comp.org.eff.talk,alt.religion.scientology,netcom.netnews,misc.legal.computing,m
In article
Actually, most of what I know about this case came from attending a
What? I'm reasonably certain Klemesrud hired his *own* attorney. EFF
While his main focus is whether that BBS (and netcom) should suffer
It's clear. Dennis quoted short excerpts on the Net of postings from
Many of the comments were clearly fair use in my opinion, some were less
I haven't seen all: but even the copyright itself is questionable,
Now, a judge issues restraining orders for many reasons. A restraining
Dennis, for example, was working for them when Charlie Manson turned
I can't say I've got a favourable impression of the Scientologists, but we
Except that it seems impossible to me to ignore their history of perjury,
Nico Garcia
isc.legal
Subject: Re: Unfeasible and about Copyrights (was Re: Netcom)
Date: 6 May 1995 05:41:16 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
References:
<3o7a23$4a4@nntp5.u.washington.edu>
<3oa7r3$lej@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
presentation by the attorney the EFF hired to defend the sysop of the
BBS that Erlich used.
has filed a number of "friend of the court" briefs, and is now helping
organize a defense fund for Erlich. I think you missed details at the
presentation, or the lawyer left them out. Or I am confused, perhaps,
but I don't think so.
co-liability, I think from what I saw that it is far from clear whether
Erlich violated copyrights or not.
others, verifying their authenticity and criticizing their contents.
Scientology wanted Dennis to shut up, and this is a pretext, pure and
simple. It also chills the discussion and new postings of the material.
clear. I didn't see them all.
since one European court found that the documents transferring
copyright from Hubbard were forged (the signature of L. Ron Hubbard
and David Miscavige, president of Scientology, were identical).
And I haven't seen *anything* from Dennis that was not fair use, IMHO.
order is not proof or a claim of guilt of anything: it's to handle a
*risk* of a crime, or problem, that the court feels is a real *risk*.
If the people involved want to, they can then file charges or try to
get it dropped. Most people drop the matter as soon as a TRO shows up,
and are happy with that result. $cientology would be *delighted* if
Dennis would drop it. That's why they are harassing him.
out to be a Scientologist. He can verify that they expunged all
records of his membership. That is *embarassing*, and difficult to
prove now, except for critics like Dennis, who can unbury the bodies.
must be careful not to vilify the enemy. Even if they are criminally
harassing Erlich, we want to see this case ruled on the facts regarding
copyright infringement, not the morals of the Church of Scientology.
barratry, and harassment when examining this new example.
raoul@mit.edu
My opinions are my own, not MIT's or my employer's or my cat's
(Well, maybe my cat's....)