Slashdot Log In
Scientology Uses DMCA to Delist Critic's Website
Posted by
michael
on Thu Mar 21, 2002 09:00 AM
from the legal-innovations dept.
from the legal-innovations dept.
touretzky writes: "Scientology has used a DMCA threat to force removal of a large number of pages from xenu.net from the Google search engine. Some of the pages Scientology is objecting to contain no material owned by the cult; other pages are clearly covered under "fair use". Scientology's ongoing abuse of Google is documented here. Of course, the Norwegian owner of xenu.net could write a counternotification letter, but that would require him to agree to the jurisdiction of a US court in a district of Scientology's choosing." The posting by Heldal-Lund agrees with what we can observe at Google - the pages listed in the posting aren't in Google's database, though many others are. Update: 03/21 14:16 GMT by M : Paul Wouters of xtdnet.nl (which hosts xenu.net) submits this page documenting Scientology's attacks against the ISP for continuing to host xenu.net.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
to summarise (Score:3, Funny)
Censored image (Score:4, Interesting)
Now look what we've done! (Score:3, Funny)
Rotten covered this (Score:3, Informative)
MPAA vs Google (Score:5, Interesting)
DMCA brings back rule of might (Score:4, Interesting)
Thankfully, we don't have a DMCA equivalent (yet) in Canada, and American law doesn't hold sway outside the borders of the land-of-the-not-so-free. I wonder if this recent Scientology idiocy is in force for Google.ca [google.ca]?
Unfortunately, for those of you thinking it may be time to move to Canada, our Justice Department is tabling bills that will make the DMCA look fair. The Canadian Government is using Australia as a role-model rather than the European community or even the US. Both sets of legal code are too lax, according to Canadian law makers. Be afraid, be VERY afraid.
Re:DMCA brings back rule of might (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Effectiveness? (Score:4, Interesting)
How effective is this going to be? Even if the pages to "Operation Clambake" or whatever are removed from Google, xenu.net is probably still going to show up (depending on the search criteria used, I suppose). Once you're at the xenu.net home page, it's a trivial matter to find the other pages in question that Scientology has a problem with.
www.google.com's new banner? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:www.google.com's new banner? (Score:5, Insightful)
Today people don't much care about Scientology filing a lawsuit against this person or that person. "Who are those people and why do I care if they're fighting an organization I don't even understand? Scientology never hurt me."
I bet people would take notice if Google was sued. Three things could happen:
1. Google gains even more users.
2. Opponents mirror the offending material more now than ever, making it even easier to find in Google.
3. Scientology's public image could be ruined if it endangered Google's future.
People could begin asking, "What is Scientology and why did they make my favorite search engine go away? I can't find anything anymore."
Under the current situation I only see:
1. Google losing respect as an authoritative search engine, bowing to legal pressure at the expense of its core mission (helping people find web pages).
If Google would guarantee that Scientology appears as the first link in Google results when users search for the world "Scientology," I don't see why Scientology would care about anti-Scientology material. Only people interested in that material will spend the time to look at it. People read the first link, and if it sounds right, they click it. End of story.
In all my observations of user behavior, I've never seen a user read all of the search results and thoughtfully consider them before selecting which link is appropriate. They click the first link that looks like it might remotely be correct.
Parent
Re:www.google.com's new banner? (Score:5, Interesting)
If Google didn't toe Scientology's line, the following would happen:
* pickets outside the founders' homes, claiming that they're pedophiles and hate-mongers.
* their pets would be drowned.
* their family and friends would be harassed.
* their telephone, cableco, banking, and other accounts would be subjected to social engineering attempts to shut 'em down.
* the Google HQ would be picketed.
* the US Government would be petitioned to intervene against Google.
* there would be endless court time, made as expensive as possible by Scientology.
There are all tactics they've used in the past against their "enemies," both in court and outside of court, against critics and ex-Scientologists who start revealing the truth about hte organization.
Scientology is an 800-lb gorilla with bad intentions.
Parent
I hate scientology. (Score:3, Interesting)
She left the cult (whoops, I meant "religion") two years ago and with the support of her family is on the road to recovery. I don't know if her family persuaded her to leave or they did a rescue mission for her.
I don't know what she thinks of Scientology nowadays.
Definitely very creepy fuckers. Best avoided, or failing that, best viewed in a strong critical light. Are they working for your spiritual development, or are they fleecing you for all your money?
Scientologists team up with RAMBUS, Inc. (Score:5, Funny)
xenu.net usenet thread about being de-listed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:xenu.net usenet thread about being de-listed (Score:5, Interesting)
Check out that thread [google.com]... it tells about them scheming to get the story onto Slashdot.
Parent
Help Spread the Links (Co$ doesnt want you to see) (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Google's removal policy (Score:5, Interesting)
"Google views the quality of its search results as an extremely important priority. Therefore, Google stops indexing the pages on your site only at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for those pages. This policy is necessary to ensure that pages are not inappropriately removed from our index.
"Since Google is committed to providing thorough and unbiased search results for our users, we cannot participate in the practice of censoring information on the world wide web."
Wow... I'm very surprised. Google is usually very good at practicing what they preach.
Re:Google's removal policy (Score:4, Insightful)
Option 2: If you do not have any access to the server that hosts your image
To have an image removed from our image search service, you must provide a written communication (email or regular mail) that sets forth the items specified below. Please note that you may be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys' fees) if you materially misrepresent that you own an image when you in fact do not. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether you have the right to request removal from our image search service, we suggest that you first contact an attorney.
To expedite our ability to process your request, please use the following format (including section numbers):
Parent
I feel sorry for Google... (Score:5, Insightful)
FORD EXEC: This site is critical of our new Ford Excessive SUV, DMCA it out of you're listings!
GOOGLE: Oh...O-OK...sure... (Butter's voice)
BLIZZARD LAWYER: This site has a program to allow our games to be used on a LAN! DMCA it out of your database!
GOOGLE: Oh...O-OK...sure...
BILL G.: This review says bad things about our SQL server. Fire the DMCA at it Google!
GOOGLE: Oh...O-OK...sure...
DUBYA: Our military plans are protected by the DMCA. Google, nuke this site that criticizes them!
GOOGLE: Oh...O-OK...sure...
Maybe if they had stood up for their own free speech rights they wouldn't have opened the barn door like this. As much as I like Google, part of me wants to see the floodgates open and the de-listers come swarming in. Maybe someone will realize that occasionally, you do have to stand up for your rights.
-sk
Parent
Re:I feel sorry for Google... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Federal law usually supercedes corporate policy. (Score:4, Informative)
If Google's policy is in conflict with Federal Law ( IE, the DMCA ), guess which one will be upheld?
Parent
Clear this up please? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Clear this up please? (Score:3, Informative)
In this case, it doesn't. It's being used against a company in the United States (Google).
I don't think it's affecting Google in Italy, for example [google.it]
who knows, this may be good! (Score:3)
If the EFF would get involved in this, maybe the DMCA can be ruled unconstitutional. If there's any case so far that has a chance of going that far, it's this one.
Maybe at the same time, the CoS can be exposed for what it is, a cult, and have their religion status removed by the IRS...
Am I just being too optimistic?
Scientology is worse than you think (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were to breed the Ferengi with the Borg you would end up with Scientology.
I am an ex member now considered an 'enemy' of scientology because my activities and statements interfere with the continued extraction of money from the targets of this scam.
The Scientology program is optimized to extract money. One of the scientology program's subroutines tells the adherents to demonize their enemies, this is a pattern of conduct for fanatic extremist groups.
Scientology maintains control of Tom Cruise, Jenna Elfman, John Travolta and the rest of their pretty faced minons by controlling the information they see. By surrounding them with scientology drones.
Scientology's history of seeking gag agreements through burdensome litigation is just a means to an end. it is no more than another effort to control the information available.
I posted the Fishman affidavit to alt.religion.scientology in 1995, and endured almost 2 million in scientology litigation and refused 3 cash offers to settle - because I refused to take the gag agreement that would prevent me from explaining to YOU how dangerous these crazy bastards are.
To Scientology gag agreements are just the cost of doing business. Part of their effort to control the flow of information.
Scientology's massive efforts to create zillions of domains pointing at their website is just another example of Information Control.
The scientology spam and sporge on alt.religion.scientology is just informtion control.
Totalitarian systems, like Stalinist communism or Scientology cannot survive when information is free.
Scientology has been waging information warfare upon the web so that they might have a better chance to capture a few children's lives with their lies.
Don't let Scientolgoy win the google war, help get the word out, cause Scientology is worse than you think
Arnaldo Lerma [lermanet.com][ an ex - member ] http://www.lermanet.com [lermanet.com]Let's Nuke The Bastards! (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously, someone should firebomb the Celebrity Center (and by that I could mean Kelly Preston's navel, or John Travolta's ego - hey, you can't physically harm an ego!
IMHO, of course.
Great! (Score:5, Informative)
(From section 512)
`(d) INFORMATION LOCATION TOOLS- A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider--
`(1)(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;
`(B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
`(C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
`(2) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
`(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(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, except that, for purposes of this paragraph, the information described in subsection (c)(3)(A)(iii) shall be identification of the reference or link, to material or activity claimed to be infringing, that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate that reference or link.
Pay special attention to subsection `(3). So even linking to copyright infringing material is illegal?!? wtf were those wackos who wrote this bill thinking? This is a serious freedom of speech violation (since software is, after all, speech, and links are just software written in a scripting language). The sooner that abomination of a law gets repealed, the better.
In this instance, here's what xenu.net should do: register a new, and temporary, domain name. The scientologists will have conniptions hunting down his new domain names, he'll have to pay less than lawyer fees.
I wonder if I should become a sci fi author and start my own relition?
BlackGriffen
Do something about Scientology's tactics (Score:3, Interesting)
What we need is a properly-motivated DA in such a district -- they can track down people harassed by Scientology's sharks^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers, and bring barratry charges against them.
It might not do much more than "send a message", but I would think if done properly, and with accompanying civil suits (again, the trick is to find sufficient funding to take the Scientology teams on), people could start to put the hurt back on this cult.
Xentax
I used to be a Scientologist (Score:5, Informative)
I was a scientologist for almost eight years and worked out in LA at "Big Blue." This complex used to be the Cedars of Sinai hospital but was purchased by Hubbard and company back in the 1970's. It is where ASHO, AOLA, and the LA orgs are, as well as a good portion of OSA. They've remodeled most everything there so some things might have changed since then.
In any case I am here to tell anyone who will listen that Scientology is evil. I don't make that kind of a claim lightly. Scientology is a cult made up of people who have ceased to think for themselves and are no longer acting in their own best interest but are instead being manipulated and coerced into living for the cult, to their own detriment. There are so many things that Scientology does that are wrong that it is difficult to know where to begin in detailing them all. Scientology is to me a weird conglomeration of Nazi-esque nonsense, corporate abuse of the public trust, and organized crime.
Others whose words are far better than mine have already detailed the nature of Scintology's evil far better than I can at 7 am. The link below points to a website that has just about every significant book written that exposes the evil nature of scientology:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/ [cmu.edu]
I applaud the owner of this site for having the courage to make a stand against one of the most evil organizations of our time.
Lee Reynolds
pro-scientology? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you need a cult, check out subgenius (I'm not a memeber, just an observer). At least they have a guarantee on your money!
Scientology = America's Al Qaida (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like Al Qaida they:
- Go after young impressionable people and turn them into zealots.
- Have armed camps and compounds (See Gold Base)
- Abuse the law and system as much as they can
- Attack and threaten anyone who speaks out against them or tries to leave the organization
- Meddle and infiltrate the government of their hosting countries. The Taliban in Afghanistan were also Al Qaida people to a large extent. The same is happening here, just look at the DA in California who went after Henson. Look at Clearwater Florida.
If we were really running a fully serious war on terrorism, we would have a couple of B1-B's level Gold base and the Navy would blow the Free Winds out of the fucking water. The FBI and CIA would fall upon Clearwater and put the town under martial law until they had rooted out the Scientologists there.
I think countries like Germany, Canada, France, and especially any Islamic countries should turn around and point a finger at the US and say, "Look, before you go waging war in other countries, why don't you take care of your own criminal organizations similar to Al Qaida?"
Really? Why aren't we looking as much into them as we are into Al Qaida? Especially after the stunt they pulled at Ground Zero after the attacks, trying to recruit by posing as medical workers.
I think its time that Bush and Co. took a look at home as much as they are abroad.
Re:Scientology = America's Al Qaida (Score:5, Informative)
http://cisar.org/010919a.htm
They also have been posing as mental health professionals:
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/02/08/Worldandnatio
or from their OWN MOUTHS here
http://www.scientology.org/message/Scientol
They claim to have been volunteering, but they were actually recruiting.
Parent
Re:Scientology = America's Al Qaida (Score:5, Informative)
Then, according to xenu.net, scientologists were swarming at ground zero trying to route psychologists away from the victim's family, and doing "touch assists" at the site.
I'd link to the page at xenu.net but it seems to be down or /.ed at the moment.
Here's (ironically for this story) the cached link [google.com] on google:
Parent
what Google should do (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want to write to Google about this, comments@google.com is the address to use.
Danny.
There are deeper reasons (Score:5, Interesting)
Why remove those specific pages?
The answer I've come up with is simple. Removing the pages listed got rid of all the xenu.net links on the first 3 pages of google results for a search for scientology [google.com]. Even if they reinstate the links, it will probably take a while for them to resume their former place in the index. This is just like the tons of domain names all run by the Scientologists, it's a ploy to make it harder to find info about them. They know they can't stop it completely, but that's OK, as long as they can make it so that the average person won't see anything bad about them without specifically looking.
Re:What's with scientology? (Score:5, Interesting)
They have no choice. Their creater, L Ron Hubbard, said that they were to never defend, always attack. They can't help themselves. I run a small web site, with some critical information on it, and I've had legal threats.
Parent
Re:What's with scientology? (Score:5, Informative)
In Canada, they've lost all the way to the Supreme Court [scc-csc.gc.ca] - One case is Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, 1995. It was a libel case, and the details will look pretty familiar. Holysmoke [holysmoke.org]has an extract [holysmoke.org] and this [umontreal.ca] is the full thing. Umontreal's archive is linked from the official Supreme Court of Canada page.
Great quote: "Every aspect of this case demonstrates the very real and persistent malice of Scientology." - from the Court itself.
I know that there have been many other rulings in Canada against Scientology, but only this one is easily available on-line.
Henry Troup - hwt@igs.net
Parent
Re:What's with scientology? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
They make enemies because they need enemies (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, in a way that is a good summary of their world view from _out_ perspective. They, of course, think that it's the other way round...
Scientology is, in a way, similar to a doomsday cult, although they don't believe in a soon-to-come end of the world. They believe that humanity is on a path to immediate self-destruction and that Scientology is the only way to "save" and "free" the world. They believe that they are superiour beings (members claim to have gained superhuman powers by their Sc.-training). We, the non-members, are just stupid "wogs", who can be cheated, lied to, even killed at will. Hubbard actually promised his members the superhuman power of killing such enemies by mere thought.
They also believe to be in a constant state of siege by the outside world, surrounded by enemies trying to enslave them. The outside world is seen as hostile, non-members are a grey goo of stupids and critics are evil enemies who can be attacked with every means possible. Sc.'s favourite weapon is lawyers...
Of course, Sc. sees this as pure self-defense against the hostile outside world. However, someone who dares to say something remotely critical of the cult is instantly labeled an enemy and handled as such, making the small critic an even fiercer critic...
So, yeah, Scientology is making itself is making enemies from people who just expressed doubt. And this helps Scientology, because *having* enemies is proof of their worldview and is what keeps the cult together.
Parent
Re:They make enemies because they need enemies (Score:4, Insightful)
They believe that humanity is on a path to immediate self-destruction ...
Using the word "believe" gives Scientology too much credit. It's like saying that McDonalds believes you deserve a break today. Their so-called beliefs are nothing more than marketing techniques.
In any case, if they wanted to foster a sense of persecution, you'd think they'd leave the pages up as evidence rather than trying to suppress them. They're behaving like any other business that faces criticism, which is further evidence that they are a business, not a religion.
Parent
Re:They make enemies because they need enemies (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. Want to see how L. Ron Hubbard would deal with non-CoS members? Check out Scientology's plan for extermination [xs4all.nl]. The CoS has a "tone scale", which they think everyone falls onto, and that you can predict someone's exact behavior based on where they fall on that scale. If you are a 2.0 or less on that scale, they believe you should have no civil rights at all. (Hubbard actually wrote that in one of his books, isn't that lovely?). You can read more on that scale here [xs4all.nl].
Also, you can see a copy of Scientology Related Deaths here [google.com] (thanks google cache! ha!)
Parent
Re:What's with scientology? (Score:3, Interesting)
If people heard the whole story about evil space empires and such before they were sucked into the cult, few would join...
As we all know that the DMCAs purpose is to protect the revenues of businesses. At everyone elses expense.
Re:What's with scientology? (Score:5, Informative)
You can read it here [cmu.edu].
Parent
Re:What's with scientology? (Score:5, Interesting)
One example is Narconon [xenu.net] which is little more than a scientology front designed to seperate addicts and their families from their cash while simultaneously indoctrinating them into the Co$. There have been numerous testimonials that the last thing Narconon is interested in is seeing people get better.
And of course they also hawk their ridiculous "self help" Dianetics book in informercials and flyers (never mentioning the Co$ of course) as well as the usual "personality tests" and other sleazy means they con people into visiting their premises. They'll do anything to get vulnerable, troubled and most importantly solvent people caught up into believing their lies. They even stooped so low as to do a recruitment drive for WTC victims, under the guise of offering counselling of course.
Whatever the means, the "raw meat" (the mark) gets a few "free" intensive audits, after which their reasoning faculties are sufficiently suppressed that the Co$ can start milking them for cash by selling self-improvement courses and so on. The higher up this "bridge" they get, the more money the courses cost. The Co$ doesn't like people knowing about their courses because it deprives them of money and exposes them to ridicule.
It is actually worth reading Dianetics (don't buy it though) to see how ludicrous it all is. The author L Ron Hubbard and Co$ was a nut, a criminal, a pathological liar, a sadist, a control freak and a conman. Diananetics and his other works (e.g. A History of Man) are like an attractive lure on the end of a fishing line. Promise the reader the answer to all their problems can be found in the Co$ and then reel 'em in. It's quite tragic to think how many lives this man has ruined.
Parent
Re:religion? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't recall the Vatican ever having contacted Google to have anti-catholic pages pulled off the search engine. Also, I think the Catholic Church was somewhat in a state of denial about the pedophilia thing. The Scientologists actually do believe (or want their converts to believe) much of the stuff at xenu.net; they are just trying to make sure it doesn't get exposed to anyone they haven't "properly prepared" (read: brainwashed).
Parent
Re:religion? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:religion? (Score:4, Informative)
That was deeply offensive. The general world outlook is the big difference - no-one is perfect, being Catholic doesn't change that, and they just had trouble accepting something that some members have done. Their philosophy remains that of Christ, which is about as far from Scientology as one can possibly get. The rest of your comment was dead on, though!
Parent
Re:lots of techies into scientology? (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, it is completely in sync with their overall strategy.:-(
One major leg of their operations is to get the managers of companies. Through them, they then infiltrate the rest of the company. For that, they offer "management seminars" and the like, which are not visibly scientology-seminars, if my memory of the news doesn't fault me here...
This top-down approach is, as far as I know, unique to them. No other religious grouping that I am aware of does that.
Of course, their seminars are so hideously expensive that they need financially potent customers, so it is understandable.
What I find dangerous about that presence is not that they're "here" but that they are allowed to bully people into believing that their claims hold some validity...
After all, google did remove the links, so there must be some valid claim behind it.
Of course, there isn't... but the impression is created... and impressions are mightier than fact on the web (and most other places in the world).
The fact that scientology has never filed any infringement suit should make it obvious that there is no validity in their claim.
That is not the case though...
After all, this is a possible way to look at things:
The google lawyers looked at the allegation, found it valid, acted accordingly.
And thus, it was not neccessary to file a suit.
This is the classic "I can turn my weakness into a strength" trick... and again, perception is mightier than the fact.
Parent
Re:lots of techies into scientology? (Score:4, Interesting)
It regularly hires or promotes Scientologists into positions of management, and in most cases pays them well above normal salary for such positions.
In fact, the head of MHMR is either the first or second highest paid state employee in Texas (I forget.)
As a condition of employment at or above a certain level of management, employees are required to take one or more "ropes courses", which is promoted as a confidence/team-building class, but is in fact one of these screening/indoctrination courses operated by CoS.
This of course is illegal, and since it's being paid for by the state, it is redirecting state taxpayer money to CoS.
So Texas taxpayers have been unwittingly been funding the CoS for several years. Despite volumes of very concrete and damning evidence, the State Attorney General won't even discuss taking up a case.
I wonder how many other states or state agencies are in the same situation?
It's too bad I have to post this anonymously.
Parent
Re:Civil disobedience anyone? (Score:3)