To: scnists re: altered PDC 20-who is DM covering for?
Virginia McClaughry
Pdc tape 20 has a pretty drastic, and rather odd alteration to it.
My version copyright LRON hubbard library, has this line:
"Therefore, we really do have the remedy before the assault weapon is
produced."
Any deletion is not obvious from this right?
Here is excerpt from older version of PDC, NOTE: LRH IS actually saying this
in the older version. (copyright L RON HUBBARD)
"Therefore, we really do have the remedy before the assault weapon is
produced.
Did you ever read poor old George Orwell's 1984? Yes,yes, that's wonderful.
That would be--------could be the palest imagined shadow of what a
world would be like under the rule of the secret use of Scientology
with no remedy in existence."
That's quite a chunk SEAMLESSLY EDITED out of the tape recording.
Next:
My version copyright LRon hubbard library:
"It's a very simple remedy. And that's-just make sure that the
remedy is passed along. That's all. Don't hoard it and don't hold it."
Older version, copyright L RON HUBBARD:
It's a very simple remedy. And that's-just make sure that the remedy
is passed along. That's all.Don't horde it, don't hold it; and if you
ever do use any Black Dianetics, use it on the guy who pulled
Scientology out of sight and made it so it wasn't available. Because
he's the boy who would be electing himself "The New Order." And we
don't need any more new orders. All those orders, as far as I am
concerned, have been filled.
Now, WHY would DM oversee, (he says basically this in his affidavit), the
removal of these parts of the tape?
Is there a "New Order" that is being covered for? Does DM think people will
think of him if they were to hear this?
And from the other paragraph, "secret use of Scientology with no remedy in
sight".
Is somebody trying to use Scientology secretly, ie: bullet form, with no
remedy in sight?
DM? CST?, This was removed for a reason folks, and it very much raises my
curiosity as to why, and any possibility I can come up with, doesn't look
good.
Not good at all.
Especially in light of that Scientology, the subject, is being painstakingly
chipped at and altered away, leaving the bullet becoming more and more in
use than the remedy, vis-a-vis reverse auditing, etc.
What about that project to "collect up original LRH materials from all over
the world to preserve it for future generations"?
Maybe there was some OTHER reason than what was said, in doing that, because
we sure aren't seeing much original, pure, unadulterated LRH anymore, so why
collect it up when you are busy altering it?
Maybe the answer is in the parts of this tape that were deleted.
If nothing else, it sure raises some ugly possibilities, none of which are
sane.
People, you need to get your confront of evil up, because something is
rotten in river city, as the saying goes.
DO something about it! LOOK!
To be continued...
Virginia
Tommy Thompson
Virginia McClaughry wrote:
Out lists. l4bra.
tom
--
Tommy Thompson
pth...@pacbell.net
http://communities.msn.com/SpiritualEnhancementGroup
http://www.fza.org Freezone America
http://wwp.mirabilis.com/232039 (icq pager)
Lone Ranger
Am havin a denseday. What duz yer comment mean in relation to what Virginia
posted? Davey has outlists? If he do, LRbr wouldn't fly til he had about 500
hours of gimme yer paw. lol
Tommy Thompson wrote:
>
> Out lists. L4bra.
>
> tom
>
> >Virginia wrote
Tommy Thompson
Now, WHY would DM oversee, (he says basically this in his affidavit),
the
removal of these parts of the tape?
Is there a "New Order" that is being covered for? Does DM think people
will
think of him if they were to hear this?
And from the other paragraph, "secret use of Scientology with no remedy
in
sight".
Is somebody trying to use Scientology secretly, ie: bullet form, with no
remedy in sight?
I Sed: Out Lists, L4BRA.
Of course he is covering up. Aimless wondering and chewing is symptom
of out lists.
And the who/what question lists to one item. Planetary sps.
As does the why is it being changed. To destroy the technology.
Who/what would destroy the technology will list to a personal item. It
should be handled till the charge is off.
Ralph Hilton
-0700, in alt.clearing.technology :
>
> And the who/what question lists to one item. Planetary sps.
>
> As does the why is it being changed. To destroy the technology.
>
> Who/what would destroy the technology will list to a personal item. It
>should be handled till the charge is off.
Who/what would want to destroy the technology ?
Who/what would not want to destroy the technology ?
Who/what would oppose destroying the technology ?
Who/what would not oppose destroying the technology ?
Who/what would destroy the technology ?
Who/what would not destroy the technology ?
Who/what would oppose opposition to destroying the technology ?
Who/what would not oppose opposition to destroying the technology ?
You could get more L&N q's by adding in prehav buttons 3GA style.
Not advised for general processing on someone who hasn't cleared up a lot of
their own GPMs.
There seems to be a counter-goal such as
To create implant technology that could be listed.
I'm not sure what bank I'm listing this of. It seems like a 7D bank much
more basic than R6.
--
Ralph Hilton
http://www.fzint.org/rhilton
Freezone International: http://www.fzint.org
C-Meter: http://www.inquisitive-instruments.co.uk/
roger gonnet
scientology - because I consider he has been doing exactly that, trying to
establish his "new world order" by use of balck dianetics and so forth, has
always been understood as saying exactly what he said by DM and C°.
Therefore, to hide their traces, they HAVE TO ensure that everything showing
the trace of this intention is erased.
Methinks they are also doing exactly that with lots of other things, like
enormous errors committed on scientific claims by elrong; I'd bet that lots
of those have been indicated naively by people like me, who were writing to
his SO ED#1 line, to say "Oh, Ron, you're wrong here, is there an error"? -
after they received such indications of wrongnesses, they probably prepared
some plans to erase such passages from the copies they had learned from us,
so as to de-ridiculize his stupid allegations.
The best evidences are to come; if you remember, Virginia, the upper goons
have spoken of a new large complete deictionary of scientology: do we bet
that passages like this one, from the scino management first edition, could
entirely disappear from this "extensive" new version?
read:
"SCIENTOLOGY CONSULTANTS, INC., we have now, for the first time, a
complete line of books in each of Dn and Scn. These are in
actuality separate subjects, and we now have the material and
corporations necessary to make them entirely separate. We are going
to conduct a very large radio campaign throughout the middle West
concerning Dn only. To do this, we will probably revive the Hubbard
Dianetic Research Foundation of Arizona, since this is now getting
cleared up all past accounts. Scn will be exclusively handled by
the Founding Church and the HASI. No letters or literature should
cross the words Dn and Scn. They should be maintained separately.
It is the basic truth that Dn is a mental therapy which was
developed out of the body of knowledge called Scn, as fully
discussed in an early Journal of Scientology (1952), but the legal
position and the actual practice of these two subjects means they
must be kept apart. From a management standpoint, these
organizations are held separately, in view of the fact that they
are to be managed through Scn Consultants, Inc., which is a
management corporation. (HCO PL 25 Jan 57) Abbr. SCI CON."
It shows so clearly that both subjects are mixed, and that the scn and dn
are commercial, that dn is used as a method to lure people into scn, that DM
could most probably never put it on the new dictionary to be issued. And
lots of other examples most certainly exist.
What appears more difficult for the clam's tchurdch is getting rid of insane
promises which are allowing dissatisfied clients to launch suits for fraud.
How could DM and C° get rid of the fantastic claims contained almost
everywhere in the books and tapes ? They'll have to do that soon or late if
they want avoid suits; but if they ever do that, they're doomed to
bankruptcy: who would be intesreted by possible wins from scientology
processes, if they don't look fantastic?
roger
Virginia McClaughry <vm...@icehouse.net> a écrit dans le message :
39e75...@news2.lightlink.com...
> Now, WHY would DM oversee, (he says basically this in his affidavit), the
> removal of these parts of the tape?
>
> Is there a "New Order" that is being covered for? Does DM think people
will
> think of him if they were to hear this?
>
> And from the other paragraph, "secret use of Scientology with no remedy in
> sight".
>
> Is somebody trying to use Scientology secretly, ie: bullet form, with no
> remedy in sight?
>
roger gonnet
Copyrights are perhaps no longer valid on the old unaltered tapes and books,
as they have reposted copyrights with alterations (some of them being major
ones).
ptsc
wrote:
>Your post gave me another idea.
>Copyrights are perhaps no longer valid on the old unaltered tapes and books,
>as they have reposted copyrights with alterations (some of them being major
>ones).
I wouldn't be too sure about that. I would only be certain for works which have
actually been ruled to be in the public domain, such as the so-called Manual of
Justice. The new versions may be sufficiently different to qualify for
copyright protection as works in their own right.
This is a pathetic ruse, of course, but not only Scientologists have done things
this cheesy. Recently (within the last ten years or so) James Joyce's Ulysses
was mutilated in this fashion to preserve copyright on the "new version" which
was "corrected to reflect the author's intent." (HORSESHIT!)
ptsc
Virginia McClaughry
Very interesting point, wonder how one would go about finding out if that is
possible.
Any ideas?
Virignia
roger gonnet wrote in message <8scl4b$1jkd$1...@news6.isdnet.net>...
>Your post gave me another idea.
>
>Copyrights are perhaps no longer valid on the old unaltered tapes and
books,
>as they have reposted copyrights with alterations (some of them being major
>ones).
>
Phaedrus
Hash: SHA1
The scout coyotes report that pt...@my-deja.com said...
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 18:16:00 +0200, "roger gonnet"
> <roger....@worldnet.fr> wrote:
>
> >Your post gave me another idea.
>
> >Copyrights are perhaps no longer valid on the old unaltered tapes
> >and books, as they have reposted copyrights with alterations (some
> >of them being major ones).
>
> I wouldn't be too sure about that. I would only be certain for works
> which have actually been ruled to be in the public domain, such as
> the so-called Manual of Justice. The new versions may be
> sufficiently different to qualify for copyright protection as works
> in their own right.
Under US law, if you release a changed version of your
previously-copyrighted work, you can copyright the _changes._ In other
words, your changed version is a new copyrighted work, with copyright
protection that runs for the usual length of time. However, this does
_not_ reset the "copyright clock" on your original work; its copyright
will expire exactly when it would have previously.
In general, republication of a work (whether or not it has been
changed) can never change the work's date of authorship for copyright
purposes, nor change the length of time of the original work's
copyright protection. If I write and publish a book in 1980, and write
and pushish a second edition of the book (with some
changes/additions/deletions) in 2000, my copyright notice for that
second edition should read "Copyright 1980, 2000 Phaedrus." If I omit
the original date, and publish my second edition with a "Copyright 2000
Phaedrus" copyright notice, that's technically an invalid notice.
It's possible to renew the US copyright on many works, by filing
the proper notice with the copyright office; but that's a very
different process.
So if the Scientology organization allowed the copyright on any of
LRH's works to expire without filing the proper renewal notice, it
doesn't matter whether or not they've republished changed versions with
new copyright notices; the _original_ versions are public domain, and
can be reproduced by anyone. (Anyone who's willing to endure the
frivolous suits that the Scientology organization might file, anyway.)
The usual disclaimer applies: I'm not a lawyer; this is not legal
advice. Not to be taken internally. May cause drowsiness; alcohol may
intensify this effect.
- --
SCIENTOLOGY WON'T LET MEMBERS READ THIS. BUT YOU SHOULD.-> www.xenu.net
Interested in books and stories about shapeshifting, lycanthropy, etc.?
Visit the Transformation Stories List at www.transformationlist.com
For more info about me, visit www.lycanon.org ICQ: 3681874 SP1/KoX
PGP Key: http://www.lycanon.org/pgpkey.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8
Comment: Visit Lycanthropes Anonymous at http://www.lycanon.org
iQA/AwUBOepbvUMLcwaXC7z+EQKp1ACg2dipiaTVMEjTJGevPy3Rgci6fcQAn0PK
1xEGvuhcwsoSh9aemjf+Prtf
=fn2B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Virginia McClaughry
Thanks a lot for the info!
Virginia
P.S. What if the church puts a WRONG copyright date, such as c1953 when is
actually c1964, and do you happen to know what is the copyright expiration
on works prior to 1980?
Phaedrus
Hash: SHA1
The scout coyotes report that vm...@icehouse.net said...
> P.S. What if the church puts a WRONG copyright date, such as c1953
> when is actually c1964, and do you happen to know what is the
> copyright expiration on works prior to 1980?
Here are the rules for works published prior to 1988. (The law in
question is 17 USC 406.)
* If the date in the copyright notice is _earlier_ than the actual
date of first publication, then the duration of the copyright is
calculated from the date in the notice. So if you published your
work with a date five years too early, you lost five years off
your copyright protection.
* If the date in the copyright notice is one year later than the
actual date of first publication, then this is legal, but the
length of copyright is computed from the actual date of first
publication. (In other words, you could publish a book in 1975
and give it a "Copyright 1976" notice; this was to make life
easier on book publishers, if they were printing a book late in
the year and weren't sure whether it would actually be released
at the end of that year or at the start of the next one.)
* If the date in the copyright notice is more than one year later
than the actual date of first publication, or if the date is
omitted entirely, then the notice is completely invalid, and
the work is treated as if no notice was given at all. This can
lessen or eliminate the penalties for copyright infringement,
and under certain circumstances, can invalidate the copyright
entirely.
For works published after 1988, the rules change completely, and
notice becomes less important.
For works published prior to 1978, I believe that the standard
length of copyright is 28 years. This can be renewed for an additional
67 years if the appropriate renewal notice is filed before the original
copyright expires.
(Disclaimer: I am not a laywer; this is not legal advice. May
cause drowsiness; alcohol may intensify this effect. The laws in
question can be accessed on http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode ; do your
own research, or consult an attorney, before taking any important
actions.)
- --
SCIENTOLOGY WON'T LET MEMBERS READ THIS. BUT YOU SHOULD.-> www.xenu.net
Interested in books and stories about shapeshifting, lycanthropy, etc.?
Visit the Transformation Stories List at www.transformationlist.com
For more info about me, visit www.lycanon.org ICQ: 3681874 SP1/KoX
PGP Key: http://www.lycanon.org/pgpkey.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8
Comment: Visit Lycanthropes Anonymous at http://www.lycanon.org
iQA/AwUBOeqZQUMLcwaXC7z+EQI/6gCfdV57SXh4rNz5lG6+FZOfaBA6T2IAn3L0
6BEdlQhOzqvU1VPuQR2UM0CV
=8C4w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kelly Martin
wrote:
> It's possible to renew the US copyright on many works, by filing
>the proper notice with the copyright office; but that's a very
>different process.
No, it's not. Renewal was something that applied under the old
(pre-1978) law, and the time to renew works copyrighted under the old
law has, I believe, lapsed.
Kelly
Virginia McClaughry
Thank you very much, I will research the site you mention also.
Virginia
Kelly Martin
wrote:
> For works published after 1988, the rules change completely, and
>notice becomes less important.
Yes, for works published after 1988, notice is not required, but the
lack of sufficent notice will allow the defense of innocent
infringement.
> For works published prior to 1978, I believe that the standard
>length of copyright is 28 years. This can be renewed for an additional
>67 years if the appropriate renewal notice is filed before the original
>copyright expires.
There are also some truly weird rules for works authored before 1978
but not published as of 1978. Prior to 1978, the copyright in
unpublished works was perpetual; after 1978, it was not. The length
of the copyright in a work authored but not published as of January 1,
1978 varies depending on the date of creation and whether the author
was a natural person.
Finally, the 67 years used to be 47, but Congress tacked on another 20
years a few years ago, by request of the Walt Disney Corporation.
Kelly
Claudia Kasch
Hash: SHA1
Phaedrus <phae...@lycanon.org> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
MPG.1453fba8f...@news.supernews.com...
> So if the Scientology organization allowed the copyright on
> any of LRH's works to expire without filing the proper renewal
> notice, it doesn't matter whether or not they've republished
> changed versions with new copyright notices; the _original_
> versions are public domain, and can be reproduced by anyone.
> (Anyone who's willing to endure the frivolous suits that the
> Scientology organization might file, anyway.)
So, you seem to be knowledgable on the US Copyright law:
How to apply this to the situation of the CoS-Copyrights on
LRH-material?
Is it in public domain or not? -
Did anyone anywhere work this out. Perhaps to differenciate between
the
before and after 1978 dateline?
Perhaps we also to have to pay attention to the fact, that LRH hold
his SHSBC-lectures
in England-UK, so that Copyright law has to be applied for his
rights! Does anyone
know about the english law (even the name or where to find it in the
net)?
Claudia
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1
iQA/AwUBOerWogUzVBhcMgVgEQIr4ACg2o+KpVcUS2zczh3m1vDA3HXf+sgAoINL
zdurfKve5mKPRSzniHEXtEbi
=kvOS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Claudia Kasch
Hash: SHA1
Kelly Martin <kma...@kiva.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
cdukuss79kn7tjo6d...@4ax.com...
Does this mean, that the copyrights of the pre-1978-works from LRH
expire in the year 2006?
Where can I get any information on this?
Claudia
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1
iQA/AwUBOeretgUzVBhcMgVgEQJu0wCgveNlUh5oKUKsrLrYDeKJRFWbl1cAn3mr
g0onvaj8PE7FCpm+PN46JxvK
=hN3u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kelly Martin
<Claudi...@Nikocity.de> wrote:
>Does this mean, that the copyrights of the pre-1978-works from LRH
>expire in the year 2006?
No. They will expire 28 years from publication if not renewed, or 95
years from publication if renewed, if published before 1978. For
those works authored before 1978 but not "published" (in the meaning
of the copyright law) until after 1978, the duration is complex but
will generally be 70 beyond Hubbard's death.
Kelly
Kelly Martin
<Claudi...@Nikocity.de> wrote:
>Perhaps we also to have to pay attention to the fact, that LRH hold
>his SHSBC-lectures
>in England-UK, so that Copyright law has to be applied for his
>rights!
You apply the copyright law of the country you are in at the time you
make the copy. Whether or not his copyright is valid in the UK is of
almost no consequence if you are in the US.
Kelly
Bern - http://welcome.to/ars
<vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in <39eab...@news2.lightlink.com>:
Hello, Virginia :-)
_________________________
Bernie -- http://welcome.to/ars
Phaedrus
Hash: SHA1
The scout coyotes report that Claudi...@Nikocity.de said...
> Phaedrus <phae...@lycanon.org> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> MPG.1453fba8f...@news.supernews.com...
> > So if the Scientology organization allowed the copyright on
> > any of LRH's works to expire without filing the proper renewal
> > notice, it doesn't matter whether or not they've republished
> > changed versions with new copyright notices; the _original_
> > versions are public domain, and can be reproduced by anyone.
> > (Anyone who's willing to endure the frivolous suits that the
> > Scientology organization might file, anyway.)
>
> So, you seem to be knowledgable on the US Copyright law:
> How to apply this to the situation of the CoS-Copyrights on
> LRH-material? Is it in public domain or not? -
I'm not going there. :) After all, the particulars are different
for each and every document that LRH has written; and I don't have
nearly enough information about the publication history of the
documents, any copyright renewals and transfers that have been made and
when they have been made, etc.
Furthermore, I seem to remember some sort of controversy about
copyright renewals and/or transfers of certain LRH works. If I recall
correctly, the copyrights for many LRH documents were transferred from
LRH to Scientology entities (such as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and
that the copyright renewals for some documents were filed by those
entities. However, I recall allegations being made that some of the
signatures on the copyright transfers may be fraudulent, or that they
may have been signed by someone with no authority to transfer the
copyright in question. If that were the case for a particular LRH
document, that would mean that the copyright transfer would be invalid;
and that in turn would mean that the copyright renewal filed for that
document (by the Scientology entity company it was incorrectly
transferred to) would be invalid, since you can't renew a copyright
that you don't legally control. That, in turn, would mean that the US
copyright on that document would most likely have irrevocably expired
some time ago, and that the document in question would be in the public
domain, at least in the US.
Of course, in order for any of this to matter, someone would have
to have firm evidence that the copyright transfers were incorrect or
fraudulent, and would have to be prepared to face the Scientology
organization in court to prove it.
> Did anyone anywhere work this out. Perhaps to differenciate between
> the before and after 1978 dateline?
Perhaps someone did. Not me. :)
> Perhaps we also to have to pay attention to the fact, that LRH hold
> his SHSBC-lectures
> in England-UK, so that Copyright law has to be applied for his
> rights! Does anyone
> know about the english law (even the name or where to find it in the
> net)?
For the purposes of US copyright law, I doubt that it would
matter, at least with regards to the US copyright. (Different
countries had vastly different copyright regulations; they still do,
though many countries have adopted international treaties and
conventions which have standardized things somewhat. So a document can
be--and very often is--legally copyrighted in some countries, but not
in others. In that case, it's legal to copy the document in the
countries where the copyright is not in force, but generally illegal to
send or export the document to countries where the copyright is still
in force.)
The usual disclaimer applies: I am not a lawyer; this is not
legal advice. Not to be taken internally. May cause drowsiness;
alcohol may intensify this effect.
- --
SCIENTOLOGY WON'T LET MEMBERS READ THIS. BUT YOU SHOULD.-> www.xenu.net
Interested in books and stories about shapeshifting, lycanthropy, etc.?
Visit the Transformation Stories List at www.transformationlist.com
For more info about me, visit www.lycanon.org ICQ: 3681874 SP1/KoX
PGP Key: http://www.lycanon.org/pgpkey.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8
Comment: Visit Lycanthropes Anonymous at http://www.lycanon.org
iQA/AwUBOett1kMLcwaXC7z+EQKXPACg5FWWi0kEYvCi/G3qe0svmclvQDMAoLaC
g2fUmGH/H7ynN2T/76S7/yMU
=B18T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Casper the friendly ghost
"BONO-ACT", I dont know anything about it except, it EXTENDS THE LIFE OF
COPYRIGHTS...
the Presley's, Travolta's, Bono's and other artists have vested personal
interests in supporting copyright laws... their progeny will benifit for
maybe 60 more years!
p.s. These last couple of years, I have seen TONS of magazines with Tom
Cruise and Nicole Kidman, and Travolta on the covers, somebodys must be
really pushing for em... why are THEY not on the National ENquires? I bet
those 'rags' are used to keep powerfuls 'in line'...!
dvs
Lone Ranger
Didn't I see over a year ago, something from Factnet or Fishman - a long
list of HCOBs and etc that said something about each one's copyright and
many expired ones?
Kelly Martin
<daves...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>If I may add, I think there is a new act passed recently entitled the
>"BONO-ACT", I dont know anything about it except, it EXTENDS THE LIFE OF
>COPYRIGHTS...
>the Presley's, Travolta's, Bono's and other artists have vested personal
>interests in supporting copyright laws... their progeny will benifit for
>maybe 60 more years!
It's actually generally called the "Disney Act" and it extended all
copyrights by 20 years. Disney lobbied highly for it. It should be
noted that the copyright on Steamboat Willie (and thus on Mickey
Mouse) was about to expire at the time the new law was enacted.
We reasonably expect that Disney will be back in Congress again around
2015 or so to ask for another extension.
Kelly
Tommy Thompson
Ralph Hilton wrote:
> > Who/what would destroy the technology will list to a personal item. It
> >should be handled till the charge is off.
>
> Who/what would want to destroy the technology ?
> Who/what would not want to destroy the technology ?
> Who/what would oppose destroying the technology ?
> Who/what would not oppose destroying the technology ?
> Who/what would destroy the technology ?
> Who/what would not destroy the technology ?
> Who/what would oppose opposition to destroying the technology ?
> Who/what would not oppose opposition to destroying the technology ?
>
> You could get more L&N q's by adding in prehav buttons 3GA style.
>
> Not advised for general processing on someone who hasn't cleared up a lot of
> their own GPMs.
>
> There seems to be a counter-goal such as
> To create implant technology that could be listed.
>
> I'm not sure what bank I'm listing this of. It seems like a 7D bank much
> more basic than R6.
Very good Ralph. :) I hadnt much given that one too much thought. I
will list the stuff asap and see what turns up. I do have quite a bit of
bpc on that subject.
Tommy
> --
> Ralph Hilton
> http://www.fzint.org/rhilton
> Freezone International: http://www.fzint.org
> C-Meter: http://www.inquisitive-instruments.co.uk/
--
ptsc
We are in a situation of effectively perpetual copyright, and the public domain
has been outright stolen from the public, a fraud so huge and massive that IMO
it negates any good purpose that copyrights can ever have been said to serve.
ptsc
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
In article <MPG.1453fba8f...@news.supernews.com>
Phaedrus <phae...@lycanon.org> wrote:
> ....
> It's possible to renew the US copyright on many works, by
> filing the proper notice with the copyright office; but that's a
> very
> different process.
> So if the Scientology organization allowed the copyright on
> any of LRH's works to expire without filing the proper renewal
> notice, ....
<IANAL>
Under the old copyright laws this was true, but there's no renewal
now. It's all done at once, as per Berne.
</IANAL>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOe6saadOrx0gLryDEQJ2KQCgz+1f7vRp7iUmJfSxABMH05eIFw4AnjDF
JsMM7hnlQpCeVyd5LzrHiIwb
=f4kl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Colonel Bleep <bl...@zerozeroisland.org>
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
In article <8scl4b$1jkd$1...@news6.isdnet.net>
"roger gonnet" <roger....@worldnet.fr> wrote:
>
> Your post gave me another idea.
>
> Copyrights are perhaps no longer valid on the old unaltered tapes
> and books, as they have reposted copyrights with alterations (some
> of them being major ones).
First: IANAL.
However, I've been following the metamorphosis of US copyright law
over the past number of years.
In 1995, the US adopted the provisions of the Berne Convention on
copyrights, and put the US copyright law in line with the laws of
most other nations with which the US trades.
The US had been debating this move for quite a few years and there
were patches and extensions to the old copyright laws for years and
years. Basically, the copyright is for the life of the author +50
years, or if it's a work for hire, and a corporation owns it, the
life of the copyright is 75 years.
Project Gutenberg (http://www.promo.net/pg/) is, IMO, a very good
organization whose goal is to bring public domain written works to
everyone. They have a practical relationship with the idea of
copyrights running out. Their main guy, Michael Hart, has written a
lot of one issue of copyright extensions
http://www.promo.net/pg/cplea97/index.html.
Latest word from Mr. Hart is that "Germany, Italy and Great Britain
have each extended their copyright to 'life + 70 years,' as opposed
to the 'life +50 years' of 'Berne' copyright conventions." He says
that this same extension will most likely be passed in the US early
in 2001.
The primary lobbyists for this extension are Disney Corp., and a
number of entities that own copyrights on a number of things produced
in the 1920s. Currently Project Gutenberg looks for works from 1923,
and earlier to make available. So if Disney's "Steamboat Willie"
cartoon, the first Mickey Mouse animation and the first "talkie," is
still under copyright I would assume that everything by Hubbard still
is and is likely to remain so until at least 2036, and probably 2056,
after next year's extension.
The bottom line is that everything they owned they now own until
probably 99% of the inhabitants of this news group are dead.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOe6rWadOrx0gLryDEQJ1SACgg2leW9v8oy6qwvVTUspUENpTceAAn0ZS
TjULhzrMzzSjSCmvowXJ+LAB
=9T7Q