Subject: "Victory in Dutch Copyright Case" REVISED VERSION
The following is the text of a here-to-fore unpublished revised version of a CO$
Press Release which was just intercepted by Disturber of the Peace Institute
through one of its hundreds of undercover operatives in CO$ management.
This should shed a much more accurate light on yesterday's announcement of the
RTC's "victory" in a Dutch copyright infringement case.
The Curmudgeon (DPInstitut@newsguy.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------
DRAFT TITLE: Victory in Dutch Copyright Case -- REVISED VERSION
Introduction and excu- (er, we mean) explanation:
Yup, we did it again.
We forgot to check our facts before releasing our statement titled "Victory in
Dutch Copyright Case." Turns out the Dutch court's decision didn't really say
what we thought it did, but that's not our fault 'cause nobody at the RTC really
knows how to read and interpret Spanish very well. So consequently, our lawyers
inadvertently left a lot out of their English translation of the original
documents, and mistranslated other parts, before giving it to us here at CO$
Public Relations.
Also, unbeknownst to both us and the RTC at the time, the "judge" presiding over
the Dutch court was really an escaped pot-smoking mental patient and a follower
of Pat Robertson, so his decision will no doubt be vacated. Never-the-less, this
is still a Big Win for our Church because God (if you'll pardon the expression)
only knows how long this will take, so in the time we have left we intend to
milk his decision for all it's worth.
However, because we are the most ethical people on the planet, we hereby submit
a corrected version of our earlier press release --which, we hope, no one will
pay any attention to-- based on a more thorough translation of the original
Greek (or was it Hebrew or Syriac?):
----(Our New Version)----
Today, a Dutch court granted a decisive victory to Religious Technology Center
and New Era Publications in their case against a few unimportant Dutch Internet
Service Providers nobody ever heard of 'til now, by completely ignoring all
those radical, subversive international standards of freedom of speech and of
the press and moving their colleagues around the world to laugh hysterically at
them.
Specifically, the court ruled that:
* L. Ron Hubbard is the author of some version or other of the OT II and III
works, but it's impossible to know which versions were his and which were
written by other folks. Never-the-less, the Church of Spiritual Technology (we
have no idea who that is) may or may not own the copyrights to whichever works
are genuine, or even maybe even some of those which aren't, through a valid or
invalid assignment from some lawyer who claimed to represent L. Ron Hubbard,
with full legal rights to relentlessly hassle anyone we like on the excuse that
they MIGHT be infringing, but we never know for sure.
* Religious Technology Center and New Era Publications, as exclusive licensees
(maybe, we're not sure), also have the right to send nasty lawyer letters to
journalists, academics, or critics who quote anything from any of the works we
may or may not own.
* The posting of the attachments to the 1993 affidavit of Steven Fishman
containing OT II and OT III works is a copyright infringement. This also
includes the use of the tems "Steve," "Fishman," "fisherman," or "OT." So all
you Bible-thumpers out there may not refer to yourselves as "fishers of men" or
to the Old Testament as the "OT" without our permission, which, btw, we'll be
happy to sell for $50,000 or your first born.
And don't even THINK about using the Latin numerals "II" or "III," even if you
run the Vatican Holy See. If you must continue to write all those papal
encyclicals in Latin, we have the full right to sue you for infringement if you
use "II" or "III."
* A hypertext link to these works, or even any mention of them, is also a
copyright infringement (though even we can't come up with any REAL or rational
reason why this should be). And so is the mere mention of their titles or their
existence by anyone without our permission, which, btw, we'll be happy to sell
for $50,000 or your first born.
* An Internet Service Provider must remove any actual or imagined infringing OT
II and III works, or anyone's mention of them, or any faked or parody versions,
from its system, and disclose the identity of the infringer, his or her family
members, friends, neighbors, and pets. That way, just in case we have no real
case for legal action, we can use illegal action. And also send them lotsa junk
mail urging them to buy one of our books or get a Free Personality Test, which,
btw, we'll be happy to sell for $50,000 or your first born.
* If an Internet Service Provider does not remove whatever we decide is
infringing material --including but not limited to the terms "Steve," "Fishman,"
"fisherman," "OT," "bridge," "publications," "freedom," "affidavit,"
"copyright," and "infringement"-- from its system within 3 days of being given
notice of the infringement, the Internet Service Provider is liable for
copyright infringement and faces a fine of 2,500 Cuban Pesos for each day that
the infringing material remains on its system (which means, we'll be paying
THEM).
We are delighted that the court has allowed our deranged friend on the bench to
take this step to end all quotes and citations from anything we may or may not
own or have published, and given us the right to decide which is which. This
case sends a clear-cut message that no one in MEST is above our imaginative
interpretations of any laws, real or imagined, and that service providers do
have a responsibility to knuckle under and cry "Uncle," a conclusion reached by
the five other courts in the United States where Religious Technology Center
filed suits against mostly imaginary copyright infringers as well as a court in
Sweden. Never mind that we either lost most of those, or that they were thrown
out as abuses of the legal system, or that most of the time we don't know what
the hell we're talking about. What matters most is that we know how to use
lawyers to scare the hell out of you.
In protecting our very creative interpretations of intellectual property rights
we are making the Internet safe for everyone --copyright owners and Netizens
alike, as long as they agree with us and don't say unklind things about us-- by
successfully destroying the freedom it provides by getting rid of pesky,
out-moded, and counter-productive anarchist concepts like "Fair Use," "free
speech," and "freedom of the press."
Religious Technology Center has been a leading advocate of milking the legal
system and the protection of copyrights on the Internet to get our way,
establishing legal precedents which have received worldwide attention. Of
course, since a prophet is seldom welcome in his own home town, almost no one in
the legal community agrees with our superior interpretations of copyright law
and thinks them bizarre at best, and by now most of the public --all of whom are
religious bigots anyway-- thinks we're a bunch of incompetent boobs and bullying
bozos who have nothing better to do than threaten, harass, or bankrupt
journalists, critics, and even ISPs and booksellers with frivolous lawsuits.
Yes, we realize that NOBODY would've paid any attention to our critics and
dissenters if we had just done "the smart thing" and ignored them from the
beginning. But if we're going to clear the planet by the end of the year (or the
year after that, or the year after that, or ...never mind), we can't shirk our
responsibility as Thetans to keep the riff-raff in line. Besides, for over 20
years our reform efforts have served to improve the economies of many countries
by providing work for lawyers and law firms who can't get clients. Also, we're
keeping alive the time-honored Western liberal tradition of making the taxpayers
foot the bills for our hundreds of reform efforts.
As for prior cases won by Religious Technology Center, the effects of this
decision will be felt internationally establishing even more firmly that
copyright law can and must be applied to the Internet. Except not in ways we
want them to be applied, since as we write this most other countries' legal
establishments are probably rolling on the floor laughing themselves silly at
the Dutch court's decision.
Never-the-less, we press on: Today the Dutch court system, tomorrow the Fair
Use Doctrine!
Church of $cientology International (TM) (C) (Confidential) (Trade Secret)
(....and don't you forget it or else!)
---------------------------------------
This has been a DPI Parody, courtesy of Disturber of the Peace Institute,
honoring the Bigots, Bullies, and Buffoons of the Internet since 1998. (See our
Heleva Kobra page at: http://members.aol.com/heleva/kobra/index.htm )
No animals were endangered or harmed in the production of this parody. However,
we've received complaints from the mice next door about the noise from our
keyboards.
Responses are welcome. Especially welcome are free offers of the Pulitzer Prize,
single malt scotch, or Cuban cigars.
E-mails from dim-wits, half-wits, nit-wits, nit-pickers, Fundamentalists,
cultists, lawyers, and other riff-raff shall be processed in our Oliver North
Virtual Shredder.
(c) Disturber of the Peace Insititute
Further facts
about this criminal empire may be found at
Operation Clambake and FACTNet.
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
From: Curmudgeon
Date: 10 Jun 1999 09:08:10 -0700
DRAFT DATE: June 10, 1999
RELEASE DATE: when Hell freezes over
Click here for some additional truth about the Scientology crime syndicate:
XENU.NET
This web page (and The Skeptic Tank) is in no way connected with
nor part of the Scientology crime syndicate. To review the crime syndicate's
absurdly idiotic web pages, check out www.scientology.org or any one of the
many secret front groups the cult attempts to hide behind.
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.