Emergency Briefing: All the facts on the raid and what the raid means to Internet usersIf you find this briefing informative and important, we strongly encourage you to distribute it (following netiquette), and to urge people to visit our web page at www.factnet.org. Every Internet user who believes in free speech and uncensored e-mail, every Internet Service Provider, and the entire computer and communications industries have a vital interest in the FACTNet trade secret and copyright case. The facts behind the RTC. v. FACTNet case At 9:00 a.m. on August 21, 1995, delegations of Scientology officials and lawyers, with federal marshals standing by, raided the homes of FACTNet, Inc. directors Robert Penny and Lawrence Wollersheim in Ignacio, COlorado, seizing thousands of dollars in computer equipment and data that belonged to FACTNet, a nonprofit electronic library and archive. A week before, FACTNet director Arnaldo Lerma 's home had been raided in Arlington, Virginia. Scientology claimed the issues were copyright and trade secrets. But the manner in which the raids were conducted made it clear that there was much more to it than that. FACTNet has been highly critical of Scientology. The purpose of the raids, and the ensuing lawsuits, was to silence FACTNet. An August 23 article in the Boulder Daily Camera reported that American Civil Liberties Union attorney David Lane, who witnessed one of the raids, was appalled as he watched Scientologists rifling drawers and closets of the home, straying far beyond the scope of the civil search warrant. In addition to the seized computer hardware and software, data storage devices and paper documents, the Scientologists took a mailing list of 8,500 FACTNet donors and former Scientologists, many of whom had escaped from Scientology, changed their names and started new lives. Now those names were in the hands of Scientology. "What kind of country is this," ACLU attorney Lane asked the Daily Camera, "when your sworn enemy can go into your house and rummage through your drawers at the point of a federal marshal's gun?" Founded in 1993, FACTNet, Inc., is a small, underfunded, nonprofit electronic library and archive, a repository of information concerning not only free speech, free thought and privacy, but also thought reform and coercion, by which is meant those methods by which totalitarian governments and organizations attempt to curtail free speech, free thought and privacy. Because in FACTNet's view Scientology is a totalitarian organization whose fundamental practices involve coercive thought reform, FACTNet has gathered what is probably the largest electronic library and archive about Scientology in the world. The repository includes many documents which allege extreme harm to Scientology's members as a result of Scientology's coercive thought control methods, from psychotic episodes in which the victims are denied medical help to permanent emotional damage and even suicide. Needless to say, much of FACTNet's information concerns aspects of Scientology which the organization does not want known. What is this case really all about? To understand the significance of the RTC v. FACTNet case one must know something about Scientology's particular view of free speech: people are free to say anything they want -- as long as it is not critical of Scientology. When it comes to individuals and organizations that Scientology wants to silence, FACTNet is at the top of the list. In its suit Scientology has accused FACTNet of copyright and trade secret violations, but in fact it is Scientology that is misusing and abusing these laws, misinterpreting and perverting them in ways never intended when the copyright and trade secret laws were passed. All of the materials seized during the raid were part of a legal case for which FACTNet had been hired as expert consultants and expert witnesses. The case was Church of Scientology International v. Fishman & Geertz, (U.S.D.C. C.D. Ca Case No. 91-6426), in which Scientology alleged defamation involving published claims of Scientology-related instructions to commit financial fraud, murder and suicide. Largely because of information FACTNet was gathering from around the world concerning people being driven into psychotic episodes and committing suicide as a result of Scientology's bizarre mix of pseudo-psychotherapy and occult practices, Scientology dismissed and fled the case on the eve of trial. The materials seized by Scientology in the FACTNet raid had been scanned into the computer for the purposes of legal research for the Fishman-Geertz case and for historical archiving. None of the seized material was ever intended to be distributed to the public. A history of harassment against FACTNet But Scientology has been fighting FACTNet and its directors for years. All of them are former members who know firsthand how damaging the organization's coercive methods can be. Gerald Armstrong, a former director, was driven into bankruptcy, sued while in bankruptcy court, and finally, after being broken financially and to prevent further litigation which he could not afford, he was forced to sign a legal document prohibiting him from criticizing Scientology in any way. Jon Atack, another former director who lives in England, was also driven into bankruptcy and the rights to his excellent expose about Scientology, A Piece of Blue Sky, were appropriated by the group so that they could make the book completely unavailable to the public. According to the laws of that country, Atack cannot serve on the board of any corporation because of the bankruptcy. Arnaldo Lerma, another FACTNet director, was also raided by Scientology and is now fighting a lawsuit for copyright violations in Virginia. Scientology's war against Lawrence Wollersheim Lawrence Wollersheim, who co-founded FACTNet, Inc. with Robert Penny, has been in litigation with Scientology for 16 years. He left Scientology after 11 years and sued them for intentional infliction of emotional distress and outrageous conduct. Wollersheim won a $30 million judgment against Scientology in 1986, later reduced on appeal to $2.5 million. Scientology has taken the case twice to the U.S. Supreme Court and has lost both times. They, in turn, have sued him four times since he brought his case against them. In their first suit they tried to bring Racketeering-Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) charges against him, but the suit was dismissed as being without merit. In their second suit against him they accused him of violating their civil rights, but that case was also dismissed as meritless. Their third suit against him was determined by the judge to be what is known as a SLAPP suit, or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, meaning that Scientology filed the suit against Wollersheim specifically to prevent him from exercising his constitutional rights. The SLAPP suit was dismissed as unfounded and judgments for attorney fees and costs totaling close to $500,000 were entered against Scientology. The current lawsuit, in which FACTNet, Wollersheim and Penny are accused of being copyright terrorists, is the fourth lawsuit Scientology has brought against Wollersheim, and is every bit as frivolous as the earlier ones. Scientology policy is to silence its critics Anyone who has tangled with Scientology knows that when it comes to silencing a critic, there is really no limit to what the organization will do. Is there an Internet user in the world who does not know about the all-out battle Scientology and its attorneys have been waging war against any critics who post to the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology? What may not be as widely known is that harassment and intimidation of anyone critical of Scientology is an integral part of the organization's basic philosophy. Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard repeatedly wrote that anyone who is critical of Scientology is, by definition, a criminal, and his followers adhere fervently to this belief. Excerpts from a few of Hubbard's directives provide some insight into this bewildering mindset. One must understand that Hubbard's writings are considered ultimate truth inside the organization. Critics of Scientology become "fair game" In a 1967 policy Hubbard announced that anyone who was an enemy of Scientology was "fair game," and he explained in no uncertain terms what this meant: "May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." A year later Hubbard issued a policy entitled "Cancellation of Fair Game," in which he ordered his followers to stop using the term "fair game" since "it causes bad public relations." He made it clear, however, that the treatment of Scientology's enemies was not to change. In a 1966 project Hubbard laid out a series of steps which seem to be the ones now being taken against Internet critics and others. His instructions were to try to get the person arrested and then sue them for anti-Scientology libel and slander. Then he points out: "If we do the above as our pattern, we will successfully bring the following facts into public consciousness: (a) People who attack Scientology are criminals. (b) That if one attacks Scientology he gets investigated for crimes. (c) If one does not attack Scientology, despite not being with it, one is safe." "Don't ever defend. Always attack" In a 1967 bulletin called "Critics of Scientology," Hubbard was ominously blunt: "We are slowly and carefully teaching the unholy a lesson. It is as follows: 'We are not a law enforcement agency. BUT we will become interested in the crimes of people who seek to stop us. If you oppose Scientology we promptly look up -- and find and expose -- your crimes. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone." In a 1960 policy called Department of Government Affairs, Hubbard candidly told his followers that they were free to "manufacture" evidence that could be used against the offending individual: "If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Peace is bought with an exchange of advantage, so make the advantage and then settle. Don't ever defend. Always attack." In an article published in the March 1955 issue of Ability, the magazine of Dianetics and Scientology, Hubbard made it graphically clear what should be done to anyone who dared to use Scientology materials without authority: " ... The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. "The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." There are many other similar directives, to which Scientology followers adhere zealously and unquestioningly, which call for critics to be harassed relentlessly until they are silenced. In one manual Hubbard told his followers that any reporter who was planning a critical article should be harassed until they caused him to "shudder into silence." $20 million a year on litigation The Scientologists are also masters at the use of litigation to create a chilling effect on potential critics. Time magazine published an in-depth, well-researched cover story about Scientology in 1991 entitled "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power," and for their efforts Scientology slapped them with a $485 million libel suit. It was finally thrown out of court in late 1996, but not before Time was forced to spend close to $7 million defending the suit. How many media can afford such legal costs? Indeed, Scientology's strategy is to make its litigation as financially draining on its critics as possible. As Hubbard wrote, "the purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win." It is estimated that Scientology spends $20 million every year on litigation. What chance does a small nonprofit library and archive such as FACTNet, with donations of $40,000 to $50,000 a year, have against such an adversary with such unlimited funds? Relentless harassment and intimidation Former Scientologists, particularly those who have been at the higher levels of management and have therefore seen what goes on behind Scientology's slick public image, are subjected to such relentless harassment and intimidation if they expose what they have learned that very few former members are willing to speak publicly about their experiences at all. Those who are willing to speak out tell such horror stories that the very outrageousness of their claims tends to lessen their credibility. This is particularly true in the United States, where people have never experienced the tyranny of a totalitarian state and do not believe such an organization could exist in a free country, certainly not in the guise of a religion. Suicides and mysterious deaths Yet there is growing evidence that Scientology's peculiar mix of past life pseudo-psychotherapy, promises of science fiction-like superpowers and coercive thought control can be extremely dangerous psychologically, emotionally and physically. The organization's draconian methods of hiding the truth about its practices precludes oversight from any outside agency and reportedly puts its members at risk -- sometimes fatally. The 1991 Time article for which the magazine was sued opened with the story of Noah Lottick, a young man who became involved in Scientology and committed suicide shortly after becoming convinced by Scientology operatives that his father was out to destroy him. Noah's parents, Ed and Sally Lottick, have been working ever since their son died to expose the truth about this organization. In late 1996 the head of the Scientology organization in Paris was found guilty of second degree murder and sentenced to prison after the judge determined that Scientology's coercive tactics played a significant role in the tragic suicide of a Frenchman several years ago. The tragic case of Lisa McPherson In mid-December 1995 a 36-year-old woman named Lisa McPherson died under mysterious circumstances in Clearwater, Florida. She had been a Scientologist for many years but had confided to family members that she wanted to leave the organization. Evidence suggests that Scientology was attempting to coerce the woman into staying and that she was driven into a psychotic episode by the Scientology procedures to which she was subjected. Shortly before her death she was found wandering down the highway naked after a minor traffic accident. Notes from the paramedics who treated her on the scene indicate that she was pleading for someone to help her. Yet Scientology representatives removed her from the hospital and took her back to the Scientology compound, where she could not receive proper medical or psychiatric treatment. Indeed, there are directives in Scientology which specifically omit any medical attention for an individual in a psychotic episode. Instead, the person is to be isolated and put under guard while bizarre psychological procedures are applied by Scientology practitioners who have no formal training in dealing with severe mental trauma. Scientologists believe that these procedures will cause the person to recover, although there is no scientific evidence to support this belief. On the contrary, reports archived by FACTNet suggest that these Scientology procedures actually worsen a person's physical and psychological condition. In Lisa McPherson 's case, the procedures may actually have led to her death. The coroner who examined her reported that she was so dehydrated she could not have had anything to drink in five days, and she had insect bites -- possibly roach bites -- all over her body. This is consistent with information in FACTNet's archives, including reports that people in conditions similar to Lisa McPherson 's were held against their will, forced to sleep on a mattress on the ground in a small shack or garage, and guarded by people who had no medical or psychiatric training whatsoever. FACTNet has gathered hundreds of similar reports from all over the world, reports which allege outrageous abuse, human rights violations, human experimentation utilizing thought control techniques without the knowledge or consent of the victims, deaths and suicides as a result of Scientology's coercive, totalitarian methods of controlling its members. alt.religion.scientology: an open forum for criticism Scientology's harassment and intimidation tactics have been extremely effective in limiting the damage to its public image that tragedies such as Lisa McPherson 's could cause -- until the Internet. When the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology was created three years ago, suddenly there was an open forum for criticism of Scientology which the organization could not silence. People were free to discuss any and all aspects of their experiences in Scientology, and the whole truth about the organization -- not just the approved propaganda -- began to come out. As in any totalitarian system, Scientology management insists on controlling all avenues of information, so this free exchange over the Internet was unacceptable. Accordingly, the orders went out to gain control of this new problem child called the Internet. Scientology's attempts to control the Internet Those who have followed the course of this battle over the past three years can confirm that Scientology and its lawyers tried everything they could think of to put a lid on alt.religion.scientology. For those who were aware of Scientology's determination to achieve world dominion, it has been a bizarre and harrowing experience to watch this closed, secret society attempt to force the entire Internet to comply with its will. Scientology attorney Helena Kobrin naively wrote a letter to all Internet service providers ordering them to remove the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup, known by the letters a.r.s., from their server so that users would be unable to access it. She did not realize that such a thing was unheard of and that her action would simply expose Scientology's ignorance about the ways of the Internet, making her the target of endless ridicule and scorn on a.r.s.. But this battle has been going on for three years now, and Scientology has learned from its mistakes. Now mysterious vandalism occurs which cannot be traced, but a.r.s. newsgroup observers have little doubt about the perpetrators. Thousands upon thousands of bogus messages have been dumped onto the newsgroup, the Internet equivalent of drowning out a speaker by shouting them down. This practice, known as "spamming," makes it very difficult for people to read valid messages on the newsgroup. Fake accounts have been established -- people with false names and identities -- that were then used to spam a.r.s. There have also been repeated instances of illegal cancellations of e-mail posts made to a.r.s. that were critical of Scientology or that revealed information detrimental to the organization. Critics on the Internet effectively silenced The most outspoken critics of Scientology have been singled out for special treatment, in keeping with written Scientology directives such as the ones quoted earlier. Private investigators hired by Scientology have undertaken investigations into the personal and private lives of these people and their lawyers. Scientology officials have visited their employers and informed them that they have a hate monger in their employ and that the employer would be made liable for the person's actions. Internet Service Providers have been threatened with lawsuits if they continue to carry that person. In some cases people have lost their servers and have had to go to a new one. Scientology attorneys have sent threatening letters across e-mail to critics. Complaints have been made to authorities, characterizing the criticism as "hate crimes." Some critics of Scientology have stopped posting to a.r.s., saying too much pressure was brought to bear on them and they had to leave. They have admitted they had to leave a.r.s. because of pressure being put on their job, their family, their server. If Scientology has such effective methods of silencing their critics and shielding themselves from public scrutiny, where are victims of this organization to turn for help? FACTNet refuses to be silenced Robert Penny and Lawrence Wollersheim co-founded FACTNet, Inc. in the public interest, to provide an electronic library and archive for materials that are not otherwise easily accessible to people who are being victimized by organizations such as Scientology. They were determined to preserve Scientology's own materials as they were originally published, because of Scientology's history of altering and destroying documents to suit their needs. FACTNet's purpose was not to alter them in any way. The purpose of FACTNet was to be an electronic library and archive for historical purposes and to assist attorneys in litigating against organizations such as Scientology, because Scientology routinely denies the existence of documents such as those quoted earlier in this briefing. Having failed to destroy FACTNet and its directors through any other means of harassment or intimidation, on August 21, 1995, Scientology attorneys, citing the copyright law, obtained a civil search warrant to enter Robert Penny's and Lawrence Wollersheim's homes. FACTNet's computers were seized as well as CDs and tapes containing FACTNet archival material. Scientology's latest ploy: the copyright law To obtain the warrant, Scientology claimed that FACTNet, Penny and Wollersheim were copyright pirates and trade secret violators who were in a position to copy and distribute Scientology materials, and that FACTNet's actions would cause Scientology to lose millions of dollars. If one were to believe Scientology's court papers, FACTNet was pirating Scientology materials much the way someone might produce fake Nike shoes or Gucci handbags. It was to protect companies from just such copyright piracy that the copyright law was passed. In such an instance, there is indeed an urgency on the part of the company. If they don't seize the pirated goods quickly the market will be flooded with illegal copies of their products. The same thing could happen with video tapes, audio tapes or software. The copyright law is vital in such situations, but it has no bearing whatsoever on a nonprofit library and archive such as FACTNet. The raid was authorized under false pretenses Furthermore, Scientology did not inform the judge that FACTNet was a nonprofit electronic library and archive, nor did they tell him that FACTNet does not engage in any commercial utilization of its archival material whatsoever. Legal experts have stated that had the judge realized the true nature of FACTNet he would never have authorized the raid. One attorney involved in FACTNet's defense has pointed out that in its motion for an ex parte warrant to conduct the search, Scientology made no mention of the fact that there was a history of four previous litigations between Scientology and Lawrence Wollersheim. His view is that there is not a federal judge in the country who would have issued such a warrant under the copyright law had he or she been informed that Scientology has lost four lawsuits against Lawrence Wollersheim and that there are millions of dollars in outstanding judgments which Scientology owes him. Moreover, when Scientology searched the FACTNet data bases they used a key word list which was purposely designed to obtain information well beyond the bounds of any trademark and copyright issues. The fact that the list included attorneys and judges who have been involved in Scientology litigation suggests that the raid was an attempt by Scientology to invade attorney work product and to curtail FACTNet's fundamental right to access the courts. Attorney work product, privileged information It seems clear that Scientology deliberately misinterpreted the copyright law to gain access to privileged information which they could then use against FACTNet. As already stated, the material on FACTNet's data bases seized by Scientology was used by defense attorneys in a lawsuit brought by Scientology known as the Fishman-Geertz case. A Los Angeles-based law firm commissioned FACTNet to scan a tremendous amount of material onto electronic data bases so that the data could be searched quickly and efficiently. It is based on material from the Fishman-Geertz case that Scientology is now claiming copyright infringement and trade secret violations. FACTNet is being sued for possession of material that was never intended to be distributed to the public. It was all attorney work product, privileged information. Some of the documents which Scientology has listed as copyright violations had been deleted off FACTNet's hard drives and had to be reconstructed after the computer was seized. In some instances only four percent of the document was recovered, but Scientology is still claiming these documents as copyright violations. Scientology has come up with an entirely new category of criminal to describe FACTNet in its recent legal motions, calling the nonprofit group "copyright terrorists." Clearly this language is intended to inflame the judge and cause those people who are concerned about protecting their intellectual property to turn against FACTNet; one can only hope that such transparent extremist tactics will fall on deaf ears. Ironically, there is evidence that Scientology may have committed copyright fraud with regard to many of the documents upon which its suit against FACTNet is based. This apparent copyright fraud is detailed in FACTNet's opposition to RTC's summary judgment and in an expert declaration attached to that opposition. FACTNet raided by its worst enemy It is important to realize how Scientology is seeking to pervert the original intent of the copyright law in this case. The copyright law allows an individual or company to raid another individual or company if they have reason to believe a violation of copyrights may be occurring which could cause great financial harm to the owner of the copyright. What most people do not realize is that it is not U.S. marshals who conduct such a raid under the copyright law. It is the holder of the copyrights. In the case of FACTNet, it was Scientology officials and attorneys, FACTNet's avowed worst enemies, who conducted the raid, seizing materials that went far beyond the scope of the search warrant. Based on the list of search words they used to search the hard drives, a list which included the names of critics and of attorneys who have litigated against them, it is clear that Scientology conducted the raid not to protect their copyrights but to gather intelligence on FACTNet and other critics of the organization. To make things worse, Scientology then had this future court evidence in its "protection," unsupervised by any government agent, for an extended period of time. Such abuse of copyright law cannot be tolerated. Imagine that a competitor wants to get you in trouble, so they e-mail you or upload a copyrighted document to you and then call the owner of the copyright and convince them you should be raided and sued for copyright violation. You could be out of business before you have a chance to defend yourself. Scientology has a history of using this kind of tactic against those it is seeking to destroy. The organization routinely engages in what many consider to be highly unethical and unfair actions to accomplish its ends. If Scientology legitimizes these bully tactics in its lawsuit against FACTNet, other unethical individuals and corporate entities will be able to use this legal precedent to bully and intimidate their competition using similar methods. As ACLU attorney David Lane said after the raid on FACTNet, "What kind of country is this, when your sworn enemy can go into your house and rummage through your drawers at the point of a federal marshal's gun?" For this reason, Internet users, Internet service providers, software manufacturers and everyone involved in the computer and communications industries must take a profound interest in protecting our privacy and civil liberties and the rights of libraries and archives from those who would undermine them for their own purposes. In this age of electronic information, there is a growing awareness that it is not only governments that control information. Large corporations have the ability to control not only the flow of information but the content as well. This is the kind of control Scientology is hoping to gain by winning this case. Libraries and archives are vital to the free flow of ideas. It is only in a totalitarian state that the flow and content of information is controlled. Fax machines have to be registered in communist China. In the former USSR, photocopy machines had to be registered. This is unheard of in a free country. Yet Scientology, through its abusive trade secret and copyright enforcement, is threatening to choke the development of vital new technologies for the Internet -- new search engines, new browsers, new indexing systems. Simple indexing and categorizing require that copies be made. This case could have a chilling effect on the growth of all new Internet technologies. Abuse and misuse of copyright law Scientology is attempting to shut down a legitimate nonprofit electronic library and archive because it does not want its victims to have access to documents which could assist in their recovery or litigation defense. Scientology is mischaracterizing the RTC v. FACTNet lawsuit as a copyright piracy and trade secret violations case. FACTNet never had any intention of distributing these materials to the public, but Scientology wants the courts to assist them in their abuse and misuse of the trade secret and copyright laws. Indeed, Scientology is abusing trade secret and copyright law for several purposes never intended. First, Scientology hopes to use the law to censor critics of the organization. This is clear. Another purpose, not as obvious, is the religious persecution of former members and the removal of religious competitors. Scientology is attempting to create a religious monopoly using copyright and trade secret law to prevent others from practicing their religion in the way they see fit. This is another reason they are fighting furiously to maintain the secrecy of their copyrighted "upper level materials" -- a daunting mix of intergalactic science fiction and complex procedural instructions, reminiscent of certain occult practices, for achieving supposed higher states of being. Practicing medicine without a license A third -- and perhaps the most important -- purpose for misinterpreting and abusing trade secret and copyright law is to hide the casualties of Scientology's coercive thought control techniques. Soon after Hubbard launched his so-called "breakthrough" in mental therapy, Dianetics, his followers began to be arrested for practicing medicine without a license. This was because Hubbard was claiming to be able to cure any and all physical ills -- from the common cold to cancer -- and victims of this self help scam began filing complaints. In 1963, the Food and Drug Administration accused Scientology of practicing medicine without a license and ordered them to cease all such illegal activities. Using "freedom of religion" as a shield But with characteristic sleight of hand, Hubbard simply announced to his followers that Scientology was no longer to be called a "psychotherapy"; henceforth they were to call it a "religion." He made it clear, however, in a 1962 edict titled "Religion" that the change was only a corporate one, purely a matter for the accountants and solicitors, and that it would not upset in any way the activities of any organizations. This shift of nomenclature allowed Scientology to use the First Amendment right of freedom of religion to shield itself from further scrutiny by any outside agency, thereby avoiding any future charges of practicing medicine without a license. As an added precaution, Hubbard made the materials which contain his most outrageous curative health claims highly secret. Later, Scientology attorneys conceived the idea of protecting the secrecy of these materials under trade secret law. This was a clever strategy, one which Scientology is fighting desperately to maintain in the current FACTNet case. The reason is simple: if the organization can continue to make its curative health claims secretly, then it can continue to hide the horrific effects of its coercive thought control methods. They can also hide the fact that they are fully aware of the damage their human experimentation is causing to their victims, thereby avoiding responsibility for countless emotional and psychological breakdowns, deaths and suicides. The real issue is protecting Scientology's secrets Clearly, this case has nothing to do with piracy or theft of copyrights and trade secrets. Scientology is characterizing it that way to cloak its true motives, which are to shut down an electronic library and archive that has information Scientology wants to keep secret, and to establish case law that will allow it to censor all information about Scientology that goes out across the Internet. This assault is simply the latest in Scientology's long history of attacking any individual or organization that criticizes it. But in its zeal to shut down FACTNet and other critics, Scientology threatens to polarize the issue of copyrights and intellectual property on the Internet and create case law which could have serious repercussions for everyone involved in mass communication, Internet communications and computerized documents support facilities, whether they be electronic library archives, litigation support archives or general resources for information and data. Lest anyone doubt Scientology's intentions, an article in the most recent issue of an internal magazine called "High Winds" proudly trumpets RTC's "groundbreaking lawsuits against both copyright infringers and the computer service companies that served as electronic conduits" for them. It goes on to predict "landmark decisions" in which, "for the first time, Internet access providers will be held responsible for any copyright infringements posted through their facilities." Repercussions for all Internet and computer users If Scientology succeeds in this case, among other things they will have established a legal precedent that says if you have a document on your computer that is a copyright violation, even if you have already deleted it, you have infringed on a copyright. If you are an electronic library that has received unsolicited material -- even if you have not yet discovered that the material is on your computer -- you have infringed on a copyright. If you are a historical archive preserving documents for posterity, you may be held liable for copyright infringement. In this new electronic age, the old rules do not simply transfer smoothly from the old world to the new cyberworld. The software and communications industries need to support FACTNet's attempt to extend the traditional protections for libraries and archives to this new medium, the Internet. What Scientology is trying to do under the guise of copyright piracy is to draw the software and communications industries into a censorship war, because in fact what they are doing is misusing copyrights as a means of censorship. No one wants this. Internet service providers, systems admins and bulletin board system administrators could be forced into a position of surveiling all the traffic that goes through their sites. If Scientology wins their argument, they will be establishing the concept that simple possession of a copy of copyrighted material is an infringement. There might be something on your computer that you didn't even ask for, but if it is on your computer at the moment you are raided, you are an infringer. If you can be held liable because you didn't take enough steps to prevent it, then you have to surveil everything. All of this would mean added costs in terms of insurance for the Internet service providers and additional personnel to perform surveillance and censorship functions. Many independent Internet service providers would be forced out of business because of these increased costs, leaving only the large corporations, who can afford the additional expenses, to run the Internet. And it would inevitably lead to higher costs for the individual users, to say nothing of increased risk of selected censorship. There is also the issue of litigation costs. Hundreds of hours of legal research time were saved in the Fishman-Geertz case by the use of FACTNet's high-speed electronic scanning and search technology. It is strongly in the public interest that cutting edge technology be used to cut the cost and increase the speed of litigation, yet Scientology's suit against FACTNet directly challenges this trend toward faster, less expensive justice. Effects of this case on copyright law For attorneys engaged in computer- and Internet-related law, a primary concern about the FACTNet case is how its outcome will affect the future of the Internet and of computer communications in general. While many traditional copyright concepts translate without difficulty into the new language of electronic communications and data storage, some do not. For example: 1. What is a "copy"? In the days when all copies were on paper, this was not a difficult question. Now, a "copy" might be a fleeting arrangement of electrons in volatile memory. When you view a Web page, you actually bring a "copy" of it onto your own computer, however impermanently. Furthermore, you don't know what is on that page until you load it. Are you liable for copyright infringement if you view (that is, copy) a Web page that turns out to be copyrighted? Scientology is asserting that you are. 2. Who is an "infringer"? Is an Internet Service Provider (ISP), a bulletin board systems operator (sysop), or a network system administrator liable for contributory infringement if copyrighted material turns up on their systems regardless of how it got there? Is mere possession of a "copy" of copyrighted material an infringement? Scientology says it is. One must bear in mind that even a deleted file may remain intact on the disk until it is physically written over in a disk reformatting. Scientology's schizophrenic legal strategy One of FACTNet's defense attorneys, an intellectual property specialist, has pointed out that on one hand, Scientology claims the materials seized on FACTNet's data bases are protected by trade secrets and by copyrights, yet on the other hand they assert that it is these very same materials on which they base their so-called religion. This is a schizophrenic view, because trade secrets and copyrights have traditionally been considered in a commercial context. Scientology cannot have it both ways. According to this attorney, the doctrine of fair use also promises to play an important role in the case. Besides the obvious fair use which should be accorded any nonprofit library or archive, the issue of fair use enters into it in two other ways. For one thing, he points out, these materials are ostensibly for a religion, in which case people should be able to use portions of the materials to have a religious discussion. Scientology disagrees, of course. But perhaps even more important is the fact that being in Scientology's bad graces is a terrible thing to be, and because of this, one can argue that one should be entitled to use Scientology's materials to protect oneself. This brings up a new aspect of fair use -- that FACTNet's use of these materials was a self defense. Changes in copyright law inevitable One of the FACTNet attorneys expects the case to be a landmark case for intellectual property issues on the Internet. No judge, jury, or legislature can ignore new technology and the public's justifiable interest in using it, he says. Copyright law changed with the advent of copiers. And it changed when people made it inescapably clear that they would make their own audiocassette copies of music recordings. Copyright will change again to accommodate the Internet and computer technology in general, and Scientology should not be allowed to dictate those changes simply to forward their own censorship issues, which run counter to the best interests of the public and the computer and communications industries in general. A danger to all Internet users Graham E. Berry, Esq. of the Los Angeles law firm of Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP is the lead defense counsel in the RTC v. FACTNet case. He is also representing FACTNet's interests in the related RTC v. Lerma litigation and the Go Graphics group in the Louder v. Compuserve et al. Internet litigation. A veteran of Scientology litigation, Berry finds the organization's current legal actions extremely troubling from the perspective of the computer software, Internet, communications and media businesses generally. Berry is concerned that because of Scientology's tactic of making its litigation as costly as possible to its opponents in order to bankrupt them financially, there is a very real danger that FACTNet may not be able either to conclude the litigation or to litigate the case as aggressively, comprehensively and successfully as it should. "The entire Internet and communications industry faces the prospect that there will be major changes in directly applicable intellectual property law as a result of this case, with far-reaching consequences for all concerned," says Berry. "From the industries' standpoint, this must be extremely disturbing. The Church of Scientology may affect fundamental changes in the application of copyright laws to the Internet and communications industries through the misuse and abuse of the copyright and trade secret laws in the RTC v. FACTNet case. If this occurs, it will only be because FACTNet could not afford to wage the legal battle that must be fought." Support from the Internet and communications community For this reason it is absolutely critical for the entire Internet community, as well as communications and software industries, to provide the maximum available financial and legal support to FACTNet in this most important litigation. Large corporate, foundation, institutional and individual contributions, which are tax deductible when made payable to FACTNet, Inc. for the purposes of its legal defense fund, are needed. In addition, amicus briefs and intervention are required of those in the industry who will be prejudicially affected, perhaps at great expense, as a result of the legal rulings sought by Scientology in its battle against FACTNet and the Internet itself. "It is of the utmost importance," Berry adds, "to understand that this is not a case about 'copyright terrorism,' as Scientology would have people view it. FACTNet is a nonprofit electronic archive and library. It is not a commercial entity and puts its materials to no commercial use whatsoever. Scientology cannot be allowed to redefine the copyright laws to aid it in censoring its critics. Whatever one's view of Scientology, the misuse of the copyright and trade secret laws by Scientology is of crucial, and potentially adverse, consequence to all those involved in the communications industry, both Internet and otherwise." FACTNet cannot do this without your help. FACTNet has already won several major battles, and it is committed to winning this war, no matter what it takes or how long it takes. This small, nonprofit library and archive has already spent more than $1.7 million in litigation against Scientology, and the estimate is that it will cost about another million to win. But no matter what it takes, FACTNet is committed to the litigation process and to protecting our valuable rights, not only regarding copyright fair use and free speech, but also free access to information via libraries and archives. Part of this battle involves protecting Internet service providers from increased costs as a result of censorship, protecting software companies from extremist interpretations of copyright laws which could eventually recoil on them if the general public feels the interpretations are not also balanced with their best interests, and protecting the average Internet user from e-mail censorship which would curtail free speech on the Internet. These are everyone's issues. FACTNet urgently needs your immediate financial support. Help us now to protect all of our Internet freedoms and rights.
References and Background Material to be Found on The Net: * The history of Scientology's war on the Internet has been well archived on many web pages. Any one of them gives links to many more.
* Many media have mistakenly said the raid on FACTNet was conducted by the Church of Scientology. It was not. It was conducted by the Religous Technology Center (RTC) which is not part of the "church" but in fact controls it through licensing agreements. Above that is the "Church of Spiritual Technology." Also in the official Scientology hierarchy are various organizations to direct Scientology businesses. Thus "Scientology" is a wide empire. To learn how Scientology officials use it to intentionally confuse the outsider, see the account by former Scientology executive Robert Vaughn Young in "Quill," the magazine of the Society forProfessional Journalists at <http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/scientology/media/young-quill>. For a complex but thorough examination of how the "secular" areas are intertwined with the "religious" and how Scientology uses this to its advantage, see Church of Spiritual Technology v. United States (Court of Claims 1992) at <http://home.snafu.de/tilman/mgarde/ct_cl.92>. * Suggested readings:
* The Lisa McPherson Memorial Page is at <http://www.lisamcpherson.org/cos/lisa.htm>. It includes links to the Clearwater Police Department, updated media stories about the investigation into her death and Scientology's insistence that the police are part of a conspiracy. Noah Lottick, whose tragic suicide was featured in the "Time" magazine article cited above, is remembered at <http://www.lermanet.com/cos/noah.html>. * While Scientology insists that it is compatible with any religion, it hides the truth in its highly confidential "upper level" materials. That is why that material is kept secret. For a Christian perspective, see the Watchman Fellowship at <http://www.watchman.org/scientm.htm>. Also see Dave Touretzky's page devoted to Scientology "secrets" at <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/People/dst/Secrets/index.html>. * This well researched webpage is focused almost exclusively on the secret occult and satanic origins and practices of Scientology. <http://www.users.cts.com/sd/d/density4/brethren/hubbard.htm> * For insights into Scientology by former cult members, start with accounts by:
* Thought control and coercion can and does come in many forms, from the one-on-one abusive relationship to a fanatical mass movement. The long-term mental effects on victims is still being studied. Some excellent sites for those interested in pursuing the subject are:
* After visiting some of these sites, be sure to visit Scientology's own site at <http://www-dot-scientology-dot-org>. Note that Scientology has no links to anything cited above. In fact, Scientology is seeking to silence many of these resources. See Ron Newman 's "Scientology v. The Internet" at <http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/scientology/home.html>. * FACTNet is at <http://www.factnet.org>. * The full text of the Lanham Act can be found at <http://www.law.cornell.edu/lanham/lanham.table.html>. |
A
