Slashdot Mirror
Dutch A.G. Supports Scientology v. Spaink Verdict
bbc writes "ISP XS4All reports that the Dutch Attorney-General advises against reversal of the last verdict in the Scientology vs. Karin Spaink case (part of Scientology's War on the Internet). A series of court battles between writer Spaink and the Church of Scientology has changed the copyright landscape of the internet in the Netherlands. In an early case, linking to infringing documents was considered infringement itself. Later this was reversed, although by then several unrelated cases (notably Deutsche Bahn v. Indymedia) had been decided on the basis of this judgement. On appeals, the court held that free speech sometimes trumps copyright: even though Spaink may have infringed on the Church's copyright, she was allowed to do so to bring to light the doings of what she considers an evil sect.
According to the XS4All document, not only did the Attorney-General uphold the decision that Free Speech can trump Copyright, but concluded also that there may not have been infringement. The Attorney-General feels a work can be considered published even if publication happened against the will of the author. In the Netherlands, the Supreme Court can only reverse previous decisions by lower courts. Before it renders a verdict, it asks the Attorney-General for advice."
I agree entirely. Which other "religion" copyrights its sacred doctrines and intentionally tries to restrict access to them? Nobody objects when people quote passages from the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah. Gideons are tripping over themselves trying to make sure that your hotel room has a Bible.
In my opinion, Scientology uses its copyrights to bilk people out of money.
From what I understand, the way that you progress through the various levels of Scientology is to spend money on expensive "cleansing" sessions, e-meters, etc. Only after spending large sums of money do you actually get access to the highest-level religious texts. Only after spending large sums of money do you learn that the "religion" you're participating in is based on what I would call a fairy-tale about aliens, other planets, and various tenets which do not even remotely agree with current knowledge in the fields of biology, physics, and astronomy (three real Sciences).
It is my belief that the reason there are so many "high profile" Scientologists is that by the time they've spent thousands or even millions of dollars to learn what their religion is really about, they don't want to admit being duped or taken for a ride. Instead, they stick with the story, perhaps even convincing themselves that it's true.
Compare to the elderly people you see in the news now and then who fall for the 419 scam. First they send $5,000 to some guy in Nigeria. When nothing happens, they don't want to believe that they were scammed, so they send another $2,500 to cover the "duty fees" on their pending "$10,000,000.00 (TEN MILLION DOLLARS U.S.)" payment. Several months later after they've wired their entire life savings into a black hole, many of them still refuse to believe they were conned.
As far as I'm concerned, Scientology operates the same way. I think that Scientology is a business, not a religion, and should not have the benefits granted to religion in the US (especially the tax-exempt status).
You probably noticed how many disclaimers I've put into this post. That's because I've heard that Scientology is sue-happy, will show up and picket your house, will intimidate people you know, and will use other tactics to try and seek revenge for those who make negative comments about them. I don't want to be sued, and I'd rather not have my house picketed, so I'm doing my best to make it abundantly clear that this post contains my opinions based upon what I've heard. If you want to re-read my post and pretend that the italicized parts aren't there, that's your business.
Meanwhile, you might want to check out this petition.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Copyright law recognised this in that: a copyright was for a limited term (how long does an author live ?); and it allowed quoting of parts of the work (after reading the quote you may be enticed to buy the whole book).
The Church of Scientology (CoS) is using copyright to prevent criticism of itself. The people who it is acting against are not reproducing CoS works to make a quick buck. This is a very different scenario than was envisaged by the original authors of copyright legislation. This is a case where the judges should look at the purpose of legislation rather than the words in which it is written and, through precedent, fix it for the future. It is like when you write a program for some purpose, and using it for something extra breaks it (exposes a bug), so you fix it.
I suppose that you could say that the CoS is using copyright to protect it's financial interests, but that is through keeping potential adherents in the dark until they are well & truely hooked rather than preventing others from making a quick buck from it's works.
Anyone know when the fishman affidavit comes out of copyright ?
Well, if the summary should explain what the article is about, then the title should do likewise. It takes a lot of careful parsing to interpret that title correctly. If someone writes a title that will be read by thousands, whose burden is it to be careful?
I simply do not have the time to read all the articles that appear on slashdot and elsewhere. Well-written titles help me to choose quickly which articles I will read.