Something on the Ray Carney case

No new information. I wouldn't be the one to get it from if there was any. But there was a comment on Jon Jost's Cinemaelectronica site from someone called Chris B. It was the only reasonable-sounding defense of Carney I've read.

...Did Rappaport lend his copies to Carney, or to Boston University? Under what terms? Why did Carney believe it was a gift? Is Carney in that case completely deranged, and has been for many years – wich must be the case if what Rappaport claims is correct, considering the fact that Carney wrote about the material (mentioning it as a gift) on his web-site several years ago?

...

Could it be that Carney planned or was working on something wich implies access to the material? A book about American independent cinema, say, Rappaport in a greater context, his script notes in comparison with the finished works? Could it be that this material was valueable to him professionally, but when terms suddenly changed (and Rappaport had taken it for granted that Carney would work as an archivist for FREE) he wanted to stand firmly on the legal issues (or be paid for the work)?

...

Carney might have held morals high in his work, in his writings, but I don’t think he ever claimed being a saint.. Could it be he just felt a little bit used too?

Read the whole thing here.

Carney needs to give the stuff back in any case. But this is the only thing I've read in his defense that wasn't calling on us to overlook the [alleged] theft because Carney was doing such good work otherwise or claiming that Jost's efforts were overkil.