Scientology Crime Syndicate

Subject: "Victory in Dutch Copyright Case" REVISED VERSION
From: Curmudgeon
Date: 10 Jun 1999 09:08:10 -0700

The following is the text of a here-to-fore unpublished revised version of a CO$ Press Release which was just intercepted by Disturber of the Peace Institute through one of its hundreds of undercover operatives in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
DRAFT DATE: June 10, 1999
RELEASE DATE: when Hell freezes over

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

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.

Further facts about this criminal empire may be found at Operation Clambake and FACTNet.


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.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank