Re: Some solid good sense for a change

dwtripp@aol.com (Wolf Tripp) writes:

>This may turn out to be the weakest area of RTC. I was at the
>infamous Mission Holder's meeting in SF in 82' ... DM and his
>henchmen had a couple of lawyers there with them to explain why
>RTC could and was doing what it did. I'm not a lawyer
neither am I <praise "Bob">

>but I was skeptical then and still am. Again, I'll post this
>question in hopes of an answer : how can you trademark
>religious materials?
First off, let me emphasize that I am discussing *copyrights*, not *trademarks*. These are entirely separate areas, defined by different legislation and controlled by different regulations.

I know zilch about tradmark law. I couldn't care less whether it's Kleenex[tm] or kleenex, Xerox[tm] or xerox, Dianetics[tm] or dianetics, Scientology[tm] or scientology.

I have no problem with a religion (or even a pseudoreligion) utilizing trademarks and copyrights. Why shouldn't they? I *do* object strongly when copyright law is misused, which is what IMO the CoS has been attempting to do.

Copyright law was never intended to keep materials secret or out of the intellectual marketplace. In fact, that is the antithesis of the U.S. Constitution's intent when it authorized Congress to establish copyright law.

From what I have seen, RTC/CoS first began using copyright law in court to keep their advanced materials secret only after their effort to protect them with trade secret law was unsuccessful in the original Wollersheim/Scott lawsuit.

But that's not why I'm suggesting that DM establish a new RPF for attorneys. Nope. If Kobrin, Small, Moxon, Bowles, et al. end up running around a pole in the California desert, it will be due to their own negligence and incompetence.

There are a number of irregularities in the copyright registrations of LRH's materials. In fact, there's a good chance that some of LRH's original copyrights (under the old 1909 law) expired and were never renewed, placing the material in the public domain. Someone wasn't paying attention. Someone fell down on the job. Someone didn't understand copyright law. Someone should be making amends *big-time*.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of scurrying about going on in the RTC right now. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the recent disappearance of "Vera" and Andy Milne isn't part of a retrenchment. I would imagine that there have been plenty of closed-door meetings going on to reformulate the "handle a.r.s." strategy right about now as well as a complete re-evaluation of the RTC v. Netcom et al. lawsuit.

Diane Richardson ao579@yfn.ysu.edu