Slashdot Mirror
Wayback Machine Purged of Scientology Criticism
muldrake writes "The Wayback Machine, an archive of websites as they appeared in their past incarnations, is reported by CNET in this story as having censored the Scientology-critical Xenu.net, in a repeat of the heavy-handed tactics used against Google as reported in this previous Slashdot thread."
What is it about these scientologists that they can get away with this? The same bill of rights that allows their crazy cult to exist is the same one that allows me to make fun of them. If I had the money I would make the mother of all anti-scientologist websites. If you are a scientologist and are reading this, I invite you to my house.
It's one thign to believe in an all powerful deity that created the universe.
It's another thing to believe in a book that some guy wrote, because some other guy bet that he couldn't create a religeon.
Doesn't anyone have balls anymore?
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
http://www.clambake.org/
Operation Clam Bake. Wanna know an interestin fact? Scientologists believe we evolved from clams. Hence the name of the site "Clam Bake".
This guy has balls taking on this cult. I'm surprised they have put a hit on him. I mean Travolta was a bad mofo in Pulp Fiction.
Fact: Most people on the net have probably never heard of the Wayback Machine.
Fact: Most people on the net have probably never heard of Xenu.net, either.
Fact: People on the net have, however, heard of major news outlets.
Fact: Censorship is always a great topic for the major news outlets to cover, because it helps portray the image that they would never do such a thing with their coverage.
Conclusion: What was the Church of Scientology thinking? This move will only increase the number of people hitting xenu.net.
it's an old public relations adage: "there is no such thing as bad publicity." learn your simple lessons in life scientologists!
;-P
i know about xenu.net ONLY because of scientology's fervent attacks on it. if you elevate something up to such consternation, you only ignite everyone else's curiosity about what concerns you so much about something. how does scientology defeat xenu.net? by IGNORING it. letting it fade into obscurity. the more they attack xenu.net, the more we all know about it, "we all" being those who could care less about scientology one way or the other. and therefore, we now all know about scientology's seedy underside. and therefore, us neutrals now DO care about scientology... that is, we don't care much for it! lol
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
oh, wait. he already has.
-
While we understand that the organization behind the Wayback Machine does not want to unwittingly contribute to copyright infringement, we are distressed by the way in which the removal of our site was conducted, and the lack of feedback that we received from archive.org when we questioned this decision earlier this year.
When a Wayback Machine user attempts to access the archived version of SlatkinFraud.com, they are instead provided with a misleading message claiming that the 'site owners' requested that it not be included in the archive. This is wholly untrue, and entirely in contradiction to the actual views of the website owners in question, who would very much like to see our site become part of the Internet Archive. The material contained within SlatkinFraud.com is wholly owned and maintained by its site owners.
Unfortunately, as has become clear in recent days, SlatkinFraud.com is not the only site that has been summarily removed from the Archive based on complaints from the Church of Scientology. In the explanation recently provided by archive.org, the writer notes that the Church "asserted ownership" of an unknown quantity of material that was, at the time, available through the Wayback Machine archives. The maintainers of archive.org, however, have apparently made no effort whatsoever to inform site owners of these complaints lodged against their material, and in fact, until now, had not even replied to direct questions regarding the removal of certain sites when asked by the site owners in question.
This is clearly not an acceptable system for determining what sites or material should be archived by the Wayback Machine, since it does not adhere to one of the main provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act: the counter-notification process.
Under the DMCA, the owner of a site that has been alleged to contain infringing material has the right to challenge that claim via a counternotification letter to the hosting ISP if he or she believes that the material in question does not infringe on the copyright in question. After receiving this counter-notification from the user, the ISP is obliged to replace any files that were temporarily removed pending the complaint, at which point the original complainant must either initiate formal legal action against the owner of the site, or drop the matter entirely.
This system provides an important check to the sometimes perilous balance between the rights of copyright owners, and those of users. By formalizing the process, and allowing a response from the individual responsible for the alleged infringement, it frees the hosting company from the annoyance of dealing with frivolous claims.
A similar situation that arose resulted from similar complaints made by Church of Scientology lawyers about certain listings on the popular search engine Google. These complaints initially resulted in the wholesale removal of several Scientology-related sites from the Google database. Once this omission was discovered, the decision taken by Google to remove the sites without notice led to an outcry from its users. In fact, on closer examination of the complaints from Scientology, it became immediately obvious that the Church's lawyers were acting in bad faith by deliberately mixing trademark and copyright complaints, even though trademark complaints are not covered under the DMCA at all.
The ensuing barrage of criticism and media coverage both national and international forced Google to reconsider its decision. After several days, the company replaced the links in question, and agreed to make public any further DMCA complaints in cooperation with Chilling Effects, a non-profit website dedicated to preventing abuse of existing copyright law. This solution was welcomed by Google users, who had felt betrayed not only by the removal itself, but by the lack of disclosure on the part of Google regarding the initial complaints.
The explanation offered by the Internet Archive does not mention whether the original complaints received from the Church of Scientology were made under the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Such information would be helpful to site owners such as ourselves, as it would assist us in determining whether a complaint is justified, and remove any infringing material on our own volition.
Assuming that it was, in fact, a DMCA request, it would serve archive.org well to follow the same procedure as that eventually and successfully - - adopted by Google, and make every effort to inform site owners of such complaints in a timely manner. This could be done through a simple email alert system that would inform the site owner that a complaint had been made, or through a similar policy to that of Google, and publicizing the letters, either on the archive.org website itself or through an interested third party such as Chilling Effects.
This would allow the site owners to decide whether or not to issue a counter-notification, and relieve the Internet Archive of any concerns over contributory liability that may have played a role in its decision to remove the material without warning. It would also discourage copyright owners from making frivolous complaints about material that is obviously protected by fair use, since the process requires that formal legal action be taken within thirty days of receiving the counter notification letter.
Should archive.org decide not to re-list a site within the Wayback Machine at this point, which is, of course, its right, it should also refrain from suggesting that this was at the request of the site owner, and instead, explain its own concerns over potential infringement.
Finally, given the enormity of the Internet Archive project, and the benefits that it has provided, and, we hope, will continue to provide to the online community, it is essential for the Library maintainers to be open and transparent about the methodology used in selecting sites to be archived. Removing sites from the archive in a clandestine fashion, as dictated by the current policy, will only lead to increased concern that the Archive itself is rewriting the Internet history that it seeks to chronicle.
The Internet Archive's stated commitment is to provide a useful, wide-ranging resource for researchers, historians and scholars. It is surely in part due to such an admirable mandate that the Internet Archive has benefited from contributions from sponsors such as Alexa Internet, AT&T, Compaq and Xerox PARC, not to mention many individual supporters who believe in the idea of an Internet history that is freely accessible to all. It is doubtful that these supporters would want to see this ambitious initiative tainted by the suggestion that the integrity of the archive itself has been corrupted by those who would misuse copyright and trademark laws to censor views with which they disagree. The risk of such silent, selective discrimination against protected speech is great; the power to prevent such abuses by making all information related to such attempts to discriminate will always be greater.
Clearly, the best course of action is for the Internet Archive to adopt policy that is not only transparent, but dedicated to protecting not only its own interests, but those of copyright owners, site creators and, of course, the thousands of individuals who use the Wayback Machine and other Internet Archive services on a daily basis. On balance, the approach taken by Google, modified appropriately for the particular situation faced by the Internet Archive, would seem to be an excellent roadmap for the Internet Archive to follow.
Kady O'Malley, Dave Touretzky, and Scott Pilutik
Owners of Slatkinfraud.com
Apparently the deal is that A. they feel they have the right to copyright whatever they want (as I religious institution, I have my doubts about that) but also B. their beliefs are that if you hear the "higher level" teachings before you are ready, you will become sick and die. That's why it's always important to let a low-level Scientology "preclear" know that your consciousness is made up of many spirits called "thetans" from outer space who were banished to this planet billions of years ago by the evil galactic overlord Xenu. Then ask them if they are feeling well.
"Thank you, God, for your healing gift of religion."
In recent news, Keith Henson had his home invaded just yesterday under pretext of bankruptcy asset investigation, because he has been bankrupted by Scientology litigation.
Read all about it over in their forums in this thread.
THEY HAVE THE WORK COPYRIGHTED.
Actually, that's not quite accurate. They claim copyright on the work, but simultaneously deny that it's a real "church" document. I've always wondered about that. How can you claim copy rights on something that you swear you didn't create?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
And at that point, when said person has nothing much to live for anymore and certainly nothing to lose, Scientology HQ will go up in a big orange-red ball of ammonium nitrate and diesel oil.
Frankly, I'm surprised that it hasn't happened already. But with their present behavior, it's only a matter of time.
Don't even joke about this kind of stuff - Keith Henson was convicted in California of religious intolerance for someone else cracking a joke on alt.religion.scientology about passing by the headquarters of Golden Era Productions (a Scientology front company) with a "Tom Cruise Missile", and published the coordinates for the complex, along with the occasional protest of Scientology orgs. He was convicted, and bolted to Canada. Last I heard, he applied for refugee status.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
The wayback machine situation and the google debacle previously covered on slashdot is just the tip of the iceberg of deception called Scientology.
The efforts to silence criticism cover the the complete gamut of the edges of what society will tolerate.
Time Magazine 1991
Time Magazine was forced to spend 7.5 million defending this suit.
The Judge in the case concluded that Scientology was a cult.
Don't wonder why there arn't more ex-members speaking out, Scientology has a pattern of conduct of litigation for silence. Look at how much they have spent GAGGING ex-members HERE. - Note well: This is just what I have been able to find out
Scientology claimed in its own court filings to have spent 1,700,000 suing me in RTC vs Lerma. Judge Brinkema was so outraged buy their conduct in the case, the raid where the scientologists, themselves, searched my home, even when they moved the attorney fees for the for 5/17ths of case that they 'won' { having LOST their TRADE SECRET CLAIMS ) for the story of XENU and the BODY THETANS.. Judge Brinkema Awarded them ZERO.
Further Google, while running tons of adverts for scientology REFUSES to run mine
Remember this - what we have webbed is only WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT for sure... I've been at this for 8 years trying to expose them, and even for me, I keep finding out that things that are worse than even I think
You have witnessed just the tip of the iceberg of the Scientology's pattern of conduct to try to intimidate witnesses into silence by extortionate conduct.
Anything you can do to get the word out will be appreciated..
Sincerely,
Arnie Lerma
An Ex-member
PS: Send lawyers and money
Ferengi + Borg = Scientology
ARCHIVE.ORG has blocked my entire web site: all of www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst. My home page. My list of professional publications. My research project web pages. The Gallery of CSS Descramblers. Tutorial pages, Lisp book, everything I've written.
I don't exist. I've never existed. I've been erased from Internet history.
All because I dared to have some Scientology material on my web site.
ARCHIVE.ORG boasts a relationship with the Lbrary of Congress and with the National Science Foundation. I wonder if they are receiving any government funding. Surely it is impermissible to do the bidding of an abusive cult, at the expense of honest citizens, while taking government money?
-- Dave Touretzky
I've posted this before, but what the hell, I might as well do it again.
Basically, Scientology is a terrorist organization/organized crime syndicate based out of the US. In fact, you can very easily compare them to Al Qaida.
Scientology and Al Qaida share these traits
- Threats of violence (and actual cases of murders and harm to people) and abuse of host countries legal system against detractors
- Interference with and infiltration of the governments in the countries they are hosted in
- Cells operating all over the world
- Stockpiles of weapons and armed compounds
- Religious dogma used to control members and threats and violence used to stop members who want to leave from leaving
- Members are expected to be utterly loyal and are stripped of almost all money and most worldly possessions.
- Use of torture and inhumane forms of punishment
- Uses money to attack enemies (for Al Qaide, the US and her allies, for Scientology, it is anyone who detracts from them.)
- Aims their recruiters at people who are vulnerable or off balance (drug users, the poor).
Hell, they even went as far as to interfere with medical workers helping 9/11 victims last year in their rush to try to recruit people in a state of shock over what had happened.
So, when is the Bush administration going to get serious about terrorists in this country and take out America's largest and most heavily financed terrorist organization?
When is the FBI going to raid Gold Base? Why isn't the Free Winds seized at customs next time it stops by and searched. I bet they find a lot of nose powder on board for the leaders despite the "church"'s insistance that they hate drugs.
Why don't they look into Clearwater and the CO$'s interference with the government there?
Why won't they listen to our own Allies who are telling us that the CoS is a big criminal racket?
So come on Bush admin, if you are going to bomb other countries, why don't you just take care of the terrorist organizations HERE in the US first?
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
I didn't really expect to get modded +5 for something anti-CoS, or I probably would've posted as an AC.
I live in a quiet cul-de-sac in a small town in Nebraska. This morning, a white late-model Buick Regal (or similar) with Nebraska license plates 7-A4163 pulled up to my neighbor's curb and started taking pictures of my house. The driver, a heavy middle-aged male wearing dark glasses, drove off when I stood up from the breakfast table to get a better look.
Great - I really needed some extra grief in my life right now.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?