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 news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!news.igc.apc.org!cdp!zthomas Mon Jul 10 17:01:16 1995
Path: news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!news.igc.apc.org!cdp!zthomas
From: Zane Thomas <zthomas@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: HELENA SPEAKS, AGAIN
Message-ID: <APC&1'0'66608041'956@igc.apc.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 1995 00:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gateway: notes@igc.apc.org
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   she claims that the materials in question are "unpublished materials",
   that no court has ruled that any use of unpublished materials is fair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ruled that the use of unpublished materials is NOT fair use.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 Fair use does not apply to unpublished trade secrets.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