Scientology's lawsuit
Summary proceedings, December 14 1995

1. This was not translated by a lawyer; some legalese may lack the exact legal phrasing.
2. Sections 14 and 15 are especially interesting. They show that CoS considers providers as equally guilty of publication and/or duplication of the alleged copyright infringing material as their users. Furthermore, CoS claims that providing hyperlinks is also considered to be publication and/or duplication.

Nauta Dutilh
CSM/lw 50011089

Today, November eight, nineteen hundred and ninety five, as requested by

1. the incorporated religious organization according to foreign law CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, established in Los Angeles, United States of America, and
2. the incorporated religious organization according to foreign law RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, established in Los Angeles, United States of America,

SUMMONED IN LAWSUIT:

1. the private company with limited liability DATAWEB B.V., statutory established in 's-Gravenhage (The Hague);
2. the foundation STICHTING XS4ALL, statutory established in Amsterdam;
3. the foundation STICHTING DE DIGITALE STAD, statutory established in Amsterdam;
4. the partnership CISTRON INTERNET SERVICES B.V. I.O., established in Alphen aan den Rijn;
5. Karin SPAINK, living in Amsterdam;

   the defendants sub 1 - 5 having explicitly chosen domicile in 1017 LA Amsterdam, at 708 Prinsengracht, in the office of attorney at law Mr. P. H. Bakker Schut, consequently delivering this subpoena at that chosen domicile and handing over a transcript for each of the defendants to: Mrs. M. Hamer, employed at that adress;

6. Danny Marco Herbert Roger TER HAAR, partner of the defendant sub 4, living in Alphen aan den Rijn and on the grounds of article 1:14 BW also having domicile at xxxxxxxxxx, consequently delivering this subpoena at the latter adress and handing over a transcript to: etc.
7. Simon Cornelis Maria VAN SMOORENBURG, partner of the defendant sub 4, living in Ter Aar and on the grounds of article 1:14 BW also having domicile at xxxxxxxxxx, consequently delivering this subpoena at the latter adress and handing over a transcript to: etc.

appear, whether or not represented by an attorney, on Thursday, December the fourteenth, nineteen hundred and ninety five, at 10.00 AM at the session of the president of the county court in 's-Gravenhage (The Hague), doing justice in a lawsuit, to be held at the Palace of Justice, 2 Juliana van Stolberglaan;

NOTIFYING:

that defendants will be obliged to pay the flatrate-amount of fl 330,- on appearance, which can be reduced when the defendants prove to be poor or indigent;

IN ORDER TO:

hear the following demands and conclusions made:

1. Plaintiff sub 1, hereafter to be called 'CST', posesses the copyright on various coinfidential, not published works referring to the teachings and activities of the Church of Scientology, a church of American origine that is established amongst others by churches and missions in various countries.
2. Plaintiff sub 2, hereafter to be called 'RTC', is the exclusive licenceholder of the copyrights of the works mentioned above and proxy to maintenance of these rights.
3. The works concerned in the present procedure have been created by the in 1986 deceased L. Ron Hubbard. They are commonly known under the names of Operating Thetan I to Operating Thetan VII (OT I to OT VII), hereafter to be called the 'OT-works'. As a consequence of the teachings of the Church of Scientology, these works are solely accessible for selected members of the church, who have reached a certain level of spirituality. These members are held to strict secrecy, by means of secrecy-declarations to be signed by the selected members. Secrecy of the OT-works is applied with the greatest possible care; neither the teachings nor the practice of the Church of Scientology allow others than the above mentioned selected members to study the works. The owner has never given permission to make the works available to the general public.
4. The OT-works have been registered at the United States Copyright Office (USCO). Because the documents concerned are confidential, the transcripts filed at the USCO have been 'screened' in order to preserve their confidential nature.
5. In 1993, a defendant in a legal procedure in the United States has submitted a written testimony, the so-called 'Fishman Affadavit'. Appendix F of this declaration contains the whole of the OT-works, or at least major parts of those. Plaintiffs have not given permission to incorporate these works in the Affadavit. They have immediately resisted possible unrestrained access to the OT-works by third parties.
6. Apart from that, RTC has filed three procedures in the United States that also refer to the publication and/or duplication by third parties of (a number of) OT-works. At the time this subpoena was filed, the defendants have in those three procedures been forbidden to publish and/or duplicate the works.
7. The Internet is a worldwide network of computers and computer-networks that in recent years is also being widely used by private persons. The communication between the computers that are part of this network proceeds by a certain standard. Access can be obtained through various (whether or not commercial) organizations, amongst whom are the so-called 'Internet access providers'.
8. Once on the network, a large number of options are possible, amongst those access to electronic databases, the use of e-mail (electronic mail), partaking in discussion groups, bulletin boards and access to the World Wide Web. On this Web it's possible to construct the so-called 'homepages', e.g. creating one's own documents and making them available to others.
9. Every file on the World Wide Web has its own indication, the 'Uniform Resource Locator' (URL). This URL is a unique 'adress' that makes it possible for others to open the file using special pc-software, the so-called 'World Wide Web browser'. Therefore, the URL shows what file is concerned and where it is located. The name and/or adress of the user concerned is nevertheless usually not traceable.
10. The defendants sub 1,2,3,4,6 en 7, hereafter to be called the 'providers', are Internet access providers. Their computersystems offer users the possibility to access the Internet; moreover information is made accessible to third parties through their systems, amongst others on the homepages of their users.
11. The defendant sub 5, hereafter to be called 'Spaink', uses the services of one of these providers. On her homepage, of which she (partially) defines the contents, she makes information available to others.
12. Plaintiffs have noticed that the Fishman Affadavit, of which the OT-works are a part, are being published and/or duplicated on the Internet through the systems of the providers, by a number of their users. Plaintiffs have not given permission for duplication and/or publication of the OT-works. As explained in article 5, this concerns the whole of the OT-works, or at least major parts of those.
13. Users (partially) define the contents of their homepages. Third parties who have access to the Internet can open the files and 'download' them. This means that the works mentioned above are being published and/or duplicated by the users, amongst whom is Spaink, thus infringing article 1 of the Copyright law of 1912.
14. Apart from that, the providers are also guilty of unlawful publication and/or duplication of the above mentioned works because these works are made available to others through their system. When a user makes infringing documents available on his homepage, a copy of those documents can be found on the system of the provider. The provider offers third parties a copy of the documents, which they can 'download' if they desire to do so.
15. When the infringing documents are made available to others by a so-called 'hyperlink', e.g. a 'built-in' reference to another document (whether or not on a different system) that, when activated, causes the publication and/or duplication, this must also be regarded as publication and/or duplication by the user and the provider.
16. By publishing and/or duplicating the OT-works without permission, Spaink and the providers are infringing the rights of the plaintiffs and are therefore acting unlawfully against the latter.
17. Plaintiffs have suffered damage as a result of the unlawful acts of Spaink and the providers, and are threatened to suffer further damage.
18. Spaink and the providers have been summoned to cease their unlawful actions. They have not complied to this demand.
19. Therefore plaintiffs have the right to and an urgent interest in the awarding by this court of the following claims.

if it pleases the President of the county court in 's-Gravenhage (The Hague) to pronounce verdict and to:

a. Order defendant sub 5 to immediately refrain from any infringement on the copyrights of plaintiff sub 1, including publication and/or duplication of the documents known as Operating Thetan I (OT I) to Operating Thetan VII (OT VII) and continue to do so in the future;

b. Order defendants sub 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 en 7:
firstly to immediately stop any infringement on the copyrights of plaintiff sub 1, including publication and/or duplication of the documents known as Operating Thetan I (OT I) to Operating Thetan VII (OT VII) and continue to do so in the future;
secondly to immediately remove infringing documents, including the documents known as Operating Thetan I (OT I) to Operating Thetan VII (OT VII), as soon as they are notified of the presence of those documents on their system;
moreover to ask the users to immediately remove the infringing documents, including the documents known as Operating Thetan I (OT I) to Operating Thetan VII (OT VII), as soon as they are notified of the presence of those documents on their system, and to deny the user concerned all further access to their sytem if he refuses to comply to this demand;

c. Order the defendants sub 1,2,3,4,6 en 7 to inform plaintiffs within three days after the verdict about the names and adresses of third parties who have made infringing documents available through their system or will be or will be publishing such documents after the verdict;

the under a., b., and c. mentioned on penalty of fl. 10,000 for every failure to follow any command given under a., b., and c., to be paid by the defendant concerned, including the condition that the defendants sub 6 en 7 will be personally held responsible for any actions of defendant sub 4;

d. Sentence all defendants personally to pay the cost of this lawsuit.

The costs of this subpoena are for me, bailiff, fl. (unreadable)

This case is being treated by Mrs R. Hermans en C.S.M. Morel, Nauta Dutilh, lawyers, notaries and tax concultants, 59 Prinses Irenestraat, 1077 WV Amsterdam, telephone: ## 31 (0)20-541.4646, telefax: ## 31 (0)20-541.4700, filenumber: 50011089.

translation by Patricia Savenije.