Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: COPYRIGHT MYTHS FAQ: Message-ID: <9510272144.0UJDI02@support.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Fri, 27 Oct 95 21:44:17 -0700 Lines: 76 James Wenzel >I apologize in advance if this leads off topic, but I feel that it is >important in any forum where copyright law is discussed, as there is >currently far too much room for abuse of the law by copyright holders. > >gfarber@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote: > > Copyright law is mostly civil law where the special rights > of criminal defendants you hear so much about don't apply. > Watch out, however, as new laws are moving copyright > violation into the criminal realm. > >Actually, for the reason you stated above, copyright holders are the ones >who have a distinct advantage, if copyright law remains in the realm of >Civil Law. With respect to your reference to 'special rights of criminal >defendants', the most interesting of these is the 4th Amendment >(protection against search & seizure). > >In the interest of copyright law, a copyright holder need only make an >accusation of copyright violation, and can be granted an 'ex parte' writ >of seizure. This means that they can do an exploratory search of the >entire premises of the accused, looking for anything that *MAY* be a >copyright violation, seizing whatever they deem to be theirs, with *NO* >supervision by law enforcement officials or officers of the court. All >of this happens *BEFORE* any trial is held, and the materials in question >can be held for the duration of the legal proceedings, *REGARDLESS* of >whether any actual copyright infringement took place or not. > >If the above was unclear, let me posit an example: If a representative >from a publisher (e.g. RTC) tells a judge (e.g. Judge Whyte) that someone >(e.g. Mr. Erlich) is violating their copyrights, the judge grants them an >'ex parte' writ of seizure. This gives the publisher the right to enter >the defendant's home, search all of his possessions, and take anything >that they desire (whether it could reasonably be related to the case or >not), with the claim that it may be concealing evidence of copyright >violation. > >In Mr. Erlich's case, when Judge Whyte had found out what RTC had done, >in abuse of the power he gave them, he 'vacated' (nullified) the writ, >ordering all of Mr. Erlich's materials to be returned, but the damage had >already been done. Mr. Erlich was deprived of his property *WITHOUT DUE >PROCESS* for many months, and furthermore, RTC has yet to fully comply >with the order to return his property. All of this is done in the name >of protecting RTC's copyrights which, I might add, were never violated by >Mr. Erlich in the first place (although the case still has not been >tried). > >In the case of RTC v. Erlich, the RTC was so outrageous in its actions >that the judge immediately saw the abuse of power, and acted in response >to it. In cases of other, more subtle, copyright holders, they could >dissolve the 4th amendment rights, and by extension, the 1st amendment >rights, of American citizens, without anyone becoming the wiser to it >until it is too late. > >This is just something to think about, for anyone who is proposing >stronger protection for copyright holders: a copyright holder already has >the right to 'prior restraint', a right not granted to any other body, >for any crime, let alone a civil violation. > >(James Wenzel) >jgw2s@virginia.edu > >PS: Dennis, if I am wrong on any points of fact regarding your case, >please let me know. Thanks. No, you got it right. Currently there is an excellent motion before MoFo to find the scienos in contempt. They refuse to relinquish the "fruits" of the illegal search. +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"