Landmark and litigation re: France 3 video - false claims
Posted by:
Brad69
()
Date: October 31, 2006 12:48PM
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has some interesting information on Landmark and litigation regarding the France 3 Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous (Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus) film, produced by the French news program Pièces à Conviction.
It is clear, according to the information contained below, that Landmark is making some false claims.
Below are some quotes from the EFF website. There are further links on the page, which can be visited at: [www.eff.org]
It is clear, according to the information contained below, that Landmark is making some false claims.
Below are some quotes from the EFF website. There are further links on the page, which can be visited at: [www.eff.org]
Quote
Landmark and the Internet Archive
Background
In 2004, a documentary film about the activities of Landmark Education, also known as the Landmark Forum or The Forum, was broadcast on French television. The film, entitled Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous (Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus), was produced by the French news program Pièces à Conviction.
San Francisco-based Landmark Education, known for its Landmark Forum motivational workshops, describes itself as "a global educational enterprise offering The Landmark Forum and graduate courses," claiming that "[m]ore than 160,000 people participate in Landmark's courses each year."
The documentary is critical of the Landmark program, and includes hidden camera footage from inside a Landmark Forum event in France, as well as within the Landmark offices in France. It also includes a panel discussion with the host, and interviews with a variety of people regarding whether or not Landmark is a cult. According to Landmark, the "broadcasting of this program had disastrous consequences and resulted in considerable damage to Landmark Education's subsidiary operating the France."
Landmark's Misuse of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
The video was posted on several websites, including the Internet Archive, YouTube and Google. In October 2006, Landmark Education started to send threatening cease and desist letters to online service providers who hosted the material. In addition to disputing the truth of the documentary program's allegations, Landmark Education claimed the French documentary infringed its own U.S. copyright in the "Landmark forum leaders manual" (Copyright Reg. No. TXu-1-120-461).
Using the copyright allegation as a pretext, Landmark then issued subpoenas pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allows content owners to issue subpoenas to identify alleged infringers even without filing a lawsuit. Subpoenas were sent to Google Video, YouTube and the Internet Archive, demanding to find the identity of the uploader(s).
A review of the video makes clear that the documentary does not contain a copy of the leader manual referenced in Landmark's letters. Rather, it is a news documentary critical of the Landmark organization in France. Moreover, even if Landmark's copyrighted works were visible in the documentary, any such limited and transformative use of a copyrighted work for purpose of criticism, commentary and news reporting is self-evidently fair use and, therefore, noninfringing.
Landmark is not seeking to identify those who originally made the documentary, since it already knows who made it. Nor are the subpoenas based upon the defamation claims Landmark's letter asserts -- DMCA subpoenas are only authorized to identify alleged infringers of the sender's copyright. They are not, however, designed to allow content owners to identify their critics, as Landmark is attempting to do here.
EFF Responds
Landmark's efforts are being challenged on multiple fronts. The Internet Archive is fighting its subpoena, and EFF filed official objections on its behalf. EFF will also file a motion to quash the subpoena issued to Google Video, on behalf of the anonymous speaker who uploaded the video. Google has advised Landmark that it will not produce the requested information pending a ruling on that motion. YouTube sent notification to the user about its subpoena, and is giving the user a reasonable opportunity to move to quash it.
Landmark and litigation re: France 3 video - false claims
Posted by:
The Anticult
()
Date: October 31, 2006 01:25PM
That is very interesting.
Notice also that the Wikipedia article has removed all references to the appearance of the video on the internet.
So by Landmark doing what they are doing, now the Wikipedia article, and all other articles will be obligated to include the full information about this video, including its legal history, and the posting of the full documents.
Now this video will attract worldwide attention due to Landmarks alleged misuse of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as noted by the EFF.
So many more people will end up seeing this video, and this could likely lead to a '60 Minutes' or '48 Hours' type broadcast, and more publicity for the video.
Notice also that the Wikipedia article has removed all references to the appearance of the video on the internet.
So by Landmark doing what they are doing, now the Wikipedia article, and all other articles will be obligated to include the full information about this video, including its legal history, and the posting of the full documents.
Now this video will attract worldwide attention due to Landmarks alleged misuse of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as noted by the EFF.
So many more people will end up seeing this video, and this could likely lead to a '60 Minutes' or '48 Hours' type broadcast, and more publicity for the video.
Landmark and litigation re: France 3 video - false claims
Posted by:
The Anticult
()
Date: October 31, 2006 01:42PM
Here is some of the text of the EFF response to Landmark. Check out the entire document.
[www.eff.org]
Dear Ms. Briggs:
I am an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF"), a public interest law firm and civil liberties organization. I write in response to the subpoena your client, Landmark Education, LLC ("Landmark") caused to be issued to the Internet Archive ("Archive") on October 19, 2006. The subpoena seeks documents sufficient to allow identification of an individual, "Asatgiaire," who you believe uploaded several videos to
the Archive. EFF represents the Archive in connection with this matter.
As you may know, on October 6, 2006, the Internet Archive received a letter from Art Schreiber, General Counsel for Landmark, alleging that the videos infringed Landmark's copyrights and contained libelous material. The letter threatened immediate legal action if the material was not removed from the Archive website. In reliance upon Mr. Schreiber's representations that the material infringed Landmark's copyright, the Archive removed the videos.
On further review of the videos and registration referenced, however, we have determined that the allegation of infringement of Landmark's copyright has no merit. As an initial matter, it is clear that the videos do not contain a copy of a "Landmark forum leaders manual" (TXu-I-I20-461) referenced in Landmark's letters. Rather, it is a news documentary critical of the Landmark organization in France. Further, even if Landmark's copyrighted works were visible in the documentary, any such limited and
transformative use of a copyrighted work for purpose of criticism, commentary and news reporting is self-evidently fair use and, therefore, noninfringing.
...
Indeed, the use is so evidently fair use under the law
that it is difficult to see how the declaration claiming infringement accompanying your subpoena could be consistent with Rule 11. In keeping with this determination, we must decline to comply with the October 19 subpoena. Please see the attached Objections.
Moreover, and without waiving our Objections, please note that the Internet Archive does not maintain logs of IP addresses used to upload files.
In addition, we request that yom client immediately withdraw the threats of litigation contained in its October 6, 2006, letter. As set forth above, the videos do not infringe any Landmark copyright. Further, 47 U.S.C. § 230 protects Internet service providers such as the Archive from liability for allegedly harmful comments written by others.
...
If Landmark refuses to make this commitment, the Archive will have no choice but to explore its legal options, including, but not limited to, an action for declaratory relief and damages pursuant to 17 V.S.C. § 512(t).
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Corynne McSherry
Staff Attorney
cc: Art Schreiber, Esq.
General Counsel, Landmark Education LLC
[www.eff.org]
Dear Ms. Briggs:
I am an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF"), a public interest law firm and civil liberties organization. I write in response to the subpoena your client, Landmark Education, LLC ("Landmark") caused to be issued to the Internet Archive ("Archive") on October 19, 2006. The subpoena seeks documents sufficient to allow identification of an individual, "Asatgiaire," who you believe uploaded several videos to
the Archive. EFF represents the Archive in connection with this matter.
As you may know, on October 6, 2006, the Internet Archive received a letter from Art Schreiber, General Counsel for Landmark, alleging that the videos infringed Landmark's copyrights and contained libelous material. The letter threatened immediate legal action if the material was not removed from the Archive website. In reliance upon Mr. Schreiber's representations that the material infringed Landmark's copyright, the Archive removed the videos.
On further review of the videos and registration referenced, however, we have determined that the allegation of infringement of Landmark's copyright has no merit. As an initial matter, it is clear that the videos do not contain a copy of a "Landmark forum leaders manual" (TXu-I-I20-461) referenced in Landmark's letters. Rather, it is a news documentary critical of the Landmark organization in France. Further, even if Landmark's copyrighted works were visible in the documentary, any such limited and
transformative use of a copyrighted work for purpose of criticism, commentary and news reporting is self-evidently fair use and, therefore, noninfringing.
...
Indeed, the use is so evidently fair use under the law
that it is difficult to see how the declaration claiming infringement accompanying your subpoena could be consistent with Rule 11. In keeping with this determination, we must decline to comply with the October 19 subpoena. Please see the attached Objections.
Moreover, and without waiving our Objections, please note that the Internet Archive does not maintain logs of IP addresses used to upload files.
In addition, we request that yom client immediately withdraw the threats of litigation contained in its October 6, 2006, letter. As set forth above, the videos do not infringe any Landmark copyright. Further, 47 U.S.C. § 230 protects Internet service providers such as the Archive from liability for allegedly harmful comments written by others.
...
If Landmark refuses to make this commitment, the Archive will have no choice but to explore its legal options, including, but not limited to, an action for declaratory relief and damages pursuant to 17 V.S.C. § 512(t).
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Corynne McSherry
Staff Attorney
cc: Art Schreiber, Esq.
General Counsel, Landmark Education LLC
Landmark and litigation re: France 3 video - false claims
Posted by:
ajinajan
()
Date: October 31, 2006 02:10PM
[b:1607c6335c]Art Schreiber[/b:1607c6335c], at one time (and perhaps still) Werner Erhard's personal attorney, General Counsel of Erhard Seminars Training, President, General Counsel and Initial Agent of Werner Erhard and Associates, and General Counsel and Chairman of the Board of Landmark Education. [b:1607c6335c]And the current reincarnation of this organization claims to be different from the original?[/b:1607c6335c]
It will be interesting to see if these actions succeed in stopping those from viewing the video, or prove to do quite the opposite, as other editors have theorized...
It will be interesting to see if these actions succeed in stopping those from viewing the video, or prove to do quite the opposite, as other editors have theorized...
Landmark and litigation re: France 3 video - false claims
Posted by:
The Anticult
()
Date: October 31, 2006 03:16PM
What needs to be done is to post dozens of links all over the internet exposing what Landmark is trying to do with this video, that is to squelch free speech with bogus copyright claims.
Find Free Speech and internet newsgroups, and publicize this as wide as possible, and give the link to the EFF.
[www.eff.org]
Also notify news organizations, and this will get the information out to the widest possible audience. This could be an important precedent, and the EFF needs to be supported in their fight against these attempts to suppress free speech, and harrass and intimidate people.
Landmark has really put their foot into the shit this time.
Here is a recent article about this.
[www.axcessnews.com]
Bogus Copyright Claim Squelches Free Speech, EFF Claims
By Staff
(AXcess News) Reno, NV - According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), San Francisco-based Landmark Education, known for its Landmark Forum motivational workshops, is trying to suppress an investigative television news piece critical of its methods, using bogus copyright infringement claims to identify the source of the video posts.
"This is a classic example of using a bogus copyright claim to squelch free speech," said EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry. "To the extent that the documentary uses any Landmark material, that use is clearly non-infringing. Landmark is simply trying to use the streamlined DMCA subpoena process to obtain the identities of its critics."
Using the alleged copyright violation as a pretext, Landmark subpoenaed three websites hosting the video - the Internet Archive, Google Video, and YouTube - seeking the identities of the anonymous uploaders. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) allows a content owner to issue a subpoena for the identity of an alleged infringer without first filing an actual lawsuit.
The Internet Archive is fighting its subpoena, and EFF filed official objections on its behalf Friday. Later this week, EFF will also file a motion to quash the subpoena issued to Google Video, on behalf of the anonymous speaker who uploaded the video. Google has advised Landmark that it will not produce the requested information pending a ruling on that motion. YouTube sent notification to the user about its subpoena and is giving the user a reasonable opportunity to move to legally nullify, or "quash," it.
"Sharing videos on the web is the latest example of free speech flowering on the Internet," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "Unfortunately, it is being met by a simultaneous rise in the use of baseless legal claims as an excuse to pierce anonymity and chill speech. This kind of intimidation has to stop."
Find Free Speech and internet newsgroups, and publicize this as wide as possible, and give the link to the EFF.
[www.eff.org]
Also notify news organizations, and this will get the information out to the widest possible audience. This could be an important precedent, and the EFF needs to be supported in their fight against these attempts to suppress free speech, and harrass and intimidate people.
Landmark has really put their foot into the shit this time.
Here is a recent article about this.
[www.axcessnews.com]
Bogus Copyright Claim Squelches Free Speech, EFF Claims
By Staff
(AXcess News) Reno, NV - According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), San Francisco-based Landmark Education, known for its Landmark Forum motivational workshops, is trying to suppress an investigative television news piece critical of its methods, using bogus copyright infringement claims to identify the source of the video posts.
"This is a classic example of using a bogus copyright claim to squelch free speech," said EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry. "To the extent that the documentary uses any Landmark material, that use is clearly non-infringing. Landmark is simply trying to use the streamlined DMCA subpoena process to obtain the identities of its critics."
Using the alleged copyright violation as a pretext, Landmark subpoenaed three websites hosting the video - the Internet Archive, Google Video, and YouTube - seeking the identities of the anonymous uploaders. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) allows a content owner to issue a subpoena for the identity of an alleged infringer without first filing an actual lawsuit.
The Internet Archive is fighting its subpoena, and EFF filed official objections on its behalf Friday. Later this week, EFF will also file a motion to quash the subpoena issued to Google Video, on behalf of the anonymous speaker who uploaded the video. Google has advised Landmark that it will not produce the requested information pending a ruling on that motion. YouTube sent notification to the user about its subpoena and is giving the user a reasonable opportunity to move to legally nullify, or "quash," it.
"Sharing videos on the web is the latest example of free speech flowering on the Internet," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "Unfortunately, it is being met by a simultaneous rise in the use of baseless legal claims as an excuse to pierce anonymity and chill speech. This kind of intimidation has to stop."
Landmark and litigation re: France 3 video - false claims
Posted by:
The Anticult
()
Date: October 31, 2006 03:48PM
This is the actual press release from the EFF, with very clear language.
[www.eff.org]
[www.eff.org]
Quote
October 30, 2006
Self-Help Group Bullies Net Critics
[b:5f22dd381c]Landmark Forum Violates Constitution and Federal Law by Trying to Chill Speech[/b:5f22dd381c]
San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is fighting a controversial self-help group's [b:5f22dd381c]coordinated, illegal campaign to silence Internet critics.[/b:5f22dd381c]
San Francisco-based Landmark Education, known for its Landmark Forum motivational workshops, is trying to suppress an investigative television news piece critical of its methods. Landmark contends that the documentary infringes its copyright in the Forum course, while citing to copyright registration of the Forum leader's manual. Using the alleged copyright violation as a pretext, Landmark subpoenaed three websites hosting the video -- the Internet Archive, Google Video, and YouTube -- seeking the identities of the anonymous uploaders. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) allows a content owner to issue a subpoena for the identity of an alleged infringer without first filing an actual lawsuit.
"This is a classic example of using a bogus copyright claim to squelch free speech," said EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry. "To the extent that the documentary uses any Landmark material, that use is clearly non-infringing. Landmark is simply trying to use the streamlined DMCA subpoena process to obtain the identities of its critics."
Landmark's efforts are being challenged on multiple fronts. The Internet Archive is fighting its subpoena, and EFF filed official objections on its behalf Friday. Later this week, EFF will also file a motion to quash the subpoena issued to Google Video, on behalf of the anonymous speaker who uploaded the video. Google has advised Landmark that it will not produce the requested information pending a ruling on that motion. YouTube sent notification to the user about its subpoena and is giving the user a reasonable opportunity to move to legally nullify, or "quash," it.
"Sharing videos on the web is the latest example of free speech flowering on the Internet," said Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "Unfortunately, it is being met by a simultaneous rise in the use of baseless legal claims as an excuse to pierce anonymity and chill speech. This kind of intimidation has to stop."
For EFF's objection to the Internet Archive subpoena:
[www.eff.org]
For more on Landmark's subpoena campaign:
[www.eff.org]
Contacts:
Corynne McSherry
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
corynne@eff.org
Kurt Opsahl
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
kurt@eff.org
Landmark and litigation re: France 3 video - false claims
Posted by:
ajinajan
()
Date: November 01, 2006 04:38PM
In addition to
[www.axcessnews.com]
and
[www.eff.org]
looks like the news of the [b:0ea5f22d8f]Landmark 'bogus copyright claim' [/b:0ea5f22d8f], is also being carried by
[www.p2pnet.net]
[www.axcessnews.com]
and
[www.eff.org]
looks like the news of the [b:0ea5f22d8f]Landmark 'bogus copyright claim' [/b:0ea5f22d8f], is also being carried by
[www.p2pnet.net]
Landmark and litigation re: France 3 video - false claims
Posted by:
anon0820
()
Date: November 01, 2006 09:13PM
Landmark and litigation re: France 3 video - false claims
Posted by:
nutrino
()
Date: November 02, 2006 12:45AM
I believe this is a superb example of a new culture shift beginning to be felt.. the enabling technologies like YouTube's video servers, are radically changing power dynamics between "closed systems" and the public domain... Landmark's gigantic conceptual error is that this is nothing more than a series of local brushfires that have to be stamped out before they spread, when in fact it is a wholesale paradigm shift in HOW a culture operates... which is supremely IRONIC as Werner "Fearless Leader and Godlike One" Erhard was incessantly harping on the power of...... shifts ! There was this great shift coming, you see... Well, Mr. Erhard, at long last you've got your shift....
Landmark and litigation re: France 3 video - false claims
Posted by:
ajinajan
()
Date: November 02, 2006 02:53AM
Here's another article :
Hopefully this will make it to more and more media outlets...
[www.securitypronews.com]
previously mentioned articles included
[www.axcessnews.com]
and
[www.p2pnet.net]
and
[www.redherring.com]
and the EFF site
[www.eff.org]
Hopefully this will make it to more and more media outlets...
[www.securitypronews.com]
previously mentioned articles included
[www.axcessnews.com]
and
[www.p2pnet.net]
and
[www.redherring.com]
and the EFF site
[www.eff.org]
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.