Source: http://www.xenu.net/archive/CourtFiles/occf2.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 19:01:34+00:00

Document:
Defendant Lerma ("Lerma"). Also under consideration is defendant Arnaldo P.
and properly copyrighted documents belonging to the Church of Scientology.
party. Charbonnages de France v. Smith, 597 F.2d 406, 414 (4th Cir. 1979).
of RTC and against Lerma.
influencing the lives of their hosts.
The texts at issue, the "Advanced Technology" or the "Operating Thetan"
the guidance of an assisting church official in order to be efficacious.
they remain otherwise secret and secure.
works from several different series or collections of the OT Documents.
"copies" allegedly in Lerma's possession and/or posted by him to the Internet.
United States, and a full (i.e. unmasked) "translation" of that photocopy.
copyright interest in these Works.
Lerma launches a collateral attack on the appropriateness of the copyright.
Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 723 F.2d 195, 202 (2nd Cir. 1983).
explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
idea itself and grant the owner a monopoly on all uses of the very concept.
for) spiritual harm have dominated discussion about religion for centuries.
inherently tied to the OT Documents.
are no less-deserving of protection than the admittedly copyrightable "recipe"
in a cookbook or copyrightable "repair steps" in a maintenance manual.
that is most certainly contrary to the goals of copyright law.
The Court, therefore, finds the merger clause inapplicable to the Works.
this copying was lawful because it was "fair use."
Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 578 (1994).
complicated questions of copyright interpretation and application.
Inc., 953 F.2d 731, 736 (2nd Cir. 1991).
the same spirit of the modern news expose.
a fair use if the entire work is reproduced").
VCR tape that was upheld by the Supreme Court in Sony Corp. of America v.
something that would be clearly prohibited.
It may be true that Lerma's intent in posting the Works was not "commercial"
he did not place a surcharge on, or receive any other "private commercial gain"
this factor alone is not dispositive of the fair use issue.
and non-scholarly motives in publishing the Works.
more difficult to establish when the former works are copied." Campbell v.
Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 586 (1994).
of the Works, and 2) their publication status.
Publications Int'l v. Carol Publishing Group, 904 F.2d 152, 158 (2nd Cir.
a broader fair use approach is therefore appropriate in this regard.
Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 908 F.Supp. 1362, 1367 (E.D.Va. 1995).
not released these materials to the public and does not plan to release them.
less protection because he has not usurped RTC's right to first publication.
constitute a "first publication" under fair use principles.
protect his opportunity to sell his letters"). This approach is not illogical.
Cir. 1987). On balance, the second fair use factor tips in favor of RTC.
fair use." Maxtone-Graham v. Burtchaell, 803 F.2d 1253, 1263 (2nd Cir.
was "essentially the heart of" the copyrighted work. New Era Publications v.
Carol Publishing Group, 904 F.2d 152, 158 (2nd Cir. 1990)(citations omitted).
of the fair use doctrine. Marcus v. Rowley, 695 F.2d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir.
fair use defense to apply).
Lerma asserts that all five documents constitute the "whole copyrighted work"
critical to the fair use assessment, and indeed may be the determining factor.
pages from "the Power," and 10 of 350 pages of the NOT's. Opp'n Br. at 47.
be used in determining whether a set of works can be considered a "collection,"
4) are the elements by the same author.
"single work" for the purposes of fair use analysis.
Courts have followed this approach and found that components of a "collection"
need not bear a separate copyright notice"); American Geophysical Union v.
journal constituted a single work for fair use purposes).
Power, he did post the entirety of certain discrete subparts of these series.
actions. Following this analysis, Lerma's infringement is clear.
preclude a fair use defense.
695 F.2d 1171, 1177 (9th Cir. 1983).
work'." Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 568 (citing Sony Corp. of America v.
courage to apply them. Franchises flourish ..." Ex. 8 to Fifth Lerma Decl.
that the fourth fair-use factor tips slightly in Lerma's favor.
posting of the Works does not constitute fair use.
prevailing on an action for infringement of the misused copyright."
Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970, 972 (4th Cir. 1990).
litigation process generally "as a means to harass, burden, and punish Mr.
Lerma for his criticism of Scientology."
Electronic Data Systems v. Computer Associates, 802 F.Supp. 1463 (N.D.Tex.
Television v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 772 F.Supp. 614, 652 (D.D.C. 1991).
"statutory damages." 17 U.S.C. s504(a).
Infringement Against Defendant Lerma at 46, n. 40.
and 3) to what extent was the infringement willful.
longer requires additional argument regarding statutory damages.
be submitted within 11 days of this Memorandum Opinion.
section markers, quotation marks, capitalization, hyphenation and underlining.
e.g., RTC Ex. G-18. Many exhibits include Lerma's blatant reproduction of L.
are not produced in Lerma's copies. See, e.g., RTC Exs. G-13. G-21 & G-22.
any change or commentary whatsoever, this still does not constitute fair use.
compilation or derivative work constitute one work." 17 U.S.C. s504 (1996).
through G-15 arise from the copyright registration entitled "OT III SERIES"
through G-25 arise from the copyright registration entitled "OT II SERIES"
Stokes Seeds Ltc. v. Geo. W. Park Seed Co., Inc., 783 F.Supp 104 (W.D.N.Y.
seedling reference book did not constitute a distinct infringing transaction.
therefore "justifying a single award of statutory damages." Id. at p. 107.
this summary judgment motion similarly constitute five works, not thirty-three.
of works infringed and not the number of infringements, Walt Disney Co. v.
instances of infringement for the purposes of calculating damages.
496 (4th Cir. 1988). See also Microsoft Corp. v. Grey Computer, 910 F.Supp.
the RTC convinces the Court to do otherwise.
Infringement Against Defendant Lerma, p. 46, n. 40.
in favor of plaintiff, RTC, against defendant Lerma.
of record and to defendant, pro se.
injunction issues. Defendant will have fifteen (15) days to respond to RTC.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.