Answers
(part 2)
Unfortunately, the Church's efforts to handle the problem
short of a raid and seizure had all been bluntly rebuffed by the
infringers themselves. Every one of them was on notice that he was
in violation of copyright and trade secrets law by making illegal
postings of the Church's protected materials. In each case, they
continued their infringing actions nonetheless. One of the
infringers, Dennis Erlich, even boasted on the Internet that no
court had the power to make him cease his unlawful postings.
Knowing that any attempt by the Church to dialogue, even a
casual contact, was deliberately mislabelled, the Church sent two
middle-aged women to talk to another of the infringers, Arnaldo
Lerma. Lerma was rude to the ladies and refused to talk to them.
Bulletin board systems operator Tom Klemesrud hung the
phone up on a Church attorney who had called him to express her
concerns that one of his clients was violating copyrights in some of
his posts -- even though Klemesrud's own BBS regulations prohibit
users from engaging in such activity.
The disks are examined by independent computer experts who
have no affiliation with the Church. The purpose of the searches is
to locate the infringing material.
Other protections have been implemented pursuant to court
rulings, where appropriate. For example, following the raid and
seizure at the premises of Larry Wollersheim, Wollersheim's
attorneys were told by the judge that they could send their own
computer expert or attorneys over to observe the search of the
seized materials. They declined to do so, however.
Of course, the copyright infringers themselves are the
ones who have created this problem for themselves, if it exists.
First, by breaking the law. Second, by mixing infringing and
non-infringing materials together in their disks and files. When
this point was brought up before the judge in the Wollersheim case,
he stated that he did not know how to separate "the wheat from the
chaff" other than by searching the materials.
Free speech does not mean free theft.
Violators of copyright and trade secret laws traditionally
try to hide behind free speech and illegitimate "fair use" claims
and United States courts regularly reject such claims in upholding
copyrights. The Church is a strong proponent of free speech, knows
and cherishes the First Amendment and has defended human rights all
over the world. We have been publishing our own investigative
magazine, Freedom, since 1968. When in the 1970s, long
before anti-apartheid was the vogue, we exposed human rights
atrocities committed against blacks in South Africa, our magazine
was banned by the then South African government. However,
independent investigation by the World Health Organization (WHO)
confirmed what Freedom had reported. In Australia,
Scientologists fought for more than a decade to expose atrocious
human rights abuses in a psychiatric hospital in Chelmsford near
Sydney. Their dogged persistence in the face of psychiatric
opposition and official apathy was the decisive factor in eventually
bringing about a Royal Commission of Enquiry, as the Australian
media recognized. The two-year enquiry uncovered 183 patient deaths
and recommended a thorough shake-up of mental health care in New
South Wales, along with a mental health bill of rights.
The Church also recognizes that individual rights such as
freedom of speech were not developed to protect wrongdoers from the
consequences of their unlawful actions . Otherwise an extortionist
could hide behind freedom of speech. An obscene phone caller could
hide behind freedom of speech. People phoning in bomb threats could
hide behind freedom of speech.
Nobody has the right to cloak themselves in the First
Amendment to break the law. The Constitution is not a fortress for
criminals. In fact, it is their unlawful acts, which they justify
with First Amendment excuses, which destroy our constitutional
rights.
To work for freedom of speech in the world is a part of
the Church's creed. And it does have to be worked for. Unless free
speech and other basic liberties are constantly fought for and made
real, they exist only on paper and will eventually be trampled by
vested interests.
Concerned at the gradual erosion of civil liberties in the
United States and other countries, Scientologists have actively
campaigned to protect and preserve our basic freedoms. Knowing that
misinformation about individuals in government files can harm or
ruin lives, the Church has spearheaded the rights of citizens to
gain access to government documents about themselves. From its
beginning, we have advocated widespread use of the Freedom of
Information Act and have campaigned against efforts to narrow its
application. And, when Freedom of Information legislation was passed
in France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Belgium,
members of the Church played a decisive role to bring these laws
about.
In the 1970s, the Church published a popular booklet that
briefs Americans on their rights under the Act and instructs them on
its use. The booklet was updated in 1989 and requests for copies
continue to come in every week. In the courts, the Church has
established precedents that hold the government accountable to
release information to the public on a variety of subjects.
Through Freedom magazine, the human rights
journal which the Church has published since 1968, the Church has
awarded and acknowledged numerous individuals who, often against
substantial odds, have helped preserve and strengthen our civil
liberties. Among those honored by Freedom have been
outstanding human rights advocate Dr. Arthur A. Fletcher, then
chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; syndicated
columnist Jack Anderson, who has been remorseless in his exposes of
corruption in high places; and former congressman John Moss, father
of the Freedom of Information Act.
Noted American author and expert on US intelligence
matters, Victor Marchetti, after examining the Church's
unprecedented efforts to protect citizens' rights, declared, "I
would like to commend the Church of Scientology for its faith in
itself and its determination to work within the constitutional
system of our nation.... By its tenacity and determination, the
Church of Scientology has forced [the] government to adhere to the
Constitution."
They have predictably attempted to divert attention from
their illegal actions through efforts at disinformation, especially
to the media.
These individuals acted as if they believed that they
could get away with breaking the law. It is not surprising that they
howl in protest now they have at last been caught. Underneath the
furore they seek to create, however, lies this fact: Following every
raid and seizure the Church has discovered abundant evidence of
copyrights and trade secrets violations. Searches of materials
seized from the premises of Larry Wollersheim and Bob Penny, for
example, have resulted in the discovery of hundreds of
infringements.
Copyright and trade secret violators are simply thieves
and liars who often masquerade as "critics." Imagine someone stole
the lyrics to an unpublished song from you and sent them out over
the Internet, in violation of your rights. When the law catches up
with the thief, he defends himself saying you are attempting to
silence him because he is a "critic." Of course he is a critic -- no
friend would steal what belongs to you.
The Church has taken no action against critical messages
about Scientology posted on the Internet -- it has only taken action
where postings have violated its copyrights and trade secrets. There
are thousands of messages about Scientology on the Internet every
day. There is a tremendous desire among people both on and off the
Internet to know more about Scientology. In response to this demand,
Leisa Goodman, Media Relations Director for the Church of
Scientology International, has put up her own "home page" which
contains basic information about Scientology. This site, which
receives "hits" daily from all over the world, is located at http://www.theta.com/goodman.
One could equally claim that by arresting computer
hackers, one gives them publicity as their arrests are reported in
the newspapers. Many people never heard of Kevin Mitnick until he
was caught.
If no action were taken in the face of patently illegal
conduct, then crime would soon reach uncontrollable proportions
leading eventually to chaos. That is why we have laws.
Also, it is the responsibility of intellectual property
owners to enforce their rights or risk losing them.
The Church would far prefer that it did not have to sue.
However, it is prepared to take the legal actions necessary to
protect the Church's rights, if measures short of litigation are
unsuccessful. Every major battle that the Church of Scientology has
engaged upon throughout its history to secure the rights of its
parishioners has ultimately been won. The Church is confident that
it will win these ones, too.
No one expects them to. They are being asked to take
action on complaints that they receive, which is the traditional way
in which access providers have in the past dealt with suspected
lawbreakers on the Internet.
An access provider has a responsibility to promulgate
rules of conduct for its users and to enforce their rules. Most
access providers have such rules and enforce them in a range of
situations. While it can be argued that access providers have no
responsibility for controlling the tremendous flow of information
through their systems, when evidence is presented of infringement of
intellectual property rights, then access providers have a
responsibility to take action. Moreover, when a particular user has
shown a repeated pattern of abuse, the person should be removed from
the system, or the access provider held liable for any damage
created.
The precise mechanics of such a system of self regulation
are beyond the parameters of this question and answer format.
However, if such a system were developed in cooperation among access
providers and copyright owners, it would work and would benefit the
entire Internet community.
Access providers do not have to decide if the message is a
copyright violation.
Systems operators are not a judge or jury and are not
expected to act like one. The time-honored way of handling such
matters on the Internet is for the sysops to act when they receive
complaints. When a user's actions are generating complaints, sysops
should and often do act when necessary to prevent copyright
infringement, pornography, or other postings which are illegal,
tortious or otherwise objectionable. If the complaint cannot be
easily sorted out between the poster and complainant, accounts are
frequently suspended while a complaint is investigated.
When the Internet was started about 25 years ago, a set of
ground rules were established among users which defined what "good
citizenship" on the Internet is. Certain categories of behavior were
deemed "bad citizenship" and were discouraged primarily by peer
pressure. Such undesirable behavior included advertising for
monetary gain, profane language, personal attacks, broadcast of
stolen personal or confidential materials and any activities
prohibited by U.S. law. As pointed out by Dr. Alfonso F. Cardenas ,
author of several books on computer subjects and Professor of the
Computer Science department of UCLA:
"In general, University Network access providers do
continue efforts of assuring good citizenship by their users,
students, professors and staff.... Several million of us users
expect this. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of a number of
new access providers. Many of the worst offenders are now some
irresponsible BBSses, often a person with a small PC operating out
of a room or garage."
Service providers have generally been responsive to the
Church's requests to take action against copyright violators. Major
universities such as Bristol, Carnegie Mellon and Denver promptly
issued warnings to the offender. Others conducted an ethics hearing
on the user or took some other form of action. Other service
providers have sent strong messages to the unlawful poster that a
single recurrence would lead to termination of his or her account.
To release these materials to individuals who have not
completed requisite prior steps of religious study and counseling
could be disruptive of their progress towards the greater spiritual
freedom they can achieve through Scientology.
This applies not only to those currently participating in
Scientology religious services but to everyone who may do so in the
future. The goal of the Scientology religion is not to create
ultimate spiritual freedom merely for anyone who is a Scientologist
today. It is to create ultimate spiritual freedom for everyone on
the planet. This cannot happen if people with no right or interest
in reaching that goal are permitted to usurp the ability to decide
how the scriptures are handled.
Professor Lonnie Kliever, Professor of Religious Studies
at Southern Methodist University in Texas, has explained why
advanced-level spiritual truths cannot simply be dumped on people:
"Religious educators have long recognized that one cannot
just transmit esoteric religious doctrine willy-nilly... Wholesale
revelation of higher level truths may even be destructive of a
person's growth in faith."
Professor Kliever goes on to explain that in many
religions certain doctrines are withheld until the person is able to
receive them "in the context of a maturer faith."
Not in the least.
Precedents in law establish that even if part of a trade
secret has appeared in public, the right to that trade secret still
exists. In a 1991 case, Shalk v Texas, two former employees
of Texas Instruments had been convicted of violating Texas criminal
trade secret law by copying disks containing trade secret
information. They appealed, arguing that the company had forfeited
its trade secret rights by publicizing information in articles,
seminars and public meetings. The court upheld the convictions. It
found that the measures Texas Instruments had taken to maintain
secrecy were adequate and that the ex-employees had copied the
information without permission.
In another case, Colony Corporation of America v Crown
Glass Corp, the court ruled in 1981 that if a third party
knowingly misappropriates a trade secret, having come by the
information through another's wrongdoing, he is liable to the same
degree as the original violator.
Further, courts have held, as in Computer Print
Systems v Lewis, that organizations have a right to expect that
those obtaining authorized access will not disclose trade secrets.
The Church has never given permission for confidential, unpublished
scriptures to be made public and has always taken detailed and
stringent measures to preserve their confidentiality. These
materials have never passed into unauthorized hands in any form
except through theft or misappropriation.
We certainly do. The vast majority of Scientology
literature is available for anyone to study. In fact, the Church of
Scientology is probably, member for member, the most active religion
in the world in making its beliefs and practices available for
discussion and use. Scientology materials are available in more than
120 countries and in upwards of 31 languages.
The encyclopedic volume, What Is Scientology?,
available in every Church bookstore, contains a comprehensive
description of the religion, its beliefs, practices, creeds, codes,
social reform and community betterment activities and much, much
more. Eight hundred and thirty-three pages in length, it also
contains a complete listing of the books, taped lectures and films
that comprise the scriptures of the religion. One hundred and forty
pages are devoted to the background and origin of Scientology;
thirty-six pages describe its principles and application;
seventy-three pages discuss in detail a myriad of specific religious
services. The book also contains an exposition of how Scientology
churches are organized and operated; a full explanation of the
graduated steps to spiritual freedom; a chapter on "What Occurs in a
Church of Scientology"; recommendations as to how a new parishioner
should proceed in Scientology and why; answers to common questions;
the axioms (basic principles) of Scientology and a great deal more.
Copies of What Is Scientology? have been donated
to libraries all over the world.
Its companion volume, The Scientology Handbook,
eight hundred and seventy-one pages in length, is devoted to
covering in detail various practices of Scientology, expounding on
their use and providing instruction on their application. Again,
copies are available in all Church bookstores and have been donated
to libraries all over the world. Anyone can read this book, discuss
it and try out the practical applications of Scientology given in
the book.
Further, more than 40 different books and hundreds of
taped lectures on Dianetics and Scientology by the Founder, L. Ron
Hubbard, are available in Church bookshops. A number of these books,
such as the bestselling Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental
Health, may also be purchased at bookstores throughout the
United States and numerous other countries.
This does not even include the various booklets and
brochures that the Church has published to help explain the
Scientology religion to interested people. Nor does it touch on the
numerous tapes, videos and television advertisements that are used
to make basic principles of Scientology as widely known as possible.
While anonymity does have some uses, it carries with it a
major liability: Anonymity precludes responsibility and
accountability.
As Walter S. Mossberg wrote in the Wall Street Journal,
computerized discussion forums "... are a publishing medium, like
newspapers and magazines, where messages are posted for days or
weeks for millions to see and debate. When these forums operate
under the cloak of anonymity, it's no different from printing a
newspaper in which the bylines are admittedly fake, and the letters
to the editor are untraceable. It sure makes it easier to spread
wild conspiracy theories, smear people, conduct financial scams or
victimize others sexually."
An individual can, untraceably, traffic in child
pornography, infringe copyrighted works, spread false and libelous
information on bulletin boards and even read and answer another
person's mail.
A remedy to stem the abuse may take the form of requiring
those who "remail" messages to identify actual sources of anonymous
postings that violate the law. These remailers may then be held
responsible for unlawful postings when necessary. Treating anonymity
in this way aligns with current practices in other communications
media. In news reporting, for example, publishers have long been
free to print information from anonymous sources, but are still
deemed responsible for the accuracy of their publications.
Alternatively, users may need to provide some form of
identification or registration on their communications. The point is
that the names of individuals who post anonymously should be
available for purposes of law enforcement if it turns out that a
tort or a crime has been committed. Otherwise, anonymity can easily
become a refuge for criminals and those who would use it to violate
the legal rights of others.
With such a solution applied to the Internet, citizens
would have protection from rip-offs and other unlawful activity. To
make protecting oneself possible, federal regulations which limit
the quality of encryption systems should be disposed of, so that
computers, software and networks can be safe.
Ultimately, the solution lies in making sure the few
abusers of on-line services do not act -- nor are permitted to act
-- above the law.
No. Existing legislation, perhaps with some amendments to
take account of the uniqueness of the Internet as a communications
medium, contains the remedies for abuses. But ultimately, the
solution lies in encouraging ethical and responsible use of this
dynamic and promising medium by service providers, BBSes and users.
This is a group established by the Church of Scientology
to encourage users in responsible and ethical use of the Internet by
adopting voluntary guidelines for Internet use.
Answers part 1
Overview of Questions
Home
