Slashdot Log In
Dutch Court Rules That Linking Is Legal In Scientology Case
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:39 PM
from the very-kind-of-them dept.
from the very-kind-of-them dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Dutch Court Rules That Linking Is Legal In Scientology Case
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 386 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
A bad decision (Score:1, Interesting)
(http://www.microsoft.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 16 2003, @10:33PM)
Of course, this is Slashdot where all copyrights are bad, so I expect this post to drown in a sea of downmods. Still, I feel that I need to point out that this decision doesn't sit well with me.
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)
(http://www.bartlem.com/)
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)
(http://www.mailsoap.com/)
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....
Re:A bad decision (Score:4, Funny)
All copyrights are bad except things copyrighted by the GPL.
Re:A bad decision (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A bad decision (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday September 05 2003, @06:50AM)
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:5, Informative)
(http://clintonhawk.net/)
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.
Good to see. (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday July 04 2005, @08:34PM)
"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)
(http://doghole.blogspot.com/)
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)
(http://doghole.blogspot.com/)
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)
(http://www.vexi.org/)
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:5, Insightful)
Good point. Most religions are quite happy to extort the poor as well....
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: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)
(Last Journal: Sunday September 16, @04:44AM)
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 05 2006, @05:31AM)
They also shouldn't get away with running a gulag and kidapping and torturing members who want to leave.
Do a google search for "Larry Wollersheim". What they did to him alone should get that vicious little nut-cult disbanded, and get a couple hundred of their chain of command thrown in the pokey.
-jcr
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
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 05 2006, @05:31AM)
Umm, NO. Religions get their special tax privileges on the premise that they're akin to charitable organizations.
Scientology only professes to be a religion because Hubbard's decistion to try the "religion angle" succeded beyond his wildest dreams. The mere claim to religious status apparently paralyzes law enforcement in the USA.
-jcr
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.no2id.co.uk/)
The correct term is "scam."
Re:"Confidential" nature of religious documents? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://arvindn.livejournal.com/ | Last Journal: Monday June 16 2003, @12:39AM)
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:5, Insightful)
(http://doghole.blogspot.com/)
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)
(http://www.neorune.com/)
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)
(http://www.truedork.net)
Proud (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.olderchurch.net/)
xs4all keep up the good work!
Re:Proud (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.flylikebrick.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday December 25 2004, @04:36AM)
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)
(http://domain.broken...registrar.joker.com/)
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?
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)
(Last Journal: Tuesday August 10 2004, @01:19AM)
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.
Wanna know the meaning of scientology? (Score:5, Funny)
(https://www.greenmountain.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 18 2003, @05:07PM)
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)
(http://cgranade.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday December 05 2003, @12:52AM)
Scientology (Score:4, Funny)
Philip knew how to treat the Knights Templar (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.mightyware.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday November 08, @10:18PM)
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!
Odd: (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Wednesday March 05 2003, @05:56PM)
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.
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)
(http://www.flylikebrick.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday December 25 2004, @04:36AM)
Shows how serious they are about their own security and setup, too.
What could be the problem with links? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://blog.paulmcgarry.com/ | Last Journal: Friday July 25 2003, @12:57AM)
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.
Most Intersting Quote From Descion (Score:1)
(http://www.angrypeoplerule.com/)
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)
(http://xq.se/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 20, @03:22AM)
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)
(http://blogs.nimblebrain.net/ | Last Journal: Saturday March 19 2005, @12:48AM)
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 :)
Modern religion (Score:2)
It's one of those things..."Preists" need money to dedicate their lives to observing the faith, right. Houses, food, etc isn't free. If the worshipers don't support you with some kinds of offerings then you starve! Not good. The Scientologists happen to have a legal "lock" on the words they worship and are making due on business rather than "offerings". Most religions are guilty of falling into this spiral of corruption...look what happened to the Southern Baptists after Fallwell and Co fell.
This is the same thing going on since the beginning of humans. Religion comes from meaning, religion needs full-time help. Full-time help needs steady income and the steady income BECOMES the religion....nothing to see here, move a long.
That said, they are obviously using their "lock" to legally block out the detractors like a good business would....How often does MS do this [didn't we debate the .net EULA last week]...same thing here. Unfortunately, It's sad to see any religion take this route...American's just aren't used to it. Our culture was founded directly because of a profound hatred of actions like this...that's where most of the initial immigrants came from. That's why the response espically here for the fercily independant, is so sharp!
One other thing...I'm starting to dislike how quickly people confuse RIGHTS with RELIGION. While I don't belive Scientology at all, as an American I'm bound to at least give them consideration and respect their rights to have far-out views....after all, there's always someone out there who thinks I'm a quack too!
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!
Scientology business model (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Join our church
2. ???
3. Profit
A cousin of mine once landed in these guy's hands. It took him and his parents four years to get him out, and he never really recovered.
Microsoft ad? (Score:2, Funny)
Strange, hmm
Googlebombing (Score:1, Redundant)
(http://www.geometricvisions.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 02 2005, @05:35PM)
- The Church of Scientology [xenu.net]
The way Googlebombing works is that Google also uses the text of links to a page for matching. For example, a search for "dumb motherfucker" used to bring up a page that was quite supportive of President Bush.If Operation Clambake were the #1 search hit, then it would be the result for the "I'm feeling lucky" button on google.
Re:Googlebombing (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.kobotica.com/)
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/
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...
When I first read this... (Score:1, Offtopic)
(http://www.keirstead.org/)
Dutch court rules that thinking is legal in Scientology case
I was like "man, these whackos are nuttier than I thought".
It seems I was mistaken.. oh wait... nevermind.
Internet and International Law (Score:2)
(http://www.afp548.com/ | Last Journal: Monday October 28 2002, @11:31PM)
So what does "As a result, Karin Spaink's website,..., is entirely legal in the Netherlands." mean? That that site can be hosted in the Netherlands? If so, can/will foreign countries to the Netherlands prohibit linking or visiting his site? Doesn't this still beg the question--how are laws that are bounded by physical space impact the flow of information on the Internet that operates irrespective of physical definition?
Hold your horses... (Score:1)
Attempt at a summary (IANAL) (Score:2, Informative)
(http://www.nothingless.org/)
Karin Spaink (the woman in question) has posted the Fishman affidavit in response to the Usenet debacle back then but when it became clear that it contained too much copyrighted work to be legal, she removed it and in stead posted a commentary on the whole case, including some quotes from the copyrighted (and supposedly highly secret and worth big bucks to Scientology) works.
Because she was quick enough to remove the entire Fishman affidavit and the court didn't think she would re-post it, the court only focussed on the article with quotes that was left on her site.
Scientology says OT II and III are illegal to publish and Internet providers should remove them immediately, also posting links to such copyrighted works is illegal
The court agreed that linking and publishing copyrighted works was illegal and providers should give out names and addresses of violators.
Spaink & providers claimed copyright was not with Scientology but that was not proven
Quotes are legal if they are from a rightfully published source
Court says some of the works are not rightfully published (i.e. not supposed to be public).
EVRM (European treaty on the rights of humans?) could overrule copyright in cases of great importance
Spaink's article is a serious article on a serious subject (-my words
Court thinks Scientology is not afraid to deny democratic values and the secrecy of the works are also meant to exercise power over its members and to prevent discussion. (!!)
Forcing providers to remove or make unavailable the articles by Spaink, is 'disproportional'.
Providers are providing the technical means for publishing, they are not publishers themselves (compared to e.g. book publishing companies)
It is not proven that the articles of Karin Spaink violate copyright.
Court does not rule about the whole Fishman affidavit, as Spaink has already stopped publishing it and shows no intent to do it again.
Again, just quick notes and IANAL. It's also worth reading earlier court decisions as this is a follow-up (appeal).
CoS docs and P2P (Score:1)
(http://ifate.com/)
Can't anyone just Kazaa all the Church of Scientology "teachings" these days?
Heh heh. (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/my/amigos | Last Journal: Monday November 10 2003, @01:14PM)
I wonder what the courts would find HERE.
Artpolitic.org (Score:1)
(http://it.slashdot.org/~sik0fewl/)
I thought I should share it.
here's a document they REALLY aren't going to like (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst)
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: BEGONE FOUL THETAN! (Score:1)
> That'll be $40,000 please!
You'd think this a golden opportunity for some entrepreneur to move in with a cut-price operation and make off with some of their customers. I'm almost certain I could do it for thirty grand - thirty-five, tops - and maybe throw in a free scalp massage for customers whose hair wasn't too greasy.
Re:What is really scarry (Score:1)
(http://www.alsa.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday September 27 2005, @09:02PM)
I'd sue!
(and I liked Gretta when she was on CNN.. too bad she sold her soul to Beelzebub O'Reilly).
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:SBC does not carry alt.religion.scientology.* (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Monday November 17 2003, @07:20AM)