Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: JUDGE'S ORDER IN ERLI
Message-ID: <9509301203.0GXOR01@support.com>
References: <122306Z30091995@anon.penet.fi>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 95 12:03:19 -0700
Lines: 62


ckaun@deimos.ads.com (Carl Kaun)

Grady Ward (grady@netcom.com) wrote:
 >> : Dennis is *still* permitted fair use of the material in question,
 >> : in spite of the (alleged) ruling that some of his previous use was
 >> :  not "fair use."

noodle@netcom.com "Rick Sherwood" (the person posing as him) writes:
 >> Yes FAIR USE but not FREE USE.  The judge pointed out that the postings
 >> which he did were not fair use.  Judge Whyte is extending copyright law
 >> to the net.
     
    His shotgun approach to my free speech rights, without 
    telling me *which* of my thousands of postings infringed, 
    leaves me to "take a shot" at fair use.  I am less than 
    appreciative of his language regarding "such postings" 
    without telling me which ones specifically infringed.

    Oh well.  Risk-taking has always been a major element of my
    personal operating system.  MoFo is briefed and ready.
    Monday is the deadline for the scienos to return the stuff 
    they stole during the raid.  Get ready for the fireworks.

Tony@sidaway.demon.co.uk writes:
 >    No.  Copyright law has always applied to the Net.  He is simply
 >    applying existing law.  The main issue of new law in this case is
 >    whether NetCom and Support.Com can be found liable.  This may make
 >    new law.

    He is making new law by his interpretation of fair use in a 
    newsgroup where ongoing discussion of material posted may last 
    for years.

    I think he bought the local-focus-hocus-pocus the scienos fed
    him about regarding copyright terrorism, and skipped the Big
    Picture[tm] that relates to civil rights and protected speech.
               
    But who am I to say?

    Hey!  Where's the ACLU in all this?  Conspicuously absent it
    would seem.

Carl:
>i think what's going to be interesting in this case is how the term
>'copy' is going to be applied.  note in the order that erlich is
>constrained from reading cos copyrighted material on a browser,
>presumably because to do so is to make a copy of it (i'm inferring
>this last, perhaps there is another interpretation?)

    That boilerplate paragraph in the order about copying and
    reproducing material sure seems to contradict other parts of
    his findings.

    But, hey.  He's the judge.  It's my job to adjust to his 
    opinion, not his job to adjust to mine.

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