Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: Netcom responds to ruling
Message-ID: <9511290811.0BIFK00@support.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 95 08:11:40 -0800
Lines: 107


            * erlich responds to netcom's response *

              +---------------------------------+

    I am very happy that Netcom has be nearly totally vindicated 
    for "doing the right thing" with regard to the scienos 
    unresonable demand that support.com and all its users be cut 
    off from internet just because they don't like the way I 
    preach with the materials on which they gave me ministerial 
    training.
    
    Byte-bite:  Netcom is the ones defending free speech on the
    net.  They took brave and sensible approach to being forced 
    into a very threatening position.  If this is an example of 
    how they deal with the difficult problems facing ISP, I'd buy 
    their stock in a minute ... if I actually had any money to 
    invest.

>               NETCOM RESPONDS TO RULING ON COPYRIGHT CASE
>
>    SAN JOSE, Calif., Nov. 28 /PRNewswire/ -- In response to media inquiries
>concerning Judge Whyte's ruling on a lawsuit brought by the Church of
>Scientology alleging copyright infringement against NETCOM On-Line
>Communication Services, Inc. (Nasdaq: NETC), the Company today issued the
>following statement:
>    U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte's November 21, 1995 ruling was a major
>victory for NETCOM, and the Company is confident that its position will be
>upheld with respect to the remaining disputed issue that the court ordered to
>trial.  Specifically:
>
>    * The Court vindicated NETCOM's position, ruling in favor of the Company on
>two of the three critical points under review.  Judge Whyte ruled that NETCOM
>is not liable for direct copyright infringement or for vicarious liability.  On
>the central issue of direct copyright infringement, the Court held that NETCOM
>is not liable for direct infringement when an individual uses its system to
>post copyrighted material onto the Internet without its knowledge.  Rejecting
>the plaintiffs' position in this regard as "unreasonable," the Court noted that
>holding an access provider liable for direct infringement under those
>circumstances "would ... result in liability for every single Usenet server in
>the worldwide link of computers transmitting [the infringing] message to every
>other computer."
>    * With respect to contributory copyright infringement, the Court concluded
>that issues of fact precluded a grant of summary judgment in NETCOM's favor,
           
    But it was nearly a slam-dunk for you guys!  Yea.

>but stated that "[g]iven the context of a dispute between a former minister and
>a church he is criticizing," NETCOM may be able to show that it acted
>responsibly under the circumstances and thereby avoid liability all together.
                                                     
    That is my belief.  Someone in authority bothered to do the 
    right thing, even though it would have been "expedient" to 
    knuckle under.

>Further, the ruling stated, "[t]he court finds that Plaintiffs have not met
>their burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits as to either
>Netcom or Klemesrud."  
 
    I apologize for dragging either Netcom or Tom into this.  It 
    is my fight, not theirs.  But I cannot say that I am not
    happy to have them as brothers in arms against this ruthless 
    cult.
    
    If this rock ever really get's kicked over, the world will be
    amazed how many lives and social institutions have been 
    ruined by coming in contact with Rotundo's Droppings.

>    * In the same order, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' request that a
>preliminary injunction be entered against NETCOM pending trial.
>
>    In addition NETCOM clarified that:
>    "NETCOM provides direct access to the Internet.  It is not a content-based
>service but rather a communications conduit to the information available on the
>Internet.  Other than messages to our subscribers about NETCOM services, NETCOM
>does not post content, does not control the content or the destination of
>information posted, and does not control where, when or whether that
>information may be downloaded.
>    "Moreover, NETCOM does not have the ability to monitor in advance the
>content of messages transmitted by the Company's subscribers over the Internet
>or to determine whether such content violates or complies with copyright
>protections.  The Company is a passive transmitter of millions of messages
>which are created worldwide and conveyed throughout the Internet everyday."
>
>    NETCOM
>    NETCOM On-Line Communication Services, Inc. provides high-quality, low
>cost, nationwide Internet access over its own high-speed digital network.  A
>public company since December 1994, NETCOM has experienced substantial growth
>in both its subscriber base, with over 232,800 subscribers, and the number of
>access points by aggressively building a nationwide network.  Since NETCOM
>operates its own network employing TCP/IP, the backbone technology of the
>Internet, both individual and business subscribers benefit from a stable,
>reliable network at low prices.  Internet users can learn more about the
>company on-line at: http://www.netcom.com
>    -0-                      11/28/95
>    /CONTACT:  Jeannie Slone of NETCOM, 408-556-3211, or jslone@@ix.netcom.com;
>or Curtis Kundred of Fleishman-Hillard Inc., 415-356-1020, or
>kundredc@@fleishman.com, for NETCOM/
>    (NETC)
     
    These are good people.
    
            +--------------------------------------+
           Rev. Dennis L Erlich  * * the inFormer * *
      dennis.l.erlich@support.com  +  inForm@primenet.com
                           "tar baby"