Slashdot Log In
eBay E-Meter Auctions Yanked
from the bake-him-away-toys dept.
The short answer is: "No" -- as far as I can tell -- I'm not a lawyer. But this is just one more data point in the disturbing trend of the DMCA being used as an all-purpose club to remove material from the Internet.
On hearing of this, my first thought was that perhaps the devices in question are actually licensed somehow, instead of being sold outright. But I spoke to two former members and the spouse of a current member of the CoS, each of whom assured me categorically that the devices were purchased outright, with no license required to be signed. A staffer at the Lisa McPherson Trust found a catalog where anyone can buy an e-meter; the "public price" is a little higher than the price to CoS members, but there are no apparent limitations to the purchase. A credit card is all you'll need.
The device itself is just an electrical mechanism, somewhat like a fancy multimeter or oscilloscope. It's patented, but of course thousands of patented items are sold on eBay every day.
To members of the Church of Scientology, however, it's more than just an electrical device. It's used in "auditing," which apparently helps new members advance in the program. Members of the CoS who have become experienced in this process are licensed by the CoS to audit others (but, again, the purchase of the items themselves is not under license).
Some e-meters apparently have Intel Inside (an 8-bit microprocessor which performs some rudimentary functions). But ever since a 1963 raid in which the FDA took exception to the marketing of the device as medically beneficial, e-meters have carried a disclaimer which begins: "By itself, this meter does nothing. It is solely for the guide of Ministers of the Church in Confessionals and pastoral counselling."
I'd hard-pressed to think of why copyright could apply to a piece of electronic gadgetry which "does nothing." So why is eBay refusing to allow its sale?
Because DMCA is such an effective club.
Rod Keller, a Scientology critic, noticed that e-meter auctions were being taken down, and wrote eBay to ask why. The response was:
Hello,
These items are not prohibited due to their nature, but the Church of Scientology is giving us Notices of Infringement, which we are legally required to honor. These items are being ended for that reason.
Regards,
[...]
eBay Community Watch Supervisor
(Emphasis added.) That explanation, by the way, is a little facile: eBay is "legally required to honor" such notices if it wants to remain lawsuit-proof about the item. They would be well within their legal rights to leave the auctions up. More on this later.
When Mr. Keller expressed surprise at this, the next message went into a little more detail:
Hello,
There is a procedure under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act whereby someone who claims to be an owner of Intellectual property can send a notice sworn under penalty of perjury that an item is infringing. The internet provider must then remove the item. The seller of the item (not a third party) can request and fill out a counter notice. If he/she does so, the complaining party who filled out the original notice has a limited period of time to file suit, or the provider can go ahead and relist the item.
This is set up under the statute so that the interested parties will be the ones doing any litigating.
Regards,
eBay Customer Support
In response to my requests for more detail on exactly how the DMCA was being invoked by the CoS, an eBay representative promised that someone would get in touch with me. Unfortunately, I haven't heard from them by press time.
Here's what I think happened, based on the above -- feel free to follow along in the full text of the DMCA if you like.
The DMCA is an unusual regulation in that it principally protects service providers from litigation and then rigidly defines the steps they must follow to stay under its umbrella. It puts eBay in a position a little bit like Bart Simpson's, when Sideshow Bob announces:
"The following people will not be killed by me: Homer Simpson, Marge Simpson, Lisa Simpson, that little baby Simpson.... That is all."
Title II of the DMCA, otherwise known as the "Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act," is what seems to be relevant. It describes under what conditions a service provider is not liable "for infringement of copyright." My guess is that eBay is looking at section 202(c): "Information Residing On Systems Or Networks At Direction Of Users." The system is ebay.com; the users are the sellers; presumably the information is, in this case, the item being auctioned. Or the text and graphics used to describe the auction? I'm not sure.
Section 202(c)(1)(C) indicates that eBay will not be subject to liability as long as it, "upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity."
Paragraph (3) describes the elements which must be present in a notification, including: "A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
Based on eBay's statements, the Church of Scientology has sworn under penalty of perjury that it has an "exclusive right" to copyright on the material that was posted in the auction.
To me, that seems obviously wrong. An e-meter is an electrical device, or a religious artifact, depending on how you look at it. Either way, it's sold to customers who may or may not be members of the Church. Once they've bought the items, they should be able to do with them what they wish, including reselling them to whoever they wish.
But to enjoy the protections of the DMCA, service providers must remove any material as soon as they're told it infringes on copyright. Once material has been challenged, the service provider must act "expeditiously" to remove it. Only when the material is gone can the accused user make a case to defend it.
The carrot for service providers becomes a stick for users.
Meanwhile, I'd like to see the statement that the Church of Scientology made, under penalty of perjury, that an auction of an e-meter infringes on their copyright in some way. Any spokespeople for the CoS reading this are welcome to contact me to discuss it.
But, as Declan McCullagh wrote in an unrelated DMCA story yesterday, we are moving toward a two-tier copyright system on the internet -- at least in this country. If you don't host your own content, the DMCA's censor-first, ask-questions-later mandate effectively strips you of your rights.
You have the right... (Score:2)
Re:You have the right... (Score:2)
There's a theory of economics which holds that prolonged periods of peace and stability serve to entrench special interests in positions of power, and that regulatory efforts intended to prevent this are "captured" by the very interests they are supposed to oversee. It happens. It's happened here. The only way it will be stopped is by a mass uprising, which will inevitably be violent and bloody. Power is rarely given up voluntarily. The only interesting part left is trying to predict exactly when and where it will start.
And then the process starts over...
Slack vs. Scientology! (Score:2)
And when I said battle, I meant it. My money's on the Slackers--the followers of Bob. First of all Bob is just more powerful than Xenu (look at the pipe; does Xenu have a pipe?). Second, take a look at last year's apocalypse [subgenius.com]! Find me a Scientologist who can win this [subgenius.com]--the Church of the SubGenius have been practicing since X-Day 1996.
An Introduction to Slack [subgenius.com]
--
Explain this... (Score:2)
Can you give a link to the secondary patent? What does the secondary patent cover? It can't cover the same thing the first patent covers, right? I'd really like to know more about this. I figured the patent was history already, but I hadn't heard of the secondary patent.
Re:Images, Terms may be copyrighted/trademarked (Score:2)
NO. They have no right to "not allow their copyrighted work to be used to disparage them". If someone writes a book, I buy the book at Barnes and Noble, and then use the book as the basis for a review saying how terrible the book is, that's my right of free speech under the Constitution. It's like reviewing any other product out there (aside from software, where sometimes the EULA explicitly forbids such things...though I don't know about the legality of such clauses as IANAL) If they don't want people to be able to criticize their work, they shouldn't release it.
IANAL, but they should have SOME right to prevent the distribution of copyrighted images and terms, and trademarked names
That's not what's going on here. What's being distributed isn't copies of copyrighted material. It's like if I buy a car. I can auction off any car I buy on EBay, without having to have the permission of the car company. Now, I can't go and copy their (copyrighted) designs/logos they have on the car; but I can sure as hell sell a car they made with said logos on it to whoever I want. The selling of the "e-meter", a physical device which was *sold* to the person auctioning it off, is perfectly legal. The Church of Scientology is just trying to use the threat of litigation (and one doesn't have to be a lawyer to know they'd likely have the suit thrown out in a heartbeat) to silence critics (who, naturally, point to the e-meter as being rather ridiculous as a "lie detector")
Now, the DCMA's loophole, designed to protect copyright owners, is clearly being exploited. The Church of Scientology is well known for alledgedly filing motions that won't be upheld merely to by time or harass the victim. Indeed, this is standard legal manuevering.
I would like to see more of this with specifics as to the auctions, before we just bash on the Church of Scientology. If this is using a loophole for harassment, time for a letter writing campaign, getting the law fixed would be easy in that case. The government officials are not terribly thrilled with the CoS, and if it is being used to harass law abiding citizens, it will no doubt be fixed.
Thing is, it's clearly not a loophole in the law. It's the CoS pretending such a loophole exists and saying "oh we'll sue you if you don't stop auctioning these". So it's not something the lawmakers can fix; it's merely the CoS using the threat of litigation as a tool of harassment (which as you noted, is nothing new for them). This isn't something that can really be fixed by changing the DMCA.
And really, even if the auctions contained disparaging remarks by the individual selling the devices, that still has no legal effect on the auction itself. If the individual overstepped themselves and posted defamatory remarks, then it would be possible for the CoS to sue for defamation/libel. But since the CoS isn't doing that, I think it's safe to assume that the auctions contained no such language (and EBay itself would probably pull any such postings unilaterally, anyhow)
Just file the counter notice (Score:2)
I've looked through all of these messages here, but I've seen no one suggest the obvious: use the DMCA and send Ebay a counternotice.
The procedure for a counternotice is in the DMCA / Copyright Act at 17 U.S.C. section 512(g)(3). It must include the following:
(A) A physical or electronic signature [of yours].
(B) Identification of the material that has been removed
(C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material. (Me: you would base your faith on the first sale doctrine discussed elsewhere).
(D) [Your] name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that [you consent] to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located...
Of course, this would force the CoS to sue you in court or leave you alone. In my non-expert opinion, they would fail miserably but you may not want to risk them actually trying to sue you.
Re:The thing that's weird (Score:2)
Considering in the second case that this also means complying with language purity laws this means only Germany.
Otherwise you are permanently under litigation threat.
Re:Random economic ramblings (Score:2)
As the CoS doesn't seem to be growing (if it is, it isn't very fast, or the CoS would be a major religion by now)...
Gee, with the tons of stupid people out there, you'de think CoS would be overtaking Christianity soon. Well, I guess you can't fool all the people all the time.
Bad Mojo [rps.net]
Re:A way to kill DMCA (Score:2)
Bad Mojo [rps.net]
Re:E-meter is garbage. (Score:2)
Satanists may have a strange set of beliefs, but except for the mentally ill wannabes they don't hurt people. They don't starve their members. They don't make people slaves.
Satanists (the 1st church kind) love to bother you. If you're disturbed by them, then they've accomplished their goal.
Scientologists just want your money. The brainwashing is incidental to getting at your money.
LK
Re:Scientology not a religion (Score:2)
Hehe yeah... The diffrence between Subgenius and Scientology is the Scientologists take it sereously...
I once sat down and drafted up my own little religion... "The Great Fuzzy" aka "The furball of Cthulu"
He has one commandment "Do not believe in me.." accually for those who believe in him he has a second comandment "Leave me alone"
The path to enlightenment is blasphamy...
Be blasphamus and you shall become a saint
Anyway I put the joke aside and got on with my life
Don't forget to mirror the ELIAN_TRUE animation! (Score:2)
DMCA Worldwide??? (Score:2)
What's whith those American laws being appliable everywhere? As far as I know, American laws ain't legal/enforcible anywhere else than the US of A. Hey, what would the Americans say if I came to the US of A and try to enforce a Swiss law? They'd laugh at me. Well, I laugh at the DMCA!!!
Seems to me the Yankees are once again doing their imperialist shit over the rest of the world. Sorry folks, but that ain't gonna work.
And I *know* eBay is based in the US of A. Now, feel free to flame me, for what I care...
max
Re:Evil CoS and all that. (Score:2)
Evil CoS and all that. (Score:2)
If the E-meter was clearly CoS property from the beginning, and not the property of the person auctioning it, or rather, if the CoS has *never* transfered ownership of an e-meter to someone else, and can demonstrate that they *always* own them, then nobody has a right to sell them. Period.
Re:DMCA Worldwide??? (Score:2)
You say you know that ebay is in the US. Therefore, ebay must obey US law. It doesn't matter if those doing the selling are outside US. According to the US Justice system, you *can* break US law even when not on US soil. They simply have no jurusdiction to prosecute you.
Look at the people running online casinos from the carribean. They have LEGAL gambling licenses from the government where their servers are, and al business is run from their, yet, some have been charged by the FBI for 'illegal bookmaking', and if they re-enter the US, they will be arrested.
It doesn't matter how many lawyers you have (Score:2)
You missed the point (Score:2)
(And, no, the DMCA does not mean any of those things. Please try to understand the issues before forming opinions. IMHO, the DMCA is a Bad Thing, but not for those reasons. We share the same cause, but your ignorant ranting doesn't help.)
If anyone wants one that badly... (Score:2)
Looks like the "Bridge to Total Freedom" is a "bridge" after all.
Nice try, but ... (Score:2)
That is, IF you send in such a notice, you are opening yourself up to a charge of perjury. It would be nice if some brave soul(s) tried to do that, but they'd have to be quite brave.
Re:IAAL&IMHO (Score:2)
You mean like this one?
http://www.prarielaw.com/ [prarielaw.com]
OpenLaw (Score:2)
http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/ [harvard.edu]
Re:Scientologists have a history... (Score:2)
Re:So the DMCA is flawed, we knew that (Score:2)
Whilst I agree, I don't think that's the worse consequence of their sale being inhibited. It's vital that this kind of machine is publically available, so that members of the public can make an informed decision as to whether an e-meter could be effective for psychoanalysis or whether it is just a rheostat. If non-scientologists can't get hold of e-meters, it's harder to test the claims the "Church of Scientology" makes.
Re:Scientology not a religion (Score:2)
I can only speak from my personal experience. When I was 8, a Christian "evangelist" persuaded my (non-Christian) parents to send me for "lessons". She then convinced me that my parents were evil and would go to hell. I was quite shaken up till a few months after I finally stopped going.
Now I'm not going to argue about whether what she was saying was true or not. It wasn't the right thing to tell me when I was 8, because it left me with a terror which I had no way of handling at the time.
However, my point is that I can safely live openly today as a non-Christian without fear of retribution. And most mainstream Christians will not try to prevent "heretics" from peacefully coexisting in society (in the UK, anyway). If I'd had a Scientologist indoctrinating me, and then left the Church of Scientology, I would probably have suffered intimidation and quite possibly violence. And that's the difference.
I quite agree. If I was talking about Christianity as it was practised in the 14th Century in Europe, I would call it an extremist cult without hesitation. If Scientology ever matures to be as inoffensive as modern, mainstream Christianity, I will stop calling it a cult. Until then, it must be fought tooth and nail.
Re:Crooks vs Crusaders (Score:2)
Hmmm, I think I'm feeding a troll, but I'll bite just in case.
Scientology is a "fake religion" in the sense that the guy who set it up and the people running it now almost certainly didn't and don't believe what they tell people. A lot of what the CoS says about him is a pack of lies.
Lisa McPherson was covered in bruises and left dehydrated for days - in a Scientology "Hotel"! See photos of the autopsy [lisamcpherson.org] on the Web if you like.
Damn (Score:2)
Re:Scientology not a religion (Score:2)
EBay Items (Score:2)
There are many other items there that CoS seems to use to make money from... why don't they go after those too?
--
It's NOT a COPY! (Score:2)
Sadly Scientology has more lawyers than god (or the devil) and are used to cowering people inro submission
Re:Content Hosting Question (Score:2)
I've been wondering about this for a while. In my case the server is co-located at an ISP. I pay for an ethernet connection to the network but still completely own the box.
If they can hold an ISP responsible for providing connectivity to someone then no one is safe. If someone can clarify this it would be appreciated.
I'm also curious about the "under penalty of perjury" thing. What is the penalty for perjury for a corporation, church, or government? Does someone get sent to jail? Or does the organization get fined into bankruptcy? What is the penalty for an individual? Do individuals get fined a percentage of their annual income? I just want to know what incentives large organizations have to avoid abusing the DMCA.
numb
Credibility (Score:2)
Scientologists have a history... (Score:3)
Another (Score:3)
Get it quick!
Content Hosting Question (Score:3)
What qualifies as hosting your own content? I.E. Say I run a web server on my DSL line (which is true), and I do something like host a mirror of controversial material [wyvern.org]. Who is the service provider in this case, me or my ISP? It would seem to me I am, and that my ISP wouldn't come into the picture, because my agreement with them says it's my line and I can do with it what I want, and anything that says 'lawyer' on it will be forwarded in my general direction.
So, in short, is the content provider the person/entity who runs the web site or server or wherever you're accessing the information from?
--------------------
It Worked! The Apache Web Server is Installed . . (Score:3)
After following that link, I went to http://search.ebay.com [ebay.com] to do a different search, and stumbled upon the default Apache home page.
Very handy. Now I can delete all that Apache documentation from my own server, and just link to http://search.ebay.com/manual/index.html [ebay.com] instead!
Boy, with this level of sophisticated system administration, it's hard to believe eBay has a history of downtime.
Images, Terms may be copyrighted/trademarked (Score:3)
The Church of Scientology no doubt has multiple copyrights on images, terms (well, trademarks), statements, etc. If the pictures were taken by the owner but intentionally designed to looks like official photos, that may also be a copyright violation.
Now, the Church clearly doesn't have a legal leg to stand on to prevent sales (and if they sell it anyway, why would they, I mean, the resale market through E-bay won't really effect their bottom line to the extent legal fees will), but they can probably protect certain terms.
Especially if the listings are critical of the church. I mean, isn't in a copyright owner's privalige to not allow their copyrighted work to be used to disparage them? IANAL, but they should have SOME right to prevent the distribution of copyrighted images and terms, and trademarked names.
Now, the DCMA's loophole, designed to protect copyright owners, is clearly being exploited. The Church of Scientology is well known for alledgedly filing motions that won't be upheld merely to by time or harass the victim. Indeed, this is standard legal manuevering.
I would like to see more of this with specifics as to the auctions, before we just bash on the Church of Scientology. If this is using a loophole for harassment, time for a letter writing campaign, getting the law fixed would be easy in that case. The government officials are not terribly thrilled with the CoS, and if it is being used to harass law abiding citizens, it will no doubt be fixed.
Now, I have as low an opinion of the CoS as the rest of the people here. HOWEVER, that does not make them guilty in this case. Indeed, I am willing to grant them significant breadth of actions as a religious organization, so I want to see facts before I attack them.
Alex
Does Editing Auction Content Make eBay Liable? (Score:3)
It seems that eBay takes the opposite tack of discussion groups; eBay actively monitors and exercises control of the listings on their sites by removing auctions practically at the drop of a hat. Does this make eBay liable for auctions on their site?
It's pretty clear what legal advice eBay was given by their counsel. However, that doesn't mean they are right. Does anyone expect to see a major lawsuit against eBay for an auction that slips by their monitors? Is it possible for eBay to be liable for an illegal auction that slips through the cracks?
Burris
Why $cientology E-Meter's yanked from E-bay? (Score:3)
Those of you familiar with bioelectrical character of the human body, might want to brouse http://www.lermanet.com/e-metershort.htm
There is evidence that the 100 - 200 uAmp current supplied by the E-meter may have a physiological effect.
My own web pages regarding this have been being hit heavily.
Invetigators would likely want to have one of these E-meters to evaluate them fully. Scientology wouldn't want them to have them.
But you don't need an e-meter.
The rough Theverin Equivalent of an emeter
is a 6 volt source driving a 100 to 200 uamp
current source.
Make sure you use large surface area hand held electrodes with approx 40 square inches of skin contact to the hands.
Soup cans work fine, that's what the Scientologists use.
http://www.prizm-medical.com/ has conductive gloves that would be useful for long exposure studies. They also market a low current device for pain kiling effects that uses large surface area devices.
Scientologists are forbidden from reading my conjectures. I used to be one. I used to build e-meters. I currently think they provide a edorphin release pain killing effect - which if undisclosed to the Scientologists, makes them think that hubbard was quite grand, while addicting the Scientology.
A recent article in the Washington Post described treatment of depression by electrical stimulation of the nervous system.
webbed at: http://www.lermanet.com/lowlevel.htm
The live time exposure of Scientologists to this small stimulating current is THOUSANDS of hours.
Just how long would I have to run a small electric current through your body, while telling you things that you wanted to hear, before you became convinced that I held the secrets of the universe?
John Travolta merely substituted the Scientology [tm] belief system, together with its subliminal, hidden, electrically induced endorphin "rush", for cocaine. He thinks he is "better", because the electrical addiction is hidden from him; he was just given a substitute.
http://www.lermanet.com/e-metershort.htm
http://www.lermanet.com
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
The internet is the liberty tree of the 90's
http://www.lermanet.com - mentioned 4 January 2000 in
The Washington Post's - 'Reliable Source' column re "Scientologist with no HEAD"
Haha - best part (Score:4)
Re:This isn't about legality anyway (Score:4)
Very true. They managed to convince the Swedish government to break against the swedish constitution just a few months ago. I know it sounds conspiratory, but CoS have a lot of people high up, and have a spooky amount of power.
The swedish government fell to CoS's demands when american politicians in "high positions" threatened to sue Sweden in international court. Why they fell, I can't imagine. So I'm not the least bit surprised that it is the CoS that causes this latest fuzz. And they will never be convicted of purjery. They have far too many too good lawyers and politicians on their side for that.
Random economic ramblings (Score:4)
If you have a good, Widget, that will depreciate over time, you want to rent it, not sell it. The simple model is a two term model, where the good is worthless at that time.
You can calculate the rental price in both terms (S and D) easily. However, the sale price is interesting, because in term 2, the sale price is the rental price in term 1. The price in the first term is less than the price of renting for two terms.
Why? Well, in the rental scenario, the company produces Q* (where Q* = Q1 + (Q2 - Q1)) and rents Q1 of them in term 1, and Q2 in term 2.
In the buying scenario, the company produces Q1 units in term one, but in term 2, the old ones are "for sale" because the same people can keep them or resell them).
What is the point of all this? The CoS has a STRONG desire to eliminate the secondary market. Yes, anybody can buy them from them, but E-bay for the first time creates a secondary market. As it stands, because of the CoS's alledged behavior, former members probably hide as much as possible. As a result, I doubt that the old stuff is sold if people leave.
However, with E-bay, there is a valid secondary market. As the CoS doesn't seem to be growing (if it is, it isn't very fast, or the CoS would be a major religion by now), the number of E-meters needed by CoS people would be pretty constant. I mean, if the # auditors increases by 3% each year (I'm assuming the CoS keeps up roughly with the population, no more) than the market for new E-meters is VERY small. However, if you keep the already sold E-meters off the market, and see all the new ones, the market is larger and the prices are higher. That is why the CoS wants to stop this.
There probably are copyright issues... they probably own the images in use, have the name Trademarked, etc... As a result, they probably are legally at least somewhat on target. While they would probably lose, they can make it too costly.
Now, the CoS can write a letter (at most, a few hundred dollars in legal fees) and keep the secondary market closed, while each individual would have to fight the CoS in a large lawsuit to create the secondary market. Without a class action suit, there is no way to fight the lawsuit, as no individual involved has the incentive to fight, and the CoS WOULD fight. I mean, if they back down it is more profitable, but the credibility to legally fight is important to maintain. That way, they keep the secondary market closed.
Alex
The patent has expired. (Score:4)
As a device, the E-meter is dumb. It's a skin-resistance measurement device, the least useful channel of a lie detector. Real lie detectors measure blood pressure, respiration, and skin resistance. The current generation of lie detector [stoeltingco.com] is an interface box for sensors that plugs into a laptop, replacing the old chart-recorder machines. There's automated interpretation software available, too.
Scientology needs to update their technology. I'm suprised they don't have online web-based auditing by now, using a sensor box interfaced to a computer, voice over IP, and a Webcam.
IAAL&IMHO (Score:4)
--// Hartsock
Reading about Scientology (Score:4)
A Piece of Blue Sky [kvalito.no] and Lonesome Squirrel [xs4all.nl].
L. Ron Hubbard's "legacy" is an interest example of the weirdness of the human mind. Want more? Check out The Kooks' Museum [teleport.com], Donny Kossy's excellent look into the minds of the truly weird.
They don't have a leg to stand on... (Score:5)
(or, get some balls, EBay)
The E-meter is a physical device, that does not require a license to operate (that is, it is easily obtainable through open channels available to the public without any licensing required). Therefore, the Scientologists have given up any right to control what is done with the E-meter, since they sell it without a license of any sort. Period.
Now, what is in the E-meter may be copyrighted, patented, or otherwise protected, so you can't automatically assume you can make a copy of it. However, so is any printed book. The courts have consistently ruled that the owner of a book may freely resell it in any manner whatsoever; that is, the copyright holder has no legal recourse to determine the resalability or conditions of use by the purchaser. I don't have the cases in front of me (Hawk, help!) but this is very well established case law. Once you own the book, you can do whatever you please with it; you just can't copy it (Fair Use, excepted). The physical item is yours, and noone, even with an army of lawyers, can force you do otherwise.
The DCMA is simply being used to confuse the issue. It is not in any way applicable to this case, as it concerns the COPYING and MANNER OF USE of copyrighted materials. It says nothing about the resale of copyrighted material which has been otherwise legally obtained. UTICA, however, might possibly apply here.
What this is is someone not consulting their legal department when they receive a demand letter (or, having a really bad lawyer look at it). The demand is invalid prima facia. This is the same as if O'Reilly had sent a demand to EBay to quit selling all those old copies of Programming Perl since they owned the copyright.
In fact, Ebay should countersue, for malicious prosecution (actually, the civil equivalent), and have a judge force the Scientologists to pay their lawyer fees, plus lost income (hey, this is Ebay, we can inflate that lost income any way we want, and no-one would know!), plus punative damages. I bet they could get a couple million if they pursued this.
Ebay needs to look at this as a revenue-generating opportunity! Hey, they might even get a stock uptick when they sue the Scientologists!
-Erik
Scientology not a religion (Score:5)
Scientology is fundamentally different from Christianity because it believes it is OK to lie to people when you're trying to convert them. For instance, scientologists will tell a Christian that scientology and Christianity are compatible. Let me give you some comparative quotes.
- Spot who is attacking us.
- Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using our own professionals, not outside agencies.
- Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.
- Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.
DON'T EVER tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way." -- L. Ron Hubbard, Penalties for Lower Conditions.The examples [ezlink.com] go on and on. Scientologists are told to lie to people to advance their point of view. For this reason, calling them "extremist" is totally, utterly different from using the word to describe anyone who disagrees with your religious beliefs.
Vaguely tangential URL (Score:5)
This article is principally about the DCMA and not about Scientology, but if you're wondering why the Church of Scientology behaves as it does, it's worth looking at www.xenu.net [xenu.net] to get some of the picture. (This is an anti-scientology site; obviously, look at www.scientology.org for the other side of the argument then choose which you believe).
As far as the DCMA stuff goes, I can't believe that it can restrict this much liberty and not get blown out of the water by the US Supreme Court for being an overextension of the government's powers. Unfortunately, until that slow legal process is actually complete, people in the US have to assume the law is valid. It's a case of the legal process being far too slow, once again.
Re:IAAL&IMHO (Score:5)
Maybe rather than that, /. should get someone in with some legal experiance to write about these kinds of issues. After all they've already got Jon Katz in to cover "social" issues, why not a lawyer as well? Since there has been an awful lot of legal stuff posted on /. in the last year or so this would seem to make sense.
Of course, we could instead rely on the "informative" opinions of the /. IANAL crowd instead, to get the balanced opinions we know and love :)
A way to kill DMCA (Score:5)