************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
When it comes to anything to do with the church of scientology,* nothing* they say or do is without fraud, lies, deceit, extortion or entrapment, coercion, a screwing, and or every other kind of dirty trick imaginable.
That should actually say, to the average person, the type of dirty tricks the cos can pull, are unimaginable. The average person does not know how to think that way. The type of dirty tricks that the cos can pull, are only imaginable to a person within the heirarchy of scn. There is not one single contract or agreement or representation, they make with any one, including scientologists from newbies and up, and copyrights that are made in good faith (bonafide). NONE! None are legal if you know the true law about contracts and the different types of fraud. David . On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:28 PM, The Resolution of Mind list < [email protected]> wrote: > ************* > 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. > > > Antony A Phillips > > * < mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>> * > www.antology.info > > > > > > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ TROM mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
