Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 16:56:16 +1000 (EST) From: David Gerard To: [deleted] @vut.edu.au Subject: Helena Kobrin letters Hi [deleted] , here is the Helena Kobrin letter as I received it, with my legal objections such as they are (and the odd patch of snideness that I remember ... I didn't take this letter very seriously). Over the next coupla days, I may pull some stuff off Web sites to inform you of the situation as I understand it. If you want to get info yourself, http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/ is a good starting point, and is quite usable through lynx . -- Whoops! Just got the forwarded postings -- three of them? A silly song, an internal helpdesk@vut note and an email from hkk@netcom.com complaining as an aggrieved user -- is that right? I didn't get your copy of this letter. -- -----begin letter----- On Fri, 28 Jul 1995, Helena Kobrin wrote: > Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 19:44:15 -0700 (PDT) > From: Helena Kobrin > To: gerdw@cougar.vut.EDU.AU > Subject: unauthorized posting of copyright material > > > Dear Mr. Gerard: > > I represent Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), the owner > of the confidential Advanced Technology of the religion of > Scientology, and the holder of the exclusive rights under the > copyrights applicable to the Advanced Technology materials. > Among these copyrighted and confidential materials are the > Advanced Technology materials of a level known as "OT VII." The > copyright for OT VII is registered with the United States > Copyright Office under No. TXU-303-388. This is the copyright registration for OT-II. Do you know what you're talking about? > I have been informed that you have posted on > alt.religion.scientology a portion of the OT VII materials > without the authorization of my client, who, of course, would not > have given such authorization had it been requested. Your action > violates my client's legal rights in that it is the unauthorized > making of an electronic copy of the copyrighted material and the > unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets materials. The 'portion' in question is a six-line quote of material that is readily available publicly, and was posted for purposes of criticism (see the 'Fair Use' provision in both American and Australian copyright law). You know this. A 'trade secret' is required to be 'secret'. This stuff hasn't been since the seventies, when it was first read into (publicly available) court records. > These actions constitute violations of applicable copyright > laws and trade secret misappropriation entitling our client to > damages and an injunction. This is true regardless of whether > you ever signed an agreement with respect to the confidentiality > of the OT materials. You are on notice that they are regarded as This is utter bilge and attempted legal harrassment (in my personal opinion; IANAL). > trade secrets, and case law from several jurisdictions holds that > an individual who is on notice is liable for trade secret > misappropriation. The only way these materials could ever have > left the church is through outright theft or misappropriation. 'On Notice': this is an unsigned e-mail, which could have been written by ANYONE. I have a copy of Netscape here that will set the 'From:' address to whatever you tell it. You have not sent me a registered, signed-for piece of paper. "The only way ..." simply false. Past members of the CoS who have left, or photocopies from publicly available court records. The material is out there. > It is essential that you take immediate and effective action > to remove the unauthorized copy from the Internet, and that you > refrain from any repetition of this or similar acts in the > future. You are also to delete these and any other OT materials > from your hard drive and any floppy disks and to destroy any hard > copies you have made. > > In addition, your downloading of the copyright and trade > secret materials also violates laws prohibiting copyright > infringement and trade secret misappropriation. Your use and > disclosure of these materials is *not* fair use. United States Simply false. > courts routinely find that the unpublished nature of a work is a > factor which weighs against a finding of fair use. No court has This would apply if (1) I were in the United States (2) it were true. The latest version of US copyright law *specifically* states that unpublished works are susceptible to fair use excerpting. > ever found that use of stolen unpublished works is fair. There Also simply false; 'fair use' excerpting of stolen unpublished material found so in England. (A finding which would carry more weight in Australia than a finding in America. IANAL.) > is also no fair use defense to trade secret misappropriation. > The OT materials have been found to be trade secrets by the > United States District Court for the Southern District of > California in Bridge Publications, Inc. v. Vien, 827 F. Supp. > 629, 633 (S.D. Cal. 1993). No court has ever ruled to the > contrary. This is false. The court decision named actually said the exact opposite: the materials are NOT trade secrets in California. > I will expect an immediate response from you with a > statement of your willingness to comply with these demands. If > you do not comply immediately, we will have no other recourse but > to initiate legal action to compel compliance. > Sincerely, > Helena K. Kobrin > Incidentally, you can't prove that I made that posting, or posted this letter; any more than I can prove that a real lawyer named Helena K. Kobrin emailed me this letter. Your claims of legal action are designed to intimidate to silence, nothing more. You were fined US$20,000 for legal action intended to intimidate in America last year. ----- end letter ----- As I said, that's not WORD-FOR-WORD. That's the GIST of it. But those are (as I can remember) the facts of what I said, and the tone I said it. I'll send you the other stuff soon's I'm out from under everything else ... the Web site mentioned above is a good starting point, though. -- cheers, David.