Scientology Uses DMCA to Delist Critic's Website

touretzky writes: "Scientology has used a DMCA threat to force removal of a large number of pages from xenu.net from the Google search engine. Some of the pages Scientology is objecting to contain no material owned by the cult; other pages are clearly covered under "fair use". Scientology's ongoing abuse of Google is documented here. Of course, the Norwegian owner of xenu.net could write a counternotification letter, but that would require him to agree to the jurisdiction of a US court in a district of Scientology's choosing." The posting by Heldal-Lund agrees with what we can observe at Google - the pages listed in the posting aren't in Google's database, though many others are. Update: 03/21 14:16 GMT by M : Paul Wouters of xtdnet.nl (which hosts xenu.net) submits this page documenting Scientology's attacks against the ISP for continuing to host xenu.net.

Re:What's with scientology?

It's not really all that surprising. They have a long history of threatening anybody who critises them. They drove one critic out of America [slashdot.org], sued the creator of this site [lermanet.com], to name two of the more well known actions.

They have no choice. Their creater, L Ron Hubbard, said that they were to never defend, always attack. They can't help themselves. I run a small web site, with some critical information on it, and I've had legal threats.

Re:What's with scientology?

In Canada, they've lost all the way to the Supreme Court [scc-csc.gc.ca] - One case is Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, 1995. It was a libel case, and the details will look pretty familiar. Holysmoke [holysmoke.org]has an extract [holysmoke.org] and this [umontreal.ca] is the full thing. Umontreal's archive is linked from the official Supreme Court of Canada page.

Great quote: "Every aspect of this case demonstrates the very real and persistent malice of Scientology." - from the Court itself.

I know that there have been many other rulings in Canada against Scientology, but only this one is easily available on-line.

Henry Troup - [e-mail]

Re:What's with scientology?

I worked for a bookstore once, and they called us to ask if we'd be interested in carrying thier books. We told them no. They weoman on the line then got very aggressive and argumentative, insisting to know why we wouldn't carry them (hatred of stupid cult + no money), wanting our names and addresses (home address, not just the store one) and lots of other ridiculous stuff before we hung up on her. Was kinda scary, really.

They make enemies because they need enemies

Are they convinced the way to expand their membership is to make enemies with... everyone?

Yes, in a way that is a good summary of their world view from _out_ perspective. They, of course, think that it's the other way round...

Scientology is, in a way, similar to a doomsday cult, although they don't believe in a soon-to-come end of the world. They believe that humanity is on a path to immediate self-destruction and that Scientology is the only way to "save" and "free" the world. They believe that they are superiour beings (members claim to have gained superhuman powers by their Sc.-training). We, the non-members, are just stupid "wogs", who can be cheated, lied to, even killed at will. Hubbard actually promised his members the superhuman power of killing such enemies by mere thought.

They also believe to be in a constant state of siege by the outside world, surrounded by enemies trying to enslave them. The outside world is seen as hostile, non-members are a grey goo of stupids and critics are evil enemies who can be attacked with every means possible. Sc.'s favourite weapon is lawyers...

Of course, Sc. sees this as pure self-defense against the hostile outside world. However, someone who dares to say something remotely critical of the cult is instantly labeled an enemy and handled as such, making the small critic an even fiercer critic...

So, yeah, Scientology is making itself is making enemies from people who just expressed doubt. And this helps Scientology, because *having* enemies is proof of their worldview and is what keeps the cult together.

Re:They make enemies because they need enemies

They believe that humanity is on a path to immediate self-destruction ...

Using the word "believe" gives Scientology too much credit. It's like saying that McDonalds believes you deserve a break today. Their so-called beliefs are nothing more than marketing techniques.

In any case, if they wanted to foster a sense of persecution, you'd think they'd leave the pages up as evidence rather than trying to suppress them. They're behaving like any other business that faces criticism, which is further evidence that they are a business, not a religion.

Re:They make enemies because they need enemies

They believe that they are superiour beings (members claim to have gained superhuman powers by their Sc.-training). We, the non-members, are just stupid "wogs", who can be cheated, lied to, even killed at will. Hubbard actually promised his members the superhuman power of killing such enemies by mere thought.

Exactly. Want to see how L. Ron Hubbard would deal with non-CoS members? Check out Scientology's plan for extermination [xs4all.nl]. The CoS has a "tone scale", which they think everyone falls onto, and that you can predict someone's exact behavior based on where they fall on that scale. If you are a 2.0 or less on that scale, they believe you should have no civil rights at all. (Hubbard actually wrote that in one of his books, isn't that lovely?). You can read more on that scale here [xs4all.nl].

Also, you can see a copy of Scientology Related Deaths here [google.com] (thanks google cache! ha!)

Re:What's with scientology?

A great book to read on the subject and their philosophy is "A Piece of Blue Sky [cmu.edu]" by Jon Atack.

You can read it here [cmu.edu].

Re:What's with scientology?

Scientology expands it's membership via various "charities" and frontgroups who's sole purpose is to raise money for the "church" and recruit new members.

One example is Narconon [xenu.net] which is little more than a scientology front designed to seperate addicts and their families from their cash while simultaneously indoctrinating them into the Co$. There have been numerous testimonials that the last thing Narconon is interested in is seeing people get better.

And of course they also hawk their ridiculous "self help" Dianetics book in informercials and flyers (never mentioning the Co$ of course) as well as the usual "personality tests" and other sleazy means they con people into visiting their premises. They'll do anything to get vulnerable, troubled and most importantly solvent people caught up into believing their lies. They even stooped so low as to do a recruitment drive for WTC victims, under the guise of offering counselling of course.

Whatever the means, the "raw meat" (the mark) gets a few "free" intensive audits, after which their reasoning faculties are sufficiently suppressed that the Co$ can start milking them for cash by selling self-improvement courses and so on. The higher up this "bridge" they get, the more money the courses cost. The Co$ doesn't like people knowing about their courses because it deprives them of money and exposes them to ridicule.

It is actually worth reading Dianetics (don't buy it though) to see how ludicrous it all is. The author L Ron Hubbard and Co$ was a nut, a criminal, a pathological liar, a sadist, a control freak and a conman. Diananetics and his other works (e.g. A History of Man) are like an attractive lure on the end of a fishing line. Promise the reader the answer to all their problems can be found in the Co$ and then reel 'em in. It's quite tragic to think how many lives this man has ruined.

Re:lots of techies into scientology?

I agree that scientology is more present on the web than other religious communities.
Unfortunately, it is completely in sync with their overall strategy.:-(
One major leg of their operations is to get the managers of companies. Through them, they then infiltrate the rest of the company. For that, they offer "management seminars" and the like, which are not visibly scientology-seminars, if my memory of the news doesn't fault me here...
This top-down approach is, as far as I know, unique to them. No other religious grouping that I am aware of does that.
Of course, their seminars are so hideously expensive that they need financially potent customers, so it is understandable.

What I find dangerous about that presence is not that they're "here" but that they are allowed to bully people into believing that their claims hold some validity...
After all, google did remove the links, so there must be some valid claim behind it.
Of course, there isn't... but the impression is created... and impressions are mightier than fact on the web (and most other places in the world).
The fact that scientology has never filed any infringement suit should make it obvious that there is no validity in their claim.
That is not the case though...
After all, this is a possible way to look at things:
The google lawyers looked at the allegation, found it valid, acted accordingly.
And thus, it was not neccessary to file a suit.
This is the classic "I can turn my weakness into a strength" trick... and again, perception is mightier than the fact.

Re:lots of techies into scientology?

The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (MHMR [state.tx.us]) is almost completely made up of Scientologists in the upper levels of management.

It regularly hires or promotes Scientologists into positions of management, and in most cases pays them well above normal salary for such positions.

In fact, the head of MHMR is either the first or second highest paid state employee in Texas (I forget.)

As a condition of employment at or above a certain level of management, employees are required to take one or more "ropes courses", which is promoted as a confidence/team-building class, but is in fact one of these screening/indoctrination courses operated by CoS.

This of course is illegal, and since it's being paid for by the state, it is redirecting state taxpayer money to CoS.

So Texas taxpayers have been unwittingly been funding the CoS for several years. Despite volumes of very concrete and damning evidence, the State Attorney General won't even discuss taking up a case.

I wonder how many other states or state agencies are in the same situation?

It's too bad I have to post this anonymously.

to summarise

1 scientology discovers googlewhacking 2 scientology discovers dmca to scare people 3 PROFIT!!!

Censored image

xenu.net is now posting a "censored by google" image on their front page. It can be seen here [xenu.net]

Re:religion?

There's a big difference between failing to acknowledge criticism, as the Catholic Church has done, and actively attacking critics, as the $cientologists are doing.

I don't recall the Vatican ever having contacted Google to have anti-catholic pages pulled off the search engine. Also, I think the Catholic Church was somewhat in a state of denial about the pedophilia thing. The Scientologists actually do believe (or want their converts to believe) much of the stuff at xenu.net; they are just trying to make sure it doesn't get exposed to anyone they haven't "properly prepared" (read: brainwashed).

Re:religion?

this just smacks more and more of the rhetoric of the catholic church 'covering up' their little mishaps (child abuse, detachment from the holocaust, etc) as they have in the past.

That was deeply offensive. The general world outlook is the big difference - no-one is perfect, being Catholic doesn't change that, and they just had trouble accepting something that some members have done. Their philosophy remains that of Christ, which is about as far from Scientology as one can possibly get. The rest of your comment was dead on, though! :-)

Rotten covered this

Rotten [rotten.com] covered this, touching on the Open Directory aspect a bit. Check it out here [dailyrotten.com].

MPAA vs Google

So now that someone is bringing google to court saying that their caching of pages violates the DMCA how long before the MPAA goes after google about all the links to the DeCSS code?

DMCA brings back rule of might

The DMCA is a law that circumvents the justice system and allow rights holders to intimidate at a whim. All they need is a moderately clever lawyer in their pocket to draft a nasty letter and free speech gets thrown out the window.

Thankfully, we don't have a DMCA equivalent (yet) in Canada, and American law doesn't hold sway outside the borders of the land-of-the-not-so-free. I wonder if this recent Scientology idiocy is in force for Google.ca [google.ca]?

Unfortunately, for those of you thinking it may be time to move to Canada, our Justice Department is tabling bills that will make the DMCA look fair. The Canadian Government is using Australia as a role-model rather than the European community or even the US. Both sets of legal code are too lax, according to Canadian law makers. Be afraid, be VERY afraid.

Re:DMCA brings back rule of might

Yes and no. Before the DMCA, the process would be more like "Get a laywer to file a lawsuit against Google." Now it's "Get a lawyer to draft a letter." IIRC, the letter Google received would have contained a sworn statement (under penalty of purjury) that each of the urls listed contained material copyrighted by the CoS. Technically (probably not in reality, but I can dream, can't I?) xenu.net can file their counterstatement affirming they're not in violation, and if they win go on to file a countersuit for felony purjury charge. I, personally, would love to see someone end up with jailtime over this sort of thing.

Effectiveness?

As I understand it, Google is only required to remove refrences to certain pages on the site, not the whole site entirely?

How effective is this going to be? Even if the pages to "Operation Clambake" or whatever are removed from Google, xenu.net is probably still going to show up (depending on the search criteria used, I suppose). Once you're at the xenu.net home page, it's a trivial matter to find the other pages in question that Scientology has a problem with.

www.google.com's new banner?

(C)2002 Google - Searching 2,073,418,204 web pages and skipping 4,475,243,576 pages under the DMCA

Re:www.google.com's new banner?

Look at the situation, in my opinion:

Today people don't much care about Scientology filing a lawsuit against this person or that person. "Who are those people and why do I care if they're fighting an organization I don't even understand? Scientology never hurt me."

I bet people would take notice if Google was sued. Three things could happen:

1. Google gains even more users.
2. Opponents mirror the offending material more now than ever, making it even easier to find in Google.
3. Scientology's public image could be ruined if it endangered Google's future.

People could begin asking, "What is Scientology and why did they make my favorite search engine go away? I can't find anything anymore."

Under the current situation I only see:

1. Google losing respect as an authoritative search engine, bowing to legal pressure at the expense of its core mission (helping people find web pages).

If Google would guarantee that Scientology appears as the first link in Google results when users search for the world "Scientology," I don't see why Scientology would care about anti-Scientology material. Only people interested in that material will spend the time to look at it. People read the first link, and if it sounds right, they click it. End of story.

In all my observations of user behavior, I've never seen a user read all of the search results and thoughtfully consider them before selecting which link is appropriate. They click the first link that looks like it might remotely be correct.

Re:www.google.com's new banner?

Yah, well, the problem with having Scientology sue you is that the organization has no scruples at all.

If Google didn't toe Scientology's line, the following would happen:
* pickets outside the founders' homes, claiming that they're pedophiles and hate-mongers.
* their pets would be drowned.
* their family and friends would be harassed.
* their telephone, cableco, banking, and other accounts would be subjected to social engineering attempts to shut 'em down.
* the Google HQ would be picketed.
* the US Government would be petitioned to intervene against Google.
* there would be endless court time, made as expensive as possible by Scientology.

There are all tactics they've used in the past against their "enemies," both in court and outside of court, against critics and ex-Scientologists who start revealing the truth about hte organization.

Scientology is an 800-lb gorilla with bad intentions.

I hate scientology.

A friend's sister converted to Scientology and she promptly dated a 50 year old bloke - she was 22 at the time. Even ignoring the age difference, the sudden and radical change in her whole personality (from friendly and a good laugh to extremely insular and compulsive neurotic) scared me *a lot*.

She left the cult (whoops, I meant "religion") two years ago and with the support of her family is on the road to recovery. I don't know if her family persuaded her to leave or they did a rescue mission for her.

I don't know what she thinks of Scientology nowadays.

Definitely very creepy fuckers. Best avoided, or failing that, best viewed in a strong critical light. Are they working for your spiritual development, or are they fleecing you for all your money?

Scientologists team up with RAMBUS, Inc.

In an unprecedented move, RAMBUS, Inc. announced a planned merger with the Scientologist movement. "We invest a lot of money in protecting our ideas, and noticed a similar trend with the Scientologists. It only made sense to pool our resources." noted Tom Quinn, VP of Marketing at RAMBUS. As part of the merger, RAMBUS will drop its chip-making division, leaving them only to focus on their legal persuits. The Scientologists will continue their legal efforts to use the DMCA to erase all traces of their existance. Analysts were uncertain what to think of the merger. "What are they going to do? Make holy chips?" was one response heard.

xenu.net usenet thread about being de-listed

Andreas, xenu.net's owner announced all this on the usenet group alt.religion.scientology. You can read his posting here [google.com] on google (hah!), where he talks about it, and what URLs were de-listed.

Re:xenu.net usenet thread about being de-listed

Andreas, xenu.net's owner announced all this on the usenet group alt.religion.scientology.

Check out that thread [google.com]... it tells about them scheming to get the story onto Slashdot.

> I also posted the story to Slashdot. They love this kind of
> stuff. Keep your eyes on Slashdot and lets see if they print
> it. If they do, prepare to get hit. I referenced your site
> twice, and scientology's site not at all. ;-)

Good luck, I've submitted the story three times already, Two
out of three has been rejected so far. The last one includes
the bit about DMCA though,that should set things off, I hope.. :)

Help Spread the Links (Co$ doesnt want you to see)

I just got a reply from Google (they claim it was difficult to find my contact info. Right...) where they inform me that Operation Clambake is removed from Google because of a DMCA notification from the cult. The complaint mentions a ridiculous list of addresses which successfully removes the whole site from their engine. To get OC back we have to counter the complaint. Since the complaint is making claims of ownership of pages clearly not owned by the cult, this could hurt the cult only. But this means OC will have to follow this up with a US lawyer, which might be difficult and expensive. Here's what I received from Google today: [START QUOTE FROM GOOGLE REPLY] We removed certain specific URLs in response to a notification submitted by the Religious Technology Center and Bridge Publications under section 512(c)(3) of the the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Had we not removed these URLs, we would be subject to a claim for copyright infringement, regardless of its merits. The URLs included in that notification are attached to this email. Pursuant to sections 512(g)(2) and (3) of the DMCA, you have the ability to submit a counter notification, in which event we can reinstate the material. As stated in section 512(g) (3), the contents of this notification must include the following: (A) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber. (B) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled. (C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled. (D) The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber's address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person. Here are the urls mentioned in the complaint that I believe are related to your site:

• www.xenu.net/ [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/ [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/ [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/index.h tml [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/prop1.h tml [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/prop2.h tml [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/prop3.h tml [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/prop4.h tml [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/prop5.h tml [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/prop6.h tm [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/clan-images.html [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/lisas_case_sup.htm l [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/events/ [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/events/lisa_mcpherson/ [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/disk/ [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/disk/enemy/ [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/disk/enemy/da.htm [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/disk/enemy/targets.htm [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/disk/archive/grd_chrt.htm [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/disk/OTIII/ [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/hubbandcw/ [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/greece/ [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/HCOB/FU-HCOB-630511.html [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/HCOB/FU-HCOB-630714.html [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/HCOB/FU-HCOB-610619.html [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/enemy_names/ [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/enemy_names/dead_agenting.htm l [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/enemy_names/targets.html [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/tonelevel.html [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/grade_chart.html [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/ [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenuleaf.htm [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenusw.htm [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenunl.htm [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenufr.htm [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenufi.htm [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenuno.htm [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenuge.htm [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenuaf.htm [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenuru-k.htm [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenuheb.htm [xenu.net]
• www.xenu.net/archive/so/ [xenu.net]
• www.clambake.org/ [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/photoalbum/ [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/photoalbum/propaganda [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/ind ex.html [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/pro p1.html [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/pro p2.html [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/pro p3.html [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/pro p4.html [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/pro p5.html [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/pro p6.html [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/photoalbum/clan-images.ht ml [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/photoalbum/lisas_case_sup .html [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/events/ [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/events/lisa_mcpherson/ [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/disk/ [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/disk/enemy/ [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/disk/enemy/da.htm [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/disk/enemy/targets.htm [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/disk/archive/grd_chrt.htm [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/disk/OTIII/ [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/hubbandcw/ [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/greece/ [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/HCOB/FU-HCOB-630511.html [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/HCOB/FU-HCOB-630714.html [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/HCOB/FU-HCOB-610619.html [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/enemy_names/ [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/enemy_names/dead_agenting .html [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/enemy_names/targets.html [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/tonelevel.html [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/grade_chart.html [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/leaflet/ [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/leaflet/xenuleaf.htm [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/leaflet/xenusw.htm [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/leaflet/xenunl.htm [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/leaflet/xenufr.htm [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/leaflet/xenufi.htm [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/leaflet/xenuno.htm [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/leaflet/xenuge.htm [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/leaflet/xenuaf.htm [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/leaflet/xenuru-k.htm [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/leaflet/xenuheb.htm [clambake.org]
• www.clambake.org/archive/so/ [clambake.org]

Google's removal policy

Check out Google's removal policy [google.com] for a little more perspective (bold text is their doing, not mine):

"Google views the quality of its search results as an extremely important priority. Therefore, Google stops indexing the pages on your site only at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for those pages. This policy is necessary to ensure that pages are not inappropriately removed from our index.

"Since Google is committed to providing thorough and unbiased search results for our users, we cannot participate in the practice of censoring information on the world wide web."

Wow... I'm very surprised. Google is usually very good at practicing what they preach.

Re:Google's removal policy

On further reading of Google's removal policy [google.com], it looks like this case is being handled similarly to requests for removal of images from servers you don't have access to. Note the DMCA in the email address, [e-mail].

Option 2: If you do not have any access to the server that hosts your image

To have an image removed from our image search service, you must provide a written communication (email or regular mail) that sets forth the items specified below. Please note that you may be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys' fees) if you materially misrepresent that you own an image when you in fact do not. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether you have the right to request removal from our image search service, we suggest that you first contact an attorney.

To expedite our ability to process your request, please use the following format (including section numbers):

1. For each image you wish to have removed from our image search service, (a) provide the exact URL for the image, and (2) indicate whether that URL is owned or operated by you.

   For example:
   http://www.google.com/press/art.gif, yes
   http://www.google.com/images/toolbar_about.gi f, no

2. Provide information reasonably sufficient for Google to contact you (email address is preferred).

3. Include the following statement: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that, for each of the images identified above, I am (or am authorized to act on behalf of) the copyright owner or an exclusive licensee."

4. Sign the written communication (digitally or in ink).

5. Send the written communication to either of the following addresses:

   [e-mail] [mailto]

   Google, Inc.
   Attn: Customer Support, Image Search Service complaints
   2400 Bayshore Pkwy
   Mountain View, CA 94043

I feel sorry for Google...

I feel sorry for Google, now that they've opened the door to de-list pages. I can see all sorts of targets of criticism claiming the DMCA to cow Google into removing results. Think of all the added work Google will have to do to comply with all those requests.

FORD EXEC: This site is critical of our new Ford Excessive SUV, DMCA it out of you're listings!
GOOGLE: Oh...O-OK...sure... (Butter's voice)

BLIZZARD LAWYER: This site has a program to allow our games to be used on a LAN! DMCA it out of your database!
GOOGLE: Oh...O-OK...sure...

BILL G.: This review says bad things about our SQL server. Fire the DMCA at it Google!
GOOGLE: Oh...O-OK...sure...

DUBYA: Our military plans are protected by the DMCA. Google, nuke this site that criticizes them!
GOOGLE: Oh...O-OK...sure...

Maybe if they had stood up for their own free speech rights they wouldn't have opened the barn door like this. As much as I like Google, part of me wants to see the floodgates open and the de-listers come swarming in. Maybe someone will realize that occasionally, you do have to stand up for your rights.

-sk

Re:I feel sorry for Google...

The more this turns over in my little head, the more I wonder if this wasn't a carefully planned move on Google's part to attract media attention to the ill effects of the DMCA. Obviously hurtful compliance with the DMCA could possibly speed its demise more than ignoring it outright.

Federal law usually supercedes corporate policy.

I think the subject speaks for itself.

If Google's policy is in conflict with Federal Law ( IE, the DMCA ), guess which one will be upheld?

Clear this up please?

I'm at a loss to understand how the US law has any sway in another country. Why didn't Xenu (sp?) just tell them to fsck off?

who knows, this may be good!

This could be a huge step, now we have a case of the DMCA being used as a weapon against your average citizen. Xecu.net is an informative site that helps people, average people, who come into contact with the CoS.

If the EFF would get involved in this, maybe the DMCA can be ruled unconstitutional. If there's any case so far that has a chance of going that far, it's this one.

Maybe at the same time, the CoS can be exposed for what it is, a cult, and have their religion status removed by the IRS...

Am I just being too optimistic?

Scientology is worse than you think

If you were to breed the Ferengi with the Borg you would end up with Scientology.

I am an ex member now considered an 'enemy' of scientology because my activities and statements interfere with the continued extraction of money from the targets of this scam.

The Scientology program is optimized to extract money. One of the scientology program's subroutines tells the adherents to demonize their enemies, this is a pattern of conduct for fanatic extremist groups.

Scientology maintains control of Tom Cruise, Jenna Elfman, John Travolta and the rest of their pretty faced minons by controlling the information they see. By surrounding them with scientology drones.

Scientology's history of seeking gag agreements through burdensome litigation is just a means to an end. it is no more than another effort to control the information available.

I posted the Fishman affidavit to alt.religion.scientology in 1995, and endured almost 2 million in scientology litigation and refused 3 cash offers to settle - because I refused to take the gag agreement that would prevent me from explaining to YOU how dangerous these crazy bastards are.

To Scientology gag agreements are just the cost of doing business. Part of their effort to control the flow of information.

Scientology's massive efforts to create zillions of domains pointing at their website is just another example of Information Control.

The scientology spam and sporge on alt.religion.scientology is just informtion control.

Totalitarian systems, like Stalinist communism or Scientology cannot survive when information is free.

Scientology has been waging information warfare upon the web so that they might have a better chance to capture a few children's lives with their lies.

Don't let Scientolgoy win the google war, help get the word out, cause Scientology is worse than you think

Arnaldo Lerma [lermanet.com][ an ex - member ] http://www.lermanet.com [lermanet.com]

Let's Nuke The Bastards!

Note to Scientology Lawyers: I did not explicitly specify which bastards I advocate nuking of. For all you know, the nukification I am endorsing could be the one of three-legged peruvian llamas (oh, how I hate these) and not at all the leaders of the IMO controversial and IMO dangerous cult full of IMO manipulative IMO crooks who IMO abuse the weak-minded by syphoning out their cash (IMHO) and producing god-awful films with stars who manage to IMO ruin their career twice. By assuming that the bastards I am referring to are representatives from the Church of Violentology...er...Scientology (great, now Steve Jackson Games' lawyers will be going after me, too!), you are setting up yourselves to be sued by your own employers for libel.

Seriously, someone should firebomb the Celebrity Center (and by that I could mean Kelly Preston's navel, or John Travolta's ego - hey, you can't physically harm an ego!

IMHO, of course.

Great!

Now the DMCA is being abused by a bunch of religious wackos! The worst part is, assuming that xenu.net is violating copyright (which I doubt), what the wackos have done is legal. Check out this paragraph from the DMCA:
(From section 512)

`(d) INFORMATION LOCATION TOOLS- A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider--

`(1)(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;

`(B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or

`(C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

`(2) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and

`(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity, except that, for purposes of this paragraph, the information described in subsection (c)(3)(A)(iii) shall be identification of the reference or link, to material or activity claimed to be infringing, that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate that reference or link.

Pay special attention to subsection `(3). So even linking to copyright infringing material is illegal?!? wtf were those wackos who wrote this bill thinking? This is a serious freedom of speech violation (since software is, after all, speech, and links are just software written in a scripting language). The sooner that abomination of a law gets repealed, the better.

In this instance, here's what xenu.net should do: register a new, and temporary, domain name. The scientologists will have conniptions hunting down his new domain names, he'll have to pay less than lawyer fees.

I wonder if I should become a sci fi author and start my own relition?

BlackGriffen

Do something about Scientology's tactics

Isn't Barratry a crime, at least in some districts?

What we need is a properly-motivated DA in such a district -- they can track down people harassed by Scientology's sharks^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers, and bring barratry charges against them.

It might not do much more than "send a message", but I would think if done properly, and with accompanying civil suits (again, the trick is to find sufficient funding to take the Scientology teams on), people could start to put the hurt back on this cult.

Xentax

I used to be a Scientologist

Scientology is not a religion. Scientology is a mind control cult with the purpose of conning people out of large sums of money, enslaving them if possible, and of course world domination.

I was a scientologist for almost eight years and worked out in LA at "Big Blue." This complex used to be the Cedars of Sinai hospital but was purchased by Hubbard and company back in the 1970's. It is where ASHO, AOLA, and the LA orgs are, as well as a good portion of OSA. They've remodeled most everything there so some things might have changed since then.

In any case I am here to tell anyone who will listen that Scientology is evil. I don't make that kind of a claim lightly. Scientology is a cult made up of people who have ceased to think for themselves and are no longer acting in their own best interest but are instead being manipulated and coerced into living for the cult, to their own detriment. There are so many things that Scientology does that are wrong that it is difficult to know where to begin in detailing them all. Scientology is to me a weird conglomeration of Nazi-esque nonsense, corporate abuse of the public trust, and organized crime.

Others whose words are far better than mine have already detailed the nature of Scintology's evil far better than I can at 7 am. The link below points to a website that has just about every significant book written that exposes the evil nature of scientology:

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/ [cmu.edu]

I applaud the owner of this site for having the courage to make a stand against one of the most evil organizations of our time.

Lee Reynolds

pro-scientology?

I have seen many horror stories over the years regarding $cientology and I am a complete opponent of their organization. The thing that I haven't really seen come up in all this is any real fact-based (with references) pro-$cientoloy position. Is this because nothing pro-scientology exists? Are the people at the "church" only capable of threats and not responding to some of these criticisms? If so, why? I'm not saying that every religion must justify itself, but when it gets to the point of threats and other manipulations of people... the whole thing seems to just beg the question.

If you need a cult, check out subgenius (I'm not a memeber, just an observer). At least they have a guarantee on your money!

Scientology = America's Al Qaida

Really, take a look at Xenu.net and all the other pages out there which detail the stuff they do.

Just like Al Qaida they:

- Go after young impressionable people and turn them into zealots.
- Have armed camps and compounds (See Gold Base)
- Abuse the law and system as much as they can
- Attack and threaten anyone who speaks out against them or tries to leave the organization
- Meddle and infiltrate the government of their hosting countries. The Taliban in Afghanistan were also Al Qaida people to a large extent. The same is happening here, just look at the DA in California who went after Henson. Look at Clearwater Florida.

If we were really running a fully serious war on terrorism, we would have a couple of B1-B's level Gold base and the Navy would blow the Free Winds out of the fucking water. The FBI and CIA would fall upon Clearwater and put the town under martial law until they had rooted out the Scientologists there.

I think countries like Germany, Canada, France, and especially any Islamic countries should turn around and point a finger at the US and say, "Look, before you go waging war in other countries, why don't you take care of your own criminal organizations similar to Al Qaida?"

Really? Why aren't we looking as much into them as we are into Al Qaida? Especially after the stunt they pulled at Ground Zero after the attacks, trying to recruit by posing as medical workers.

I think its time that Bush and Co. took a look at home as much as they are abroad.

Re:Scientology = America's Al Qaida

This was reported on xenu.net about a week after 9/11. According to the article fox news was scrolling a scientology number across the bottom of the screen as some kind of mental health hotline" for about two hours before they were notified that it was a Scientology number.

Then, according to xenu.net, scientologists were swarming at ground zero trying to route psychologists away from the victim's family, and doing "touch assists" at the site.

I'd link to the page at xenu.net but it seems to be down or /.ed at the moment.

Here's (ironically for this story) the cached link [google.com] on google:

Re:Scientology = America's Al Qaida

Here is an article about their interference at ground zero.
http://cisar.org/010919a.htm

They also have been posing as mental health professionals:

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/02/08/Worldandnation /S cientology_reaches_o.shtml

or from their OWN MOUTHS here
http://www.scientology.org/message/Scientolo gy-vol unteer-ministers.htm

They claim to have been volunteering, but they were actually recruiting.

Lies, damned lies, and Scientology

There are two issues at hand:

1. Is xenu.net posting copyrighted documents without permission of the copyright holder?
2. Cults need to obscure the truth in order to deceive their prey.

The first issue is a serious one, and in the past this has been the method which the C. of S. used to shut down critics: those critics were breaking the law by reproducing copyrighted works. The law allows for critics to quote limited amounts source material within the context of written criticism. The law does not, and should not, allow wholesale copying of other poeple's material; regardless of whether that material contains lies.

The second issue is the real issue; however, as I've already noted, cults use the misbehaviour of their critics against them. Yes, let's put cults out of business; but let us also remember that "the end doesn't justify the means." Remember McCarthy and the mess he made while operating under and end justifies the means assumption.

Scientologists hate musicians too!

Scientology has been very aggressive lately in trying to run critics off the 'Net. In fact a musician I met online has been threatened by Scientology lawyers for putting up some songs critical of them on MP3.com. He goes by the name of "El Queso" and has had a site on MP3.com for nearly a year. A cease and desist was sent to MP3.com and they immediately folded, pulling the site and sending all of his personal info to the Scientologists! Now he is just waiting for the inevitable "Fair game" tactics to start. He expects them to pull some shit, because he acutally insulted Scientology's mighty leader, David Miscavige. You can read all about it here [tripod.com] and listen to the music here [stationmp3.com]

what Google should do

The legal threats may be too bad for Google to defy Scientology. But there's something they could do that would reduce the chances of this happening to them again (or all the time). Google could ALSO remove every official Scientology web site from their index. That would send a clear signal that trying to win an online PR battle by deploying lawyers against Google is not a good idea.

If you want to write to Google about this, [e-mail] is the address to use.

Danny.

There are deeper reasons

I haven't seen anybody asking the first question that came up when I read all this:

Why remove those specific pages?

The answer I've come up with is simple. Removing the pages listed got rid of all the xenu.net links on the first 3 pages of google results for a search for scientology [google.com]. Even if they reinstate the links, it will probably take a while for them to resume their former place in the index. This is just like the tons of domain names all run by the Scientologists, it's a ploy to make it harder to find info about them. They know they can't stop it completely, but that's OK, as long as they can make it so that the average person won't see anything bad about them without specifically looking.

Submit Your Own Complaint

Given the history of scientology manipulating [slashdot.org] google's ranking system, why not just wipe them out with an equally questionable claim of your own? Send them a DMCA notification saying that every one of their pages (including the ones just used for rank boosting) individually violates a copyright you own. Watch them disappear off google. Suddenly the truly informative Scientology sites are on top. Seems like proper counter-use of a broken law -- the biggest problem being that the COS has some of the deepest pockets around.

Note that everything I say here is quite possibly illegal should not be done under any circumstances, by anyone. Really. :)

-Puk

Live event in Mountain View TODAY

We will be visiting Google's headquarters IN PERSON to search for Xenu information -- with cameras rolling.

Who: The Mountain View, California Xenu Study Group
(This means you)

What: First meeting: "Finding Facts about Xenu on the Net with Google"

Where: Meet at Dana St. Roasting Company, 744 Dana Street,
Mountain View.
Then, travel to Google HQ.

When: 3:45 PM, Thursday, March 21, 2002

Why: To make sure that accurate information about Xenu is available through Internet search engines.

What to bring: 1. another video camera (we already have at least one, but could use some more shots)

2. Your pen and paper for taking notes about how to find good Xenu (and Scientology) sites.

Contact: Don Marti -- [e-mail]