Re: Science of Identity cult agents attempt take-down of chriskc

Dear David,

on a first glance, this case looks very much similar to the
(in)famous Scientology v xs4all case in the Netherlands.

I'm a bit afraid of giving an advice without more thought on the
matter - including understanding what would be the applicable
law here - but I suggest checking whether provisions on "fair
use", "fair dealing", "exceptions/limitations" and/or "free usages"
(depending, again, on what is the applicable law) would not be
a valid defense here.

In particular, infringement of exclusive rights granted by
copyright/droit d'auteur law for the purposes of criticism/discussion
is in principle admissible in various jurisdictions.  

Whether it is also admissible  ;also in practice depends on a range
of conditions, again depending on the particular law to be applied.
Only judicial power can decide that.

I would suggest to check whether such exceptions might possibly apply
before taking any other decision.

P.S.: nothing in the above excludes liability under other laws
 ;     (e.g. libel).

Ciao,

Andrea

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 12:40:14PM +0100, David Berry wrote:
>; le-Mail-131-502319037
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Type: text/plain;
>     charset=US-ASCII;
>     delsp=yes;
>     format=flowed
>
>
> Can anybody offer advice?
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> >From: Matthew Z
> >Date: 8 April 2007 20:06:38 BDT
> >To: Discusslibresociety.org
> >Subject: [Libre-Discuss] Science of Identity cult agents attempt  
> >take-down of chriskcon.com based in spurious copyright law evocations
> >
> >http://www.mjzhosting.name/collaboration/view_topic.php?id=167
> >
> >This might interest some people on the copyleft front. Being ; 
>; >personally involved in the matter, what I'm most interested in is  
> >the weight of a certain claim in Jeannie Bishop's letter to myself:  
> >"The information stated above is accurate, and under penalty of  
> >perjury, I am authorized to act on behalf of the Science of  
> >Identity Foundation, the exclusive owner of the copyright that is  
> >being infringed."
> >
> >If anyone with some insight into the actual legal mechanisms that  
> >might arise here has any thoughts on the matter, I would be very  
> >interested in hearing them. To what degree could the "penalty of  
> >perjury" come into play? What are worst-case-scenario  
> >ramifications? etc. Are they just talking shit? Should it be easy  
> >to keep this website online?
> >
> >Matt
> >_______________________________________________
> >Discuss mailing list
> >Discusslibresociety.org
> >http://libresociety.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_libresociety.org
>
> ----
>
> David M. Berry
> d.berrysussex.ac.uk
>
> EDB128
>; Media and Film De

> ==
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
>;
> _________________________________

--
Andrea Glorioso      ;      Assistant Researcher, Politecnico di Torino
    Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica, Internet Media Group
       Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 - 10129 Torino (TO) - Italy
     T: +39-011-564-7036 M: +39-348-921-4379 F: +39-011-564-7099

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community