Racism and Copyright Games: The Fallacious Position of William Sanders

Transcriptease offers a very helpful summation on the racist shenanigans of Helix editor William Sanders. For those who missed out on this piece of news, writer Luke Jackson sent Sanders a story. The story featured Muslim characters. Sanders rejected it, noting in his rejection letter, “You did a good job of explaining the worm-brained mentality of those people.” The email then made the rounds on several science fiction sites. And several Helix contributors asked for their stories to be removed from the Helix archives.

Rather than perform the gentlemanly act and apologize for his mistake, Sanders issued an ultimatum to his contributors. If they wished to remove their stories from the archive and did not express their wish to do so within a month, they would be forced to pay $40 to have it removed later. Soon, Sanders retracted this offer and declared that nobody could have their stories removed at all.

Assuming that there is no written instrument, Sanders is in no position to make such demands of his contributors.

The question that nobody has asked here is whether any of the Helix contributors ever signed a contract or another written instrument upon having their stories appear in Helix. Sanders’s magazine lists all of the contents as falling under the copyright of Helix. This itself is fallacious, because according to Helix‘s website, Helix is published by the Legends Group, which is described as an unincorporated association. Since Helix is based in Maryland, according to the Maryland Business Regulation Code, § 19-201, it can therefore be described as an organization. Therefore, if the copyright notice on the site is valid, should not the copyright read “©2008 The Legends Group” instead? And if The Legends Group has performed due diligence, then surely this would be reflected at the Register of Copyrights, right? After all, § 409 of United States Code, Title 17, states that each application for copyright must contain “(10) in the case of a published work containing material of which copies are required by section 601 to be manufactured in the United States, the names of the persons or organizations who performed the processes specified by subsection (c) of section 601 with.”

But over at the Library of Congress’s public catalog, we discover no such notices for these stories by either Helix, The Legends Group, or William Sanders. Searches for “Legends Group” and “The Legends Group” reveal no registered copyrights. And searches for “Helix” or “Sanders William” do not match up with any of the stories listed on the Helix site.

If the Helix contributors simply sent in their stories into Sanders and he agreed to publish them, and there was no contract, then this means that they retain the unregistered copyrights for their stories, and Sanders is in violation. If Sanders did not have a written instrument in place specifying that there was a transfer of copyright to Helix, then the copyright belongs to the author. Which would mean that the author controls whether or not the story appears on the website. To cite the specific code section under §204 of Title 17:

(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent.

Of course, to uphold Sanders’s numerous copyright violations, the stories would need to be registered. If the writers who wish to have their stories removed from Helix were to register their stories with the Copyright Office, then Sanders be in clear violation of copyright and damages could be pursued.

Either way, Sanders does not come out of this looking well at all. The best thing for him to do is to remove any stories that authors wish for him to remove. And if Sanders cannot perform this basic courtesy, then the writers have the obligation to register their stories with the Copyright Office and take up the dispute in court to collect the dutiful damages that come from being associated with a racist editor.

Leigh Robbins — The Racist Exemplar

Leigh Robbins, a 35-year-old housewife, genuinely believes that she was fulfilling her maternal duties. The truly sickening aspect of her story, which delayed a flight for more than twelve hours, isn’t so much her fear of brown-skinned people, which is quite evident in Robbins’s attempt to get her sons off a plane that, lo and behold, happened to have seven Iraqis on board. It was the way in which Robbins justified her racism with these quotes:

“How can you overreact when it’s your children?”

“I’m very sorry, but I’d do anything to protect my kids.”

Robbins’s excuses are very much grounded in the hermetic seal of the nuclear family archetype. The horror from six years ago has so successfully indoctrinated its way into public consciousness that it is no longer a matter of remembering (“Never forget!” read many of the signs here in New York), but a matter of fulfilling one’s basic domestic duties.

9/11 is no longer the smoking gun. Hollywood is — to some extent. It is no longer a matter of accessing one’s general sense of reality. It is, as Robbins observed, a matter of comparative metaphor. “It was very frightening, like something out of a movie,” said Robbins.

There are important questions here which must be asked: Why didn’t the plane’s passengers stick up for the Iraqi men? They were questioned by American Airlines, as if they were the villains. Why was Robbins’s ostensible safety valued over that of the Iraqi men? Does Robbins truly comprehend the callous fury she has unearthed?

Never mind their ethnicity. Why in America were seven men — who served their country — considered lesser than one racist homemaker, who served nothing more than graham crackers and juice?

EXCLUSIVE: Prepub Version of Kenneth Eng’s Column!!!

San Francisco Chronicle: “The 22-year-old author of a column titled ‘Why I Hate Blacks’ in the regional newspaper AsianWeek has been dismissed, and the paper’s editors said Wednesday that they suffered ‘a serious lapse in editorial judgment’ when they published his column.”

Return of the Reluctant has obtained a version of Kenneth Eng’s racist column that was circulated shortly after it hit the AsianWeek copy desk.

Why I Hate Niggers Blacks
Kenneth Eng, Feb 23, 2007

Here is a list of reasons why we should discriminate against blacks and string them up, [Editor: shouldn’t we clarify the order here? Also, save the “stringing up” angle for a future column.] starting from the most obvious down to the least obvious:

� Blacks hate us and wish to copulate with our daughters. Every Asian who has ever come across them knows that they take almost every opportunity to fuck our women [Copy desk: Yes, we’re aware of the evils of miscegenation, but do you think you can tone it down? This is a family newspaper. See recommended change.] hurl racist remarks at us.

In my experience, I would say about 100 90 percent [Legal: Leave margin of error in event of lawsuit.] of blacks I have met, regardless of age, penis size, or environment, poke fun at the very sight of an Asian. Furthermore, their activity in the media proves their hatred. [Editor: Examples?]: Rush Hour, Exit Wounds, Hot 97, etc.

� Contrary to media depictions, I would argue that blacks are easily exploited weak-willed. They are the only race that has been enslaved for 300 years. It’s unbelievable that it took them that long to fight back.

On the other hand, we could have been slaveholders during the Civil War [See recommended historical example.] slaughtered the Russians in the Japanese-Russo War.

� Blacks are easy to coerce. This is proven by the fact that so many of them cannot play mahjong and insist on dominoes, including Reverend Al Sharpton, tend to be Christians.

Yet, at the same time, they spend much of their time whining about fried chicken how much they hate “the whites that oppressed them.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t they steal dominoes from us? wasn’t Christianity the religion that the whites forced upon them?

� Blacks don’t get it. [Copy desk: Cover our asses with doubtful statement!] I know it’s a blunt and crass comment, but it’s true. When I was in high school, I recall a class debate in which one half of the class was chosen to defend black slavery and the other half was chosen to defend liberation.

Disturbingly, blacks on the prior side viciously defended slavery as well as Christianity. They say if you don’t study history, you’re condemned to repeat it. In high school, I only remember one black student ever attending any of my honors and AP courses. [Editor: Good, Ken, but we need something more sensational here. Can you invent something along the lines of cheating?] And that student was caught cheating.

It is rather troubling that they are treated as heroes, but then again, any of the non-Asian races [Ted wants us to play up the evils of the white liberal.] whites will do anything to defend them.

[NOTE: If Ken can’t turn around the edits, do you think we could get Michelle Malkin to finish up this piece? I’ll talk with you about all this after the racial tolerance meeting. (Why this diversity nonsense? Do they really think we’re that racist?) Thanks!]