Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be
considered to be copywritten materials, I have censored myself and The
Skeptic Tank by deleting any and all possible text files which describes
the cult's hidden mythologies. I have elected to quote just a bit of the
questionable text according to the "Fair Use" legal findings afforded to
those who report. - Fredric L. Rice, The Skeptic Tank, 09/Sep/95
From news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!cam.news.pipex.net!pipex!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!warwick!bsmail!plmlp Mon Jul 10 17:02:55 1995
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Martin Poulter)
Subject: Martin Poulter Strikes Scientology...?
Sender: email@example.com (Usenet news owner)
Organization: University of Bristol, England
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 1995 18:29:27 GMT
As it turned out, my account and Web page were only suspended for *one day*!
My Web page is *not*, repeat *not* deactivated- read it!
Helena Kobrin has sent e-mails which claim that my action entitles her
client (Religious Technology Centre) to damages and an injunction.
Her complaint is specifically about a message I posted to a.r.s on Sunday,
which contained a small extract from OT7 material. She demands that I
remove this post from the Internet (which is, of course, impossible)
Strangely enough, Ms Kobrin's message makes no reference to my message of
a few days ago, entitled "Cancel This, 'ya Morons", which was also, I
believe, a Fair Use commentary on SCAMIZDAT material.
Although it resembles the form letter sent to Nico Garcia, Grady Ward,
Daniel Davidson and Martin Hunt (see Ron Newman's Web page), her letter to
me has important differences. She claims that the OT7 document is
copyrighted *and* a trade secret. She is emphatic that Fair Use does not
apply, specifically because the documents are *unpublished*. She also says
that there is no Fair Use (Fair Dealing in England) defense to trade
secret misappropriation. She claims that downloading of SCAMIZDAT is a
breach of copyright and trade secret laws.
I am awaiting the University's advice on all of this and I will follow that
advice completely. I advise anyone who intends to post Fair Use commentary
on Scientology scripture should seek proper legal advice before doing so.
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
>Let's hope that the University sees through this pathetic attempt at
>silencing it's critics and sends the CO$ representatives packing.
>Anyone know an e-mail address for the university that we could
NOOOOO!!!! Please don't send any mail to my service managers. They are
doing a great job. I repeat that I have no desire to bring down any
trouble on their heads, from any direction. They are just doing their job.
Thanks for the kind suggestion, though.
On a matter unconnected with the above events (except that it is to do
with the posting to a.r.s that I made last Sunday), I will of course be
filing a report about the cancellations of that post (and the follow-ups
and re-posts), which I understand constitute Computer Misuse. RTC would be
doing themselves a favour if they made a statement to the making clear to
the 'net community that they would not contemplate resorting to this
cowardly and criminal practice. Helena Kobrin would be the ideal person to
MARTIN L: Postgrad. studying "Probability and Belief" at Bristol University
POULTER : KNIGHT NATASEVOLLLEWYLLOJI
WWW Home Page & Scientology Critics' OF Scientology is a dangerous cult
stuff: http://mail.bris.ac.uk/~plmlp XENU -warn your family and friends.