on this site SOTCAA is publishing pirated material. Where I live that is against the law.

>Python fandom went to America years ago. He is one of the worst culprits.>

Yeah, I'm bad. I'm not the one stealing.

<Others are just enthusiasts, but he seems to be hijacking it.>

Hijacking what, your access to someone else's work. I'll do it any time I feel the need.

<Too fucking precious.>

Too fucking bad.

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> on Thu Aug 31 14:49:24 BST 2000:

>I've been ranting for years about how the music industry is now totally in the hands of the lawyers and accountants, and now it seems that it's happening to comedy too. Pathetic.>

Where should it be, in the hands of bootleggers?

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> on Thu Aug 31 15:00:17 BST 2000:

>right, since i was the one who bought the script in the first place, and was responsible for passing it to sotcaa, perhaps i should add my twopennyworth.

Go ahead. Mr Thief...

>my yoakum, i'm aware of your work and on the whole i find it thoroughly respectful and (by publishing sketches that YOU wrote with graham chapman instead of any of his massive backlog of material - the film he was working on when he died, any of his hundreds of sketches with cleese, idle, barry cryer etc) totally opportunistic.>>

Until recently, most of this "backlog" has not been available. It is now.

<i also reason that you're not about to publish the 'out of the trees' script, because (a) it wouldn't sell>

And how do you know that?

< and (b) the copyright subsists not only with the estate of graham chapman>

You have absolutely no idea who owns the copyright.

<(and i thought david sherlock was the literary executor)>

No, Mr Sherlock is the estate and he made me the Literary Executor. I would have informed you of it at the time, but I didn't realize it was any of your fucking business.

<but with douglas adams and bernard mckenna and the bbc.>

Again, you have absolutely no idea who owns the copyright. And besides, it's none of your business.

<so, at the risk of asking you to shit or get off the pan, why don't you grant permission for sotcaa post it?>

Graham wrote to support himself and his family. He did not write merely to give things away. Where do you come off with this idea that it should be available for free?

<since you can't legally go that far (i'd guess - i'm not a lawyer)>

No, you're the asshole who posted a script you didn't own. You basically acted as an agent, using this site as a publisher. That was illegal. Book publishers would get sued from now until Doomsday if they published material they didn't not have clearance for. The Internet is not a no-man's land where anything goes, basic rules of law apply. And when you break the law, you are a criminal.

<why not just retract your objection and let it slip quietly under the rug?>

Why on earth would I want to do that?

<after all, 'out of the trees' isn't remotely available anywhere else.>

Yeah, and you know why? Because the people who OWN it (that does not include you) haven't made it available.

>come on, yoakum. humour us.

>j xxx >>

Did you enjoy my humor?

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> on Thu Aug 31 15:01:31 BST 2000:

>Exactly. What is the point of sitting on it like this when he can't possibly have plans to publish it himself? It's not like the corpses are profiting from it, there's no advertising on this site. I can't understand his actions here, it looks like it must be preciousness or pedantry.>

Because of one simple fact - IT'S ILLEGAL. What is it about this fact that you people fail to understand? Just because this is the Internet it doesn't mean "anything goes."

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> on Thu Aug 31 15:02:58 BST 2000:

>i've just posted this elsewhere, but i might be wrong - i think he may well intend to publish it. he's published 'jake's journey' and 'the concrete inspector' on his own imprint, so maybe it will be happen. then, as i've said, we can all pay £20 for a badly designed book.

>trouble is, i want to just call him a sodding graverobber, but he almost certainly (legally) has a point. if he's the executor...

>j xxx >>

Harsh words coming from a criminal such as yourself.

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.

Mr Yoakum,

I was the first person to post on this thread, and also the first that you called a thief, when in fact my posting made it plainly obvious that I hadn't downloaded the script at all, and at no point have I said anything that could rank with the other statements that you insist refer to crinimal actions. If you're going to keep quoting the law at us, then I'm going to do so to you: defamation of character is also illegal. I have done nothing of a criminal nature whatsoever, so you are sailing on extremely choppy legal waters if you are calling me a criminal.

I advise you to watch your mouth.

>Mr Yoakum,

>I was the first person to post on this thread, and also the first that you called a thief,>

I think my statement was "So what defense have you got for theft?" That is not calling you a thief, that is asking you to explain why it is that you do not understand why this is not stealing. A point that you don't seem to get.

<when in fact my posting made it plainly obvious that I hadn't downloaded the script at all, and at no point have I said anything that could rank with the other statements that you insist refer to crinimal actions.>

Then my statements don't apply to you, do they?

< If you're going to keep quoting the law at us, then I'm going to do so to you: defamation of character is also illegal.>

I haven't defamed your character at all, I merely asked you "So what defense have you got for theft?" Do you have a defese against people stealing? If so, I'm all ears.

< I have done nothing of a criminal nature whatsoever,>

Seems you are one of the only ones.

< so you are sailing on extremely choppy legal waters if you are calling me a criminal.>

I'm getting very tired of repeating myself.

>I advise you to watch your mouth.>

And I advise you to be an advocate for the rights of artists, if, as you say, you have not downloaded this material. If you want to be outraged, then be outraged at people who think nothing of doing criminal acts. Your original post didn't say much about this area.

So I don't support the rights of artists then?

Channel 4's postroom may beg to differ...

Oh and I don't condone criminal acts or whatever it is you're accusing me of now. It's just that I believe that in the scheme of things, perhaps the legal system is better used for jailing rapists than for wasting its time on a few comedy fans who wanted to look at something out of no more than curiosity.

>So I don't support the rights of artists then?

>Channel 4's postroom may beg to differ... 

Then I guess you just don't support Graham's rights, then.

>Oh and I don't condone criminal acts or whatever it is you're accusing me of now.>

You sure are defensive for such an innocent guy.

<It's just that I believe that in the scheme of things, perhaps the legal system is better used for jailing rapists than for wasting its time on a few comedy fans who wanted to look at something out of no more than curiosity.>

It is no less a crime to steal someone's intellectual property than it is to steal someone's car. Theft is theft. And, considering the fact of the scripts value, it's possibly grand larceny.

Grand Larceny??? You clearly have a screw loose.

A bit disjointed to the general discussion, bit if it were not for bootleg tapes, the shit I'd be forced to endure in the car would be unbearable.

Piracy makes the world a nicer place.

>A bit disjointed to the general discussion, bit if it were not for bootleg tapes, the shit I'd be forced to endure in the car would be unbearable.

I was going to stay out of this discussion, but, now that I think about it, I was listening to Blue Jam this morning in the car. Since the entire 18 hours are unlikely to get a commercial release, am I really a pirate?

I will buy the Blue Jam CD when it comes out though, for three reasons:

1. the sound quality will be better

2. it is an official release, thereby "ensuring" good editing, mixing, reproduction, packaging, etc.

3. it will be a remix/compilation, and I would like to hear what Morris has done to his own material.

Bye then.

>Go ahead. Mr Thief...

*snort*

Christ, this guy's hilarious! Doesn't he realise how ridiculous he is? The irony is that his points are valid, but the hysteria...!!!

No, hang on, the irony is that Graham Chapman's material is in the hands of a man with no sense of humour. Tragic.

>Did you enjoy my humor?

*double snort*

Good point there - Chris Morris doesn't seem to mind when his material that other people are forcibly making unavailable ends up bootlegged.

>Grand Larceny??? You clearly have a screw loose.>

Grand larceny is determined by the value of an object. I'd say the actual value of a script like this would fall well within the guidelines that constitute grand larceny.

>Piracy makes the world a nicer place.>

try telling that to the artists being ripped off.

>>Go ahead. Mr Thief...

>*snort*

>Christ, this guy's hilarious! Doesn't he realise how ridiculous he is? The irony is that his points are valid, but the hysteria...!!!

>No, hang on, the irony is that Graham Chapman's material is in the hands of a man with no sense of humour. Tragic.

>>Did you enjoy my humor?

>*double snort*

I have enough of a sense of humor to realize that "snort" and "double snort" are pretty lame retorts.

>>Piracy makes the world a nicer place.>

>try telling that to the artists being ripped off.

I don't know anyone being ripped off, although I am aware of artists that support internet distribution.

>Good point there - Chris Morris doesn't seem to mind when his material that other people are forcibly making unavailable ends up bootlegged.>

I don't give a toss what Chris Morris minds or not. If someone doesn't mind being ripped off that's their deal. I mind very much. You people don't seem to like it that I mind. That's tough, I suppose.

>>>Piracy makes the world a nicer place.>

>>try telling that to the artists being ripped off.

>I don't know anyone being ripped off,>

You think artists get paid from bootlegs or pirated videos or from scripts ripped off the Internet?! What are you, an idiot?

< although I am aware of artists that support internet distribution.

This is not "Internet distribution" this is Internet piracy.

Thanks for that Jim. Nice to know that in the event of a discussion on copyright you will be on hand to state the fucking obvious over and over again. Some of us are considering this a little deeper - the implications of such restrictions in changing media spheres, not just the literal and immediate aftermath.

'Out Of The Trees' is a terrific script. I know this because I've got a copy. Yes, I'm breaking the law but in the event of an official publication it will be replete with production photos, backstage gossip and Graham's inside leg measurement. I'll still buy it, even if no other fucker will.

And that's the point. No fucker will. Popular culture has sidelined a healthy interest in junked/archive programming so that it offers little or no commercial benefit to resurrect it. All the Python film rushes exist, but each new anniversary brings no such treasures. Tantalising scraps will not do either - all or nothing is the answer and this is precisely what SOTCAA keeps telling us. They too want to see this stuff available and will buy their copies with real money and everything! Don't believe me? Take a *proper* look around the site and you'll find that statement again and again.

In the initial message you suggested that you enjoyed the site, then refuted this on the forum by saying SOTCAA was "theft on a grand scale". How much have you researched this? The downloads are a fair point, but copyright is at least acknowledged wherever possible and in some cases, granted. Anything else is in a review context and thus valid. Check your copyright law.

If it is stealing, then they are only taking from an open skip of unloved nick-nacks.

I find this to be mere sniping. You've not bothered to consider the other side of the equation (alright, belatedly), instead opting for a bawling tantrum. Reiterating the same point and pointing out that you're reiterating the same point is tiresome and unproductive. People are reacting naturally with anger to the news - you should have had the dignity not to behave like you are. You're not winning any friends and you could have doneif you'd argued your case sanely and calmly. Shame on you.

Now to other points:

>>It is a disgrace. That guy has been swanning around for years on the basis that he was close personal chums with Chapman, when this could only really add up to a few unremarkable interviews in his latter years.>

>You are speaking out of your ass, where your brain obviously resides.

I take other people's heads up my arse, not my own - that's gay slang baby.

The thing is the quotes *are* unremarkable, suggesting that the questions were hardly predatory and made at a time when GC could hardly have been in peak condition. Your book is a waste of time and money. Sorry, but a punter speaks. You seem enormously protective of your association with GC as some kind of personal totem over others, which concerns me. Of course he was a great man and I have a huge amount of time for him, but a certain amount of detachment in this issue would be healthy - perhaps the length between his writing the foreword and date of publication, eh?

>>He does know the family and the estate and is in it for the money.>

>Yeah, money for THEM. You got a problem with that?

No. The point is that money tends to block realistic possibilities of release. Estates tend to overcharge, your tone invited this concern.

>>I don't understand his problem.>

>You don't understand why I have a problem with people stealing someone's work? I see that the guys who run this site make no bones about saying how their words on this site are copyrighted.

See above.

>Kindly forwarded? Yeah. Well, was it his script to "kindly forward"? Is his name on it as author? That script does not belong to him and by putting it on this site SOTCAA is publishing pirated material. Where I live that is against the law.

Get a fucking perspective, Jim. Jason H passed the script on for the benefit of others. I enjoyed it. SOTCAA stuck it on the site and took it down when asked. Got a problem with THAT? Jason, me, TJ, SOTCAA, anyone, will buy the script when it's bound in a book with loads of other bits. If you're taking care of it, when can we expect that - 2020? Plenty of time to forget we ever read it. Cheers.

>>Python fandom went to America years ago. He is one of the worst culprits.>

>Yeah, I'm bad. I'm not the one stealing.

You are, however, undignified. You're painting your own image.

>>Too fucking precious.>

>Too fucking bad.

Still too fucking precious.

And I'll remind you of this - on this forum you speak on behalf of the Chapman estate (whether you like it or not) and are currently slurring his name by association. We're allowed to be angry and vent spleen, but you must behave with a little decorum. Then we will. You alone -rather than indifferent forum contributors - ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Yours in procul vision,

Bent

>Thanks for that Jim. Nice to know that in the event of a discussion on copyright you will be on hand to state the fucking obvious over and over again. Some of us are considering this a little deeper - the implications of such restrictions in changing media spheres, not just the literal and immediate aftermath.>>

You are confusing the protection of copyright with the freedom of information. Not the same thing.

>'Out Of The Trees' is a terrific script. I know this because I've got a copy. Yes, I'm breaking the law but in the event of an official publication it will be replete with production photos, backstage gossip and Graham's inside leg measurement. I'll still buy it, even if no other fucker will.

>And that's the point. No fucker will. >

I didn't realize you were a marketing guru with such incredible foresight as to be able to fortell the future.

<In the initial message you suggested that you enjoyed the site, then refuted this on the forum by saying SOTCAA was "theft on a grand scale".>

That's not refuting anything. I can enjoy the site and still see it for what it is.

<How much have you researched this? The downloads are a fair point, but copyright is at least acknowledged wherever possible and in some cases, granted.>

May be, but not in this case, which what I am concerned about.

< Anything else is in a review context and thus valid. Check your copyright law.>

I am not concerned with any other's work here except Chapman's.

>If it is stealing, then they are only taking from an open skip of unloved nick-nacks.>

Justification for robbery. "But officer, the car door was OPEN!"

>I find this to be mere sniping. You've not bothered to consider the other side of the equation (alright, belatedly), instead opting for a bawling tantrum.>

Look, matey, the first email I got was from some guy who called me a "cunt", the first message I read in the forum was Q: "Who is Jim Yoakum" A: "A Cunt." So don't come talking to me about bad behavior.

< Reiterating the same point and pointing out that you're reiterating the same point is tiresome and unproductive.>

Reiterating the same point "I want it because I want it so ner" from your side is not only tiresome, it's a very weak argument.

< People are reacting naturally with anger to the news - you should have had the dignity not to behave like you are.>

You people shouldn't start out by slagging my name and acting like spoilt children because your favorite toy was taken away either. You attack me, you get attacked back. That's the way that is.

< You're not winning any friends and you could have doneif you'd argued your case sanely and calmly. Shame on you.>

I don't give one damn about winning any friends here. You people reacted to my simple email to the sitemaster (which I felt was a very nice and calm request) by slagging me. I came here to defend myself, which I will do whether you like it or not.

>NIt is a disgrace. That guy has been swanning around for years on the basis that he was close personal chums with Chapman, when this could only really add up to a few unremarkable interviews in his latter years.>

>>You are speaking out of your ass, where your brain obviously resides.

>I take other people's heads up my arse, not my own - that's gay slang baby.

>The thing is the quotes *are* unremarkable, suggesting that the questions were hardly predatory and made at a time when GC could hardly have been in peak condition. Your book is a waste of time and money. Sorry, but a punter speaks.>

Then I suggest you return the book for your money. As the book stated in its foreword, it didn't start out as a book, but as a series of items gathered over the years.

<< You seem enormously protective of your association with GC as some kind of personal totem over others, which concerns me.>>

Enormously protective?! Look, part of my duties as the literary director of the estate is to protect Graham's work. From sites like this. From thieves and pirates. Sorry it concerns you, maybe you should try going out and getting a life.

<< Of course he was a great man and I have a huge amount of time for him, but a certain amount of detachment in this issue would be healthy - perhaps the length between his writing the foreword and date of publication, eh?

What are you, my mother?

>>>He does know the family and the estate and is in it for the money.>

>>Yeah, money for THEM. You got a problem with that?

>No. The point is that money tends to block realistic possibilities of release. Estates tend to overcharge, your tone invited this concern.>

What the estate does or does not do with material is none of your concern. So don't worry about it.

>>>I don't understand his problem.>

>>You don't understand why I have a problem with people stealing someone's work? I see that the guys who run this site make no bones about saying how their words on this site are copyrighted.

>See above.

>>Kindly forwarded? Yeah. Well, was it his script to "kindly forward"? Is his name on it as author? That script does not belong to him and by putting it on this site SOTCAA is publishing pirated material. Where I live that is against the law.

>Get a fucking perspective, Jim. Jason H passed the script on for the benefit of others.>

Still an illegal act. Them's the facts, bucky.

< I enjoyed it. SOTCAA stuck it on the site and took it down when asked.>

yes they did, and bravo for them.

< Got a problem with THAT? Jason, me, TJ, SOTCAA, anyone, will buy the script when it's bound in a book with loads of other bits. If you're taking care of it, when can we expect that - 2020?>

I'll let you know.

< Plenty of time to forget we ever read it. Cheers.

>>>Python fandom went to America years ago. He is one of the worst culprits.>

>>Yeah, I'm bad. I'm not the one stealing.

>You are, however, undignified. You're painting your own image.>

Sorry if my defending myself from a lot of vicious attackers upsets you.

>><Too fucking precious.>

>>Too fucking bad.

>Still too fucking precious>

Still too fucking bad.

>And I'll remind you of this - on this forum you speak on behalf of the Chapman estate (whether you like it or not) and are currently slurring his name by association.>

oh yeah? You should hear what THEY have to say about it!!!

< We're allowed to be angry and vent spleen, but you must behave with a little decorum.>

Oh, I must behave like some virtual punching bag for your venom? Screw you.

< Then we will. You alone -rather than indifferent forum contributors - ought to be ashamed of yourself.>

I'm only ashamed that I waited till now to call you a &#%#!.

>Yours in procul vision,

>Bent

Up yours in procul vision

Oh, he said "get a life". I was waiting for that.

A shame that someone who professes to protect the literary rights of the argument sketch should be so incapable of holding an argument themselves.

And by the way, you attacked one person who hadn't attacked you but merely asked you for an explanation, and ended the posting by effectively saying 'now don't say anything back to me'. So where does your "you attack me and I'll attack you back" argument fit into this?

THEM'S THE FACTS, BUCKY!!???!!!

Jim, you are a deeply ridiculous man.

>That's not refuting anything. I can enjoy >the site and still see it for what it is.

Then at last you have confessed to enjoying something that clearly condones the 'theft' that you keep referring to, and thus have answered the question that you have been dodging all along. Thank you.

Oh and if you expect 'comedy fans' to buy your books, then I'm afraid what the estate does with material IS a matter of our concern.

You are now outargued on two counts, and nobody here will take you seriously any more on the basis of this.

You've got what you wanted, and the script has been taken offline, so shut up and leave us alone. Ceast and desist, and go and bother some other 'thieves'.

I wondered whether there was much point responding in the first place, given that everyone else on the forum is doing an excellent job of pointing out what a self-contradicting, argument sidestepping fool you are.

I'd love to hear the estate's opinions, if there was any true relevance in doing so on this forum. But the script has been taken down and that's the end of it.

Don't you realise that venom feeds off venom? Shit, I'm doing it now! Damn me.

Stop posting responses to every single point under the sun and you'll seem a little less precious. THEN it will cease and desist and people will take you seriously.

And yes I do understand marketing, copyright and all the other things you suggest that I don't. Also, past present and the future are all the same thing. I've got a decent enough perspective at the moment thanks.

I am also your mother.

Incredible - Mr Yoakum may well be the most "powerful" comedy figure yet to have graced our forum. And yet he is the least amusing, and frankly, most tedious contributor we've ever had to endure. He makes Dan L read like Noel Coward.

I know you'll have to answer this, Mr. Yoakum. Your ego is just too large and misguided for you not to.

While I remember, Mr Yoakum (I'm going to pretend he's not here anymore, just to annoy him) has also bandied around the word "robbery" in relation to Out Of The Trees. Well, I'm not a legal expert, but my dictionary tells me that "robbery" means "theft with force, or violence". So not guilty, I feel? Any legal experts (not Mr Yoakum, he's bats and can't even write properly - "them's the rules, bucky" - yeah, he wrote that...unbelievable), please let me know.

Mr Yoakum still won't be able to stop himself answering this, though. Look at his temples. Purple, they are. I hope he was this entertaining when Graham (RIP) was around.

I know it's completely irrelevant to the discussion above, but there's a clip of "Out of the Trees" on the BBC Video "Making of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", in which we see the first instance of Douglas Adams blowing up the Earth, aided and abetted by Chapman and Simon Jones I think... Still, that video has probably now been deleted...

By the way, I have been paying attention... I never cease to be amazed by the paucity of humor in some people...

jim, old boy, don't lose your rag. and don't call me a thief, because i BOUGHT the script legitimately from the BBC. and because i have the same lawyer as john cleese.

exactly who does own the copyright, and by what shares? the BBC think they do, but chapman, mckenna and adams must have some share. so how big a share of the script's copyright are you responsible for? and will you publish it? (and these are not meant to be provocative questions.)

j xxx

I hope Jason is adressing that letter to the REAL Jim Yoakum.

Actually possible proof that the other was a fake. I'm guessing the real Jim live s in a American right (talking about plays in American etc.) If so, then some of the postings by the 'other guy' just don't really fit into the right timeframe for an MAerican citizen.

No

Theres not much to add. It is a disgrace.

Yes, but it's even more of a disgrace that people don't seem to be that bothered about it.

Precisely.

Well the e-mail address is on the missive.

Lets e-mail him and tell him what we think, then.

Having a go at people on here for not being bothered ain't gunna solve much, baby.

Yes it it, because we can persuade people not to actually buy the script when he publishes 'revised extracts' from it in a £20 book.

and we don't speak for the corpses, so we shouldn't be emailing him on their behalf without consulting them first

i think we should e-mail him direct. 'out of the trees' is just never, never going to be published in its complete form. there's no programme to tie it to any longer and not enough inherent python interest in the project to keep all these tiny little publishers in money.

i'd like mr yoakum to at least engage in some dialogue about this. and can we get douglas adams' and bernard mckenna's opinions? they, after all, wrote it too.

j xxx

actually, i might be wrong. since mr yoakum has managed to publish 'jake's journey' and the 'the concrete inspector' or whatever, he might well publish it. wicked. then we can all pay £20 for an appallingly designed book.

j xxx

have a word with him at [email protected].

>Yes it it, because we can persuade people not to actually buy the script when he published 'revised extracts' from it in a £20 book.

Fair point, but thats not what was being said.

The comments made were along the lines of "Shouldn't you all be adding to the Out of The Trees thread" and not "don't buy the script when it comes out"... Posting to the thread and saying how terrible it was, simply got "but no one seems bothered"-type responses, so my only other thought on the subject would be to e-mail yoakum.

The Blues Project thinks its not our place to do this, and perhaps this also is a fair point.. so what next?

I'm not trying to be awkward, so I won't buy it if it comes out over-priced. Chances are if it hadn't been mentioned here, I probably would have never thought of looking for it, and unfortunately I never managed to read it before it was withdrawn.

Perhaps Jason could post it on the forum in installments!

Who the hell is he?

A cunt

he's [email protected].

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 172.129.112.180 --> 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.

Who can argue with that?

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.

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

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.

>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.

>Go cry somewhere else.

No. You.

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

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

Fantastic!

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> 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?

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> 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?

><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".

"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.

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> 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.

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> 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?

>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.

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

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> 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?

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

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> 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.

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

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> 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>

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...

>>>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'.

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> 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.

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> 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.

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.

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.

>>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.

>>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.

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> 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.

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> 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.

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.

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> 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.

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

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> 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.

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> 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?

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> 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?

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.

>>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!

>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?

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?

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?

>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.

>"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.

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.

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.

>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'.

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.

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

>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.

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

Out Of The Trees - Final word.
Posted Thu Aug 31 17:37:24 BST 2000 by Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 -->

Okay, you've all slagged me pretty good. I don't care, I can take it. But look, people, I don't enjoy having to make all you "deprived" of this script. I was a fan once too, I understand. And I'm not a cunt. I'm really a pretty decent guy. But the posting and downloading of it was WRONG. It was ILLEGAL. And I had to do something about it. It is taking away Graham's rights and the potential future income for the estate SHOULD this script ever be published - you wouldn't buy it then because you all ready got it for free!

Graham wrote to make money. I help get his work out there so the estate can make money from it. You all seem to think this is wrong. Why are you "fans' all so concerned with "your right to read this" and give absolutely no regard to the rights of the people who created it, and to the rights of David Sherlock? It belongs to THEM. Not to YOU. It's plain WRONG to do take their property. And SELFISH. I have my loyality to Graham and David Sherlock, not to you. I'm terribly sorry that you people have a hard time with that. And I'm sorry you are all so uncaring and selfish as to put your own selfish wants above what is right. Instead of just crapping on me, maybe you should also take a look at your own selves and determine if you are honorable people or not. If you are really fans, or poachers. Real fans support their artists, they don't steal from them.

> It is taking away Graham's rights and the potential future income for the estate SHOULD this script ever be published - you wouldn't buy it then because you all ready got it for free!

For someone who claims once to have been a fan, you're displaying a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of how we think. There's precious few of us on this forum who wouldn't buy a (decently laid-out, etc) edition of the script at a later date, even if we had downloaded it for nothing right now. Anyone who wouldn't do so obviously wasn't all that interested in the first place.

This whole unpleasant business is not comparable to the Napster argument, as the intellectual property in question is not currently available in any other form. In fact anything that the Corpses have uploaded onto this site is here purely because it is unavailable anywhere else - and the moment it became legitimately available for us all to buy freely, they would take it down. I repeat that it is a crying shame that you have taken this script out of circulation on the offchance that the Estate may deign to publish it in the future.

(Incidentally, all the criticisms of the layouts of your previous and otherwise laudable Chapman publications are completely justified. *Please* employ a new designer as and when OOTT is published...)

Listen Jim. I am a Python fan. If an unpublished script or unseen video is available I will attempt to get it, legally or otherwise. I bought 'your' book OJRIL and the Six Pack Of Lies CD, but if stuff like Out Of The Trees or the Python album in the hidden archive aren't available commercially I have no other way of reading or seeing them. I have downloaded several Python outakes, rarely seen adverts and scripts (including OOTT) from the web for my own personal enjoyment and will continue to do so until they are released commercially, which many never will be. In the long run, it is the fans who lose out as you should well know. I probably will never see the rushes from the original shows but if they are put on the web I will be the first to download them, whether the BBC or Python Productions make any money from them. And so would you, admit it. But you're luckier than us. You were a friend of Graham, wrote with him, and have what is probably the largest collection of unseen/unread Python stuff in the world. And you can read them every night until they disintergrate. WE, on the other hand, can't and are treasure any 'new' Python or solo material that gets unearthed. If you were a true python fan YOU would post all this stuff on the web for fans like yourdelf to read. Or have you forgotten what it's like to be an average fan.

Sorry about that but it had to be said. I'm off now to watch The Meaning Of Life and to wish I had a copy of the 'Adventures of Martin Luther' sketch.

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> on Thu Aug 31 19:52:42 BST 2000:

>Listen Jim. I am a Python fan. If an unpublished script or unseen video is available I will attempt to get it, legally or otherwise.>

If you wish to to live outside the law, that's your business. Just as I will continue to stop any illegal postings of Graham's work.

<I bought 'your' book OJRIL and the Six Pack Of Lies CD, but if stuff like Out Of The Trees or the Python album in the hidden archive aren't available commercially I have no other way of reading or seeing them.>

That's not a very good reason to justify being a participant in an illegal operation.

<I have downloaded several Python outakes, rarely seen adverts and scripts (including OOTT) from the web for my own personal enjoyment and will continue to do so until they are released commercially, which many never will be.>

In your mind this is justification. "I want so I must have." Have you ever considered that maybe the people whose work you are taking might not WANT it available? Or does that not matter to you?

<In the long run, it is the fans who lose out as you should well know.>

No, it's the artists who lose when unauthorized work is taken.

<I probably will never see the rushes from the original shows but if they are put on the web I will be the first to download them, whether the BBC or Python Productions make any money from them.>

Nice to know you don't give damn.

<And so would you, admit it. But you're luckier than us. You were a friend of Graham, wrote with him, and have what is probably the largest collection of unseen/unread Python stuff in the world. And you can read them every night until they disintergrate. WE, on the other hand, can't and are treasure any 'new' Python or solo material that gets unearthed.>

This has nothing to do with the fact that it is still wrong.

< If you were a true python fan YOU would post all this stuff on the web for fans like yourdelf to read.>

Yeah, dream on.

< Or have you forgotten what it's like to be an average fan.>

No. I never stole material.

Considering Jim's such a preachy, law-abiding citizen, he appears to have broken a few rules himself - such as the fact that you're not supposed to swear on this site at all.

We don't care, as we're obviously 'criminals'.

So what's your excuse?

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 165.236.29.162 --> on Thu Aug 31 21:01:09 BST 2000:

>Considering Jim's such a preachy, law-abiding citizen, he appears to have broken a few rules himself - such as the fact that you're not supposed to swear on this site at all.

>We don't care, as we're obviously 'criminals'.

>So what's your excuse?

i have no fucking excuse.

Right then!

(Get very angry,clenches fists, grits teeth and goes red. But doesn't do anything. Pause)

You weren't supposed to say that.

for the very last time - NOBODY IS LOSING OUT, AS THERE IS NO MONEY INVOLVED

>Have you ever considered that maybe the people whose work you are taking might not WANT it available? Or does that not matter to you?

No. Of course not. If we had to take into account John Cleese's critical feelings regarding his past work we'd only be allowed to see three of his films, a couple of Fawlty Towers and about three sketches from Python. An artist isn't always best placed to judge their own work. And anyway, did Graham really not want anyone to read or see OOTT? In that case, why on earth did he allow it to be broadcast on national television on the first place?

Hm, "the final word" - that's what it's really all about, isn't it Jim? I mean, you've made your point many, many, many times and people will either agree or disagree...now it's just about stamping your foot and swearing more than everyone else. Take a read of some of the old threads featuring a chap called Dan L - the similarities are striking.

boki was right, it could've been so different, if only you weren't such an unpleasant, belligerent buffoon.

Does anyone else have an image of Jim as a red-faced, sweating, flailing two-year-old having a tantrum?

And anyway, isn't all this legal wrangling exactly the kind of petty, po-faced stuffiness that Graham was always railing against?

I'm reposting these points as they have still not been answered.

I'm sorry but comparing downloading this script to stealing a television, whilst technically accurate, is highly disingenuous.

You said 'theft is theft' but as a lawyer you know this is not true. There are many different kinds of theft and many different circumstances surrounding it.

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.

You have not denied ever copying CDs or LPs. This is a crime by your definition and no different from people downloading the script.

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.

I copy tapes for idealistic reasons, to destroy the record industry.

Still a long way to go - good job you can buy blank ones in packs of 5...

I shall be tatooing the complete script of OUT OF THE TREES onto my niece's back. Just as a precaution, you understand.

And I'm going to go around quoting it in everyday conversation.

How long is it?

We could make some flyers to give out in city centre locations.

JY - You'll never get the final word on this forum. Live with it.

And now for something completely different....

Hey! You like Python? You do? Well, you'll love all these great new Python books coming out just in time for Christmas! The ideal gift for someone who saw Life Of Brian once and quite liked it, or perfect fare for those Python fanatics with more money than sense!!! (A close run thing, admittedly.)

PALIN'S BINS by Halesowen Bint ($24.95)

Featuring the complete "Notes To The Milkman" (1985-87), plus some doodles he made while on a transatlantic phone call, hazily reprinted for the benefit of our English readers in Wales, England.

(TEH PLEETMOC TOMPY THONYP PRISSTC NI NASMARGA)

THE COMPLETE MONTY PYTHON SCRIPTS IN ANAGRAMS

by Jimmy "Snapper Organs" Stein ($43.50)

Following on from his 1998 book "Monty Python - Just The Vowels", this is a marvellous tribute to the Eric Idle sketch where all the words were anagrammatic. But no spoonerisms - after all, that would be addressing the point of the sketch in the first place! Features an introduction by someone who used to work with Barry Took.

RENTADICK by [author information removed for reasons of kindness] ($17.95)

Complete and unabridged script to the worst film ever made, apart from Notting Hill, with a fawning introduction by Ned Sherrin.

THE TOP 10,000 PYTHON FANATICS by Number Twelve ($68.75)

Listed in order of humourlessness and odour.

PYTHON CONVERSATIONS 1995-1995 by Ilchester Foreskin ($39.95)

Exclusive interviews with three writers who once saw "Doctor In The House" on Granada Plus, plus surprising views from Neil Innes's insurance man, and someone who saw John Cleese once. In Bristol. That's Bristol, Scotland, near Wales, near England, for the benefit of our readers who clearly can't use an atlas or a mind of their own.

TERRY GILLIAM GRINS by Rodney Sredbarrel ($32.99)

Unauthorised collection of photos and cartoons showing the acclaimed director grinning. Contains over 12 illustrations.

CENSORED! (OR I NEVER WANTED TO WRITE BOOKENDS FOR DOZENS OF MONTY PYTHON BOOKS! I WANTED TO BE...A PROPER WRITER!!!) by Dinsdale Abbatoir Jnr. ($59.99)

Complete guide (apart from the ones we couldn't be bothered to trace) to cuts in Montie Python TV shows on IBC2 in England. Consists of 596,000 asterisks. And nothing else. The most insulting Python fanbook yet! Essential reading.

I PANICKED (THE COMPLETE PEPPERBOK) by Edgware Smegma Johnston, with additional material by Monty Piethon ($32.95)

All the Pepperpot rants, with a free sachet of helium for seconds of high-pitched fun in performing them.

THE COMPLETE CREOSOTE by Juliet "Ethel Thefrog" Swins ($48.35)

Complete guide to the post-wafer thin mint vomit. Fully illustrated.

AMANDA'S BY THE SEA - THE COLLECTED SCRIPTS Edited by Herman Boring ($23.99)

All three episodes of magic from the Fawlty spin-off where the producers wrote Basil out. Featuring an introduction by John Cleese slating the book you are about to read, which we thought was a joke, but which turns out to be deadly serious after all.

FAWLTY TOWERS: DON'T MENTION THE THIRD SERIES?!!! ($43.99)

Imaginary and worthless scripts for the never-was third season of BTV2 England's "Faulty Towers", written by Endsleigh J. Twat and Filkin A. Twat III.

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY THE SAME by Herman Boring ($329.85)

Contains The Parrot Sketch in Braille, Spam in Cantonese, I Like Chinese in Manx, an illegible version of The Lumberjack Song scribbled by Ian McNaughton's dentist, and a torn-up version of Out Of The Trees, so that no-one can ever read it again! Hilarious, and above all, decidedly profitable!!!

You forgot - "Out Of The Trees And Into My Bank Account"

Are the Monty Python cash-in books really getting this bad? I've only seen the movie script books, which seemed very good.

>Are the Monty Python cash-in books really getting this bad? I've only seen the movie script books, which seemed very good.

There seem to be a lot of American books flooding the market which try and be funny rather than actually give you the information you want. The only Python history I would really rate apart from Wilmut's Fringe To Flying Circus (out of print, I believe, since God knows when) would be David Morgan's Monty Python Speaks!

I've got "Life of Python" by George Perry and it's pretty good. Nice history and fairly detailed stuff about each member.

The Corpsemen were right to post the OOTT script but Jim Yoakum simply wants to be seen to be doing the right thing via a vis the Chapman estate.

And next week I'll be encapsulating another protracted multi-thread argument into a single pithy sentence. Join me.

with more spelling errors too

What's wrong with this picture?

> Jim Youkum's The (Non-Inflatable) Monty Python TV Companion (Dowling Press 1999) requotes a few old biogs in a short section given over to Adams/Python crossovers. He mentions that the never-filmed second show included an Adams sketch about a haddock being accepted at Eton and that Chapman's adopted son John Tomiczek claimed that Adams nicked it from rejected Python material.

Chapman and Adams were writing Out of the Trees together, right? Chapman was a member of Python, right? What does 'Adams nicked it from rejected Python material' mean? Doesn't make sense if you think about it. Has anyone asked Yoakum what it means? Has anyone asked Adams about it?

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 172.131.239.100 --> on Fri Sep 1 22:37:10 BST 2000:

>What's wrong with this picture?

>Jim Youkum's The (Non-Inflatable) Monty Python TV Companion (Dowling Press 1999) requotes a few old biogs in a short section given over to Adams/Python crossovers. He mentions that the never-filmed second show included an Adams sketch about a haddock being accepted at Eton and that Chapman's adopted son John Tomiczek claimed that Adams nicked it from rejected Python material.

>Chapman and Adams were writing Out of the Trees together, right? Chapman was a member of Python, right? What does 'Adams nicked it from rejected Python material' mean? Doesn't make sense if you think about it. Has anyone asked Yoakum what it means? Has anyone asked Adams about it?

It means what it says. You got a problem with that? Ask the late J Tomiczek what he meant. Hey, lemme ask you, what books have you ever written?

It's just that what it says doesn't make sense, is all.

( Message deleted by sysop! - Rob )

>(HE TOSSES IN FIREBRAND - SHACK IS E

Shit! Jim's boys got to him before he could finish typing! Somebody help!

It's not worth risking the site (or mudhole) over this - probably best to leave it. Cheers.

Yes they is, yes sireeeeeeeeeeeee!

Hey, this is virtual-slander pal. I just hope you got a good lawyer. Do you?

Goodbye Assholes!
Posted Fri Sep 1 22:30:59 BST 2000 by Jim Yoakum <!-- 172.131.239.100 -->

THE FOLLOWING IS DIRECTED ONLY AT THOSE WHO RIPPED OFF THE CHAPMAN MATERIAL, WHO BLASTED ME AND WILL DO SO WHEN THIS IS OVER..

HI!

Well, I'd love to hang around more and chat with you stealing pricks some more, but the facts are: you are too fucking stupid and inconsequential to the scheme of things to matter much. I have explained the facts about copyright to you, but you are either too dim, or else too busy acting like babies to listen. So, bottom line, fuck you.

Regarding your views on me: Who cares? Fuck you.

Regarding your views on buying or not buying future Chapman things: You are only about a half dozen sad 'net bastards without money or girlfriends anyway; basically cheap cunts who don't support artists anyway, so fuck you.

Regarding my spelling : Fucke Youu

Regarding my bad language/bad image: I gave this a lot of thought and decided - fuck you - was the best response.

Regarding YOU: Listen wankers, life is full of possibilities, full of mystery and romance - why don't you pimply-faced gee-gaws shut off the computer and go interact with your lives before you get too old? You are sad, sad, sad.....

For those who think they are so close to Graham's thinking/spirit/etc: You are the worst of the lot. You are pathetic and beyond help. You have no idea who Graham was, or what he stood for. He died before most of you sheepdicks were born! So stop kidding yourselves. You are living a lie. You are fighting a battle with no one. If Gray were alive today he'd tell you all to go fucking get a job! Honestly, you self-satisfied cunts are the worst of the lot.... A special place in hell is reserved for you.

To those who do not post or download illegal things: God love you. You are truly beautiful people. True fans. Keep that in mind when your "friends" brag about some bootleg they scored. They are going to hell. You are not. Pray for them. They are lost. They are pricks and they will steal from you, next.

Think that's it, SOTCAA jerks. Sorry I was too fucking real for you and not some fucking mellow mushroom, but hey - that's me. And remember this, no matter how cool you think you are over me, no matter how cleverer you think you are than me, remember - I'm the one who wrote with Graham, and not you. Okay?

So, maybe you aren't so smart after all... Maybe you should just buy the fucking mobile home now, okay? Jackasses.....

PS So sorry I didn't live up to your image! Boycott my books! Spread the word: "Yoakum doesn't give a shit what you think!!" Shout it out boys... And who knows, maybe some of you sad fucks might end up scoring with some chick.... (Of course you probably think that's "icky...")

BYE!!!!! Oh - and FUCK OFF!!

So you don't care at all what anyone else thinks, just to get that clear?

Posted By Jim Yoakum <!-- 172.131.239.100 --> on Fri Sep 1 22:39:39 BST 2000:

>So you don't care at all what anyone else thinks, just to get that clear? >>

You got a well-thought-out argument, yeah - shoot. You one of these typical smartasses around here with bile flowing, no. Piss off. So what do you got?

He'll be back.

>THE FOLLOWING IS DIRECTED ONLY AT THOSE WHO RIPPED OFF THE CHAPMAN MATERIAL, WHO BLASTED ME AND WILL DO SO WHEN THIS IS OVER..

I don't care - we all have to read this offensive claptrap.

>HI!

>Well, I'd love to hang around more and chat with you stealing pricks some more, but the facts are: you are too fucking stupid and inconsequential to the scheme of things to matter much. I have explained the facts about copyright to you, but you are either too dim, or else too busy acting like babies to listen. So, bottom line, fuck you.

If we are inconsequential why keep coming back? This is the second time you've promised to go away. Why are you still here?

>Regarding your views on me: Who cares? Fuck you.

See above.

>Regarding your views on buying or not buying future Chapman things: You are only about a half dozen sad 'net bastards without money or girlfriends anyway; basically cheap cunts who don't support artists anyway, so fuck you.

So why comment on us? See above again.

>Regarding my spelling : Fucke Youu

Hmm. Clever - do you see what he's done there?

>Regarding my bad language/bad image: I gave this a lot of thought and decided - fuck you - was the best response.

How much thought exactly?

>Regarding YOU: Listen wankers, life is full of possibilities, full of mystery and romance - why don't you pimply-faced gee-gaws shut off the computer and go interact with your lives before you get too old? You are sad, sad, sad.....

Fine words from someone who's been all over this forum like a cheap suit for the last four days.

>For those who think they are so close to Graham's thinking/spirit/etc: You are the worst of the lot. You are pathetic and beyond help. You have no idea who Graham was, or what he stood for. He died before most of you sheepdicks were born! So stop kidding yourselves. You are living a lie. You are fighting a battle with no one. If Gray were alive today he'd tell you all to go fucking get a job! Honestly, you self-satisfied cunts are the worst of the lot.... A special place in hell is reserved for you.

Chapman only died about ten years ago. There are no primary school kids here. or are they? Would he have exhorted us to get a job? I hope not.

>To those who do not post or download illegal things: God love you. You are truly beautiful people. True fans. Keep that in mind when your "friends" brag about some bootleg they scored. They are going to hell. You are not. Pray for them. They are lost. They are pricks and they will steal from you, next.

Yes yes. Obvioulsy people who download net documents, and copy tapes are going to steal everything all the time. Look out - there's a thief right next to you! JY - you never did satifactorily deal with the issue of whether you had ever made pirate copies of LPs CDs etc. If you did you are also a thief. It is illegal.

>Think that's it, SOTCAA jerks. Sorry I was too fucking real for you and not some fucking mellow mushroom, but hey - that's me. And remember this, no matter how cool you think you are over me, no matter how cleverer you think you are than me, remember - I'm the one who wrote with Graham, and not you. Okay?

Oooh. I knew Graham Chapman and you didn't ner ner ner. How 'real' you are. How impressive.

>So, maybe you aren't so smart after all... Maybe you should just buy the fucking mobile home now, okay? Jackasses.....

>PS So sorry I didn't live up to your image! Boycott my books! Spread the word: "Yoakum doesn't give a shit what you think!!" Shout it out boys... And who knows, maybe some of you sad fucks might end up scoring with some chick.... (Of course you probably think that's "icky...")

Isn't it interesting that people who can't come up with a decent argument on this forum always resort to the 'you can't get a girlfriend - sorry 'chick' - argument? Look Yoakam, several people on this forum are gay. I am married. What difference does it make. Either you have an argument or not. This is not an argument.

>BYE!!!!! Oh - and FUCK OFF!!

Inherent contradiction here. How can we fuck off if you are going?

Please don't come back.

>And remember this, no matter how cool you think you are over me, no matter how cleverer you think you are than me, remember - I'm the one who wrote with Graham, and not you. Okay?

Yes, and your own stuff was shit. Since you bring it up.

I wonder if he's come back yet to see if we're talking about him?

*snigger*

How old is this guy? Are we sure he's real? I ask, because he doesn't seem to write like a responsible adult. He sounds like some twat you'd find propping up the bar at your local, expounding his views to everyone in earshot, without making any sense whatsoever.

I think he must be an imposter.

Notice how quiet Dan L has been recently?

Just a thought...

If there is a connection I'd say Dan has finally had the last laugh...

>>So you don't care at all what anyone else thinks, just to get that clear? >>

>You got a well-thought-out argument, yeah - shoot. You one of these typical smartasses around here with bile flowing, no. Piss off. So what do you got?

A command of the English language. Why, what do you have?

This Yokam feller. Who is he exactly? What did he write with Chapman? How much of his stuff does he own the rights to? Is he a lawyer, a writer or what?

He is the holy trinity, that's who - dancing around, waggling his gloating cock in your face!

I think jim Yoakum has given us all a lot of pleasure. He keeps coming back and answering people - then has a go at us for being sexless geeks who use the Internet. He is obviously a devotee of Nietszche. Not content with having written comedy, he has BECOME comedy.

Dear People of this Newsboard
Posted Sat Sep 2 03:19:26 BST 2000 by The REAL Jim Yoakum <!-- 172.165.80.138 -->

I've just returned to town from a book signing and I received an email from a friend who suggested I look at the chat board on this site. I have, and I'm shocked. It seems that someone has had a lot of fun signing my name to a slew of vile and evil messages. I don't know why, or who. I can only fathom it is someone who was upset at the email I sent to the webmaster of the site requesting the removal of the Out of The Trees script - which I see they have done - so, thank you for that. I want you to know that I've not left any messages on this board. I've sent only the initial email to the webmaster and an email to someone who queried me. I'm terribly sorry if the person using my name has hurt any of your feelings or caused any damage.

If it's any comfort to you, after reading some of your emails (ignoring some of the more nasty parts!) and seeing how much you loved the OOTT script, I want you to know I will CONSIDER allowing the site to repost it. Again, I said CONSIDER.... Again, my apologies to all who were victim of this person (or persons).

- The REAL Jim Yoakum

Well, I reckon he's fibbing. It was him all along, it's just that our powers of argument and persuasion have worn him down.

God Save The Queen.

Well, THAT'S a turn-up for the books.

So, you don't really think I'm a "thieving cunt" then do you, Jim? Cos as I said before, I've got all your books.*crawl, crawl*

Mmm, and thus a clumsy conspiracy theory was born.

I still very much doubt it was Dan L or anyone else. Can you source those messages, mr Sedge?

I've had a thought. If this guy is the REAL Jim Yoakum, and he seems quite polite and well-mannered, and the last bloke was the EVIL Jim Yoakum, who was rude, swore and probably had a goatie beard, explain Mogwai's rude e-mail:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

This doesn't fit in. Anyone can fake a forum name but not an e-mail address. Maybe this new Jim Yoakum is just as bad as the old one. Or maybe not.

I'll go now.

This had crossed my mind.

alt.conspiracy.out.of.the.trees?

is that a REAL website?

No.

If it were anything, it would be a newsgroup.

like alt.alt.alt.alt.alt (which does apparently exist) or alt.appreciation.paul-daniels (which I suppose doesn't).

oh yeah!

D'oh!

but I appreciated Paul Daniels, he used to be on Saturday nights. i had to wash my hair then, i never wanted to 'cos i'd miss the end of the show

he was great on wizbit too.

Ostalazuzalum!

Graham Chapman Play
Posted Mon Sep 4 02:42:05 BST 2000 by The REAL Jim Yoakum <!-- 172.165.191.196 -->

Hello SOTCAA people, Since you've shown a keen interest in OOTT, I though you might like to know that on September 22, 2000, OH HAPPY DAY, a play written by Graham and Barry Cryer in the mid-70s, makes its intenational debut at Dad's Garage Theatre (www.dadsgarage.com) in Atlanta. If any of you live in the States, or near the Atlanta area, you should really make an attempt to come see this history-making event. Cleese has promised to come down for a show and it's all ready gotten lots of press in the London Times, Wall Street Journal and American Theatre Magazine (among others) and it runs thru October 28th, or later depending on how well it goes. Thanks

The REAL Jim Yoakum

Any chance of it coming to London?