FC: Slashdot bows to DMCA pressure from Church of Scientology

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

*********
First rule of dealing with the Scientologists: Anyone who can be sued, will.
The thread in question:
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/03/16/1256226.shtml
*********

From: Anthony Dye <ADye () evokesoft com>
To: declan () well com
Subject: /. folds under DMCA pressure from 'Church' of Scientology
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:14:56 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
X-UIDL: ef9581055e573f245751dc4056abdfe8


I thought you might find this interesting, and maybe the list will as well:
Reprinted from www.slashdot.org ...

"Last Saturday a comment was posted here by an anonymous reader that
contained text that was copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. They have
since followed the DMCA and demanded that we remove the comment. While
Slashdot is an open forum and we encourage free discussion and sharing of
ideas, our lawyers have advised us that, considering all the details of this
case, the comment should come down. Read on to understand what this means.
This is the first time since we instituted our moderation system that a
comment has had to be removed because of its content, and believe me nobody
is more broken hearted about it than me. It's a bad precedent, and a blow
for the freedom of speech that we all share in this forum. But this simply
doesn't look like a case we can win. Our lawyers tell us that it appears to
be a violation of Copyright law, and under the terms of the DMCA, we must
remove it. Else we risk legal action that would at best be expensive, and
potentially cause Slashdot to go down temporarily or even permanently. At
the worst, court orders could jeporadize your privacy, and we would be
helpless to stop it.
[...]
"

In the comments, some people have mentioned that Slashdot successfully stood
up to Microsoft regarding their reprint of MS kerberos specs supposedly
copyrighted and covered by click-through EULA. The EULA prevented you from
showing the PDF (a freely downloadable document on MS's website) to anyone
or reprinting it. Slashdot argued that they didn't control the comments,
couldn't track the identity of Anonymous Cowards, and didn't bear any
responsibility for an anonymous user posting comments that may or may not
violate copyright.

I'm pretty upset about the principle of it, and I don't understand why the
argument that worked so well against MS somehow doesn't apply to the
Scientology people. You've got to love the DMCA, right?

right?

-Tony Dye
 adye () evokesoft com




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------