Remailers, Copyright, and Scientology

At 6:15 PM 5/20/96, Rich Burroughs wrote:
At 01:08 AM 5/20/96 -0700, tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: [snip]
And the issue of CoS seeking legal actions against those they claim are violating their copyrights is separable from their religious status.
Not at all. Their actions are based on their religious doctrines, as passed down by Hubbard. "Always attack, never defend." Their claims of copyright violation are part of an ongoing effort to silence those who criticize their illegal and immoral practices. They should be examined in that context.
I don't care what their motivations, religious or other, are. As I see it, some people here (including some good friends of mine, by the way) are caught up in a religious war. Those opposed to CoS are "outing" putative CoS secrets by aggressive use of remailers. The CoS is fighting back. Is anyone surprised?
As I have said many times, "Newsweek" would likely take similar actions in similar circumstances.)
AFAIK, "Newsweek" does not file lawsuits just for the purpose of harassment, as Hubbard counselled his followers to do. AFAIK, "Newsweek" does not hire PIs to harass those who criticize them.\
Well, I have heard Brad Templeton (Hi, Brad!, when you find this reference to yourself with Alta Vista) say several times why he and his company, Clarinet, aggressively go after those he thinks are infringing. Brad has to protect his copyrights, or the transitive copyrights of AP, Reuters, etc., that he acquires through licensing. And as I recall, a whole bunch of people have gotten "cease and desist" letters. Even some friends of mine. This gets less attention than do similar letters sent to Grady Ward and Keith Henson, for example, because Grady, Keith, and others are caught up in a Holy War against L. Ron, and the Battles with the Clams are more interesting to most of us than some otherwise-obscure copyright infringement filed by "Newsweek." (Having worked at Intel for a number of years, let me assure you right away that if remailers were used to post internal Intel documents--and I don't mean stuff like the "unauthorized opcodes"--that Intel would come down on the remailer sites and anyone else they could reach like two galaxies colliding. By the way, I expect something like this to happen eventually.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

At 6:15 PM 5/20/96, Rich Burroughs wrote:
At 01:08 AM 5/20/96 -0700, tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: [snip]
And the issue of CoS seeking legal actions against those they claim are violating their copyrights is separable from their religious status.
Not at all. Their actions are based on their religious doctrines, as passed down by Hubbard. "Always attack, never defend." Their claims of copyright violation are part of an ongoing effort to silence those who criticize their illegal and immoral practices. They should be examined in that context.
I don't care what their motivations, religious or other, are.
As I see it, some people here (including some good friends of mine, by the way) are caught up in a religious war. Those opposed to CoS are "outing" putative CoS secrets by aggressive use of remailers. The CoS is fighting back. Is anyone surprised?
I've been following alt.religion.scientology mostly for entertainment reasons, and occasionally to correct some of the false statements about psychiatry made by Scientologists. There's more to the story than you appear to be aware of. The extra-legal actions didn't originate with the alleged copyright violations, nor are the legal actions of the cult limited to protecting their copyrights. Now that the cypherpunks have been brought to their attention it's entirely possible that the major posters on this newsgroup will become the subject of Scientology's, or rather Religious Technology Center's legal actions. I believe the original legal action relates to the posting of court documents that contained cult scripture. And the cease and desist letters are sent for what are clearly fair use extracts. If someone were to be so unkind as to post a certain six sentences to this newsgroup we might see toad.com shut down. Yes, the cult does have a legitimate interest in protecting their copyrights. No, the cult does not have a valid reason for using the heavy-handed legal tactics of which they are so fond. -- if not me, then who? mailto:ethridge@onramp.net http://rampages.onramp.net/~ethridge/
participants (2)
-
ethridge@Onramp.NET
-
tcmay@got.net