A number of folk have been kind enough to respond to my suggestions. (I can't help it: personally I hate people who come out of the blue and start giving advice to people who have done so much- all I can say is that, by preference, I am a shy person.) (Checking his credibility at the door.) A number seem ready to fight; others seem to think we're already doomed. Personally, I think we CAN fight, but we gotta get organized- which goes against a lot of PG's ethos. Too bad. To stand alone on the field of sanctity is to doom ourselves as the latest Children's Crusade. The trouble is that, with so many different, intelligent, voices, we can get bogged down in administrative trivia and hissy fights. I really think we need to eyeball and discuss plans. In someplace like TO we can get a concensus among a great number of people: as long as we understand that this is for convenience only, and no more important than a lone supporter in Kitimat, I can't see any harm in it. But we gotta (IMHO) come up with a strategic directive to our fight. My immediate and (almost) irrevocable need is to define and- in some cases, staff- the different stakeholders involved here. I see them as the following: Holders of Copyright: well represented, highly funded, and inimicable to the other stakeholders, who are: Representatives of the Public Domain, (non-existant?) who should be arguing, IN TERMS OF POWER, CONTROL, and FINANCES, for the correct exploitation of PD; and Representatives of works covered under Copyright. This is more difficult to visualize, but the reality is that Copyright is contrary to the wellbeing of the created works, and they should have representation, in the way that equal abstracts such as scenic beauty, endangered wildlife, or such, have their advocates. But if we want to be thirty or forty individuals sitting around debating the whereness of the why, we'll at least be in a position to discuss how they haul our heritage away... Michael Lockey