In article <3E565679.D53DACFA@bc.cc.ca.us>, Chris Leithiser <cleithis@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:

> Mike O'Connor wrote:

> > I'm not a lawyer or any kind of expert and It's unclear to me, but I
> > think that may be a question. For example, if I snail mail you a letter,
> > that becomes your letter. You can publish it, sell it, put it in a book.

> No, you cannot. You have physical ownership of the paper and ink. You
> can sell it as a souvenir or use it for scratch paper. But you cannot
> publish it without violating copyright.

While looking for a court case I seem to remember that supported my belief, I came across the below. It takes us on a tangent, but I found it really interesting:

"The 1976 Act essentially abolished the common-law copyright for all unpublished works created on or after January 1, 1978, the effective date of the new law -- but the statute provided that copyrightable works which were unpublished on that date would remain protected until December 31, 2002, unless such works were published before that date. If the works were published by December 31, 2002, the published works would be entitled to protection until December 31, 2027, later extended by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act to December 31, 2047.

"It is, therefore, important to bear in mind the fact that as of this coming New Year's Day -- January 1, 2003 -- all unpublished copyrightable works which were created before January 1, 1978, will become part of the public domain unless a publication occurs before that date."

[From http://www.technos.net/tq_11/3duboff.htm]

Never heard of that before! Wasn't the cult claiming over and over in court in the late 90's copyright cases that most of their once-secret sacred scriptures were unpublished works? If so, and they maintained those claims, and the above is true, does this place those documents in the Public Domain?

--
LYING IS A SCIENTOLOGY SACRAMENT
ASK THEM ABOUT XENU
Mike O'Connor <http://www.leptonicsystems.com/>

[misc.int-property added. Followups please note that this topic may drift but if it drifts beyond the purview of the copyright issues, drop misc.int-property.]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:53:17 GMT, Mike O'Connor <mike@leptonicsystems.com>

wrote:

>Never heard of that before! Wasn't the cult claiming over and over in
>court in the late 90's copyright cases that most of their once-secret
>sacred scriptures were unpublished works? If so, and they maintained
>those claims, and the above is true, does this place those documents in
>the Public Domain?

This matter certainly bears consideration. With the effort Scientology maintains in examining copyrights and considering that Scientology has had people on the payroll (such as Sandy Rosen) whose metier is intellectual property law, for the works to have entered the public domain in this manner would be gross malpractice.

Does anyone know whether this says what it appears to say?

For background, Scientology had many copyright suits in the mid to late '90's alleging, among other things, copyright infringement on works created prior to 1978 which Scientology, and more specifically beneficial owners Religious Technology Center (RTC) and Bridge Publications International (BPI) as well as its European counterpart New Era Publications Int'l (NEPI), representing actual owner Church of Spiritual Technology (CST), filed suit against a number of Internet users.

One challenged claim was that the materials were unpublished.

Findings of fact have issued in which the unpublished status of works such as New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans (NOTS) and various Operating Thetan (OT) levels has been upheld (this unpublished status has been upheld in the United States and European nations including the Netherlands and Sweden).

This law appears to state that unpublished copyrighted materials created prior to 1978 enter the public domain unless published.

The issue would appear to be simple.

Factually, have materials subject to this rule been "published" since then? If there has been no change in their status, can the owners turn around and argue the contrary position, ie., that the materials are published, after having won legal cases by claiming, successfully, that they are unpublished.

Legally, if the prior facts were found to be the case, would materials fitting within that criteria (created prior to 1978 and unpublished), enter the public domain according to the law as it has been interpreted by the courts?

I know that it is often considered draconian to strip copyright owners for technical deficiencies, but it has seemed to be the case that in these specific conditions relating to new copyright laws, courts have tended to stick by the explicit language of the statute.

One case in which Scientology was stung by such a technical failure to timely reregister works to take advantage of a copyright term extension was the Manual of Justice, which was found to be public domain in New Era Publications Int'l v. Carol Pub. Group, 729 F. Supp- 992, 995 3 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 904 F.2d 152 (2d Cir. 4 1990).

The finding of fact that the copyright on this material ended in 1989 stands and has been used by other courts, as in RTC v. Erlich, USDC, NDCA No.

C95-20091 RMW (EAI), in which RTC again falsely listed the public domain Manual of Justice as a copyrighted work that they owned.

This seems to be an interesting enough issue and on point enough to post to misc.int-property even despite the fact that sometimes, such crossposts have had less than excellent results. Apologies if it gets out of hand.

Go Back