From braintree!news.sprintlink.net!in1.uu.net!news.intergate.net!usenet Tue Oct 10 10:01:0

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From braintree!news.sprintlink.net!in1.uu.net!news.intergate.net!usenet Tue Oct 10 10:01:08 1995 Path: braintree!news.sprintlink.net!in1.uu.net!news.intergate.net!usenet From: rcostner@intergate.net (Robert A. Costner) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Recent Court Document Criticises Church Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 15:37:08 GMT Organization: Intergate, Inc. Lines: 110 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <450u28$1nk@keystone.intergate.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p12.intergate.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 Xref: braintree alt.religion.scientology:113968 comp.org.eff.talk:64701 In a recently released court document, the Church of Scientology and it's sister organizations is put into a very bad light by the court system. What follows is some quotes and comments I have made based on Milne's suggestion to me. In the last few weeks, I have had an ongoing E-mail conversation with Milne. Despite the fact that I have told him that I am indeed aware of the issues involved, and have read the court documents, Milne has continued to defend his position to me with extremely weak arguments. I have repeatedly communicated to Milne that his weak defense of these issues is inappropriate and he should find more effective methods of presenting his arguments. Based on Milne's personal request that I demonstrate that I am not merely mimicking the uninformed position of another person, I offer here direct quotes from the court documents. It is interesting to note that while the judge's ruling is lengthy, only five "ORDERS" were given. These five orders are listed first, in reverse order. What follows is some additional quotes from the text of the court document. JUDGE WHITE DENIES CHURCH'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS "5. Plaintiff's request for sanctions against defendant ... is denied" CHURCH MUST RETURN ALL ILLEGALLY SEIZED MATERIALS THAT BELONG TO ELRICH. "4. Plaintiffs [CoS] are ordered to return within ten (10) days of the date of this order to defendant Erlich through his counsel all items seized" JUDGE WHYTE FINDS NO WRONG DOING ON THE PART OF ELRICH "3. Plaintiffs' motion for a finding of contempt against defendant Erlich is denied." JUDGE WHYTE DENIES THE CHURCH'S REQUEST TO PLACE RESTRAINTS ON ELRICH. "2. Plaintiffs' application to expand the TRO is denied without prejudice." JUDGE WHYTE ENDORSES ELRICH'S COPYING AND FAIR USE OF DOCUMENTS "1. Nothing in this section of the order shall be construed to prohibit fair use of such works, as set forth in 17 U.S.C. sec. 107 and interpreted by applicable case law. . . .Defendant Erlich or his counsel shall safely retain possession of any such items. " COURT RULES DOCUMENTS HAVE NO "TRADE SECRET" STATUS "The court further rejects plaintiffs' claim that Erlich's Consolidated Opposition reveals alleged trade secrets from plaintiffs' Advanced Technology works, and should have been filed under seal. Nothing in the "Consolidated Opposition" reveals information not already publicized in the popular press." "Therefore, RTC has not shown a likelihood of success on an essential element of its trade secret claim." CHURCH SEIZURE OF MATERIALS FOUND ILLEGAL "Because plaintiffs' ex parte application for a writ of seizure did not meet the requirements of Rule 65(b), the court vacates the writ. Plaintiffs must return to Erlich all articles seized within ten (10) days of this order." CHURCH SEIZURE OF MATERIALS FOUND WITHOUT MERIT "The court finds plaintiffs' request that Erlich's computer and other equipment be seized to be wholly without merit. No amount of excessive copying in the context of criticism, which is potentially subject to a valid fair use defense, would warrant such a seizure. Here, Erlich's equipment is hardly an instrument of infringement." COURT IS DISTURBED BY CHURCH'S ACTIONS "The court is also disturbed by allegations that plaintiffs deleted materials from Erlich's hard drive if such materials were not also saved on floppies or tape back-up for possible later restoration. . . The court is disturbed by the possibility that plaintiffs copied the entirety of Erlich's hard drive into a tape for examination at their leisure." JUDGE WHYTE FINDS ELRICH'S ACTIONS ACCEPTABLE "Erlich is not engaged primarily in illegitimate and infringing activities" COURT AFFIRMS FAIR USE COPYING OF CHURCH MATERIALS "The court is unpersuaded by plaintiffs' argument that an intermediate copy made for the purposes of posting or uploading a work makes the subsequent copy unauthorized such that fair use is unavailable." JUDGE WHYTE FINDS ELRICH'S COPIES LEGITIMATE "There is no evidence here that Erlich obtained his copies of plaintiffs' works through deceit." COURT FINDS ELRICH INVOLVED IN NONCOMMERCIAL USE "based on the clearly noncommercial nature of the use and the protected purpose of criticism, the court finds that the first fair use factor weighs slightly in Erlich's favor despite the minimally transformative nature of Erlich's use." COURT FINDS ELRICH INVOLVED IN FAIR USE CRITICISM "Because there is insufficient evidence to support plaintiffs' claim that Erlich's copying was made out of spite or for other destructive reasons, the court will assume Erlich's intended purpose was criticism or comment." I should point out that I have no interest in the CoS, Elrich, this case, or any of the church's materials. I am willing to defend my ability to exercise my cognitive abilities, and am prepared to do such again if Milne suggests such to me. -- Robert rcostner@intergate.net

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank