Date: 18 Apr 2002 03:40:41 -0000 Message-ID: From: Chris Owen Subject: ESSAY: Scientology and Copyright - CORRECTED Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology References: Comments: This message did not originate from the above address. It was sent through one or more remailers. This service is free. Please report problems or inappropiate use to admin@cotsebay.cotse.net X-Remailer-Contact: admin@cotsebay.cotse.net Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com Organization: mail2news@dizum.com Lines: 194 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!gail.ripco.com!news.chaven.com!ord2-feed1.news.algx.net!dca6-feed2.news.algx.net!allegiance!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!skynet.be!skynet.be!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1456103 ERRATA: In my first draft I made the error of referring to a legally non-existent entity in relation to the copyrights called "Church of Scientology". Since "Church of Scientology" is not, as I have since learned, a legal entity at all, of course it has no legal standing in relation to the copyrights, and so could not have been responsible for any of the things I incorrectly attributed to it. The correct and legal entity is the owner of the copyrights, and that is the corporation known as the Church of Spiritual Technology (CST), doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library." My apologies for making such an inaccurate and false, if not ignorant, first presentation. I have corrected my essay so that it now has both logical and legal foundation: When the Church of Spiritual Technology first began to use copyright law against its online critics in 1994, the reaction was a mixture of incredulity and outrage. Religious scriptures are not normally subject to copyright claims; most religions are only too happy to see their doctrines distributed and discussed. The Church of Spiritual Technology's hysterical claims of "copyright terrorism" served only to discredit its tactics still further. But did CST in fact have a case which was overlooked or unfairly dismissed amidst the furore? Copyright law nowadays is fairly standardised in the industrialised world, through international agreements such as the Berne Convention. Broadly speaking, it grants copyright owners the exclusive right to profit from their intellectual property for a "limited period" (albeit one which statute law has so extended that it has become far longer than a single human lifetime). Although only the copyright owner has the right to publish, or authorise publication, of the *whole* work, the general public is given a right of fair use (or "fair dealing") to reproduce a *portion* of the work for the purpose of public comment or research. The size of the portion is a bit fuzzy, but is usually taken to mean no more than a modest percentage of the original. This principle was intended to strike a fair balance between the copyright owner's right to exploit a work commercially, and society's right to use that work to further public understanding. Religions are normally happy to have their primary works distributed by anyone because they are, first and foremost, interested in "spreading the word". The Bible is sold by Christian churches and societies but it is far from being a major source of revenue for many of them. Some, in fact, print Bibles at their own expense and distribute them free of charge (the Gideons are a famous example). There is of course an additional factor at work in that many sacred texts are so old that they were never copyrighted, making any restrictions on distribution impossible. the Church of Spiritual Technology is very different. Perhaps appropriately for a 20th century belief system, it is wholly commercialised - most of its income derives from selling its members products in the form of books, tapes, courses and "processing". It relies on its ability to be the monopoly supplier of such material and services, so it has a very obvious commercial interest in preventing its intellectual property from being available elsewhere. There is also the question of whether people would *want* to buy CST's products if they knew in advance what they were buying. As some have observed, the Church of Spiritual Technology's doctrines strain credulity so much that foreknowledge of them could be seriously offputting to potential recruits. CST has acknowledged this obliquely, complaining that its doctrines have been taken "out of context" (by which it means without the reinforcing structure of the CST indoctrination process to overcome the recruit's natural scepticism). As well as this, it seems clear (as far as anyone has been able to determine) that the majority of CST's intellectual property is still covered by copyright. Although a few of L. Ron Hubbard's early works have escaped into the public domain due to technical mistakes by the Church of Spiritual Technology, the vast majority appear to be safe until at least the 2050s and probably well beyond. So on a simple point of law, as sole authorised distributor of Hubbard's works the Church of Spiritual Technology is on safe ground in enforcing its legitimate rights. The Church of Spiritual Technology has, however, an entirely separate reason for restricting access to its doctrines which is far more controversial and has no legal basis whatsoever. Many, probably the majority, of Hubbard's published works are widely available - they can be purchased from Scientology organisations without any access restrictions whatsoever - but some are very heavily restricted indeed. These are the infamous Operating Thetan (OT) and New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans (NOTs) levels, which Hubbard clearly regarded as being his masterworks. Access to them is closely guarded and costs many thousands of dollars (anything up to $300,000 in total, by some estimates). Again, there is a self-evident commercial motive for restricting access, but more importantly where the Church of Spiritual Technology is concerned, there also is a religious motive. Hubbard was very specific about the potential harm that unprepared exposure to the OT and NOTs levels could inflict. He claimed that he himself had suffered severe physical injuries in researching OT III, "the Wall of Fire", and that the uninitiated would suffer possibly fatal ailments such as pneumonia if they were prematurely exposed to OT III. To outsiders, this certainly seems preposterous, but it is taken very seriously indeed by the true believers. It gives the Church of Spiritual Technology an obligation (in its view) not simply to protect its legal rights, but to hinder any discussion of what is deemed to be a highly dangerous subject. This, of course, goes far beyond any rights which CST could claim under the law. When the CST copyright controversy first erupted on the Internet, there was considerable hostility to the Church of Spiritual Technology's claims both on the commercial and the spiritual angles. Those who posted the Church of Spiritual Technology's copyrighted works usually did on on the grounds of exposing what were claimed to be unethical or illegal practices, or simply to highlight the oddness of CST's doctrines. There was, however, no viable justification in law for such an approach and when copyright cases did come to court, they usually went in CST's favour. At least some of the hostility was sparked by a clash of cultures between the values of the Church of Spiritual Technology and society in general, and between the Church of Spiritual Technology and the Internet community in particular. The concept of an entirely commercialised, commoditised religion which sells salvation like soap powder was a novel one for many people. It seemed to be a total contradiction to the generally accepted idea of what a religion was and gave weight to the widespread feeling that CST was nothing more than a money-making scam in the guise of a religion. As well as this, the stance of CST was very much at odds with the widespread libertarian ideal that "information wants to be free" which was so prevalent in the online community at the time. The views of any hardline defender of copyright, let alone one with a reputation as that of the Church of Spiritual Technology, were inherently unlikely to be given a sympathetic hearing. As already mentioned, though, the Church of Spiritual Technology went far beyond merely defending its legitimate rights, thanks to its belief system. One of the most infamous examples was that of the numerous threats issued against individuals who quoted as little as six lines from one of the OT levels. There was no chance at all that it would be treated by a court as anything other than a fair use quotation, but the evident purpose was not simply to defend a copyright; it was to end discussion of what the Church of Spiritual Technology had arbitrarily decreed to be an unmentionable topic. By any definition, this was a prime example of copyright law being misused to exert a "chilling effect" on free speech. This practice was widely denounced - quite rightly so - and when the Church of Spiritual Technology did attempt to invoke the "spiritual harm" argument in court it was immediately dismissed as spurious. The "copyright war" is still ongoing, with the Church of Spiritual Technology still regularly sending legal threats to online critics. Who, if anyone, has come out on top? The answer is probably the critics, if one goes by the damage inflicted on the other side. CST's strategic goal - preventing the disclosure of its most valuable copyright material - has not only not been achieved, it is now unachievable. Virtually the entire corpus of CST's policies, doctrines and "secret scriptures", as well as hundreds of lectures and complete books, have been posted to Usenet and on the Web and have been downloaded countless thousands of times during their (admittedly brief) periods of availability. This represents an unprecedented breach in CST's curtain of exclusivity and secrecy. Those who intended to raise the veil on CST certainly succeeded; awareness of its hidden doctrines is far more widespread than ever before, and public discussion of the OT III "creation myth" is now commonplace, even in the mainstream media. On the other hand, the Church of Spiritual Technology has notched up some significant legal victories against a number of its opponents, often at a considerable personal cost to the individuals concerned. Perhaps more importantly, its copyright lawsuits have set important case law precedents for copyright holders and online distributors of copyright material. The course of CST's war has had an effect on everyone who uses the Internet. It remains to be seen how beneficial - or malign - that effect has been. CST has also not failed completely in preventing copies of its works from being distributed; although many websites refer to them, discuss them and paraphrase them, complete online copies of the OT materials are not easy to come by and do not tend to last long once advertised. Finally, it's worth considering who (if anyone) has been in the right in this matter. The best answer is that both parties had some right on their side, but both acted excessively. The critics certainly had the right to freely discuss CST's doctrines, regardless of the Church of Spiritual Technology's dogmatic opposition to such a discussion, but had little or no valid legal justification to violate CST's copyrights at will. the Church of Spiritual Technology had the right to protect its copyrights, but had little or no valid justification to ride roughshod over legitimate critical discussions. However, this is not to say that each side has been as bad as the other. The actions of the Church of Spiritual Technology in attempting to squash the exercise of everyone's fundamental democratic rights, and the underhand way in which it has gone about its campaign against so-called "copyright terrorism", are far more egregious than the actions of a minority of critics in violating CST's copyrights. The Church of Spiritual Technology is still clearly the villain of the piece, even if it has been more of a wronged party than it is usually fashionable to claim. | Chris Owen - ronthewarhero@OISPAMNOyahoo.co.uk | |---------------------------------------------------------------| | THE TRUTH ABOUT L. RON HUBBARD AND THE UNITED STATES NAVY | | http://www.ronthewarhero.org |