Dutch Court Rules That Linking Is Legal In Scientology Case 386
touretzky writes "The Court of Appeal in The Hague today rejected all of Scientology's claims in appeal in Scientology's action against XS4ALL, Karin Spaink and ten other internet providers. As a result,
Karin Spaink's website, which Scientology sought to remove from the Internet based on copyright claims, is entirely legal in the Netherlands. The court also overturned two lower court rulings, one of which said that linking to material that infringed a copyright was itself actionable. The other ruling said that ISPs that failed to act on credible notification of a copyright violation could be held liable for that. The Appeals Court felt that this was too vague a standard, and thus posed a threat to free speech. More info at ScientologyWatch.org."
Good to see. (Score:5, Interesting)
"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:5, Funny)
This is because Christianity has lost it's power base. Remember they used to burn people alive for translating the bible from latin just because doing so allowed the actual doctrine to leak out to ordinary people.
Hidden secrets are common in religions. A cynic might say this is because the stuff whichis most obviously bollocks has to be kept from people who haven't yet been brainwashed into complete gullability, but I couldn't say such a thing or Hastur will ge.....
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:5, Informative)
The key to scientology, however, is in getting as much money out of the mark as possible while revealing as little detail as possible - an odd system for a "religion" which purportedly wishes to maximize human potential and rid the world of all negativity.
Before anyone says it, yes, other religions take money and often "demand" it by making it a part of the religion. However, relatively few make that money the price of knowing the proverbial score. Were I Catholic, for example, I might be expected to tithe a percentage of my income. But, even if I didn't I would be able to not only read The Bible and attend services, my priest would be available to me for confession and other counseling when I needed it, not to mention that my fellow Catholics would be there for me when I need them. In scientology, there are times when you won't even be acknowledged by another scientologist without paying whatever money they are demanding.
There are incredible things in every religion. Every faith has its idiosyncracies. But most major religions are at least a little bit more - and a little bit better - than pyramid schemes with brainwashing thrown in.
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:4, Interesting)
Clearly it tookplace for centuries without the bible. It is quite possible, even easier, to evangelise by letting only the evangeliser read the secrets and pass on only those which will be useful at this moment, preferably distorted to match the local situation.
Remember, the early church didn't have the bible, the first attempts to pull together a canonical collection was in the second century AD. Then for a long time it was the case that only the priesthood and educated laymen were given access to the bible.
That the marks^H^H^H^H^Hordinary believers should be allowed to read the secrets and convince themselves was one of the big innovations of the protestant reformers.
There are incredible things in every religion. Every faith has its idiosyncracies. But most major religions are at least a little bit more - and a little bit better - than pyramid schemes with brainwashing thrown in.
Take a walk around the vatican and ask where the money came from.
Scientology took it's model from Christianity and just sharpened up the operation, looking more like the church back when it still had teeth than the stumbling mess christianity now is.
But yes, most religions are not nearly as bad as Christainity and Scientology, I'd guess it was the close identification of christanity with the later roman empire which built it into such an efficiant command and control structure, or perhaps they learned a great deal from their enemies in Persia.
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:5, Insightful)
You readily assume such things as translation - both the Bible and sermons were previously only commonly available in Latin.
The Catholic Church has never been comparable to Scientology. It's never charged for mere information and it has always had it's true preachers who would not bias their services to the rich.
That the Catholic Church has been a power base, an organisation that actively sought to accumulate both land and other forms of wealth, is not in doubt. Like all ancient organisations, it's had dark roots and dark periods.
But it's very rare that you get turned down at a Catholic church. Scientology, on the other hand, is just a scam to extort the rich.
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, information was for a long time not available in venacular translations because it was church policy not to let ordinary people have access to the sources. Just like scientology really.
The Catholic Church has never been comparable to Scientology.
Well, Scientologists don't burn people alive.
It's never charged for mere information
Well, it only allowed the information out through authorised channels, and to get access to an authorised channel you were expected to pay a tithe to support the local priest.
But it's very rare that you get turned down at a Catholic church.
Have you ever been turned down at a Scientology centre? The more suckers the better.
Scientology, on the other hand, is just a scam to extort the rich.
If only they limited themselves that way. The big money is in getting lots of small amounts from lots of people, not a large amount from a couple of rich people. That is why scientologists and preachers stand on street corners looking for suckers. That is also why televangelists exist and why a collection plate goes around a church.
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, Scientologists don't burn people alive.
No, they electrocute [whyaretheydead.net].
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, Scientologists don't burn people alive.
True, they don't. They much prefer to do this kind of thing [lisamcpherson.org] to people instead.
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good point. Most religions are quite happy to extort the poor as well....
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:3, Interesting)
That the marks^H^H^H^H^Hordinary believers should be allowed to read the secrets and convince themselves was one of the big innovations of the protestant reformers.
Confining myself to factual corrections, I note that in many medieval christian communities everyone could read the bible. For instance, Alfred the Great translated it into English for that very purpose. It was only later when the ecclesiastical hierarchy became more rigid and more focused on Rome that the Bible was restricted to the clergy
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but the difference is that you are normally allowed to print up to 500 verses from these translations as long as you attribute the source. In non-profit printings, you can print as much as you want as long as you attribute the source. At least this is the way it is with the NIV and NRSB. Also, the text of the Bible is not secret. You can get it from multiple sources, with multiple translations, and some translations are in the public domain. No one will come after you if you link to it.
I don't think anyone could possibly claim ownership to such translations as the king James Version.
Nope, it's public domain: The KJV Bible [ibiblio.org]
Most of the books you see published about Christianity are copyrighted
Uh, what's the point? Most books are copyrighted. A book about Christianity is not a sacred text.
as are most of the hymns, though.
As are most secular songs. Some hymns are also public domain. Hymns are not a major tenet of Christianity. They even differ from church to church within Christianity.
but it's not the only religion whose texts are copyrighted.
Christianity's texts aren't copyrighted. The Bible isn't copyrighted. Other Christian works such as the "Apostle's Creed" aren't copyrighted either. Some translations of Christian works are copyrighted, and some of them aren't.
Anyone can translate the Bible and publish it.
Anybody can get a copy of the KJV and publish it.
I guarantee that neither Moses, Matthew, Mark, Luke, nor John will sue your ass for publishing it.
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:3, Funny)
And even if they did, you could always turn the... um, other cheek.
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion has typically tried to assimilate as many people as possible, pretty openly, into it's grasp. Scientology's attempts to do this through a corporate mentality should bite it in the ass.
Two things that religions shouldn't be allowed to do, in my opinion, are to engage in politics and to have inaccessible "trade secret" documentation. Even as fiscally based as many churches are in the U.S., it's not impossible to look at pretty much all of their published works and opinions. Organizations that claim spirituality yet violate these two borders should be required to have corporate licenses and be taxed, in my opinion.
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:5, Interesting)
Religions are given a tax-exempt status on the grounds that they are pursuing a "higher truth," one that is supposed to be shared with others.
Not so with Scientology. Try looking for one of their texts in the public library, and you'll more often than not find them missing. They say that "the world isn't ready for these truths yet," but still believe that they should enjoy the protection granted to other religions that do make their messages freely available.
They can't have it both ways - either Scientology has trade secrets (in which case it is a business) or it doesn't (in which case it is a church).
Thud
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:5, Insightful)
The correct term is "scam."
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:3, Insightful)
James
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:5, Informative)
Absolutely. If anyone reading this hasn't already read the stuff at xenu.net, please please do so now to know what the CoS is really about. In fact, it is not a religion at all, but merely uses the pretense of religion as a veil for a massive and fraudulent operation of psychological abuse. The aim, of course, is to strip you of your last penny.
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:3, Informative)
Which, I guess is, entirely different from an actual religion carrying out massive and fraudulent psychological abuse?
Your sarcasm is wasted on me - I'm an atheist myself. However, there is indeed a big difference between what the CoS is doing and, say, people who try to convince you of the creation myth. Do you understand the word "abuse"? Can't you see that it is different from "deceit"?
From Spaink's site:
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are actually interested in hearing what's wrong with that article, and what are (in my opinion of course) the real problems with the Mormon church, respond to this post. I don't really feel l
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Walk into a Christian church, Islamic mosque or Jewish synagogue and ask if you can sit down in their place of worship and read The Bible, Koran or Torah. Then, walk into a Scientology office and ask if you can sit down in their place of worship and read the history of Xenu and the thetans. I'm willing to bet that any of the first three will be happy to accommodate you while the fourth will not - though the fourth might just offer you a personality test, the chance to watch a video starring L. Ron Hubbard and an introductory talk with an auditor...
Bleeding IP? (Score:5, Insightful)
It amazes me that the "Church of Scientology" continues to pursue this, after the well-known Usenet debacle. I don't see how it helps their image at all, trying to force people not to discuss their "religion". This activity only adds fuel to the fire. Surely they have their share of lawyers or PR consultants on board, doesn't the basic concept of sticking to your points and ignoring/downplaying your opposition's get on the strategy table?
The disturbing part here is Scientology's continuing attempt to treat opposing views or information as derivative products of their ideas, and shut them down as if they were an IP violation. Maybe what Enron should have done is patent the concept of cooked books, and sued anyone talking about it.
This is an amazing victory (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh (Score:5, Funny)
Proud (Score:5, Interesting)
xs4all keep up the good work!
Re:Proud (Score:5, Interesting)
Hooray for XS4ALL!
Never called what it really is (Score:3, Funny)
They never call it that, but that's what all of the teachings really are. Their basic ideas is that you are the center of the universe, and anything you do to anybody to obtain your goals is OK. And their rituals (with the E-meter) are just as strange. The only reason for giving it a different name is that "Scientology" is able to recruit celebrities, while those same celebrities typically avoid anything with obvious satanic connotations.
(of course the way Bill Gates manages Microsoft often reminds me of Scientology, but that's a separate topic
e-meter sessions (Score:4, Interesting)
Not really. Their main purpose is four-fold:
1. Provide a means for subject to discuss problems with another human being (on some very basic level, it does help, I suppose).
2. Pass a low current through subject to introduce a sense of euphoria, which is both addictive and lowers resistance (heh) to interrogator's questions.
3. Alert interrogator to any issues which may weaken hold on subject.
4. Provide information on subject to be used if hold on subject ever looks like it may be broken.
So, what happens in the U.S. if a organization is ever certified as a "religion" by mistake? Is any means available to undo it?
What they *really* are. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Never called what it really is (Score:2, Funny)
> Scientology = a satanic cult. They never call it that, but that's what all of the teachings really are. Their basic ideas is that you are the center of the universe, and anything you do to anybody to obtain your goals is OK.
How do you know they aren't just politicians instead of satanists?
A cult is a religion with less members (Score:2, Insightful)
And this is different from mainstream religion because...?
I'm not one to defend Scientology or its methods but at its core is the concept of faith, the belief of things without proof or belief from authority. ALL religions share that, thus they are very much the same e.g. authoritarian, traditional, unquestionable, abusive, controlling, etc.
A cult may be more intense but the e-meter and its wielders have nothing on days on end
Re:Never called what it really is (Score:2)
what is "satanic" basically depends on whether or not you're asking a christian. People who identify themselves as "satanists" would most likely be offended at being compared to scientologists, since contemporary satanism is based around the idea of rejecting faulty moralism and decaying value systems while persuing a more genuine mode of behavior.
Re:Scientology and Microsoft (Score:2)
Frightened of a disk defragger, heh?
I think that this is one case where the Germans freaked out just a bit too much. The forbidding of the software had nothing to do with the technical merits of the code.
Of course, this is all MS closed source stuff. so you can't verify it as safe. But still, if it is a good piece of code, who cares?
Imagine if it was found out that one of the coders contributing to the
Why aren't links just considered a citation format (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I am concerned the A tag of HTML is just a citation format. If the link is a copyright violation, why aren't citations made in MLA or Blue Book formats similar copyright violations? The idea extends to deep-linking cases. If deep-linking allows you to skip past the ads on a web page and is supposedly illegal because of that, why aren't pin-point citations (where you cite both the book and the page on the book where the quote is from) illegal?
I'll accept that a trade secret case could be filed, but copyright? If it is a link, it is not a copy; it is a citation, i.e. a pointer to the original "copy" of the web page.
I haven't bothered to do any research on this (because it has yet to directly affect my life). Has any defendant advanced the A tag as citation argument? Did the judge buy it?
Re:Why aren't links just considered a citation for (Score:4, Insightful)
What I don't understand is the fact that in these deep link cases, the sites didn't take any steps to prevent the deep linking through passwords ro REFERER checks...that's akin to putting a poster of information near a window in your house and suing people who walk by the window and see it. How any judge could rule in their favor is beyond me.
Re:Why aren't links just considered a citation for (Score:3, Informative)
The things the Scientologists are suing over are NOT published on the Scientology website.
To summerize, CoS is suing websites that say Sicentology is a UFO cult, for posting that CoS teaches that millions of years ago an intergalactic overlord called Xenu solved an over population problem by rounding up billions of people, deep freezing them, hauling them to earth, layi
Wanna know the meaning of scientology? (Score:5, Funny)
scientology: log in for this definition of scientology and other entries in Webster's Millennium(TM) Dictionary of English, available only to Dictionary.com Premium members
Imagine that. (Score:3, Interesting)
Scientology (Score:4, Funny)
Philip knew how to treat the Knights Templar (Score:4, Interesting)
Ought to deal with Scientologists the same way. If their work is so secret that they cannot have it published, then perhaps they are consorting with Baphomet too!
Re:Philip knew how to treat the Knights Templar (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Philip knew how to treat the Knights Templar (Score:2, Funny)
> Ought to deal with Scientologists the same way. If their work is so secret that they cannot have it published, then perhaps they are consorting with Baphomet too!
Nah, Baphy told them to stuff it. Standards to maintain, kind of thing.
Odd: (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if it makes the back pages of the papers...
WELCOME! (Score:3, Funny)
Suppressed Documents (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the document that Slashdot removed when COS threatened them with the DMCA: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/Declaration/
Hosted right here in the USA by Dr. David Touretzky, research professor at Carnegie Mellon University.
Re: Suppressed Documents (Score:3, Funny)
> Here is the document that Slashdot removed when COS threatened them with the DMCA: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/Declaration/
Yeah, I can kinda see why they wouldn't want anyone to see that. Out of context it could leave the impression that they were some kind of k00ks or something.
Re:Suppressed Documents (Score:3, Interesting)
So would Slashdot today still remove that text if it was posted in a comment?
I remember Rob pulling that comment. I thought (and still think) that it was and is the saddest day in the history of Slashdot.
After handling trolls, first posters, legal threats by Microsoft and other parties...they gave in to a Scientology threat. I'm not sure if Slashdot has removed posts since. But that was the first.
a sad sad day.
Re:Suppressed Documents (Score:2)
I think someone has been dipping their cheese-fiction in the electric acid kool-aid acid a bit too much. Lay off the sauce L Ron.
Go XS4ALL! (Score:5, Informative)
Let's face it, how many ISPs would stand by their customer against a rich and dangerous opponent? How many would simply have pulled Karin Spank's site at the first hint of trouble, without caring whether the complaint was justified?
XS4ALL was started by the Dutch hacker group "hack-tic" in a time when Internet access was not available to the general public. Although they are a commercial entity and were bought by the national phone company a few years ago, they remain faithful to the spirit in which they were founded and to their original goals: to promote full, uncensored and unconstrained Internet access for everyone.
Technically, they're great as well -- in my five years as a customer, I've only had a handful of short outages and all of them were caused by the ADSL infrastructure rather than the provider. Power users who want to run Linux, set up a home network and run their own web/mail server are not just allowed, they're encouraged. There's an on-line service page through which you can maintain things like spamfilters, a firewall (off by default, but easy to turn on and heavily promoted) and an experimental IPv6 tunnel. They run a number of game servers themselves and during Gulf War II, they participated in a digital TV trial which offered several Arabian stations in addition to BBC Worldnews etc.
In short, if you're a geek, you should move to the Netherlands just so you can get an XS4ALL account.
Re:Go XS4ALL! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Go XS4ALL! (Score:5, Interesting)
Shows how serious they are about their own security and setup, too.
What could be the problem with links? (Score:5, Funny)
With her stuff dated 1999.. Why is this so new? (Score:2)
I'm a bit confused as to the news-worthiness
of this story... The latest document in her
list of stuff she used in her defence is 1999
Surely it didn't take the court 3 years to find?!?
What am I missing here?
TIA
Scientology's Plan... (Score:5, Insightful)
Plan a: Sue em!
(if that doesn't work)
Plan b: Get their link posted to Slashdot..... that'll burn their serves off the net!
Seriously, I was approached by the Scientologiests a few years back (before knowing anything about them). I was a little naieve (sp?) , and signed up for a course in Dynetics... What they said seemed very plausible. The people who were running this course did seam a tad strange, almost as if they were in a daze....
After doing a search on Infoseek for dynetics, (Google wasn't around then), I was quite shocked what these people could be up to. I decided not to return, though they phoned me back loads of times trying to persuade me to.
I now consider Scientology akin to a computer virus, exploiting a flaw in the human brain, and spread from one to the next. First the brain is rooted. Trust is gained. And then, over the corse of many months, subsystem after subsystem is taken down. All for the persuit of cash. The net could well have saved me, by downloading info into my head, that prevents rooting by these people.
I can only feel sorry for those who are already taken over by this cult.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Scientology's Plan... (Score:3, Interesting)
I now consider Scientology akin to a computer virus, exploiting a flaw in the human brain
Like a real "Snow Crash".
I got asked by one of them once to do a "test". And I started talking to him, but my answers must have been so non-standard he seemed like he was lost for an answer. And when I started describing the works of L. Ron Hubbard and his supposed bet with the editor of Astounding(?) about who could start a religion first .... he seemed to lose interest. Sigh. Its so hard to make friends when you br
I used to be a scientologist (Score:5, Informative)
Scientology is essentially a mind control cult bent on world domination disguised as a religion. The only weapon that works against such an entity is the truth, and is it ever working. Scientology has gone from being something that most people think is strange, if they've ever heard of it to begin with, to something that most people despise or at least distrust. I have the deepest respect and admiration for those who have the courage to fight this organization. If even one person is saved from a life of misery it will have been worth it.
If anyone wants to know more about this organization, there is one place that should be able to answer your questions: Operation Clambake at www.xenu.net [xenu.net]
Did you see the paragraph on costs? (Score:5, Interesting)
We are talking about legal costs for each ISP of less than US$1500. And the costs paid by the plaintiffs when the ISPs are found to do nothing wrong. Why cannot the US legal system be more like Holland's?
Once upon a time: slightly offtopic (Score:4, Funny)
On the other hand, you know you're really f*cked when not even the Scientologists want you.
Beware free I.Q tests.. (Score:4, Interesting)
When they come back they do a one on one interview. I think I got 132 (what they said). She said that's very good, entry level genius. I thought shit okay, then she said now look at this chart. Showed me a chart with different moods labelled on it, she said "you're all over the place, you're an unstable person" - "You have the intelligence but you need to balance yourself out, why don't you come on one of our courses?, $100." Thats when I started to think "Oh I see, get me in for a free i.q test and then try and get me to go on a course, well see you later". I should of knew better. At this point I didn't know who the scientologists were, and I couldn't of cared less, I wasn't going to pay money this way. So I told her I wasn't really interested.
Then she said, well, then do you want to buy some of our books, $9-10 each (Author Hubbard of course). Then I said err no. Then that's when she came out with it, "It's all about trust, you have to trust me".. "Have you noticed John Travolta has been doing alot of movies lately?". Then I started to think, oh, scientologists, I think I saw these guys on the news. I actually had them mixed up with National Geographic.
Then she really got aggressive... "Well, do you have any money on you?", I said, "No I got no money", then she said - "well do you have a card you can get money out of", again I said "No".
Finally, I thought, I gotta get out of this mutha fucker, so I said "Err how about you give me your phone number and I'll call you?", and she said, "No.", and I said "why not?", and she said, "because I know you won't call", then I said "Do you trust me?". Then I got my bag and left, fucking showed her.
As I was walking down the stairs I saw their posters and thought, oh yeah, I think I know who these fuckers are.
Anyway, I blame myself for going and not thinking. Be careful of so called "free" i.q tests - they're out to brainwash you.
Lately I've spotted a UFO cult in my neighborhood, the Raelians. These bitches are everywhere (cults) and you'll be surprised at their membership numbers, it's fucked up society we live in.
Who is this the work of? (Score:3, Funny)
I can't resist...
"Hmmm, well isn't that special. Posting links to church secrets. Who could be behind this? I just can't imagine who...
Could it be... THETANS?"
Props to the Church Lady :)
Scientology, google, and drug rehab (Score:5, Interesting)
The Church of Scientology knows what they're doing, at least in terms of getting their sites highly listed in Google.
I was doing research on drug addiction, and did searches for 'marijuana addiction', 'lsd addiction', 'cocaine addiction', and 'heroin addiction'.
The first (or second) listed sites for each of those searches turned out to be Narconon sites. Narconon is a Scientology front group. see http://www.crackpots.org/ [crackpots.org] for more info.
Narconon is not to be confused with Narcotics Anonymous, which is a legit organization. The name similarity is probably intentional (on the part of Narconon).
So the next time you're looking for drug addiction info on Google, keep an eye out for Narconon pages, and if you have no love for Scientology, don't link to them. They seem to be doing well enough already...
here's a document they REALLY aren't going to like (Score:5, Informative)
Both scanned and HTMLed versions of the document are available on my web site [cmu.edu] at Carnegie Mellon.
For News [cmu.edu] picked up the story, as did the New York Post [cmu.edu]. But the local papers in Tampa and Clearwater, Florida (where a major Scientology bas is located) have not covered the story. I think they're afraid to touch it, even though their own readers' lives are at risk. Maybe someone should ask the Tampa Tribune [tampatrib.com] and the St. Petersburg Times [sptimes.com] why they've lost their nerve.
Re:A bad decision (Score:5, Interesting)
We aren't against all copyrights (most of us anyways). We just don't like it when copyright owners try to make us use their information exactly as they wish and not to critique it with excerpts.
Re:A bad decision (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A bad decision (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone does (assuming you don't have permission from $BAND). However, the court upheld the right to post links to other sites, which is not the same thing.
Re:A bad decision (Score:5, Interesting)
Based on what the article says, what you are really saying is that if you posted a review of $BAND with a link to the illegal posting of the entire album that your ISP should be held liable for copywrite infringement. That argument doesn't wash with me; the ISP should be considered a common carrier and nothing more.
This has nothing to do with Scientology and everything to do with protecting those entities that provide access to content providers. The fact that some copywrite holders (RIAA, Sceintology, etc) think that it is easier and cheaper to attach the bandwith provider than it is to attach the content providers does not make such actions justified. This is a good decision that should be mirrored in the US. I've got my fingers crossed....
Not all copyrights are bad. (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents are okay, too. As long as they aren't for software or "business methods".
Expiration concepts (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A bad decision (Score:4, Funny)
All copyrights are bad except things copyrighted by the GPL.
Re:A bad decision (Score:2, Offtopic)
if we abolished all copyright (and patents) completely then we wouldn't need GPL.
Therefore it is not inconsistent to be against copyright and for GPL copyleft.
Re:A bad decision (Score:2)
Please explain what would stop someone from taking a GPLd work, sticking their name on it, compiling it, claiming it was there own and selling it if there where no copyrights?
Re:A bad decision (Score:2)
nothing to stop you compiling and selling a GPL'd work right now.
Right now you can't claim ownership and stop other people redistributing it (for free or by sale).
If there were no copyright you wouldn't have to worry about that.
Re:A bad decision (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A bad decision (Score:2)
yes you can turn the code into a non-opensource product, but the code is still free, if someone else gets it (in a no copyright world) then they too can do what they want with it.
release it as anything they damn well please.
if there was no copyright no-one would have needed to invent the GPL.
Re:A bad decision (Score:3, Interesting)
You can do that now with a GPLd program, except for claiming that you wrote it (since you have to retain the original copyright notices when you redistribute).
It's too late to remove copyright laws now (anybody who proposed such a thing would be accused of being some kind of communist). However, it would be interesting to go back t
Re:A bad decision (Score:5, Interesting)
A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON THE 5TH OF FEBRUARY 1841 [yarchive.net]
by Thomas Babington Macaulay
On the twenty-ninth of January 1841, Mr Serjeant Talfourd obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the law of copyright. The object of this bill was to extend the term of copyright in a book to sixty years, reckoned from the death of the writer.
On the fifth of February Mr Serjeant Talfourd moved that the bill should be read a second time. In reply to him the following Speech was made. The bill was rejected by 45 votes to 38.
Though, Sir, it is in some sense agreeable to approach a subject with which political animosities have nothing to do, I offer myself to your notice with some reluctance. It is painful to me to take a course which may possibly be misunderstood or misrepresented as unfriendly to the interests of literature and literary men. It is painful to me, I will add, to oppose my honourable and learned friend on a question which he has taken up from the purest motives, and which he regards with a parental interest. These feelings have hitherto kept me silent when the law of copyright has been under discussion. But as I am, on full consideration, satisfied that the measure before us will, if adopted, inflict grievous injury on the public, without conferring any compensating advantage on men of letters, I think it my duty to avow that opinion and to defend it.
The first thing to be done, Sir, is to settle on what principles the question is to be argued. Are we free to legislate for the public good, or are we not? Is this a question of expediency, or is it a question of right? Many of those who have written and petitioned against the existing state of things treat the question as one of right. The law of nature, according to them, gives to every man a sacred and indefeasible property in his own ideas, in the fruits of his own reason and imagination. The legislature has indeed the power to take away this property, just as it has the power to pass an act of attainder for cutting off an innocent man's head without a trial. But, as such an act of attainder would be legal murder, so would an act invading the right of an author to his copy be, according to these gentlemen, legal robbery.
Now, Sir, if this be so, let justice be done, cost what it may. I am not prepared, like my honourable and learned friend, to agree to a compromise between right and expediency, and to commit an injustice for the public convenience. But I must say, that his theory soars far beyond the reach of my faculties. It is not necessary to go, on the present occasion, into a metaphysical inquiry about the origin of the right of property; and certainly nothing but the strongest necessity would lead me to discuss a subject so likely to be distasteful to the House. I agree, I own, with Paley in thinking that property is the creature of the law, and that the law which creates property can be defended only on this ground, that it is a law beneficial to mankind. But it is unnecessary to debate that point. For, even if I believed in a natural right of property, independent of utility and anterior to legislation, I should still deny that this right could survive the original proprietor. Few, I apprehend, even of those who have studied in the most mystical and sentimental schools of moral philosophy, will be disposed to maintain that there is a natural law of succession older and of higher authority than any human code. If there be, it is quite certain that we have abuses to reform much more serious than any connected with the question of copyright. For this natural law can be only one; and the modes of succession in the Queen's dominions are twenty. To go no further than England, land generally descends to the eldest son. In Kent the sons share and share alike. In many districts the youngest takes the whole. Formerly a portion of a man's personal property was secured to his family; and it
Re:A bad decision (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sorry to say it has happened. I had the displeasure of seeing Stephen Kapp rip off some free software [sf.net], and I've heard of him doing it to other people too. And he's not the only one; I heard of something similar happening to Samba.
Re:A bad decision (Score:2)
Re:A bad decision (Score:2)
GPL is primarily a social contract, as I said, teh copyright aspects are primarily defensive.
i *have* read the colelcted essays of RMS - whether I understood them properly only time will tell.
My understanding is that the GPL is a response to copyright laws.
Re:A bad decision (Score:3, Insightful)
He sometimes claims that his purpose is to destroy copyright, but he wants more than that -- he wants copyright replaced with a system that enforces his
Re:A bad decision (Score:2)
only if you wrote it and used other people's GPL'd code.
My understanding is that those provisions are defensive in the current environment.
Without copyright anyone could redistribute and use your binaries tho, so why not release the source?
Re:A bad decision (Score:2)
No. (Remember, in this post-copyright world, there is no GPL.) Right now, that's all the GPL enforces. However, I meant exactly what I said. RMS claims that it is immoral to release binaries without source code, and thus it should be forbidden. If I write something completely from scratch, and Stallman becomes king, it will be illegal for me to distribute the
Re:A bad decision (Score:2)
my understanding is that stallman believes that the moral thing for you to do is to release the source.
that does not necesarily mean you should be forced to do so on pain of incarceration.
Of course it also means he thinks it would be immoral for others to choose to use your closed software.
don't mistake important things like right and wrong for trivial things like the current law of the day.
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the [allstarz.org]
Re:A bad decision (Score:2)
Re:A bad decision (Score:2)
I'll admit I admire the way the man has saved the world from a potentially very dark place by sheer force of will and purpose and without anyone having to die.
Very few people have had the impact he's had with so little collateral damage.
You obviously feel personally threatened by the proposed model.
The point is that under stallmans model you aren't forced to trust anyone (although you may choose to).
Under your model people are forced to trust others
Re:A bad decision (Score:3, Insightful)
You claim that he has "saved the world from a potentially very dark place." I don't buy it. His politics haven't done anything but create a bunch of people spouting his rhetoric. His software development has been much more
Re:A bad decision (Score:5, Informative)
Not the same at all.
May I suggest following the link? The "Fishman Affidavit" is a court record - a public document. Here, I'll help you out a little:
When Fishman was then brought to court, he used parts of Scientology-documents to prove he had been brainwashed by the Church. These Scientology documents thereby became public material: anybody could go to the court library and read them. The Church, fearing that its sacred secrets would be revealed, had some of their people going to the library every day to borrow these documents, thereby preventing other people (read: non-Scientologists) from reading them. Nevertheless, the Fishman Affidavit got copied (it was also available through the clerk of the court, for a mere $36.50). Somebody retrieved the affidavit via the clerk, scanned it, and posted it to the net. The Fishman Affidavit has been travelling on the Internet ever since.
Re:A bad decision (Score:3, Informative)
It's a good decision. The point raised by your hypothetical situation is entirely different than the one that was decided just now. IMO it's a very good thing that at least in the Netherlands, the courts seem now to limit the ability of copyright holders to use legal procedures to hook in people who at the very least are not pri
Religion as a means of information management (Score:5, Insightful)
You could argue that Slashdot behaves much like religion, in that it ranks, orders, and provides emphasis on selected information. Just as Pat Robertson tells his followers that rock music consists of backwards Satanic rituals, Slashdot moderators dish out "-1, Troll" tags to me and put me below the posting threshold. Both of them have a major role in selectively sieving and censoring information.
Actually, I shouldn't compare Slashdot to religion. Slashdot IS a religion.
Re:Modern religion..after RTFA... (Score:4, Interesting)
As far as other claims, just like in slashdotter world, you have to be careful how you post things...most normal people have zero understanding of the subtlies of copyright law...how to make sure you can get your point without violation. The lawyers know people [and often Judges] aren't versed in the particulars. Again a case where the Law refuses to simplify rules, or publish "safe" useages without weeding thru piles of paper.
Of course to me [USA] this means jack squat. We still have to deal with this mess!
Re:Googlebombing (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.oursites.org/andreazastawny/
Now check out the 'contact me' part:
http://www.oursites.org/andreazastawny/con
The form goes straight to the Scientology main organisation's lead generation department -- without as much as a hidden form field designating the pretend-person whom you were 'contacting'. But you can be ever so sure somebody WILL reply.
These tens of thousands of bogus and completely identical sites are designed precisely to spam the search engines, and regrettably it seems to have worked at least on Google.
http://www.xenu.net/