Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc.
1995 WL 820126, 923 F.Supp. 1231, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16184 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The verbatim copying and posting of substantial portions of an author's copyrighted works to the internet, even for the purpose of criticism, is not a fair use under the Copyright Act when the amount of the work copied is excessive and the added commentary or transformative value is minimal. The scope of fair use is particularly narrow for unpublished works.
Facts:
- Dennis Erlich was a member of the Church of Scientology from approximately 1968 to 1982 and received ministerial training.
- During his time with the Church, Erlich had access to confidential writings by L. Ron Hubbard, including unpublished 'Advanced Technology works,' and had agreed to maintain their confidentiality.
- After leaving the Church, Erlich became a vocal critic and began contributing to an internet newsgroup called 'alt.religion.scientology'.
- Erlich posted excerpts and, in some cases, entire copies of Hubbard's copyrighted published and unpublished works to the newsgroup.
- Erlich contended that his postings were intended to foster critical debate and that he did not profit from them.
- Between August and December 1994, plaintiffs RTC and BPI sent letters to Erlich demanding he cease his posting activities.
- Erlich responded that he would not stop, asserting he had a right to continue his criticism and satire.
Procedural Posture:
- On February 8, 1995, Religious Technology Center and Bridge Publications, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Dennis Erlich in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation.
- On February 10, 1995, the court granted the plaintiffs' ex parte application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) prohibiting Erlich from further posting the works.
- The court also issued a writ of seizure, which was executed at Erlich's home on February 13, 1995, resulting in the seizure of documents, computer disks, and the copying of his hard drive.
- On February 23, 1995, the court issued an Amended TRO to clarify that Erlich could still make 'fair use' of certain works.
- Plaintiffs then moved for a preliminary injunction to extend the prohibitions of the TRO, while defendant Erlich moved to dissolve the TRO.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a former church member's verbatim posting of substantial portions of copyrighted religious texts to an internet newsgroup for the purpose of criticism constitute fair use under the Copyright Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Whyte, District Judge
No. Posting substantial portions of copyrighted works to the internet with only minimal commentary does not constitute fair use, even if the user's purpose is criticism. The court balanced the four statutory fair use factors to determine that plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on their copyright infringement claim. While Erlich's non-commercial, critical purpose (Factor 1) and the lack of direct market harm (Factor 4) weighed in his favor, these were overcome by other factors. The unpublished nature of many of the works (Factor 2) weighed strongly against fair use. Most importantly, the amount and substantiality of the portions used (Factor 3) weighed heavily against Erlich, as he often copied entire works with little to no transformative commentary, taking far more than was necessary for his critical purpose. The court concluded that the excessive quantity of copying negated the fair use defense, particularly for the unpublished works.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark early decision applying traditional copyright principles to the new medium of the internet. It established that the fair use doctrine's limitations apply forcefully in digital environments, warning that online criticism is not a shield for wholesale reproduction of copyrighted content. The court's emphasis on the 'amount and substantiality' factor signaled that the ease of digital copying would not relax copyright standards. The decision affirmed that intellectual property rights are enforceable in cyberspace and set a precedent for how courts would balance free speech interests with copyright protection in online forums.
Unlock the full brief for Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc.