Warning letter from Co$. [any comments ?]

January 3, 1995


     TO: INTERNET REMAILER OPERATORS


     FROM:  THOMAS M. SMALL
            COUNSEL FOR RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER AND BRIDGE
            PUBLICATIONS, INC.

          I  represent  Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), which
     owns the unpublished, confidential Advanced Technology of the
     religion of Scientology, and holds exclusive rights under the
     copyrights applicable to the Advanced  Technology  materials.
     I  also  represent Bridge Publications, Inc., which holds the
     exclusive  right  to  print,   publish   and   sell   various
     non-confidential  works  by  the  founder  of the Scientology
     religion,  L.   Ron  Hubbard,  and  to   make   and   publish
     compilations and derivative works of and from those works and
     to enforce all rights in them.

          It  has  come  to  my  attention  that  there  are   two
     alternate  newsgroups  on  the  Internet to which individuals
     have  been  annonymously  posting  certain  of  my   clients'
     published  and  unpublished  copyrighted materials, including
     certain of the confidential  Advanced  Technology  materials.
     These  confidential  materials  being posted were stolen from
     my client.  There is reason to  believe  that  the  materials
     which  are  uploaded by these users may also be downloaded by
     other users, and  that  these  activities  may  be  occurring
     through  the  systems  which  are  linked  into the Internet.
     The two newsgroups  into  which  these  materials  are  being
     copied    are   alt.technology.clearing   and   alt.religion.
     Scientology.

          We  request your assistance in dealing with the problem.
     The spread of  infringements  and  misappropriations  by  the
     users  will be lessened if you lock out from your systems the
     two   newsgroups   involved,   alt.religion.scientology   and
     alt.technology.clearing, limiting the potential for reposting
     and downloading.  It will then be easier  to  deal  with  the
     intentional infringers through appropriate channels.

          Both  the  uploading  and downloading of these materials
     constitute  unauthorized  copying  and  distribution  of  the
     materials  in  violation  of our clients' rights under United
     States copyright laws and the law of other  countries,  where
     applicable.    Damages  and  an  injunction  against  further
     unauthorized copying and distribution may be obtained against
     infringers and, all unauthorized copies and all materials and
     equipment by which the unauthorized copies may be  reproduced
     can   be   impounded.    Unauthorized   disclosure   of   the
     confidential  Advanced  Technology  materials  also  violates
     applicable trade secrets laws.

          Action  is  being  taken directly with the systems users
     who we know are primarily responsible for these violations of
     my clients' rights.  We hope those actions will put an end to
     the infringements by  these  users.   We  do  {not}  wish  to
     involve  others in  litigation.  Unfortunately, however, such
     actions will  be  unavoidable  where  there  is  contributory
     infringement  by  those who knowingly induce or contribute to
     the infringing conduct of these users by providing facilities
     or systems that enable the  direct  infringers  to  infringe,
     because  we  legally  must  take  all  actions to protect our
     clients'  property   rights.    Courts   are   holding   such
     contributory  infringers  liable.   Two  examples  are:  Sega
     Enterprises Ltd.  v.  Maphia BBS, 30 U.S.P.Q.  2d 1921  (N.D.
     Cal.   1994) and Playboy Enterprises v.  Frena, 839 F.  Supp.
     1152 (M.D.  Fla.  1993).

          Recent   proposed   legislation   regarding    potential
     liability   of  systems  operators  and  others  who  provide
     facilities or services, such  as  annonymous  remailers,  for
     information  passing through their systems has understandably
     created concern  on  the  part  of  systems  operators  as  a
     potential  liability.   We  ask  your voluntary assistance in
     dealing with these known wilful infringers  so  that  we  can
     both  deal  with the problem without legal hassles, and legal
     liability can be confined to those who intend to  create  the
     situation.

          We  ask that you confirm that you have blocked access to
     these newsgroups through your remailer.  If you are unwilling
     to  do  so,  we  ask that you inform us as to the reasons for
     your position.

                                             Sincerely,



                                             Thomas M. Small

> nobody@replay.com (Name withheld on request) writes:
> FROM:  THOMAS M. SMALL
> COUNSEL FOR RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER AND BRIDGE
> PUBLICATIONS, INC.

While the issue is interesting (using anonymous mailers to violate
copyrights or to expose scams, depending on your view of the content),
the apparent aim of the Scientologists isn't met by approaching the
cypherpunk remailers: the specific anonymous postings have been through
penet so far, I think.

> Recent   proposed   legislation   regarding    potential
> liability   of  systems  operators  and  others  who  provide
> facilities or services, such  as  annonymous  remailers,  for
> information  passing through their systems has understanda> bly
> created concern  on  the  part  of  systems  operators  as  a
> potential  liability.   We  ask  your voluntary assistance in

You missplet "anonymous".  Hope this helps.

The only "proposed legislation" I know of was proposed by Martha Siegel,
the greencard guru from CyberHell.  Any others?

> We  ask that you confirm that you have blocked access to
> these newsgroups through your remailer.  If you are unwilling
> to  do  so,  we  ask that you inform us as to the reasons for
> your position.

Yeah, right.  People unclear on the concept of anonymous remailers.
Maybe they should be talking to the mail-to-news forwarders instead.

	Jim Gillogly
	Highday, 13 Afteryule S.R. 1995, 19:06

nobody writes a very nice, non-confrontational and well thought out
letter supporting his case (and ignoring the oddness of copyrighting
religous materials). but i have some questions that weren't discussed
when i took business law 101 a few years ago:

nobody@replay.com (Name withheld on request) writes:

>     applicable.    Damages  and  an  injunction  against  further
>     unauthorized copying and distribution may be obtained against
>     infringers and, all unauthorized copies and all materials and
>     equipment by which the unauthorized copies may be  reproduced
>     can   be   impounded.    Unauthorized   disclosure   of   the
>     confidential  Advanced  Technology  materials  also  violates
>     applicable trade secrets laws.

i know there has been much chatter on this subject, but are there
truly any precedents that could hold on the anonymous distribution of
copyrighted material? are remailer-ops truly in legal danger?  what
exactly constitutes a trade secret, and what sort of laws apply?

>    clients'  property   rights.    Courts   are   holding   such
>    contributory  infringers  liable.   Two  examples  are:  Sega
>    Enterprises Ltd.  v.  Maphia BBS, 30 U.S.P.Q.  2d 1921  (N.D.
>    Cal.   1994) and Playboy Enterprises v.  Frena, 839 F.  Supp.
>    1152 (M.D.  Fla.  1993).

what of these cases? is this just an example of typical lawyerly
intimidation tactics? how do you remailer-ops plan to react? my first
instinct (were i running a remailer) would be to ignore it, on grounds
that i wouldn't examine any mail passing through. but if there really
were valid precedent in this matter... (has anyone seen any
well-written lay-person evaluations of the steve jackson case? i read
the ruling, but much of it went in one eye and out the other).

i think the censorship thing is building steam, and we should start
preparing (and informing) ourselves...

-avi

From: Avi Harris Baumstein <avi@clas.ufl.edu>

   i know there has been much chatter on this subject, but are there
   truly any precedents that could hold on the anonymous distribution of
   copyrighted material?

Cubby v. Compuserve is relevant here, as well as that bookstore case
in the 50's that I never remember the name of.  Mike G., can you help
me out on this one?

These cases are about other kinds of wrongs (libel in one and
obscenity (?) in the other), but copyright violation doesn't seem to
be have any particular features to set it apart from the basic
principle of these.  Namely, if you know, you're responsible; if you
don't, you're not.  This, you all realize no doubt, is a gross
simplification of a long chain of reasoning.

   what
   exactly constitutes a trade secret, and what sort of laws apply?

The short answer is that if you didn't sign a trade secret agreement
or are party to one by some other relationship (such as agency), then
a trade secret that comes your way is no secret any more.

   >    clients'  property   rights.    Courts   are   holding   such
   >    contributory  infringers  liable.   Two  examples  are:  Sega
   >    Enterprises Ltd.  v.  Maphia BBS, 30 U.S.P.Q.  2d 1921  (N.D.
   >    Cal.   1994) and Playboy Enterprises v.  Frena, 839 F.  Supp.
   >    1152 (M.D.  Fla.  1993).

   what of these cases? is this just an example of typical lawyerly
   intimidation tactics? 

I have personal experience with the first case.  It was a local BBS
run by a friend of a friend, and I got involved a year ago right after
the seizure.  (It was, BTW, a _civil_ seizure of a BBS, not criminal.)
I believe the case settled out of court.  There were court documents
approving the seizure however; I don't know if these set precedent or
not.  I suspect not, because the action was entirely _ex parte_ (Latin
for one-sided).  Mike, again?  Other legal folk?

I know nothing about the second one.

   nhow do you remailer-ops plan to react? my first
   instinct (were i running a remailer) would be to ignore it, on grounds
   that i wouldn't examine any mail passing through. 

The people who keep logs, yes, are in more danger than those who don't.

Eric

Actually, civil copyright infringement liability doesn't turn on
knowledge. You can be an infringer even if you don't know.

Criminal copyright infringement requires a guilty mental state, so *that*
you have to know.


>    From: Avi Harris Baumstein <avi@clas.ufl.edu>
> 
>    i know there has been much chatter on this subject, but are there
>    truly any precedents that could hold on the anonymous distribution of
>    copyrighted material?
> 
> Cubby v. Compuserve is relevant here, as well as that bookstore case
> in the 50's that I never remember the name of.  Mike G., can you help
> me out on this one?
> 
> These cases are about other kinds of wrongs (libel in one and
> obscenity (?) in the other), but copyright violation doesn't seem to
> be have any particular features to set it apart from the basic
> principle of these.  Namely, if you know, you're responsible; if you
> don't, you're not.  This, you all realize no doubt, is a gross
> simplification of a long chain of reasoning.
> 
>    what
>    exactly constitutes a trade secret, and what sort of laws apply?
> 
> The short answer is that if you didn't sign a trade secret agreement
> or are party to one by some other relationship (such as agency), then
> a trade secret that comes your way is no secret any more.
> 
>    >    clients'  property   rights.    Courts   are   holding   such
>    >    contributory  infringers  liable.   Two  examples  are:  Sega
>    >    Enterprises Ltd.  v.  Maphia BBS, 30 U.S.P.Q.  2d 1921  (N.D.
>    >    Cal.   1994) and Playboy Enterprises v.  Frena, 839 F.  Supp.
>    >    1152 (M.D.  Fla.  1993).
> 
>    what of these cases? is this just an example of typical lawyerly
>    intimidation tactics? 
> 
> I have personal experience with the first case.  It was a local BBS
> run by a friend of a friend, and I got involved a year ago right after
> the seizure.  (It was, BTW, a _civil_ seizure of a BBS, not criminal.)
> I believe the case settled out of court.  There were court documents
> approving the seizure however; I don't know if these set precedent or
> not.  I suspect not, because the action was entirely _ex parte_ (Latin
> for one-sided).  Mike, again?  Other legal folk?
> 
> I know nothing about the second one.
> 
>    nhow do you remailer-ops plan to react? my first
>    instinct (were i running a remailer) would be to ignore it, on grounds
>    that i wouldn't examine any mail passing through. 
> 
> The people who keep logs, yes, are in more danger than those who don't.
> 
> Eric
>

After reading the post from teh Scientologists about lockout out groups 
form anon-remailers, I was thining a little bit, note I said a little bit 
this isnt a fully fleshed out idea yet.  I was thinking it may be smart 
for osme of the remailers to lock out the groups, in particular those 
operators who do it forma student acount, or perhaps from their own 
account in teh United states where legal action would be able to reach 
them.  But to get around this, the anon users can use the Finland server, 
or a new and imporoved anon-remailer.  By shopping around for ISPs it is 
possible to find a provider who takes payment thru mail and doesnt 
require positive ID to set up an account.  With this you then either run 
that account as the remailer, a totally anon account not linked to your 
person and thus immune from legal actions(besies having it closed by the 
ISP if they are pressured) or you can run a SLIP connection and runa  
remailer much like Julf's on your own machien thru a dedicated SLIP line. 
 


i want to know everything          http://www.mcs.com/~nesta/home.html
i want to be everywhere                     Nesta's Home Page        
i want to fuck everyone in the world               &
i want to do something that matters         /-/ a s t e zine