I am amazed. I haven't been a part of this discussion, I don't intend to make that mat. But here is a publisher who has apparently (or wasn't that correct??) informed Arachne members that the Channer mat is not in line for republication anytime in the near future. So what exactly is being lost if Arachne members publicly explore the means by which they can obtain the pricking?
I feel gratitude to any person or entity that has helped to revive the lace tradition. On the other hand, I am not assured that if that person or entity had not acted, no one else would have. And I strongly dislike being reminded that I owe an eternal debt of gratitude -- please let me dispense that of my own free will. I have a copy, that I purchased of the Buck/Channer book. It has a photograph of the Channer mat on the front. Maybe once it was sold with a pricking, I don't know, but I have as much of a quibble with publishers who sell pattern packs and books with an illustration that one might reasonably assume to be included, as a publisher might have with me if I borrow a copy of a pricking from a friend. Lots of different viewpoints out there. Anyway, here is three cheers for free speech on Arachne, whether approved by publishers, distributors, vendors, or who. Carolyn Hastings Stow, MA > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Ruth Bean > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 6:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [lace] Reprinting Miss Channer's Mat > > > The original of this posting was sent to the list over a week > ago, but accidentally sent from an unregistered address and > not posted. > > We (and others) have been astonished at recent exchanges on > Arachne. A few members have been happy to discuss us and our > business - even how to appropriate our copyright material, > which in law is our intellectual property - often on the > basis of wrong information, including an imaginary 1,000 > print run! We wonder how other members would react at seeing > their own activities discussed or their property being > 'cased' on line in open forum. > Talk of 'greedy and uncaring' publishers 'burying' Miss > Channer's 'legacy', and other imaginative speculation, > suggests ignorance of the realities of publishing, especially > for a small specialist house such as ours, and of copyright > law. Moreover, it ignores the recognised contribution Ruth > Bean Publishers has made both to the revival of the craft > since 1971, and to the standards of text and production for > lace books. > It was after all OUR initiative to prepare the Mat kit in > the first place, and to publish it with Anne Buck's 'In the > Cause of English Lace' (which itself includes a fine book by > Miss Channer). Without this, it is most unlikely that either > would have been available at all, and the Mat was available > for a full 10 years. > As far as reprinting is concerned, we consider our > publications for reprinting whenever we can identify an > economic demand, and we seek the views of our supplier > customers, as is customary. This applies equally to the Mat > and we'll advise the list and those who have written to us of > any developments, but we do prefer to make our own decisions. > It is our business and our funds we risk, but we are in the > business of disseminating, not suppressing knowledge. > > Ruth > > Ruth Bean Publishers > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - > To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing > the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
