Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: COPYRIGHT AND SECRECY
Message-ID: <9602081632.0N8AA01@support.com>
References: <9602081856.AA05648@pixel.fc.hp.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 96 16:32:09 -0800
Lines: 110


brad@bear.ras.ucalgary.ca ( Brad Wallace )

carroll@aimnet.com (Terry Carroll)
>>I believe
>>that the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion requires
>>immunity from liability of trade secret misappropriation if the secret
>>is used in a competing religious context.

YHN:
>    Well stated.  Trade secret claims have been uniformly met
>    with a cool reception by the Federal bench.  How about a
>    widening of the "fair use" provisions of the Copyright act
>    in the same context?  Do you feel that greater immunity
>    from limitations on speech should be granted in the context
>    of religious criticism?
    
Brad:
>What I kinda wonder (and I hasten to note that I've missed most
>of this thread) is why the Free Zone hasn't launched a civil
>suit against the Co$ based on freedom of religion and the
>Co$'s copyrights.
     
    They know they don't have the money to win a suit.  They 
    can't afford freedom of religion.  It's part of the "equal
    justice under the law" package.  It rarely goes on sale and
    when it does, the price is still way more than they, even as
    a group, can afford.

    The belivers that hold the tek as religion, have been infected
    with the beliefs and then trashed, are the sorriest victims of
    the cult.

    "We want our imortal souls back!" they shout silently.

>Example. Lets say that an I(*shudder*) am a $cientologist. I hold
>all of El Tubbo's jabberings as sacred (as they are unchangable and
>inviolable). I do something and the Co$ tosses me. I no longer
>have access to El Tubbo's writings. *BUT* I still consider myself
>a (shudder)$cientologist.
>
>What am I to do?

    Ask Koos-koos.

>$cientology's actions say that I can't practice my
>religion. By holding the copyrights on El Tubbo's lies so
>tightly I can't advance in my spiritual progression.

    Sorry, true profits demand it.

>Obviously $cientology is violating my civil right to freedom of
>religion.

    I have found that nothing is obvious about one's
    constitutional rights unless one can afford to get
    a judge to *rule* that it is obvious.

>Why (legally) cannot I take the Co$ to CIVIL court to obtain
>access to El Tubbo's sacred drool?

    You can.  But you will be sorry.  It is the One True Tek to
    bludgeon you with the inequitable legal system, while 
    thumbing their noses at court orders they don't like.

>Note that this need not strip the Co$ of the copyrights to El Tubbo's
>nonsense. They need only change the copyrights to something like the
>GNU software lisence which (if I am not mistaken) sates something to the
>effect of "you are free to copy and re-distribute this work as long
>as it is not done for profit and as long as this liscence is distributed
>with the work."

    That's the trouble.  Extracting profit is part of their 
    religious doctrine.

>This way, if the new owner wants to *sell* the sacred brain-wash then the
>Co$ needs to be consulted and needs to agree, but if the sacred junk
>is redistributed for free then the Co$ can't stop it.

    I agree.  As long as it is not for profit, the copyright
    act should not be restrictive of critical quoting or copying 
    as part of "spreading the word" of a religious practice.

>But all this hangs on the ability of an excommunicated $cientologist
>to sue the Co$ for violating his right to freely exercise his
>religion, which requires access to the Sacred Drool(TM).

    Ex scienos are not notibly brave when it comes to facing up
    to the cult directly.

>Comments from anyone more knowledgeable than I? (and apologies if I'm being
>amazingly dense here)

    No apologies appropriate.

>                                -BRAD-
>--
>Brad Wallace, SP2, KoX, brad@ras.ucalgary.ca - Read alt.religion.scientology
>        "You have the right to free speech, as long as
>          you are not dumb enough to actually try it"
>  - "The Clash," paraphrasing Church of $cientology doctrine

    Nice quote.

          Rev. Dennis L Erlich   * * the inFormer * *
                 <dennis.l.erlich@support.com>
                     <inForm@primenet.com>

  "There are two classes of citizen in the US: those who can
   afford 'equal justice under the law' and the rest of us."