Archive Message - 1995

Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be considered to be copywritten materials, I have censored myself and The Skeptic Tank by deleting any and all possible text files which describes the cult's hidden mythologies. I have elected to quote just a bit of the questionable text according to the "Fair Use" legal findings afforded to those who report. - Fredric L. Rice, The Skeptic Tank, 09/Sep/95 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From!!!swrinde!!!!!cdp!zthomas Mon Jul 10 17:01:16 1995 Path:!!!swrinde!!!!!cdp!zthomas From: Zane Thomas <> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: HELENA SPEAKS, AGAIN Message-ID: <APC&1'0'66608041'> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 1995 00:37:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Gateway: Lines: 68 I heard from Kobrin again, here's a summary: 1. She asserts that e-mailing SCAMIZDAT from a news-server to her is an infringement because I "caused an unauthorized copy to be made in order to e-mail it" I guess the short answer is: so what? Doesn't sound like the sort of thing that is likely to get far in court. 2. Her "clients do not dispute anyone's right to make fair use of anything to which the fair use doctrine can legally apply....", however she claims that the materials in question are "unpublished materials", that no court has ruled that any use of unpublished materials is fair use, and that Dennis's attorney "admitted this in Federal Court." The wording seems a little strained. She doesn't say that any court has ruled that the use of unpublished materials is NOT fair use. Besides, it looks to me like they've been published anyway. Both internally (for use by cultie-marks) and externally on the net. 3. Fair use does not apply to unpublished trade secrets. Duh. 4. She claims that I cannot use or disclose in any form the "trade secret" parts of SCAMIZDAT. Uh ok, I wouldn't "use" that stuff anyway. How would she know if I read it? I guess that it's a-ok to download "trade secrets" from the net, you just can't use them or disclose them, eh? 5. Downloading of any of the copyrighted materials gets me in trouble via 17 U.S.C. Section 106 Hmmm, doesn't sound right to me. Experts in the crowd? 6. She claims that there are no authorized copies of the trade secret stuff on the net or "anywhere outside the Church" <spit>. Hard to tell from what was in McShane's deposition, eh? Sounded a lot like he doesn't know how many copies there are, or where they are. Also, I seem to recall him saying that the marks could take the stuff home (in a locked briefcase). Does the church<spit> extend to private homes? Can the marks quit paying property taxes? Could become a very popular "religion" if that's the case. 7. And she puts me "on notice" that we're talking trade secrets and that I an "legally liable for any disclosure" I make. Maybe, I'm not convinced yet (one way or the other). 8. She lets me know that her "clients" will use whatever legal actions they can to protect their rights. This was actually a hospitable warning, not a threat like last time. 9. Regarding the two parts of SCAMIZDAT that the culties don't claim as their own she says that "Posting these documents in such a way as to suggest they are legitimate Scientology documents is actionable under section 43(a) of the federal Lanham Act." What the heck is that? Zane


Return to The Skeptic Tank Alt.Religion.Scientology Archives Master List
Go to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank