INFORMATION WEEK: Fed Lawsuit Filed - Co$ "worldwide criminal network" Google Named

As I understand it. The tl:dr version: Les Dane had granted copyright usage to LRH and the Co$ to use "Big League Sales" as training info for their org sales people. Les Dane passed away and the rights to "Big League Sales" passed to a company run by Letterese. Letterese, who was a scieno was declared. Then Co$ basically violated copyright law by using "Big League Sales" as the basis for almost all the W.I.S.E. materials when Letterese refused to grant them the same usage previously allowed by Dane.

What I understand to be the basic premise of his claim, is funny.

Co$ stole a book from a second hand car sales men, to base their sales tactics on.
Widow of guy who wrote book think it's only fair she should get a slice of the profit.
This Letterese guy is representing her.

I don't think it'll go anywhere, but hopefully the press will have a field day with it.

Originally Posted by Tbone

Something tells me this lawsuit won't get past a pre-trial.

QFT

I'm a little suspicious of this, because it really comes across very tinfoily like "There's a big conspiracy of Scientology, Tom Cruise, google and yahoo" and it may help to make people think of strong Scientology criticism or mentioning of e.g. Snow White as conspiracy theories.
If he's got a point I'll hope he'll succeed and I wish him all the best, but something doesn't feel right about it from my point of view. Which is no proof of course.

RICO offenses
Under the law, racketeering activity means:

Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and several other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
Embezzlement of union funds;
Bankruptcy or securities fraud;
Drug trafficking;
Money laundering and related offenses;
Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in entering the country (if the action was for financial gain); Acts of terrorism.

Pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity. The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to follow the continuity plus relationship test in order to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern. Predicate acts are related if they "have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. Continuity is both a closed and open ended concept, referring to either a closed period of conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.

I was gonna bold the relevent parts but my internets ran out of ink.

Buffoonery by the looks of it. Best scenario is someone going apeshit!

Peter Letterese? He makes cartoony baawthreats to anyone who looks at him sideways.
alt.religion.scientology | Google Groups
He might have a claim to ownership of Big League Sales (religiously used by CoS, narf!)
alt.religion.scientology | Google Groups
Loony Letterese the Litigious Loser:
alt.religion.scientology | Google Groups

Meh. Schadenfreude and popcorn for me.

While some people scoff at this lawsuit, his copyrights seem to have been held somewhat valid by the courts. Now if the COS was able to get search warrants and things in the past for people non commercially violating their copyrights, I wonder what is going to happen with this suit.
tl:dr

According to the recent U.S. Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit Decision (pdf):

The parties in this case disagree over the scope of copyright protection in a
book about sales techniques authored by the late Leslie Achilles “Les” Dane.
Peter Letterese & Associates, Inc. (“PL&A”), the exclusive licensee of the
copyright in Dane’s book, claims that three entities affiliated with the Church of
Scientology have been infringing its copyright by incorporating portions of the
book into their instructional course materials, and seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court assumed that
the infringement was occurring as alleged but ruled for defendants. The court did
so on two alternative grounds: the infringement was permissible under the fair use
doctrine; and PL&A’s suit was barred by laches.
PL&A now appeals. We uphold the district court’s decision as to three
claims, but find error in the court’s application of the fair use doctrine and the
laches defense to a remaining claim. We therefore affirm, in part, and vacate and
remand, in part.

...

While these courses assigned readings from Big
League Sales (among other writings), the Church did not make copies of the book
itself; students would either borrow or purchase the book for their study.
It is undisputed that Les Dane knew of the Church’s use of Big League
Sales and participated in such use. Beginning in the mid-1980s, the Church hired
Les Dane to travel to Scientology churches in the United States and abroad to
deliver seminars to registrars and others on the application of the sales techniques
in his book. In these seminars, Les Dane occasionally referred to the sales drills
and supervised the practice of those drills.

As to Counts 2 and 4, claims
brought under 17 U.S.C. § 106(2), we find that defendants’ courses as a whole are
not derivative works of Big League Sales, and therefore affirm the court’s grant of
summary judgment for defendants as to those counts.

..

With respect to Counts 1 and 3, we find that there is a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants’ course materials are
substantially similar to Big League Sales in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106(1).

Defendants compound the error by arguing that because (they believe) the book is a
compilation, the course material cannot be found to infringe the book’s copyright unless there is
“virtual identity,” not simply “substantial similarity” of expression.

The book is
organized into thirteen chapters. Each chapter is further subdivided into sections
with headings identifying the particular technique or illustrative anecdote. For
example, Chapter 1, “The Brick Overcoat of Resistance to the Sale: How Five Key
Bricks Can Help You” contains eleven sections: “Scaredy-Cat,” “The Legitimate
Objection,” “Listen For the Close,” “The Night Shift Close,” “You and the
Finance Man,” “Anything Goes,” “Fool-Proof Financing Formula,” “The Shopper-
Stopper,” “The Go-Ahead,” “The Today-Only Close,” and “Simple Sell Close.”
Defendants’ course material expressly teaches the content of Big League
Sales. Organized into outline form, a checksheet typically lists the book chapter to
be read and recites both the chapter title and the section headings. For example, a
sample checksheet used in the Professional Registration Course contains a
reference to “Chapter 1: ‘The Brick Overcoat of Resistance to the Sale: How Five
Key Bricks Can Help You,” and lists the pertinent subheadings: “a. The scaredy-
cat and how to close him”; “b. The legitimate objection”; “c. Listening for the
close”; “d. The night-shift close”; “e. The go-ahead”; “f. The today-only close”;
“g. The simple sell close.” No further explanation of these terms is listed on the
checksheet; instead, the checksheet cross-references the sales drill attachments,which contain “DRILLS FOR BIG-LEAGUE SALES CLOSING TECHNIQUES,
CHAPTER 1, THE BRICK OVERCOAT OF RESISTANCE TO THE SALE.”

Similarly, Attachment H of the Professional Registration Course sets forth
the “six closing errors” described in Chapter 8 of the book in nearly identical
language. The book admonishes: “Don’t argue with your prospect; Don’t offer
your opinions or criticise your prospects; Don’t knock your competition; Don’t
assume authority or break the chain of command; Don’t oversell your product or
the finance terms; and most important of all, Don’t ever succumb to one of the
other five ‘don’ts’ believing that, ‘Just this once won’t hurt,’ or, ‘The DON’TS
really didn’t apply in this case.” The sales drill explains that “the ‘six don’ts’” are
“1. Don’t argue with your prospect”; “2. Don’t offer your opinions or criticize
your prospect’s”; “3. Don’t knock your competition”; “4. Don’t assume authority
or break the chain of command or violate policy”; “5. Don’t oversell your product
or the finance terms”; and “6. Don’t succumb to one of the other five ‘don’ts’

So even if he does have some claim against the Co$, what's Google and Yahoo got to with it?

Originally Posted by AnonyWolf

So even if he does have some claim against the Co$, what's Google and Yahoo got to with it?

Thats exactly what I was thinking. If it's all about copywrite violation why is the list of defendants huge and include these as well as Tom Cruise?

Harpoon manned, readied and launched!

Here's a previous lawsuit (2004):
PETER LETTERESE AND ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation.
v.
WORLD INSTITUTE OF SCIENTOLOGY ENTERPRISES INTERNATIONAL, INC., RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, INC., CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, INC., an PUBLICATIONS INCORPORATED, all California corporations, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, a Florida corporation, NEW ERA PUBLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, a foreign corporation, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, MISSION OF FORT LAUDERDALE, INC., AND CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF FLORIDA, both Florida corporations, and DOES 1-3200,
Defendants.
http://web.archive.org/web/200411272.../letterese.pdf

John Doe 2164, he's wot done it!

I hate the Co$ and everything, but this kind of sounds like a Jack Thompson press release.

The enemy of my enemy isn't always my friend.

Sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is just... crazy.

Originally Posted by DeathHamster

Here's a previous lawsuit (2004):
PETER LETTERESE AND ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation.
v.
WORLD INSTITUTE OF SCIENTOLOGY ENTERPRISES INTERNATIONAL, INC., RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, INC., CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, INC., an PUBLICATIONS INCORPORATED, all California corporations, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, a Florida corporation, NEW ERA PUBLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, a foreign corporation, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, MISSION OF FORT LAUDERDALE, INC., AND CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF FLORIDA, both Florida corporations, and DOES 1-3200,
Defendants.
http://web.archive.org/web/200411272.../letterese.pdf

John Doe 2164, he's wot done it!

Score is Anon >9000, Does 3200. We win!