Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Safe's situation
From: bstone@kudonet.com (Brent Stone)
Date: 4 Jun 1999 17:47:07 -0500

On 4 Jun 99 15:41:39 GMT, dbrower@us.oracle.com (David Brower) wrote:

> Safe asked me for an apology, because I said he posted the whole
> document, and said this was a stupid and chicken thing to do
> behind only a pseudo-anonymous account.
>
> I'm sorry I looked at the multi-hundred line extract and mistook
> it for the entirety of the document. That mistated the facts.
>
> The shorter post seems like it would be clearly seen as a fair use
> extract to me. The longer is a big enough chunk that reasonable
> questions remain. So I'm not going to apologize for saying that one
> was close to the line of what constitutes fair use, and that posting
> it under a pseudonym *was* chicken, and stupid since it was not a well
> defended pseudonym.
>
> Lots of us have problems with the way Co$ is using their
> presumed-valid-until-disproven copyrights. Nevertheless, it is dumb
> to be handing them bullets. They may shoot themselves in the foot
> with them, but some may go through other people on the way. If you
> post the words, you'd better be prepared for the worst case
> consequences. It's my opinion that if you are going to quote stuff,
> you should do it in your own name and be sure you can take the heat.
> If you can't, you'd better use strong off-shore anonymity services.
> There is a long history of pseudonyms on ARS being eventually being
> outed. Relying on a simple pseudonym is naive.
>
> It is my opinion that the Digital Millenium act is seriously flawed.
> There is clearly justfiable reason for a copyright owner to need to be
> able to get names of infringers. That there is no way to quash the
> subpoena without revealing just what the subpoena was searching for
> seems to be a pretty big loophole. It is clearly not fair to make the
> ISP be the legal front for the user - you can't expect them to defend
> the fair use nature of the information in question. It might be
> better if the motion had to be filed as part of an action against the
> ISP *and* John Doe, allowing John Doe to respond with the motion to
> quash. Of course, they can't very well serve Doe, but service to the
> ISP might be presumed to give Doe the opportunity to respond.
>
> If Co$ get Safe's name and files suit, SLAPP should be strongly
> considered. Setting up a defense fund would not be a bad idea, and I
> will gladly contribute to it.
>
> If they get the name and only do harrasment outside of court, then
> Safe is just plain screwed. "You knew the job was dangerous when you
> took it" applies.

If they get the name and do harassment outside of court, then Ava and her criminal cohorts are screwed. The complaint states under penalty of perjury that it will ONLY be used for copyright infringement purposes. If harassment starts after the cult has gotten the name this way, it should be pretty easy to show criminal conduct on the part of the cult.

If they DO file for copyright, I would think that a counter suit and a motion to throw out the original would be fairly easy to do. Again, if they've done ANYTHING other than use Safe's name for the copyright case, or done ANY harassment at all, the chance of winning a counter-suit would be very good IMHO (IANAL for ARSCC[wdne]).

- Brent

Click here for some additional truth about the Scientology crime syndicate: XENU.NET