Warning letter from Co$. [any comments ?]
January 3, 1995 TO: INTERNET REMAILER OPERATORS FROM: THOMAS M. SMALL COUNSEL FOR RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER AND BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. I represent Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), which owns the unpublished, confidential Advanced Technology of the religion of Scientology, and holds exclusive rights under the copyrights applicable to the Advanced Technology materials. I also represent Bridge Publications, Inc., which holds the exclusive right to print, publish and sell various non-confidential works by the founder of the Scientology religion, L. Ron Hubbard, and to make and publish compilations and derivative works of and from those works and to enforce all rights in them. It has come to my attention that there are two alternate newsgroups on the Internet to which individuals have been annonymously posting certain of my clients' published and unpublished copyrighted materials, including certain of the confidential Advanced Technology materials. These confidential materials being posted were stolen from my client. There is reason to believe that the materials which are uploaded by these users may also be downloaded by other users, and that these activities may be occurring through the systems which are linked into the Internet. The two newsgroups into which these materials are being copied are alt.technology.clearing and alt.religion. Scientology. We request your assistance in dealing with the problem. The spread of infringements and misappropriations by the users will be lessened if you lock out from your systems the two newsgroups involved, alt.religion.scientology and alt.technology.clearing, limiting the potential for reposting and downloading. It will then be easier to deal with the intentional infringers through appropriate channels. Both the uploading and downloading of these materials constitute unauthorized copying and distribution of the materials in violation of our clients' rights under United States copyright laws and the law of other countries, where applicable. Damages and an injunction against further unauthorized copying and distribution may be obtained against infringers and, all unauthorized copies and all materials and equipment by which the unauthorized copies may be reproduced can be impounded. Unauthorized disclosure of the confidential Advanced Technology materials also violates applicable trade secrets laws. Action is being taken directly with the systems users who we know are primarily responsible for these violations of my clients' rights. We hope those actions will put an end to the infringements by these users. We do {not} wish to involve others in litigation. Unfortunately, however, such actions will be unavoidable where there is contributory infringement by those who knowingly induce or contribute to the infringing conduct of these users by providing facilities or systems that enable the direct infringers to infringe, because we legally must take all actions to protect our clients' property rights. Courts are holding such contributory infringers liable. Two examples are: Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Maphia BBS, 30 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1921 (N.D. Cal. 1994) and Playboy Enterprises v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1152 (M.D. Fla. 1993). Recent proposed legislation regarding potential liability of systems operators and others who provide facilities or services, such as annonymous remailers, for information passing through their systems has understandably created concern on the part of systems operators as a potential liability. We ask your voluntary assistance in dealing with these known wilful infringers so that we can both deal with the problem without legal hassles, and legal liability can be confined to those who intend to create the situation. We ask that you confirm that you have blocked access to these newsgroups through your remailer. If you are unwilling to do so, we ask that you inform us as to the reasons for your position. Sincerely, Thomas M. Small
nobody@replay.com (Name withheld on request) writes: FROM: THOMAS M. SMALL COUNSEL FOR RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER AND BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, INC.
While the issue is interesting (using anonymous mailers to violate copyrights or to expose scams, depending on your view of the content), the apparent aim of the Scientologists isn't met by approaching the cypherpunk remailers: the specific anonymous postings have been through penet so far, I think.
Recent proposed legislation regarding potential liability of systems operators and others who provide facilities or services, such as annonymous remailers, for information passing through their systems has understanda> bly created concern on the part of systems operators as a potential liability. We ask your voluntary assistance in
You missplet "anonymous". Hope this helps. The only "proposed legislation" I know of was proposed by Martha Siegel, the greencard guru from CyberHell. Any others?
We ask that you confirm that you have blocked access to these newsgroups through your remailer. If you are unwilling to do so, we ask that you inform us as to the reasons for your position.
Yeah, right. People unclear on the concept of anonymous remailers. Maybe they should be talking to the mail-to-news forwarders instead. Jim Gillogly Highday, 13 Afteryule S.R. 1995, 19:06
nobody writes a very nice, non-confrontational and well thought out letter supporting his case (and ignoring the oddness of copyrighting religous materials). but i have some questions that weren't discussed when i took business law 101 a few years ago: nobody@replay.com (Name withheld on request) writes:
applicable. Damages and an injunction against further unauthorized copying and distribution may be obtained against infringers and, all unauthorized copies and all materials and equipment by which the unauthorized copies may be reproduced can be impounded. Unauthorized disclosure of the confidential Advanced Technology materials also violates applicable trade secrets laws.
i know there has been much chatter on this subject, but are there truly any precedents that could hold on the anonymous distribution of copyrighted material? are remailer-ops truly in legal danger? what exactly constitutes a trade secret, and what sort of laws apply?
clients' property rights. Courts are holding such contributory infringers liable. Two examples are: Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Maphia BBS, 30 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1921 (N.D. Cal. 1994) and Playboy Enterprises v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1152 (M.D. Fla. 1993).
what of these cases? is this just an example of typical lawyerly intimidation tactics? how do you remailer-ops plan to react? my first instinct (were i running a remailer) would be to ignore it, on grounds that i wouldn't examine any mail passing through. but if there really were valid precedent in this matter... (has anyone seen any well-written lay-person evaluations of the steve jackson case? i read the ruling, but much of it went in one eye and out the other). i think the censorship thing is building steam, and we should start preparing (and informing) ourselves... -avi
From: Avi Harris Baumstein <avi@clas.ufl.edu> i know there has been much chatter on this subject, but are there truly any precedents that could hold on the anonymous distribution of copyrighted material? Cubby v. Compuserve is relevant here, as well as that bookstore case in the 50's that I never remember the name of. Mike G., can you help me out on this one? These cases are about other kinds of wrongs (libel in one and obscenity (?) in the other), but copyright violation doesn't seem to be have any particular features to set it apart from the basic principle of these. Namely, if you know, you're responsible; if you don't, you're not. This, you all realize no doubt, is a gross simplification of a long chain of reasoning. what exactly constitutes a trade secret, and what sort of laws apply? The short answer is that if you didn't sign a trade secret agreement or are party to one by some other relationship (such as agency), then a trade secret that comes your way is no secret any more.
clients' property rights. Courts are holding such contributory infringers liable. Two examples are: Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Maphia BBS, 30 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1921 (N.D. Cal. 1994) and Playboy Enterprises v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1152 (M.D. Fla. 1993).
what of these cases? is this just an example of typical lawyerly intimidation tactics? I have personal experience with the first case. It was a local BBS run by a friend of a friend, and I got involved a year ago right after the seizure. (It was, BTW, a _civil_ seizure of a BBS, not criminal.) I believe the case settled out of court. There were court documents approving the seizure however; I don't know if these set precedent or not. I suspect not, because the action was entirely _ex parte_ (Latin for one-sided). Mike, again? Other legal folk? I know nothing about the second one. nhow do you remailer-ops plan to react? my first instinct (were i running a remailer) would be to ignore it, on grounds that i wouldn't examine any mail passing through. The people who keep logs, yes, are in more danger than those who don't. Eric
Actually, civil copyright infringement liability doesn't turn on knowledge. You can be an infringer even if you don't know. Criminal copyright infringement requires a guilty mental state, so *that* you have to know.
From: Avi Harris Baumstein <avi@clas.ufl.edu>
i know there has been much chatter on this subject, but are there truly any precedents that could hold on the anonymous distribution of copyrighted material?
Cubby v. Compuserve is relevant here, as well as that bookstore case in the 50's that I never remember the name of. Mike G., can you help me out on this one?
These cases are about other kinds of wrongs (libel in one and obscenity (?) in the other), but copyright violation doesn't seem to be have any particular features to set it apart from the basic principle of these. Namely, if you know, you're responsible; if you don't, you're not. This, you all realize no doubt, is a gross simplification of a long chain of reasoning.
what exactly constitutes a trade secret, and what sort of laws apply?
The short answer is that if you didn't sign a trade secret agreement or are party to one by some other relationship (such as agency), then a trade secret that comes your way is no secret any more.
clients' property rights. Courts are holding such contributory infringers liable. Two examples are: Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Maphia BBS, 30 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1921 (N.D. Cal. 1994) and Playboy Enterprises v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1152 (M.D. Fla. 1993).
what of these cases? is this just an example of typical lawyerly intimidation tactics?
I have personal experience with the first case. It was a local BBS run by a friend of a friend, and I got involved a year ago right after the seizure. (It was, BTW, a _civil_ seizure of a BBS, not criminal.) I believe the case settled out of court. There were court documents approving the seizure however; I don't know if these set precedent or not. I suspect not, because the action was entirely _ex parte_ (Latin for one-sided). Mike, again? Other legal folk?
I know nothing about the second one.
nhow do you remailer-ops plan to react? my first instinct (were i running a remailer) would be to ignore it, on grounds that i wouldn't examine any mail passing through.
The people who keep logs, yes, are in more danger than those who don't.
Eric
After reading the post from teh Scientologists about lockout out groups form anon-remailers, I was thining a little bit, note I said a little bit this isnt a fully fleshed out idea yet. I was thinking it may be smart for osme of the remailers to lock out the groups, in particular those operators who do it forma student acount, or perhaps from their own account in teh United states where legal action would be able to reach them. But to get around this, the anon users can use the Finland server, or a new and imporoved anon-remailer. By shopping around for ISPs it is possible to find a provider who takes payment thru mail and doesnt require positive ID to set up an account. With this you then either run that account as the remailer, a totally anon account not linked to your person and thus immune from legal actions(besies having it closed by the ISP if they are pressured) or you can run a SLIP connection and runa remailer much like Julf's on your own machien thru a dedicated SLIP line. i want to know everything http://www.mcs.com/~nesta/home.html i want to be everywhere Nesta's Home Page i want to fuck everyone in the world & i want to do something that matters /-/ a s t e zine
participants (6)
-
Avi Harris Baumstein -
eric@remailer.net -
Jim Gillogly -
Mike Godwin -
Nesta Stubbs -
nobody@replay.com