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."
Due to a link fark.com Operation Clambake got 200.000 hits today.
As someone who deals occasionally with CAD drawing scaling, who the fuck decided that the . should replace the , when mentioning numbers? Did Operation Clambake get 200.5 "hits"?
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.
It seems to me that a Supreme Court should render decisions based on their own learned opinions and understanding of the law. It's dangerous to have a Supreme Court rendering decisions based on the will of the current government.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I hope that you realize that there isn't much difference between a "cult" and a mainstream religion: I don't know any religion which haven't been used as some time or another to kill other people..
In a semi-related topic, I heard that Bush has said that he doesn't consider atheists as citizens and yet he has been elected, two times!
How open and generous are some beleivers.. I wonder if we can infer from his two elections that his supporters share his so benevolent views against people who don't support their beliefs?
"You can't mend a broken heart by pretending it's not broken."
Do you think it might if you were one of the Great Pretenders?
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free