*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
©
Dear Trommers,
This message raises an interesting point. I believe an artist, be it
author, pop band, singer, composer, et cetera should be paid for the work
they do. That seems to me primarily to be the purpose of the copyright
laws (probably vary from country to country although I believe there is
an international standard).
That the heirs to the creator of works of art/literature should receive
money for doing nothing perhaps is another question, discussable for a
long time.
It is true that I sent you all part of a copyright work, and it was
probably too long to really comply with the exceptions there are
to the copyright laws. It was copyrighted© by Ron Hubbard, who is dead. I
believe that the copyright is claimed to be owned by some legal
body.
The Internet site Scientolipedia has published some works which were
copyrighted© by L Ron Hubbard, included amongst them is Minshull's book
How to Choose Your People.
There are certain procedures (legal) open to those who feel their
copyright has been violated.
One of those is that if a person or body feels aggrieved in such a way
it/he/she can (in the USA) demand that the site publishing copyright work
be taken down by the service provider. However the person making that
claim must take action legally within a short period. Otherwise the site
has to be put up again.
This procedure happened recently to the Scientolipedia site, but
no further action was taken by the church and the site was put up again
by the service provider!
That's interesting. The point is that after L Ron Hubbard's death the
church was taken over with a certain amount of "hanky-panky"
a.k.a. dirty tricks. Since that time, to the best of my knowledge,
although the church has taken legal action with regard to copyright
breach they have never taken it to a level where they convinced a court
that they had the copyright. So there's a theory that they can't legally
show they have the copyright!
For some of what I've just stated see:
http://scientolipedia.org/info/Church_of_Scientology_DMCA_Takedown_of_Scientolipedia
My main concern here is that the man who took over the church David
Miscavige, who is virtually a dictator, has altered Ron's works. Thus my
concern to promulgate unadulterated versions of basics of
Scientology.
All best wishes,
Ant.
At 17:50 28-03-2016, The Resolution of Mind list wrote:
Recently here on the list Ant
Phillips offered to provide LRH material in
"parcels". In my opinion a great idea and seemingly well
received so far.
I was sometimes tempted to put in large chunks of text of LRH
references
by copy & paste into some of my write-ups as well.
As far as I know, one is allowed by law to cite from works of others
as
long as the cite is limited (I do not know which amount is tolerable
here)
and you mention the source or copyright owner.
Often we find a remark in (c)-righted works like this:
"Reproduction in whole or parts of this work is only allowed with
the
written consent of the (c)-owner." - something like that.
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
