Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: Federal court hearing syn
Message-ID: <9506240918.0D2JR00@support.com>
References: <3s54th$iif@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35/PRIMP 1.56p
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 95 09:18:15 -0700
Lines: 100


Brian Harmon:

>etcom had no such way to verify that RTC/COS held the copyrights, and
>    that Dennis was infringing them.  Therefore, they cannot be expected to 
>    run about deleting posts just because RTC says so.
>
>2)  The plaintiffs have repeatedly changed their position.
>
>     Before the case, they wanted netcom to yank support.com,
>     effectively eliminating service to 500 users who had nothing
>     to do with the case. 
>
>     Now they claim that all they want is Netcom to delete all posts
>     that the RTC claims infringes on their copyrights and publishes
>     their trade secrets.
>
>3)  Every single site, and every single user is as "guilty" as Netcom.
>
>     If netcom is guilty of copyright infringement simply for storing a
>     Newsfeed on a disk for a short time, then every USENET site in the 
>     world is equally guilty of that crime.   
>
>4)  Free speech issues:  Dennis is clearly involved in controversy with 
>    the church, and Netcom feels an obligation to defend Erlich's free
>    speech rights to criticize the church.  Why should they pull the plug
>    on a user, and a system, simply because the Church claims that he has
>    raided their intellecutal property , particularly since the Church refused
>to
>    demostrate to netcom that they indeed held the copyrights?  Netcom feels
>    that such a controversial issue is clearly a free speech matter, and is not
>
>    as straightforward as situation with pirated software.

    Also Rice pointed out that Netcom would be placed in a 
    position of liability if it yanked someone's account 
    just because that person's enemies *claimed* a violation 
    occurred where none could be proven to their satisfaction.

    They could get sued by Tom or me.

>-------and now, Klemesrud----
>
>
>Next Dan Leipold took the reins, and argued in favor of dismissal.
>His arguments were (paraphrased):
>
>1) Klemesrud's system is automated: he does not have control over
>what gets put on his hard drive.  He is merely leasing the use of his
>machine/software to other users who are responsibile for it's use.
>
>     For example, If i photocopy all of dianetics on a xerox machine
>     at copy shop (that is _I_ do it, not the shop staff) then I am
>     guilty for any infringement. The copy shop merely leased the
>     machine to me, for about $0.10 a page.  (just like some ISPs
>     charge by the KB or the bandwidth.)
>
>     [this same argument works for netcom]
>
>2)  The RTC/COS is engaging in a weird argument:
>
>         How can you have a trade secret and a copyright violation?
>
>         Which is it?
>
>
>         Judge Whyte tried to get a solid answer form Leipold as to what the
>         legal obligation of an ISP was.  Leipold compared ISPs to a video tape
>         manufacturer, where CBS can't sue sony for making a video tape used
>         to pirate tv shows, rather they sue person who pirated the shows.
>
>3) Quotes from the plaintiffs initial complaint which states that netcom and
>   klemesrud did nothing:
>
>     That is, they did not engage in copyright infringement, they simply
>     failed to do anything about it when the church complained.
>
>     But now the lawyers for RTC claim that netcom and klemesrud _are_
>     guilty of intringement, as they "copied the materials onto their
>     hardrive and made them available to other users for a fee"
>
>     In english, their newsfeed is stored on a disk drive rather
>     than simply 'storing it in ram.'
>
>     According to Leipold, the CHurch is changing it's argument in the
>     middle of the hearings.  [i agree]
>
>
>
>Next, Cooley showed up again to give a dose of amusing metaphors and
>hyperbole, but I'll continue that in Part Two.....
>
>Brian Harmon
>Sf, CA

            +--------------------------------------+
           Rev. Dennis L Erlich  * * the inFormer * *
      dennis.l.erlich@support.com  +  inForm@primenet.com
                           "tar baby"