The Grand Clavister's Response To Helena Kobrin
Helena K. Kobrin (the "K." stands for "Kwality" !) wrote:
> I represent Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), the owner
>of the confidential Advanced Technology of the religion of
>Scientology, and the holder of the exclusive rights under the
>copyrights applicable to the Advanced Technology materials.
>Among these copyrighted and confidential materials are the
>Advanced Technology materials of a level known as "OT VII." The
>copyright for OT VII is registered with the United States
>Copyright Office under No. TXU-303-388.
Well, not to get off on the wrong foot, or anything, but lah-de-fucking-dah.
Nice to meet you. I'm the King of the Fairy Kingdom.
> I have been informed that you have posted on
>alt.religion.scientology a portion of the OT VII materials
>without the authorization of my client, who, of course, would not
>have given such authorization had it been requested. Your action
>violates my client's legal rights in that it is the unauthorized
>making of an electronic copy of the copyrighted material and the
>unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets materials.
I found the post you were talking about. I replied/followed-up to a post that
was, in and of itself, about three generations away from the original person who
posted whatever he posted. The "portion" is about 2-3 lines that don't mean a
damn thing to me, out of context as they are. Getting steamed over this is like
trying to sue someone for performing a Beatles song without requesting
permission, when all they did was walk down the street humming the melody to
"Yellow Submarine".
> These actions constitute violations of applicable copyright
>laws and trade secret misappropriation entitling our client to
>damages and an injunction. This is true regardless of whether
>you ever signed an agreement with respect to the confidentiality
>of the OT materials. You are on notice that they are regarded as
>trade secrets, and case law from several jurisdictions holds that
>an individual who is on notice is liable for trade secret
>misappropriation. The only way these materials could ever have
>left the church is through outright theft or misappropriation.
Yeah, well, now I know. (And knowing is half the battle - GI Joe) I had no
fucking clue they were from any actual Scientology codex. It's impossible to
tell from whence they were quoted, especially considering (if you bothered to
LOOK at the post instead of "being informed" of it) that the original post is
attributed to a "Rita Black", thus adding to the (apparent) illusion that it was
just some 'ideas' that some hippie chick came up with.
> It is essential that you take immediate and effective action
>to remove the unauthorized copy from the Internet
Baby, if I had the ability to remove that post from the Internet, I'd be a
millionaire, because I would have discovered a way to edit the Internet, which,
to date, no one, not even the FedGov, not even the Scientologists, have managed
to figure out! That's like asking me to remove an idea from the minds of a
gathered crowd after shouting it out loud to them. Good luck trying to sue me
for NOT parting the Read Sea.
>, and that you
>refrain from any repetition of this or similar acts in the
>future.
Define "similar". To the best of my knowledge, I will not post/re-post any
Scientology text. To the best of your knowledge, really. That's like asking me
to refrain from eating tin-foil in the future. No problem.
> You are also to delete these and any other OT materials
>from your hard drive and any floppy disks and to destroy any hard
>copies you have made.
I don't gots this info on my drive(s). I told you. It was already on the 'Net,
and that's the only place I've seen or dealt with it. It's e-fucking-phemeral.
> In addition, your downloading of the copyright and trade
>secret materials also violates laws prohibiting copyright
>infringement and trade secret misappropriation. Your use and
>disclosure of these materials is *not* fair use. United States
>courts routinely find that the unpublished nature of a work is a
>factor which weighs against a finding of fair use. No court has
>ever found that use of stolen unpublished works is fair. There
>is also no fair use defense to trade secret misappropriation.
>The OT materials have been found to be trade secrets by the
>United States District Court for the Southern District of
>California in Bridge Publications, Inc. v. Vien, 827 F. Supp.
>629, 633 (S.D. Cal. 1993). No court has ever ruled to the
>contrary.
Blah blah blah. Bite me, you snake. I just told you, and you had no reason to
assume, that I don't have, and have never had, any downloaded or "hard" copies
of this information. I saw it in a post about the broad, general topic of
communicating with nature, and I responded by talking about talking to birds and
houseplants. That's it. I didn't even bother d/l'ing a copy of my post. It
wasn't that important. Or so I thought...
> I will expect an immediate response from you with a
>statement of your willingness to comply with these demands. If
>you do not comply immediately, we will have no other recourse but
>to initiate legal action to compel compliance.
Yes, my Scientology Overlords, I shall do thy bidding. Nevermore will I deign to
quote, follow-up to, or otherwise infringe on the razor-wire wall of legal caca
that surrounds the spooky Castle Hubbard. You have my word on it. Don't sue me,
you rat bastard.
Is that better?
the Grand Clavister
(You want to know my real name? "FUCK YOU"! That's my real name! [At least,
that's what my friends call me when they call to me from across a room!])
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE GRAND CLAVISTER OF NYC (AND POINTS BEYOND) NEEDS YOUR KEYS!
SEND KEYS, $1, AND/OR STAMP(S) FOR A DI-RECTORY OF PRODUCTS AND
DEVICES AND INFO ON CURRENT PROJECTS TO: O.L.I.N.Y.K., P.O. BOX
2559, GRAND CENTRAL STATION, NEW YORK NY 10163-2559. THANK YOU.