From: fun2@SPAMBLOCK.arscc.com (David Gerard) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Australia: phone call with lawyer Date: 8 May 1997 14:51:30 GMT Organization: arscc.au and a.g.s-f Lines: 127 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: thingy.apana.org.au X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.2.1 BETA UNIX) I would really like all your comments on this one, please. Furthermore, I'd like them bloody quickly ;-) I spoke to the Scn's lawyer today. He was rational. We discussed the agreement after I pointed out to him that this was ridiculously overreaching, amounted to a gag order and I could hardly do worse by going to court and losing. He said that Co$ is RTC is Co$ in Australia, and I asked him again and he said so. so that opens CoS to a defamation counterclaim over the leaflet (which is reproduced at http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/demo/leaflets/public_warning/ for your amusement). Also, Helena Kobrin (or at least the hkk@netcom.com account) has been arassing AUSNet Services serverely, and so that's additional action in this very case which is harassing (world.net had nothing whatsoever to do with the original postings, not one byte passed through any systems of theirs). We then discussed the points in the RTC demands ... > Our client is not seeking to become involved in litigation, but it will > take any actions necessary to protect its intellectual property rights. It > therefore demands that you agree to, and comply with, the following terms: > 1. That you, your servants and agents immediately cease and forever desist > from reproducing, publishing, distributing or in any other way dealing > with (including but not limited to dealings on the Internet, in newspapers > and in magazines) any computer files, documents or things which amount to > a reproduction or a substantial reproduction of the Copyright Works or any > other works in which our client holds copyright. I pointed out that this as written excludes quotation for criticism or for exposure as criminal instruction manuals (public interest going up to and including the entire work in such cases). I also pointed out that RTC has legally threatened people (including me) over SIX LINES quoted for criticism - that they seem to wish to treat such as a violation, and even a lawsuit that gets thrown out immediately is onerous. (That RTC has acted like this seemed to be news to him.) I told him that a line about fair dealing for purposes of criticism or something like that would be necessary (however you say that in Australian legalese). Probably 'for criticism *or other purposes* that are fair dealing under section blahblah' whatever. I dunno how to say it in Australian legalese. > 2. That you will immediately delete, or arrange to be deleted, all > computer files in your possession, custody or control or in the > possession, custody or control of your servants or agents containing > information which amounts to a reproduction or a substantial reproduction > of the Copyright Works or any other works in which our client holds > copyright. I told him that I did not, nor ever had, had such files, and it would not be necessary to in any case (were someone to wish to do this sort of copyright violation by posting the materials). This amazed him, and I had to give him a quick explanation of how you could get something from a Web page to a news server without a byte of it ever touching your PC. (though such action would itself be a (c) violation in normal circumstances of course). I said a statement that I did not and had not had any such files on any PC that I own or control wouldn't be oppressive. (even if it means running Netscape with zero cache - possibly excluding this, through a clause about intentional vs. accidental or something, if that could hold water ...). > 3. That you will immediately withdraw from circulation and deliver up to > our client, C/- Davies Ryan De Boos, all documents or things in your > possession, custody or control or in the possession, custody or control of > your servants or agents which amount to a reproduction or a substantial > reproduction of the Copyright Works or any other works in which our client > holds copyright. I had and have a major fuckin' problem with this and explained why I did. You see, the statemnt covers every word LRH ever wrote that was Scientology - and that includes legit copies of things that I have in my possession (books, single sheets ... there's LOTS of things in single sheets). Also, a LOT of these legit copies are mimeographed or photocopied single sheets run off right there in the Org; and I would be placed in the position of having to prove that a given item was run off by the CoS rather than by me, and that would of course be impossible. Also, it excludes private lending e.g. to friends or other critics, of quite legitimate copies. We couldn't work out how to tone this one down at all. For what it's worth, he did say the words 'I think I understand your position'. I dunno if that sentence is meaningless or a coded declaration of war or what. > 4. That within ten (10) days of the date of this letter you will confirm > by statutory declaration to be provided to our client, C/- Davies Ryan De > Boos at the address above that the demands made above have been complied > with. I told him I didn't have a lawyer yet (heeelp!) ... but ... by next Tuesday I would get back to him with a stat dec OR a solicitor's letter in response. And I told him that I would get back to him before than if anything relevant came up, and he said he would with me after consulting with the client (CoS/RTC) if anything relevant came up, and that I was quite willing to discuss this matter. I tried to come across as a reasonable human being and willing to deal, and (while keeping in mind that he is working for his client every inch of the way) he came across as the same to me. At least I'm not dealing with a loony. I'm still extremely leery of signing any fscking thing whatsoever to hand to the CoS - they want something they can use as a weapon of harassment forever. They really want me to shut up and stop criticising them and take the web page down and so on. OTOH if I do nothing there will be a lawsuit I really wouldn't mind avoiding, realistically, but would fight like a motherfucker if I had to ;-) Advice? Help? -- http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/ http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~gerard/ (European mirror) http://208.199.189.75/fun/scn/ (US mirror - fast!)