[In a followup message, Linda gave me permission to redistribute the Church of Scientology's position paper on copyright and free speech. I thank her for engaging in this discussion. Previous Politech message, from this spring: http://www.politechbot.com/p-03281.html --Declan] --- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:48:30 +0100 To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> From: mediarelationsdirat_private Subject: Re: Church of Scientology position paper TO: Declan McCullough I can see from your writings that you have a strikingly different view of the DMCA that we do. Your inclusion of the Church in some of your articles, without finding out what actions we take and why, calls for a revisit of the subject. I am happy to provide you with a position paper that lays out quite simply our view on the issue of copyright protection on the Internet. Please let me know if you have any questions. Linda Linda Simmons Hight Media Relations Director Church of Scientology International 6331 Hollywood Blvd. Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90028-6329 Phone (323) 960-3500 Fax (323) 960-3508 e-mail: mediarelationsdirat_private CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL STATEMENT REGARDING COPYRIGHT INFRINGERS AND GOOGLE Media reports reflecting partisan opinions and incorrect interpretations concerning Google's decision to remove links to web pages containing copyright infringements have largely obfuscated the real issues. Thus, we are providing this clarification. I. THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY AND THE INTERNET Scientology churches have always supported the Internet. The Church uses the Internet in its dissemination of the Scientology religion to the people of the world. We recognize the Internet as a brilliant technological advance in the field of communication; its benefits far outdistance any down sides. The latter are not inherent in the Internet but are the result of abusive or unlawful misuse of the Internet by particular individuals. The Church has established a significant multimedia Internet presence since its launch in 1996 of one of the largest and most technically advanced web sites. Our sites comprise more than 140,000 individual pages of material and include virtual tours of our major churches, images, multimedia files, and text. These sites are also available in most major languages, with new languages being added as fast as the translations can be done. They are visited by a million people each month. The potential of the Internet to link individuals from all corners of the world and unify diverse cultures and nationalities makes it a priceless resource for improving understanding among peoples. II. ABUSE ON THE INTERNET The freedom provided by the Internet is open to abuse, as the experience of the last decade has shown. Unless certain rules are applied on the Internet, our desired global freedom to communicate and exchange information will be corrupted by cyber-terrorism that often masquerades as free-speech activism. Thus, limitless "tolerance" of abuse will inevitably bring on overregulation if a few dishonest individuals are allowed to flout the law and corrupt this communication medium for everyone. In any event, those who were victimized or saw their rights violated will sooner or later rise to defend themselves and lawfully restore their interests. In this regard, Scientology churches have taken actions to defend their rights and the rights of their members on the Internet. Church actions are confined to two circumstances: 1. Violations of the Church's intellectual property rights 2. Hate speech that advocates violence against the Church or its members While these are separate issues, they do have one notable factor in common: neither one involves ~protected~ free speech. How ironic, therefore, that more often than not, when a Scientology church moves to remedy such a wrong, these unlawful infringements are immediately redefined as "free speech" issues. Nothing could be further from the truth. The determination to protect copyrighted works from unlawful copyright violation has nothing to do with whether the infringing work is critical or laudatory of Scientology. The same holds true for the second phenomenon: hate speech that advocates violence. Threatening speech or expressions calculated to incite hate enjoy no protection under the Constitution. Robust critical speech should always be sheltered by the First Amendment, as long is it does not trample the boundaries created by law and jurisprudence in an effort to protect the people from improper verbal abuse and its adverse consequences. III. COPYRIGHT ISSUES AND THE INTERNET Since the founding of the first church of Scientology in 1954, Scientology churches around the world have consistently championed all forms of freedom. This includes being one of the first to expose the existence of South African psychiatric slave-labor camps during the apartheid era, and the atrocities committed on the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the name of "ethnic cleansing." Scientology churches were pioneers in the development of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and used that law to uncover secret U.S. government chemical and biological warfare experiments that had been perpetrated on the American people. The Church's human rights journal, Freedom Magazine, has won numerous awards for its journalistic integrity and its courageous work in protecting the rights of minorities. The Church's own creed states that "all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others." In addition, Scientologists honor free speech as a cherished Constitutional right. But free speech does not mean freedom to perpetrate a crime. No matter how disingenuously copyright violations are postured as an exercise of "free speech," the unlawful use of protected works was, is, and will continue to be a crime. If an individual walked into a book store and took away and sold volumes of an author's writings, or simply gave them away as part of a super-communist phantasm designed for a shared-and-equal-wealth Utopia, would any rational person defend this act of theft as "free speech"? Of course not. They would call the police. Enshrined in the United States Constitution, and preceding the First Amendment, is an author's right to determine the manner and extent of the dissemination of his writings. The Constitution authorized Congress "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings." Creativity is encouraged when those who engage in it can enjoy the fruits of their efforts and control the use of those creations. An author has the right to determine whether his words will be published, by whom and to what extent. In this way, intellectual property rights and free expression coexist as fundamental rights. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides a mechanism that helps this coexistence to be peaceful. When it became obvious during the last decade that copyright owners' determination was being tested by a spate of unauthorized distribution of their works over the Internet, the importance of protecting both copyright owners and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from potential adverse consequences became glaringly evident. In a landmark lawsuit brought by two Scientology-affiliated organizations, the US District Court for the Northern District of California agreed with their contention that ISPs may be liable for contributory copyright infringement once they are made aware that infringements are maintained on their systems. The judge's ruling resulted in a notice-and-takedown procedure to remedy copyright infringements. This notice-and-takedown procedure became an important aspect of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It provides the copyright owner with a remedy and absolves ISPs from responsibility for content and liability if they remove infringing materials, while depriving the violator of the means to perpetrate his unlawful activity. The DMCA has thus brought order to one area of the Internet that was in utter turmoil prior to the Act. IV. GOOGLE CHILLS In March 2002, acting according to the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Church asked Google to remove their links to certain specific copyright infringements. Google responded by eliminating the links. These actions on both sides were routine and carried out pursuant to the DMCA. However, this time the often unpredictable currents of the Internet pushed Google out of the routine and into a storm of protest. Taken aback by this reaction, Google rapidly moved to put the Church's cease and desist letters up on a public website. If the intent of this action was to appear "politically correct" or to chill the Church's dedication to defend the copyrighted works of the Scientology religion, no adverse affect has been created. In fact, the Church views it favorably that anyone who is interested can see the letters for themselves, uninfluenced by the hysterical rhetoric that was used by some media to mischaracterize their content and import. We are scarcely alone in utilizing the DMCA to protect our intellectual properties. Considering that hundreds of cease and desist letters are generated by copyright owners every day, it is oddly disproportionate that so much attention has been focused on the handful sent out by Scientology churches. Record companies have used copyright law to halt the pirating of Digital Video Discs. The Motion Picture Association of America has endeavored for years to prevent the unlawful copying of video games and movies. One company in the United Kingdom reports that in the past two years it has caused the removal of more than 5 million infringing computer files containing material belonging to its clients. They send out DMCA letters to American ISPs as a routine. V. FREE SPEECH VS. HATE SPEECH It has long been an established legal principle that open incitement to violence against another is not protected by the First Amendment, neither on nor off the Internet. If an individual shouted from his rooftop that he was going to throw a bomb through his neighbor's window, no one would accuse the intended victim of attempting to stifle free speech when he called the police. Hate speech is also a factor that often motivates the Church in its actions. Unfortunately it usually remains unreported by media, thus depriving the public of the full picture. It has been necessary to take legal action on several occasions due to threats and actual violence against our churches. Hate speech and extremist propaganda on the Internet have repeatedly driven unstable individuals to commit felonious acts against Church members and Church property, as in these examples: o A Scientology Church was fire-bombed twice with a dozen molotov cocktails doing extensive damage to the front of the church. o A staff member was stalked and shot at. o A crazed gunman went into a church and shot a pregnant staff member whose unborn child suffered fatal birth defects and later died. The woman is now paralyzed. He then set fire to the building and took another female staff member hostage. o Individuals became inflamed by venom spewed online and then sent out death threats. o An individual was convicted for threatening and intimidating Scientologists through the Internet. He then fled the country to avoid sentencing. o Police intercepted a man with explosives in his van, who, it was discovered by the officers, was enroute to assassinate the president of a Church of Scientology. o A man constructed a mail bomb and hid it in one of our churches. It was detected and defused before it went off. If these acts are carried out against U.S. citizens by Al Qaeda, it is called terrorism. Within the microcosm of the alternative newsgroups, Scientologists face a form of unadulterated cyber-terrorism, no matter how loudly its perpetrators try to disguise themselves as "free speech" advocates. * * * * * Ultimately, the only guarantee of safeguarding the Internet's potential resides with all who use it. We share the responsibility of ensuring that abuses by a largely lawless minority are not permitted to burden all of us with over regulation. We submit that had it not been for a few lawless individuals, online copyright regulation would not even have been necessary; ample copyright law already existed. It is up to the law-abiding majority to ensure the Internet remains truly free. We welcome the opportunity to work with any individuals and organizations seeking the goal of a lawful, safe and vastly beneficial Internet for all. For more information, visit www.scientology.org April 2002 Linda Simmons Hight Media Relations Director Church of Scientology International 6331 Hollywood Blvd. Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90028-6329 Phone (323) 960-3500 Fax (323) 960-3508 e-mail: mediarelationsdirat_private ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan CNET Radio 9:40 am ET weekdays: http://cnet.com/broadband/0-7227152.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Aug 26 2002 - 11:26:19 PDT