Scientology Complains that Advanced Technology appears in Google Groups
October 29, 2005
Religious Technology Center
Sent by: [Private]
Moxon & Kobrin
Los Angeles, CA, 90010, US
Mountain View, CA, 94043, USA
Sent via: email
I sent Google notice of a number of copyright infringements via the telefax number now provided two week ago. However, I have not heard back from anybody, which is unusual based upon my past experience with these types of complaints. Therefore, I am asking for your help in getting these to the correct person and handled, if they have not arrived.
Unfortunately, I am writing to you again concerning another copyright
matter, on behalf of our client, Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), the owner of the confidential Advanced Technology of the Scientology religion and the holder of exclusive rights under the copyrights applicable to the Advanced Technology materials. The Advanced Technology materials are unpublished, copyrighted works. RTC's works include, among others, the individual works comprising levels known as "NOTs." These works are registered with the United States Copyright Office under registration numbers: TXu 257-326 and TXu 257-527.
Please be advised that RTC's copyrighted works were posted again on the Internet without the authorization of our clients and are now accessible from Google's usenet archive, in violation of United States copyright law. We request that these works be deleted from Google's archive. They are located under the following URLs and Message Ids:
Subject: NED for OTs Series 14
Subject: NED for OTs Series 15
Subject: NED for OTs Series 13
Subject: NED for OTs Series 12
Subject: NED for OTs Series 11
Subject: NED for OTs Series 18
Subject: NED for OTs Series 16
Subject: NED for OTs Series 19
Subject: NED for OTs Series 20
I have a good faith belief, and in fact know for certain, that the posting of
these works was not authorized by my client, any agent of my client, or the law.
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is accurate and I
am authorized to act on behalf of RTC in this matter.
Moxon & Kobrin
Los Angeles, California 90010
|FAQ: Questions and Answers|
[back to notice text]
Question: Why does a web host or blogging service provider get DMCA takedown notices?
Answer: Many copyright claimants are making complaints under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 512(c)m a safe-harbor for hosts of "Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users." This safe harbors give providers immunity from liability for users' possible copyright infringement -- if they "expeditiously" remove material when they get complaints. Whether or not the provider would have been liable for infringement by materials its users post, the provider can avoid the possibility of a lawsuit for money damages by following the DMCA's takedown procedure when it gets a complaint. The person whose information was removed can file a counter-notification if he or she believes the complaint was erroneous.
Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?
Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above) and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions.
In order to facilitate the notification process in cases of infringement, ISPs which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service, must designate an agent that will receive the notices from copyright owners that its network contains material which infringes their intellectual property rights. The service provider must then notify the Copyright Office of the agent's name and address and make that information publicly available on its web site. [512(c)(2)]
Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)]. The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].
Question: What are the provisions of 17 U.S.C. Section 512(c)(3) & 512(d)(3)?
Answer: Section 512(c)(3) sets out the elements for notification under the DMCA. Subsection A (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A)) states that to be effective a notification must include: 1) a physical/electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the infringed right; 2) identification of the copyrighted works claimed to have been infringed; 3) identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed; 4) information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party (e.g., the address, telephone number, or email address); 5) a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material is not authorized by the copyright owner; and 6) a statement that information in the complaint is accurate and that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. Subsection B (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(B)) states that if the complaining party does not substantially comply with these requirements the notice will not serve as actual notice for the purpose of Section 512.
Section 512(d)(3), which applies to "information location tools" such as search engines and directories, incorporates the above requirements; however, instead of the identification of the allegedly infringing material, the notification must identify the reference or link to the material claimed to be infringing.
Question: Does a service provider have to follow the safe harbor procedures?
Answer: No. An ISP may choose not to follow the DMCA takedown process, and do without the safe harbor. If it would not be liable under pre-DMCA copyright law (for example, because it is not contributorily or vicariously liable, or because there is no underlying copyright infringement), it can still raise those same defenses if it is sued.
Question: How do I file a DMCA counter-notice?
Answer: If you believe your material was removed because of mistake or misidentification, you can file a "counter notification" asking the service provider to put it back up. Chilling Effects offers a form to build your own counter-notice.
For more information on the DMCA Safe Harbors, see the FAQs on DMCA Safe Harbor. For more information on Copyright and defenses to copyright infringement, see Copyright.
| FAQ: Questions|
| More Like This Notice|
| Related News|
| Related Resources|
| Other Topics|