Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: ARNIE & FAIR USE: TIT
Message-ID: <9509161047.0F5TY00@support.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 95 10:47:34 -0700
Lines: 90


werdna@gate.net (Andrew C. Greenberg)

henri@netcom.com (henry) wrote:
> or i would imagine that precedent in case law could be established
> limiting copyright infingement in scope in cases of this nature,
> to serve an overriding public interest and the legal obligation to
> report a crime, when the alleged copyrighted documents are and
> have been material evidence in numerous criminal proceedings and
> are expected to be necessary in multiple ongoing lawsuits and
> future criminal trials

Andy:
>Very unlikely.  And such a ruling would likely be subject to the same
>howls of discontent over "judicial legislation" that I have already heard
>here with respect to judicial construction of Section 107.  The courts
>don't typically go around saying, "these are really, really bad people
>doing bad things -- maybe we'll overlook the facts and the law as to the
>complaint, and send them home without their supper until they clean up
>their act."  When they do, they get assailed by everybody, including
>appellate courts.

    If a clear pattern of unclean hands and bad faith in previous
    suits could be submitted to the court, it would not be so
    difficult to get the ruling.

>Now, it is not impossible that such a thing could happen, and advocates
>will probably ask for that kind of relief in court, but it will be highly
>unlikely that such a claim would survive the giggle test, and that a court
>order granting such a claim would survive any appeals.

    So why bother trying, right Andy?

>BTW, what is the overriding public interest, stated in a tight, clean
>sentence, henry?  Give me a sound-byte that explains why the copyright act
>must be abrogated here.

    No Andrew.  *You* need to explain to *us* why our supposedly 
    inalienable free speech rights need to be limited by your 
    greed-motivated clients.

    We don't gotta explain nothin'.

>The reason I ask is not to bait you,

    Bullsh*t.  It's to bait and draw the newsgroup off the 
    subject of the cult and onto arcane legal points which will 
    ultimately have nothing at all to do with Scienocult v The 
    Net.

>but to the contrary, to encourage you.

    Dis-courage us, you mean.

>You have cited public interest a lot, but to
>convince third parties, and courts in particular, this is what you will
>have to do: tightly, put it together in a concise argument that makes
>sense; try to narrowly describe the circumstances, so courts will not fear
>they are making a generally applicable public policy exception that will
>eat up the law as a whole, and convince yourself that the facts necessary
>for that exception can be proved VERY clearly.

    Unclean hands is enough.  RICO could be used.  SLAPP could be
    used.  Fraud law could be used.  

>Try this exercise.  You may be able to convince me.  
 
    Oh, can we please try to get it right for you, sir?  You're too 
    kind to us ignorant lay-jerks.

>Mind you, I still
>think that making new law is an off-the-meter longshot, but if you want to
>make your case, let me help to guide you to the kind of advocacy that will
>be necessary to get there, at least in legislatures and courts of law.

    Sure thing.  Guide us, Oh Wise One.  Tell us what rights we
    need to quietly give up in order to satisfy your clients' 
    greed.

>just another view,

    Just another a-hole with an opinion, more accurately.

>Andy Greenberg

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