Leisa Goodman's press release
a.r.s., Febrauary 28, 1995
From: email@example.com (Karin Spaink)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, alt.clearing.technology, comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: COPYRIGHT SUMMARY PROCEEDING MOVES FORWARD
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 23:44:57 GMT
firstname.lastname@example.org (Andrew Milne) wrote:
> February 26, 1996
> COPYRIGHT SUMMARY PROCEEDING MOVES FORWARD
> DEN HAAG: A summary proceeding hearing for a copyrights
> lawsuit brought by the Religious Technology Center (RTC),
> holders of copyrighted works of the Scientology religion, was
> held yesterday in the Palace of Justice in Den Haag.
Yesterday? So this was written on the 27th? Yet the date on this press
release is Feb. 26. Somebody is seriously confused here.
> The suit charges that several Dutch Internet
> access providers including XS4ALL, DDS, Planet Internet and
> Euronet, and reporter Karin Spaink,
Andrew, Leisa, Julia - how often do I have to tell you this? I am
not a reporter.
> knowingly and willfully violated the Church's copyrights
> by duplicating confidential and copyrighted Scientology
> material word for word on Internet home pages.
Tsk. "Knowingly and willfully"? XS4all started asking for proof of
this alleged infringement as early as July, or August. Your cult
failed to supply this. Yet your cult, knowing that they had not proven
their allegiations, willfully raided XS4all.
In december, when your cult wanted to sue us, you still had not
proven your copyrights. You even dropped the court case because of it.
It was only on Feb. 19 that anybody received proof, and that only
for OT 2, OT 3 and 'Ability'.
> Karin Spaink is included as a defendant, because, according
> to the lawsuit, she personally violated RTC's copyright on the
> Internet, and she got others to violate the law under the
> guise of "solidarity."
Read the darn subpoena Andrew. It does not say that I "got others
to violate the law". Nor was such an accusation mentioned in court,
> "Due to the outrageous behaviour of the defendants
> we have been forced to bring this legal action," said Leisa
> Goodman, a Scientology spokesperson.
It's the other way round, Leisa. Had your cult supplied us earlier
with proof, and proof for all alleged violations instead of for just
three out of twelve documents, this may not have happened.
> "The trend today is that intellectual property owners, such
> as the Church, are standing up against Internet terrorism
> such as this. We know that such lawlessness, if unchecked,
> wipes out individual creativity, free speech and other core
> values that make the Net exciting and useful."
It is your cancel messages, raids, barratry and generally nasty and
intimidating behaviour that tends to wipe out creativity and many
important values, such as free speech and criticism.
> Last Thursday, the case took a new twist when Karin Spaink
> removed 26 Scientology documents from her Internet home page
> and replaced them with summaries after conceding that the
> documents were indeed legally copyrighted and that she had
> infringed the copyrights.
I took down twenty-six Scientology documents? Can you guys count? I
took down only three. And I did so immediately after your cult had
finally supplied me with proof. Never have I "conceded" that these
documents were indeed "legally copyrighted" or that I had "infringed"
them. I have merely said that my lawyers avised me to take them down
and that it would appear that there was indeed an infringement.
Leisa, surely your interpretor translated the part in which the
Planet Internet lawyers tore at the maze of transfers, and pointed out
that some of them might not work in Holland? That some of the
personal rights of Hubbard are untransferable under Dutch law? That
RTC's rights may not hold in the Netherlands?
> Goodman stated, "Karin Spaink's action of removing Scientology
> documents from her Internet website is an outright public
> admission that she violated the copyright law and trampled
> on our rights. We have said from the start that this case
> is solely about copyright violation. Spaink's sudden
> realization overwhelmingly proves this point."
Goodman may say what she likes. My action only showed that I was
willing to be co-operative when you are, and provide proof insteads of
just claims. And what Goodman says is of no importance here
whatsoever. What the judge says is importnat, and we will know that
on March 12.
> Stating they have abundant documented proof, the Church
> has strongly denounced Spaink's "fictitious claim" that she
> only received evidence of infringement a week ago.
Wanna see the date on the notary statement?
> Goodman said, "Karin Spaink has attempted to create this
> impression after repeatedly refusing offers by the Church to
> inspect the copyright evidence. Over the last two months
> three such attempts were directly made to Spaink by the Church
> and RTC's Dutch attorney to review proof of copyright
> ownership. Each time she declined."
All I would have been shown were masked documents. That's no proof,
Leisa. And I was made this offer only once, in January.
> The Church has been in the vanguard protecting copyrights
> on the Internet in the United States
You mean like when you tried to fight Fair Use and sued the Washington
Post over a two-and-a-half sentence quote?
> and has established two legal precedents
> which have received worldwide attention.
> A federal judge in the United States issued a decision on
> January 19 against Arnaldo Lerma of Virginia which has direct
> relevance to the situation here in Holland because the same
> copyrighted material is at issue. The U.S. judge confirmed
> that RTC held the copyrights to the documents in question
> and that Lerma broke the law when he posted the Church's
> materials on the Internet without permission.
Lerma has only infringed upon OT 2 and OT 3, Leisa. Not upon the rest.
> In November last year, a U.S. District Court judge in
> San Jose ruled that Internet access provider Netcom can be
> held liable for copyright infringement if the company was
> notified of copyright violations by one of its customers but
> refused to take action to right the wrong.
That is not exactly what the judge said, Leisa. Wordclear "might be
liable" and "contributory infringement". (In Dutch law, there is not
even such a thing as 'contributory infringement'.)
> The judge specifically stated that Internet access providers
> cannot avoid responsibility by comparing themselves to a
> phone company, because they are able to take action to
> prevent the illegal conduct.
But only after they've been warned in an orderly manner and given
proof for the claims, Leisa.
> The Dutch spokesperson for the Church, Julia Rijnvis,
> concluded, "The Internet is a wonderful tool and a priceless
> resource to link individuals from all corners of the world.
> However it is only valuable to the degree that individual
> creative works can be protected. The message from U.S. courts
> -- which must be applied in Holland -- is that the laws of the
> land must be applied in cyberspace. This means that free
> expression is more secure for everyone except copyright
> thieves and anarchists."
So that's how you see me? As a "copyright thief" and an "anarchist"? I
have not stolen your copyrights, Leisa. They may not be valid. They
may be overruled. Anyway, as soon as I was shown material that enabled
me to see that I was infringing upon something, I replaced your darned
OT 2, OT 3 and 'Ability' by my own summaries and comments and I now am
merely quoting from them. Which your organisation wants to stop me
from doing too.
Copyright Karin Spaink.
This text is offered for personal use only. Any
other use requires the author's written permission.