From braintree!news.sprintlink.net!news.bluesky.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!homer.alpha.net!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hpax!apollo.hp.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!lepton.dialup.access.net!user Thu Nov 2 15:58:39 1995
From: email@example.com (Mike O'Connor)
Subject: Re: Big Suprise - No mention of fair use
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 13:05:36 -0500
Organization: Leptonic Systems Co.
X-Newsreader: Value-Added NewsWatcher 2.0b27.1+
Notice the phrase "fair use" does not appear in this article. That issue
is framed in the terms that the cult wishes to frame it - that copyrighted
works were posted to the Internet, period. The real issue is not if some
of the documents were copyrighted, but that is what the reader is led to
believe. The real issue is if the posting made fair use of the documents.
In particular, the main posting at issue was of a court record which was
generally available to the public on request, not under seal, which
contained within it, copyrighted materials.
Doesn't that happen every day? Don't we see cases on Court TV which show
copyrighted news stories as part of the evidence? Remember the O.J. case,
for example. We saw a number of clips of TV news footage, copyrighted by
the TV news organizations. Judge Ito ruled on the admissibility of the
clips, and determined clip by clip, if they could be aired. And they were,
we all saw it. And still see it, on replays of the trial. FAIR USE.
Didn't the same thing happen in the Fishman case? The judge, I believe,
ruled on the admissibility of the copyrighted material as evidence. The
judge was asked to seal the evidence from the public. DENIED. I believe
this was appealed. DENIED. The material was made part of the record. The
record was made publicly available. alerma posted the record, in full.
FAIR USE. This was barely mentioned, indirectly, in the article, and the
word "fair" is nowhere in the article.
I think that's the main issue in court. Was the posting fair use? A side
issue is if the material is in fact covered by valid copyrights. That is
not the main issue, fair use is. This article does not mention fair use,
and most articles I see about the case do not mention fair use. Why not?
I think it is because the cult carefully avoids saying anything about fair
use. They know how to do PR. They talk to the press and make sure they
understand the issue is copyright validity, and the stories are written
with that slant. Then, each reader gets that slant and thinks it is clear
case of infringement. It isn't. THEY DON'T MENTION FAIR USE - THE MAIN
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
| Cyberspace Copyrights
| Sebastian Rupley
| PC Magazine
| Nov 7, 1995
| As courts and federal agencies grapple with how to regulate on-line
| services, cases involving pornography and defamation of character
| in cyberspace have grabbed headlines. There's another issue
| developing, though, over a sensitive - if slightly less sexy -
| problem: copyright infringement.
| When U.S. Federal Marshals recently seized the computer equipment
| of a former employee of the Church of Scientology, lawmakers sent
| a high-profile message about copyright infringement in cyberspace.
| Only weeks after the incident, the Clinton administration issued
| electronic copyright proposals to protect authors and publishers
| from "cyberjackers."