Archives for January 2008

January 17, 2008

Possible Scientology v. Gawker Empire copyright action

I attempted to leave the below comment at this thread on Gawker but it hasn't yet appeared, so I'll just post it here as well. The post includes a cease and desist letter from Ava Paquette and a reply by Gawker's lawyer and VP, Gaby Darbyshire, claiming fair use.

---

A few points regarding fair use here. As others have pointed out, fair use is not quantifiable and is usually considered within a larger context (and varies court to court, minute to minute, etc.). One point in Denton's favor is that the 9+ minute clip is part of a 1 hour video; it is an excerpt, despite the new life it's taken on as 'that creepy Tom Cruise video.' That does help Denton's fair use argument but I question how much; nine minutes is substantial, and the piece is uninterrupted by commentary. Publishing 1/6 of a medium size book would almost definitely not be considered fair use.

But Gaby Darbyshire's response indicates that Denton plans to argue something more interesting: Because everyone was talking about the clip it somehow transformed itself into news, and can therefore be published as fair use. The problems with that argument are that (1) Denton helped turn it into news, and (2) there is a lack of case law supporting it. Indeed, the most obvious case on point works against Denton, that being Los Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV Channel 9, 108 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1997) (unlicensed broadcast of Reginald Denny beating during LA riots not fair use). So I don't think this fair use argument will work if CSI decides to actually sue.

In Denton's favor, it will be difficult for Scientology to show substantial damages, since the purpose of this video is by their own admission non-commercial, not to mention four years old. And while it's obvious they're being "damaged" in the sense that it's airing is bad publicity for them, bad publicity isn't calculated as damages in copyright law. Scientology can show enough damages to keep the suit from being dismissed, however, and since they're not rational actors in the economic sense (they'll spend $1000 in legal fees to get your $1 in order to either set a precedent or brand you a criminal), the possibility that they would bring a complex suit to bleed Denton of legal fees is real.

posted by scott pilutik at January 17, 2008 09:40 AM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

thoughts on the tom cruise video

I don't talk about it much here but I've long been vocally critical of the Church of Scientology; indeed, long enough to get onto their shitlist. I worked for the lawyer representing the estate of Lisa McPherson in that case and have authored and co-authored a few websites dedicated to various Scientology related topics. I've met other critics even and consider more than a few close friends. And since everyone on the interwebs is wondering what the hell they're looking at, I figure I'll weigh in.

First a point on Tom Cruise's behavior. The interview seems like it's been cut to make him seem crazier but it's actually been cut by people who are deeply empathetic toward what he's saying. They don't see his behavior as odd because Scientologists don't view Cruise's rabid intensity as creepy, but rather see him as projecting Tone 40, that is, "a positive postulate with no counter-thought--expected, anticipated or anything else; that is, total control." Watch the video again--does this look like a man who tolerates much less even entertains counter-thoughts? Not Tom Cruise.

A few points on the Scientologese used by Cruise are also in order.

"SPs" are Suppressive Persons--innate enemies of Scientology (comprising some 2.5% of the population according to L Ron Hubbard). The organization owes its deep paranoia to Hubbard, who saw enemies everywhere.

"PTS" stands for "Potential Trouble Source," which is similar to an SP. The term most often comes up in relation to a skeptical family member who has the gall to ask questions like: "Your jobless ass has maxed out how many credit cards so you could become 'clear'? WTF?" Scientologists are encouraged, for obvious reasons, to either "handle" or disconnect from potential trouble spots.

"Keep Scientology Working," or "KSW" is probably the single most important precept in all of Scientology and also its scariest. KSW operates as a sort of parental or umbrella concept to govern all the other ideas that comprise Scientology, sort of like the first rule in Fight Club (i.e., Do Not Talk About Fight Club). KSW establishes the supremacy of Scientology's "technology" and mandates that Scientologists rabidly guard it against any alteration or attack.

Tomorrow or the next day I'll discuss the legal issues surrounding the publishing of the video, Ava Paquette's C&D sent to Gawker, Gawker's response, and postulate (heh) the likelihood of particular outcomes. I'll also discuss the irony that Scientology most likely did not obtain a license to use Lalo Schifrin's Mission Impossible Theme as backing music to the Tom Cruise interview.

posted by scott pilutik at January 17, 2008 12:52 AM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

January 15, 2008

God's Constitution

Primary season often finds Republican candidates foaming at the mouth to impress their rabid fringe and this season has been noteworthy in that regard, as Giuliani and Fred Thompson have shown, tripping over each other with redneck populist appeals. But Mike Huckabee, who up until now has mostly spoken to Christian fundamentalists in code, could not have been more clear in advocating for a theocracy.

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution, But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

posted by scott pilutik at January 15, 2008 10:23 PM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink