Re: Kobrin on Copyright o

In article <9507172257.0W8V704@support.com>, <dennis.l.erlich@support.com> wrote: >
>wbarwell@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell)
>
>>[quoth Helena Kobrin, church intellectual property holder's lawyer:]
>>>
>>> "In addition, your downloading of the copyrighted and trade secret OT VII
>>> materials also violates laws prohibiting copyright infringement and trade
>>> secret misappropriation. Your use and disclosure of these materials is
>>> *not* fair use. No case in the United States has ever found fair use to
>>> apply to copying unpublished materials, as even Dennis Erlich's attorney
>>> had to admit in open court. There is also no fair use defense to trade
>>> secret misappropriation."
>
>Rod Keller:
>> The trade secret issue will not stand up where the documents quoted
>> are no longer trade secrets: for instance, the OT1-OTVII documents
>> have all been on public file since the Fishman case. Other cult
>> documents may yet count as trade secrets.
>>
>> The "no case in the US has ever found fair use to apply to copying
>> unpublished materials" argument is original, but by what she misses
>> out Ms Kobrin reveals that the issue has not been decided. Otherwise
>> she would have cited cases where fair use was ruled out _because_ a
>> work was unpublished.
>
>Pope:
>>Diane Richardson pointed out that this case WAS decided. And a bunch of
>>Publishers leaned on Congress to change that law. Since the law has been
>>changed, there is no reason to take this to court except to challenge
>>Congress's amendment of this statute.
>>The unpublished materials problem seems to be nonexistant, but let us
>>chew this over a bit first on the proper groups.
>
> Fair use of unpublished material is *specifically* allowed by
> the changes to the Copyright Law.
Mr. Anonymous's post of a few days showed this change to the statute. The 94th congress dealt with this specifically. Kobrin is being disingenious here, as usual.

>
>>Diane, can you give us cites on when these amendments were changed?
>>
>>We might need them.
>>
>>The other problem Morrison and Foerster seem to be arguing is that
>>these things were mimeographed and passed around to their students.
>>This is of course, publishing them. but it may take a court case to
>>decide that for sure.
>
> That *is* publishing. People are charged to see them.
>
Exactly. Kobrin and the clams simply make up their own private legal fictions and demand the world take these as settled law .. or else.

>>Dennis, is Morrison and Foerester arguing that aspect of these things
>>or is that moot or being ignored?
>
> It's just one of the many arguments against the trade secret
> claim that MoFo raised. Someone will have to post their
> filings at some point.
So Judge Whyte might possibly clear THIS point up in a short while? Nice.

>
>>Legal experts? Is there someway to challenge something like this
>>without having to go to court in a tort to decide these things
>>with assholes determined to put a head on a pike of those who try to use
>>their fair use rights under the copyright provisions and trade law statutes?
>>Or do we have to spend years and $$ fighting for our first amendment
>>rights in such cases to decide we do have rights?
>
> Once my case has been decided (even the rulings will assist)
> there will be few federal courts who will be willing to go
> along with the scieno's Slapp Barratry.
>

I have since learned there is such a thing as a declarative judgement. One takes a few bad claims to a judge and gets that ruled on without having to go through a tort to settle these issues. Thus I could take on the claim that the OT materials are unpublished or they are trade secrets.

If I take this to a judge and get it settled, they cannot bring suit in court on these specious grounds. And the threat disappears.

So if Kobby wants to claim OT materials are trade secrets, and I get a judge to positively and pointedly rule that being available ina courthouse as part of the Fishman case removes these from consideration of being held as trade secrets, then this legal fiction for purposes of harrassment disappear. Any attempt to use it so would be frivolous.

This could possibly be a neat hobby to take up.

Pope Charles SubGenius Pope Of Houston Slack!