Après 10 ans de procédures la liberté d'expression triomphe.
 
Les critiques contre la scientologie sur internet ne peuvent pas être censurés par le droit d'auteur. La liberté d'expression sur l'internet a été protégée (16 décembre 2005)
 
Le serveur XS4ALL et Karin Spaink peuvent diffuser les textes confidentiels de la scientologie (16 décembre 2005)
 
Final Victory ! XS4ALL and Spaink win Scientology battle (alt.religion.scientology - Fri, 16 Dec 2005)
 
Scientology zieht Klage gegen Sektenkritiker zurück (8.7.05)
 
Scientologists drop copyright case (8th July 2005)
 
Scientology will Copyright - Gerichtsverfahren beenden - Gegenseite nicht (11.7.05)
Dutch AG upholds decision in Scientology case (21st March 2005)
Scientologists loses copyright case (8th September 2003)
 
 
 Index - Hollande / Netherland
 
Les scientologues perdent un important procès
 
La liberté d'expression est plus importante que les copyrights d'une bande d'escrocs
 
L'écrivain Karin Spaink et son fournisseur d'accès hollandais viennent de remporter la victoire strictement définitive dans une affaire d'accusation de "violations de droits d'auteur" contre scientologie. Elle met fin à dix ans de procédure de la scientologie pour tenter d'empêcher qu'on parle de sa croyance cachée (Les niveaux "OT".)
 
Dans l'affaire en question, Karin Spaink a mis en ligne une longue déclaration écrite d'un scientologue (Steven Fishman) devant les tribunaux; cet ancien y dévoilait les niveaux secrets "OT"de la scientologie.
 
Les scientologues ont perdu:
 
1. en jugement sommaire
2. en jugement d'instance
3. en appel
4. dans des recommandations de l'avocat général (qui sont destinées à la Cour Suprême afin de l'orienter) A ce stade, les scientologues ont tenté de se désister de leur plainte, mais les accusés ont refusé et demandé que leur affaire soit quand-même jugée.
5. la Cour Suprême ayant estimé que c'était inutile de rejuger ce qui avait été  parfaitement jugé en appel, elle a refusé de revoir l'affaire, ce qui rend donc le jugement de la Cour d'Appel définitif et coupe par ailleurs la route à toute tentative des scientologues d'emmener l'affaire en cour européenne des de justice.
 
Ce qui a ici prévalu, c'est la liberté d'expression contre les "droits d'auteur". Voilà qui ne va pas arranger nos scientologues dans leurs poursuites tout azymuts avec le prétexte de copyrights - Dans ce jugement les scientologues perdent dans les deux cas - qu'ils aient ou pas admis la cour suprême n'y change rien en effet, vu que l'avocat général les avait déjà massacré en préparation de ce qui les attendrait probablement en Cour Suprême !
The scientology having dropped their case angainst Karin Spaink and XS4All (Spaink's ISP) , the previous ruling of 2003 against wich scientology had appealead before the High Court is now definitive. Spaink had published the OT II and OT II on her website and was subsequently sued by scientology for copyright breach.
 
In 2003, the Court of Justice of Gravenhague had ruled in favour of Spaink and XS4All, stating that, in a democracy, freespeech trumps copyrights. Early this year, the Advocate general had submitted to the High Court an advice in favour of Spaink and XS4All. Scientology then decided to drop its appeal. But both Spaink and the Advocate General wanted the High Court to ruel anyway, wich the High Court today declined to to do, leaving the 2003 decision intact and definitive.
*************************************************************
 
FINAL VICTORY !
 
Le serveur XS4ALL et Karin Spaink peuvent
diffuser les textes confidentiels de la scientologie
 
16 December 2005
[Résumé]
Après 10 ans de procédures la liberté d'expression triomphe
 
Après 10 ans, la Cour de Cassation donne raison au serveur XS4ALL et Karin Spaink. La liberté d'expression prévaut au dessus du droit d'auteur prétendu de l'Eglise de scientologie église.
 
L'affaire remonte à 1995, à ce moment-là Karin Spaink a placé pour la première fois les pièces secrètes de la scientologie sur son site Web. Vingt autres providers ont placé les pièces de la scientologie sur leur site Web et avaient été assignés dans le référé.
 
En septembre 2004 la cour de La Haye a reconnu le droit à l'expression libre de Spaink. La scientologie s'est pourvue en cassation, puis en juin de cette année, quelques jours avant que la Cour de Cassation indique son arrêté, la scientology a retiré son pourvoi en cassation. le serveur XS4ALL et Spaink ont fait objection à ce retrait.
 
C'est une tactique connue de la part de la Scientologie d'allonger les procédures en justice à l'infini pour abandonner les procès ne tournant pas à son avantage. Le conseil d'avocat général Verkade a conseillé la Cour de Cassation de rejeter la plainte de la Scientologie contre XS4ALL et Spaink.
 
Le serveur XS4ALL et Spaink ont gagné au total 4 la fois contre la scientologie dans cette affaire.
 
Les critiques contre la scientologie sur internet ne peuvent pas être censurés par le droit d'auteur. La liberté d'expression sur l'internet a été protégée.
 
Comme le retrait du pourvoi en cassation n'a pas été accepté par la cour de cassation la scientologie ne peut pas poursuivre sa plainte auprès de la Cour de justice européenne. Le jugement est donc définitif pour le serveur XS4ALL et Karin Spaink.
 
Pour fêter de cette victoire finale de XS4ALL et Karin Spaink au sujet de la liberté d'expression sur internet un festival est organisé le samedi après-midi 28 janvier.
 
Pour plus d'information au sujet du festival voir : http://www.leidsepleintheaters.nl/xs4all.html
 
Pour commander le T-shirt de la victoire: http://www.sml-x.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=16
 
 
 
16 December 2005

De finale in de juridische strijd van de Scientology kerk tegen XS4ALL en Karin Spaink is vandaag door de Hoge Raad wederom beslist in het voordeel van XS4ALL en Spaink. Na 10 jaar komt hiermee een eind aan een slepende procedure waarin Scientology met overtredingen en strafschoppen de strijd probeerde te winnen. De Hoge Raad stelt XS4ALL en Spaink in het gelijk. De uitspraak in het hoger beroep, waarbij XS4ALL en Spaink wonnen van Scientology, blijft gehandhaafd. Scientology verliest dus opnieuw. Hiermee prevaleert de vrijheid van meningsuiting boven het vermeende auteursrecht van de Scientology kerk.

De zaak loopt al sinds 1995, toen Karin Spaink voor het eerst stukken uit de leer van Scientology uit een Amerikaanse rechtszaak op haar website plaatste. Bij XS4ALL werd beslag gelegd op de computers. Spaink, XS4ALL en twintig andere providers van wie de abonnees stukken van Scientology op hun website hadden geplaatst werden in kort geding gedagvaard. De president van de rechtbank wees de vorderingen van Scientology af. Er volgde een slepende rechtsgang, steeds in het voordeel van Spaink en XS4ALL. In september 2004 besliste het Haagse Hof dat het recht op vrije meningsuiting van Spaink om de dubieuze leer van Scientology aan de kaak te stellen, zwaarder woog dan het auteursrecht van de 'kerk'. Daarna stelde Scientology cassatieberoep in.

In juni van dit jaar, een paar dagen voordat de Hoge Raad arrest zou wijzen, trok Scientology haar cassatieberoep in. XS4ALL en Spaink tekenden daartegen bezwaar aan. Het is een bekende tactiek van de Scientology kerk om rechtszaken tot in het oneindige te rekken om ze vervolgens te laten vallen als de kerk op verlies staat. De Hoge Raad honoreert het intrekkingsverzoek van Scientology waarmee de procedure ten einde komt. De Hoge Raad komt daardoor niet toe aan de vraag of de kritische publicaties van Spaink onrechtmatig zijn jegens Scientology. De Hoge Raad volgt daarmee niet het advies van Advocaat-Generaal Verkade, die adviseerde om wel een inhoudelijk oordeel te vellen bij verwerping van het (ingetrokken) beroep. Eerder adviseerde Verkade de Hoge Raad om alle vorderingen van Scientology tegen XS4ALL en Spaink te verwerpen.

Kennelijk vindt de Hoge Raad dat een inhoudelijk eindoordeel niets toevoegt aan de eindstand van de procedure. XS4ALL en Spaink hebben in totaal 4 keer gewonnen van Scientology (kort geding, bodemprocedure in eerste aanleg, hoger beroep, en nu verwerping van het cassatieberoep). Na ruim 10 jaar procederen zegeviert de vrijheid van meningsuiting.
 
Kritische geluiden op internet kunnen niet zomaar worden tegengegaan door een beroep op het auteursrecht. De vrijheid van meningsuiting op internet is daarmee beschermd.

Omdat de Hoge Raad intrekking van het cassatieberoep door Scientology heeft geaccepteerd kan Scientology de zaak niet voortzetten bij het Europese Hof van Justitie. Hiermee is de zaak definitief ten einde.

XS4ALL en Spaink vieren deze Final Victory tijdens het XS4ALL festival over vrijheid van meningsuiting op internet, op zaterdagmiddag 28 januari in de Melkweg. Voor meer informatie over het festival zie :

http://www.leidsepleintheaters.nl/xs4all.html

Voor abonnees is er een speciaal Final Victory shirt te bestellen via:
http://www.sml-x.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=16
 

Final Victory ! XS4ALL and Spaink win Scientology battle

source: alt.religion.scientology - 16 Dec 2005

In July this year, a few days before the Supreme Court was to rule upon the case, Scientology suddenly dropped its appeal. XS4ALL and Spaink formally objected this withdrawal : it is a known Scientology tactic to draw out its legal battles, and to suddenly drop them when it appears that they will lose the case.

The Supreme Court accepts the cult's withdrawal, thereby pre-empting the need for a legal evaluation of the case. Attorney-general Verkade had advised a different strategy: he had wanted the Supreme Court to accept Scientology's withdrawal while still judging the merits of the case. Earlier, Verkade had advised the Supreme Court to dismiss all Scientology's claims against XS4ALL and Spaink. Apparently, the Supreme Court thinks that it needn't add its own assessment to that of previous courts.

All in all, XS4ALL and Spaink have gained four victories (summary proceedings, full proceedings, appeal, dismissal of appeal). After more than ten years of legal battling, freedom of speech has finally prevailed. Criticism on the internet cannot be quenched by appealing to copyright.

Because the Supreme Court has accepted Scientology's withdrawal, the Church cannot turn to the European Court. The European Court is only a recourse when all national means have been explored, and Scientology was too afraid to do so. That means that the battle is over and has been won by XS4ALL and Spaink.

XS4ALL made this really cool t-shirt: XS4ALL & Spaink vs Scientology: 4 - 0. They're giving 5000 to their customers, just to celebrate the occasion: http://www.sml-x.com/catalog/product_info.php?

The legal battle that the Church of Scientology has conducted against XS4ALL and Karin Spaink reached its grand finale today. The Dutch Supreme court dismissed Scientology's claims, which means that a decade of legal skirmishes has finally come to an end The Supreme Court decided that the previous ruling, which was in favour of XS4ALL and Spaink, still holds. Scientology lost again. Freedom of speech prevailed over the alleged copyright of the Scientology Church, and Spaink can quote from Scientology's higher - and supposedly secret - course levels.

Great news, this is a victory for everyone! All of the threats (even as they try to this day), and all of the skirmishes are harassment, not to mention fraud on the courts. Redefinition of legal, ethical conduct. Cover for their fraudulent business practices that seek to fool people out of money.

Freedom of speech in this matter not only gives people permission to quote from these materials, it's needed to protect and abolish the employment of fair game - the harassment policy used on people and courts to further procure silence. Silence means more money for $cientology.

To silence you, or anyone in court over copyright means using the same tactics to silence anyone who wants to alert the world of what is contained in these levels. Gratefully, this is not to be !

In July this year, a few days before the Supreme Court was to rule upon the case, Scientology suddenly dropped its appeal. XS4ALL and Spaink formally objected this withdrawal: it is a known Scientology tactic to draw out its legal battles, and to suddenly drop them when it appears that they will lose the case. The Supreme Court accepts the cult's withdrawal, thereby pre-empting the need for a legal evaluation of the case. Attorney-general Verkade had advised a different strategy: he had wanted the Supreme Court to accept Scientology's withdrawal while still judging the merits of the case. Earlier, Verkade had advised the Supreme Court to dismiss all Scientology's claims against XS4ALL and Spaink. Apparently, the Supreme Court thinks that it needn't add its own assessment to that of previous courts.

The courts should recognize that besides using the harassment tactics to silence copyright and thus fraud, $cientology should not be allowed to use them as an investment vehicle to fight for future monetary gain. In effect, that is what they are doing. The courts need to recognize that the evidence of using "trade secret misappropriation" and copyright means that they stand to lose business. Courts should immediately seek the disclosure of information that proves what is at stake and what loss is to be incurred - it should be their responsibility - so that they understand the amounts of money they spend are really an investment to guaranty future assets. Naturally, it's $cientology's aim to sidestep their having to bring any proof forward for these claims, but instead to employ fair game to protect their secrets and their assets. Courts should not allow themselves to be investment vehicles.
 
Scientology zieht Klage gegen Sektenkritiker zurück
 
Quelle: testticker vom 8.7.05
http://www.testticker.de/pcpro/news/netzwerke/news20050708009.aspx
Meinungsfreiheit wichtiger als Copyright  
 
Die Sekte gibt auf: am Tag vor dem Urteil des höchsten niederländischen Gerichts zieht die Scientology die Klage gegen Sektenkritiker zurück.
 
Einen Tag vor der abschliessenden Entscheidung des höchsten niederländischen Gerichts zog die Scientology-Sekte ihre Klage gegen die Journalistin und Menschenrechtlerin Karin Spaink zurück.
 
Diese stellt seit Jahren unter anderem die Scientology an den Pranger und erhält regelmässig durch die Gerichte Bestätigung für ihr Engagement zugunsten von Meinungsfreiheit und Menschenrechten. Beobachter des Verfahrens rechneten auch hier mit einem klaren Sieg Spainks.
 
Die Sekte hatte ihre Klage auf der Basis behaupteter Copyrightverletzungen geführt, dieser Missbrauch des Urheberrechts gegen die freie Äusserung ist damit unterbunden; zumal die Beklagte Journalistin auf einer Urteilsverkündung besteht. (fe)
 
Scientology will Copyright - Gerichtsverfahren beenden -
Gegenseite nicht
 
Scientology will Copyright-Gerichtsverfahren beenden
Die angeklagte Partei jedoch nicht
 
Es sei übliche Praxis von Scientology, eingeleitete Gerichtsverfahren einstellen zu lassen, wenn sich eine Niederlage abzeichnet. Gegen die Anti-Scientology-Aktivistin Karin Spaink klagte die Sekte vor dem höchsten niederländischeh Gericht wegen Verstoß gegen das Copyright: Spaink hatte auf ihrer scientologykritischen Webseite Texte der Scientologen veröffentlicht, um auf die Machenschaften und Ziele der Sekte aufmerksam zu machen.
 
Doch die Chancen für Scientology stehen schlecht: der niederländische Generalstaatsanwalt hatte bereits ein 82seitiges Papier vorgelegt, in dem er darlegt, warum das Copyright hinter dem Recht auf die freie Meinungsäußerung zurückstehen muss. Das auf Freitag angesetzte Urteil wurde nach dem Rückzug Scientologys vorerst jedoch nicht verkündet.
 
Die Beklagten, Spaink und ihr Provider XS4ALL, versuchen nun, das Verfahren dennoch zu einem Ende mit einem Richterspruch zu führen - um ein Präzedenzurteil für eben solche Fälle zu schaffen und nicht nur im Fall Scientology Rechtssicherheit darüber zu haben, daß die Rechte zur Information und freie Meinungsäußerung höher stehen als Copyrightrechte.
 
Scientology darf getrost als entschiedener Gegner der freien Meinungsäußerung im Internet betrachtet werden. Die Sektierer überziehen nicht nur ihre Kritiker und Aussteiger mit Prozessen und Prozessandrohungen, sondern versuchen auch, massiv das Netz zu zensieren. Zwischenzeitlich konnte Scientology erreichen, dass Google die Seiten der scientologykritischen Operation Clambake aus ihrem Suchindex nahm.
 
Scientologists drop copyright case
 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/08/scientology_copyright_case/ 
 
By Jan Libbenga
Published Friday 8th July 2005
 
A day before the Dutch Supreme Court was to deliver its final verdict, the Church of Scientology has dropped its controversial case against writer Karin Spaink, who hyperlinked to what the church believe is copyrighted material. However, Spaink wants the case to continue, as it will establish a freedom of speech precedence for the internet and ISPs in particular.
 
On her webpage Spaink linked to documents from the Church of Scientology about its doctrines. From as early as 1995, the Church of Scientology initiated exhaustive judicial proceedings to prevent the disputed material from being published, but each time the (Dutch) court decided in favour of Spaink. In 2003, the Court of Appeal in The Hague rejected all of the Church of Scientology's claims against Spaink and ten internet providers, who had permitted subscribers posting the documents. The Church eventually decided to take the case to the highest judicial authority.
 
The Scientologists must have realised they will not stand a chance in court. Earlier this year, the Dutch Attorney-General published an 82-page opinion to the Dutch Supreme Court, in which he upheld the decision that free speech can trump copyright. ®
 
Dutch AG upholds decision in Scientology case
 
By Jan Libbenga  
Published Monday 21st March 2005
 
The Dutch Attorney-General has endorsed a verdict seen as backing free speech over copyright in the controversial case between the Church of Scientology and writer Karin Spaink, Dutch ISP Xs4all reports . The Dutch Supreme Court, which will rule on this case on 8 July, had asked the Attorney-General for advice.
 
The Church of Scientology sued Karin Spaink and her internet service provider Xs4all Internet BV after Spaink posted Scientology documents on her website. In the early 1990s, former Scientologist Steven Fishman, who was brought to court because he had committed several crimes in order to get money to pay for Scientology courses, had used these documents to support his claims that he had been brainwashed. Dutch writer Spaink was one of many to publish these documents as early as 1995.
 
In September 1995 a bailiff raided the Amsterdam premises of ISP Xs4all to seize material posted by subscribers which the Church of Scientology claimed violated its copyright. The organisation also initiated exhaustive judicial proceedings, but each time the court decided in favour of Spaink. In 2003, the Court of Appeal in The Hague rejected all of the Church of Scientology's claims against Xs4all, writer Spaink and ten other internet providers. The court also overturned two lower court rulings, one of which stated that linking to material that infringed a copyright was itself actionable.
 
Dutch Attorney-General DWF Verkade has now published an 82 page opinion to the Dutch Supreme Court, in which he upholds the decision that free speech can trump copyright. "Although copyright resides under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights and can therefore be regarded as a human right, this does not exempt copyright from being balanced against the right to freedom of information," Verkade concludes. It is expected that the Supreme Court will adhere to his advice.
 
Scientologists loses copyright case
 
By Jan Libbenga
Published Monday 8th September 2003
 
The Court of Appeal in The Hague last week rejected all of the Church of Scientology's claims its action against the Dutch ISP Xs4all, writer Karin Spaink and ten other internet providers for publishing copyrighted material on the web.
 
As a result, Spaink's website which Scientologists had sought to remove, is entirely legal.
The court also overturned two lower court rulings, one of which stated that linking to material that infringed a copyright was itself actionable. The victory for Xs4all represents a significant narrowing in the ability of copyright claimants to harass ISPs, observers believe.
 
The case started about nine years ago, when former Scientologist Steven Fishman was brought to court because he had committed several crimes in order to get the money to pay for his courses. When Fishman in Time magazine blamed the Church of Scientology for his crimes, the sect sued him for slander.
 
Fishman used several secret Scientology documents to support claims that he had been brainwashed by the Church. As a result, these documents became public material. The Fishman Affidavit has been travelling on the Net ever since. Karin Spaink was one of many to publish these secret scriptures as early as 1995.
In September 1995 a bailiff raided the Amsterdam premises of provider Xs4all to seize materials of subscribers the Church of Scientology claimed to be in violation of its copyright. The sect also initiated exhaustive judicial proceedings, but each time the court decided in favor of Spaink.
 
However, the decision of the Amsterdam District Court of June 1999 included a separate declaratory judgment stating that providers must take action if they are made aware of material on their servers that infringes upon a copyright if "the correctness of the notification of this fact cannot be reasonably doubted".
This judgment was reason for Xs4all to initiate appeal proceedings of its own. In a press release Xs4all says that "Unless the criteria for removing information from a site are clearly delineated, commercial interests of providers may all too readily prevail over the protection of freedom of opinion".
 
The decision of June 1999 also made reference to hyperlinks to copyrighted material. If a provider is aware of this, it must also take action against these hyperlinks. But Xs4all believed that the court went too far with this. After all, a hyperlink is merely a road marker on the Internet, and can never be unlawful. The Appellate Court has now set aside this judgment of the District Court in Amsterdam. ®