Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: COPYRIGHT AND TRADE S Message-ID: <9509191016.0EFPI01@support.com> References: <43lm4u$t5h@terrazzo.lm.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 10:16:34 -0700 Lines: 168 werdna@gate.net (Andrew C. Greenberg) >Hell, I >didn't even mention that I was a lawyer until someone asked me outright. As I recall your first post was a response to a call for a comment from an IP lawyer. You replied something like "That'd be me." Do I have you confused with another? >In article <43k742$eqt@news.ysu.edu>, ao579@yfn.ysu.edu (Diane Richardson) >wrote many things about me, along the following lines, wherein I am going >to clip through liberally because of its length. > You may remember that Mr. Greenberg jumped into an > ongoing discussion that henry and I were having. Thus > far, Mr. Greenberg has not said anything that I hadn't > already said a number of times here. Admittedly, Mr. > Greenberg speaks more authoritatively and at greater > length than I do, but I fail to see how he has > contributed *anything* new to the discussion at all. >Then why was I so lambasted for stating that truth with which you claim to >agree. Dennis skewered me because he feels that posting the OT's in >unexpurgated form is absolutely necessary, and anything less than that is >insufficient. As I demurred, suddenly, I became the target of no less >than a personal assault of epic proportion, my motives questioned, and my >integrity impugned. I made a joke. You took offense. I applied the SubGenius cure. >After I arrived, Diane complimented me highly, in e-mails, on my >contributions to the net discussion, noting that I have been able to >express these points of views effectively. She also encouraged me to >continue my colloquy with henry. At the time, she seemed to feel my >contributions were important and well-justified -- and that the view she >sees as so ordinary had but vanished from the newsgroup because it had >been so discredited beforehand. Indeed, in my then ongoing debate with >henry, which for the most part I have enjoyed, she rooted me on. [I do >not presume to republish private e-mails without her consent, however.] So? You then revealed something objectionable about your self: your willingness to limit our free speech rights in favor of someone's claimed ownership of a lot of drivel used in a bait and switch fraud. > IMO, Mr. Greenberg has not offered any advice here > that isn't provided in "Cyberspace and the Law" or > any number of other laymen's guides. In fact, > "Cyberspace and the Law" does a much better job of > explaining the legal issues involved (including case > law) than Mr. Greenberg has done. >I make no claim nor pretense to tbe the best teacher. However, those >guides are at least not widely enough read or complete enough to prevent >some of the remarkably incorrect statements of law that were rampant here >before I entered the fray to correct variuos clear misstatements. Still can't quote or cite, Andy? > If I remember > correctly, Mr. Greenberg was suggesting that he > expected to see a summary judgment by Judge Brinkema > *against* Arnie Lerma. Although that may still > happen, in light of Judge Brinkema's rulings on the > writs, it appears less likely to happen than it did > before. >In earlier posts, I was brutally taken to task for my writing style: >preceding statements with myriad antecedents, such as, "if [this] and if >[that] and if things are as the CoS alleges, then . . ." Now, I am being >taken to task for having ended those sentences with the words at the end >without being credited for the context in which they were placed. Huh? You're whining, Andy. >I don't believe that I have ever expected this to be resolved on summary >judgement, although I believe that may still be so. What I asserted then >was (and Judge Brinkema's ruling does not change my views here) if the >copyrights are valid, and if they were copied wholesale by Mr. Lerma >outside the context of any criticism at all, The whole newsgroup is context, Andy. >I expect the fact that they >were originally obtained from court records to be irrelevant and that a >case for copyright infringement exists that oculd be settled on summary >judgment. I also noted that summary judgment can be dispensed with by the >establishment of a single disputed question of material fact. Therefore highly unlikely. > Mr. Greenberg's suggestion about fair use is *exactly* > what I and others have been urging on this newsgroup > for months now. I agree that it's eminently reasonable, > but I'd suggest that it's far from a novel suggestion > either. > > Mr. Greenberg appears to be advising us to do *exactly* > what most of us have *been* doing for quite some time > now. What's so valuable about that advice, Sister Clara? > Do we really need to be told to do what we've been doing > for quite some time anyway? I don't understand. . . . >Then why did you so encourage me to continue with the message when I >began. Did you understand something about this message that you have now >forgotten. > >Let me get something quite clear here. I was ASSAULTED by YOU and by >others PRECISELY FOR STANDING BY THE ARGUMENTS YOU NOW ADOPT AND CLAIM TO >BE ORDINARY AND UNORIGINAL. Sorry about the caps, but that's what Dennis >has been beating up on me >for saying -- he thinks the skriptures need to >be copied, and I don't. After we couldn't get past that point, suddenly >my ability to practice law became a substantial point of debate on this >newsgroup. >Kids, that's ***NUTS***. Especially in as much as what you said made no sense, yes. >The issue that people are now claiming to be innocuous and dull and >everywhere else in sight seems to tbe the stuff that I got beat up for. >Now, I am sure we can chase this around in circles again, but that's the >way it went. You took us, you mean. >It is true, I don't like Arnie's chances, and I hope I'm wrong. But >that's the way I see it. There is much to discuss in light of Judge B's >opinion, and it is interesting, deep, worthwhile and illuminating. Will >it be heard? Not in this climate. Not when I can't breathe a word of >criticism without being called a clam. Let me tell you, there isn't a >thing about the CoS that has been alleged here that I haven't seen folks >willing to practice on anybody they perceive to be their intellectual >enemies. And let me tell you, kids, that's sick. F*ck you, Andy. Your knowledge of the subject of this newsgroup is so limited that you wouldn't know the practices of the cult if they retained you to do their dirtywork. >I am not yet a cynic. I'm happier that way. I seek the truth, wherever >it lies. Can I be wrong? Sure. Can I be obnoxious at times? Sure. But >I don't wear the banner of obnoxiousness proudly, and I apologize for it. >I do not feel justified in hurting others, and I have apologized for it. >But I do offer my arguments and my thoughts for discussion on the merits. And I answer them on merit. And with similar rudeness to how you offer them. >Where did it get me? My comments are being compared to internet FAQs. >People are still waving "free speech" flags and talking about posting the >OT's again. Wonderful. >I restate my thesis, and it is declared "unoriginal" by the very persons >who screamed at me for stating it in the first place. > Sorry for this personal harangue; I felt it needed >to be said. Hey, that's what the newsgroup's for. No apologies necessary. +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"