FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement - alt.religion.scientology

Message from discussion FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement

Roland

More options Aug 6 1997, 3:00 am

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

From: Roland <rolan...@netcomuk.co.uk>

Date: 1997/08/06

Subject: Re: FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

Fast wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 01:06:19 GMT, refe...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
> wrote:

> > On 4 Aug 1997 16:04:31 -0700, Arnie Lerma wrote:

> > [snip]

> > > The idea comes from common law. When a highway is blocked, you
> > >may cross private property without consequence. And may not be enjoined from
> > >doing so..

> > >It is also the duty of a citizen to alert his fellow citizens to a threat to
> > >thier safety.

> > There is no need to violate copyright in order to do that, Arnie.
> > Read Judge Brinkema's decision in your case again. Apparently, you
> > missed what she wrote about that. Or else you didn't understand it.

> Diane -

> Arnie posted *before* Judge Brinkema offered her ruling. You make it
> seem as though he read her order and then decided to post as he did.

> > >If a plague were coming, you'd certainly want to tell your neighbors to prepare.

> > There is no need to violate copyright to warn your neighbors about a
> > coming plague.

You have bent judges in the US put there to protect big business. They
are political appointments. They are not earned through merit. What they
do they do because they were appointed to do it. They twist the law to
please their masters knowing they can never be held accountable. The
whole system stinks. "American justice" is an oxymoron.

What you are saying is complete crap anyway - as usual. We know the Co$
lies. It is all based on lies. So to warn people you have to provide the
proof. You have to provide something substantial. The NOTs, or whatever,
are like a photograph taken of the crime in action. Only it belongs to
them. It is proof - but it belongs to them rather than you. To produce
this proof you infringe copyright (not so in the UK). And yet in some
cases this is what you must do.

I put in the rider "not so in the UK". In the UK it is all decided by
the courts. There isn't even any "fair use" here. The courts will decide
each complaint on its own merits. For a start-off copyright is to do
with protecting the copyright holders entitlement to money from a
performance of their work. In the case described that doesn't apply.
Also if a person is acting in order to protect the public they can do
so, so long as they can convince the courts that that was the reason
they did it. If the courts decided that the Co$ were being immoral in
keeping their stuff hidden from the public then they would not even be
able to use the courts in any case. You are not allowed to use the legal
system to enforce immoral acts. For example, if you had a bet with
someone and they welched on their bet then there is no way you could
take them to court to recover that debt. Gambling is immoral and so you
cannot use the courts to assist you. That is the way it is over here.
That is why the Co$ are going to get crucified when a particular big
case gets to court over here.

> This analogy is getting a little thin, but can you really not think of
> a type of danger that should be publicized, and after you do somebody
> comes along and says "thanks for the warning, but the material you
> quoted is copyright and we don't think it is fair use"?

> > > You would have a moral obligation to do so....

> > > Thats exactly how it looked to me.

> > But not how it looked to Judge Brinkema.

> Finally, the heart of the matter. Arnie did what he did believing it
> was right and proper. Later, the Cof$ brings it to court, and the
> Judge says he wasn't completely legal in how he publicized the danger,
> and here is a tiny, little, statutory minimum fine for your trouble.

> You know, Arnie was probably still *right* to act as he did. The
> point being that if we all failed to act or criticize when we are
> confronted with apparent wrongdoing. If we are self-censored into
> silence out of fear that a well-intended and apparently legal protest
> would turn to have unfortunate consequences for ourselves, then we
> fail in our duty as responsible human beings in a free society.

> We don't have Federal judges standing by to offer binding advice on
> the spur of the moment. We must, each of us, make a good faith effort
> to decide what is right and wrong, and how we are going to act in the
> face of perceived injustice.

> "When they came for the <....>, I did not complain, because I was not
> <....>. When they came for me, there was no one left to complain."

> > > When I hit send - to post the Fishman aff to ars.

> > > Was 2 years ago today and last few, that I did that.

> > Diane Richardson
> > refe...@bway.net

*Plonk* the bitch!

Reply to author Forward