Archive Message - 1995

From braintree!!!!!!!!!hpax!!!panix!!user Thu Nov 2 15:58:39 1995 Path: braintree!!!!!!!!!hpax!!!panix!!user From: (Mike O'Connor) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Big Suprise - No mention of fair use Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 13:05:36 -0500 Organization: Leptonic Systems Co. Lines: 58 Message-ID: <> References: <475tri$> NNTP-Posting-Host: X-Newsreader: Value-Added NewsWatcher 2.0b27.1+ Notice the phrase "fair use" does not appear in this article. That issue is framed in the terms that the cult wishes to frame it - that copyrighted works were posted to the Internet, period. The real issue is not if some of the documents were copyrighted, but that is what the reader is led to believe. The real issue is if the posting made fair use of the documents. In particular, the main posting at issue was of a court record which was generally available to the public on request, not under seal, which contained within it, copyrighted materials. Doesn't that happen every day? Don't we see cases on Court TV which show copyrighted news stories as part of the evidence? Remember the O.J. case, for example. We saw a number of clips of TV news footage, copyrighted by the TV news organizations. Judge Ito ruled on the admissibility of the clips, and determined clip by clip, if they could be aired. And they were, we all saw it. And still see it, on replays of the trial. FAIR USE. Didn't the same thing happen in the Fishman case? The judge, I believe, ruled on the admissibility of the copyrighted material as evidence. The judge was asked to seal the evidence from the public. DENIED. I believe this was appealed. DENIED. The material was made part of the record. The record was made publicly available. alerma posted the record, in full. FAIR USE. This was barely mentioned, indirectly, in the article, and the word "fair" is nowhere in the article. I think that's the main issue in court. Was the posting fair use? A side issue is if the material is in fact covered by valid copyrights. That is not the main issue, fair use is. This article does not mention fair use, and most articles I see about the case do not mention fair use. Why not? I think it is because the cult carefully avoids saying anything about fair use. They know how to do PR. They talk to the press and make sure they understand the issue is copyright validity, and the stories are written with that slant. Then, each reader gets that slant and thinks it is clear case of infringement. It isn't. THEY DON'T MENTION FAIR USE - THE MAIN ISSUE! -Mike In article <475tri$>, nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote: | Cyberspace Copyrights | Sebastian Rupley | PC Magazine | Nov 7, 1995 | | As courts and federal agencies grapple with how to regulate on-line | services, cases involving pornography and defamation of character | in cyberspace have grabbed headlines. There's another issue | developing, though, over a sensitive - if slightly less sexy - | problem: copyright infringement. | | When U.S. Federal Marshals recently seized the computer equipment | of a former employee of the Church of Scientology, lawmakers sent | a high-profile message about copyright infringement in cyberspace. | Only weeks after the incident, the Clinton administration issued | electronic copyright proposals to protect authors and publishers | from "cyberjackers." [...]


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