In a subsequent ruling which further bolsters the safety of copyrighted materials on the Internet, U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte on March 29, 1996, enjoined a California man from engaging in cyberspace misappropriation and copyright infringement of Scientology scripture.
Judge Whyte granted an injunction against Grady Ward of Arcata, California, preventing him and anyone acting with him from infringing on the copyrightsof RTC or otherwise misappropriating specified writings.
According to a lawsuit filed only a week before the injunction was granted, RTC charged that Ward had engaged in a continuing scheme of copyright infringements and trade secret misappropriations.
RTC repeatedly asked Ward to cease and desist from violating the copyrights, but Ward continued to post materials on the Internet in defiance of the law. In its complaint, RTC alerted the court to the fact that Ward had indicated in Internet postings that he was “threatening, and poised to engage in massive violation” of the copyrights.
Like the materials at issue in the Lerma case, Ward’s unlawful postings were from a small but important part of the voluminous scriptures of the Scientology religion, which are maintained as confidential and protected by copyright and trade secret law.
Helena Kobrin, an RTC attorney, stated, “As long as Ward limited himself to critical comments, no matter how vulgar, venomous or defamatory they were — and make no mistake, they were all of those things — we took no action. It was only his defiance of intellectual property rights that left RTC with no choice but to sue him.”
Judge Whyte’s order restrains not only Grady Ward but “all persons in active concert or participation” with him.
Anonymous postings had occurred through remailers, who removed any means of identification from the computer posting before it appeared on users’ computer screens. RTC documented Ward’s ability to “predict” illegal postings on the Internet and accused him of using these as a stalking horse to attempt to destroy its copyrights.
Another recent decision serves as a precedent for copyright holders and licensees who find their works posted on the Internet but are unable to secure cooperation from access providers in resolving the situation. A federal court has sent a clear signal to access providers that the idea that no one is responsible will not work.
On November 21, 1995, Judge Ronald M. Whyte denied a motion for summary judgment brought by Netcom Online Services and a related motion by bulletin board operator Tom Klemesrud which sought to have them dismissed from the case on the basis that they were not responsible for the infringing postings of a subscriber who was enjoined by the same court in September.
Netcom raised an argument common to many service providers — that they are comparable to a telephone company and thus cannot be held responsible for the content of their subscriber.
Legal discussions aside, the service providers seem conveniently blind to the obvious flaw in the comparison: Telephone companies do not provide a service where copyrighted works — whether or not they have been previously published or even intended for publication — can be placed in permanent view of a potential audience of many millions, and can be unlawfully reproduced by the same number.
The innocent telephone company analogy also fails because uncontroverted evidence shows that in more than 1,200 instances Netcom has taken action against individuals whose postings had violated a law, a rule or the norms of decency.
Judge Whyte agreed. Because the access providers allowed infringing messages to remain on their systems and to be further distributed worldwide after being informed of them by the Church, the judge found that Netcom was a contributory infringer.
The ruling was immediately applauded by many experts in the computer and Internet fields. Leading computer book publisher David Rogelberg described the ruling as “a great victory for all publishers who plan to venture into Internet publishing. ... The power to publish their views and be heard will only be enjoyed if we follow the copyright laws currently on the books. Furthermore, everyone — even a service provider — is responsible for ensuring copyrightsare upheld. We must avoid intellectual piracy at all costs.”
Helena Kobrin, RTC counsel, stated, “We recognize that for an access provider to monitor everything coming through this system would create havoc and be virtually impossible. The principle that we’ve argued is that when they are notified of copyright violations they have an obligation to do something about it. This is the point the judge agrees with.Copyrightprotection is one of the oldest rights guaranteed in our Constitution, and this decision recognizes the duty to protect it.”
What these decisions ultimately mean for the Internet is that its creative content will not vanish and that those who create or publish works will not be forced to avoid the Net for fear of seeing their works infringed. And that is vital for all present and future authors, creators and Internet users across the globe.
| Your View | Related Sites | Bookstore | Church of Scientology Freedom Magazine|
|
|
|
