The San Jose Mercury News, in its May 3 editorial, mischaracterized the issue in recent interactions between Scientology churches and the search engine Google. The manufactured controversy surrounding a routine and lawful procedure, correctly implemented on both sides, has clouded the real issues.
The editorial incorrectly states that efforts to protect copyright ownership put dissent and free speech on the Internet at risk. But the issue is not copyright protection vs. free speech. It is, purely and simply, an issue of copyright ownership vs. copyright piracy.
No matter how loudly and disingenuously those who intentionally commit copyright violations posture their actions as ``free speech,'' the unlawful use of protected works is a crime. If an individual walked into a book store and stole volumes of an author's writings and sold them, or gave them away as part of a super-communist dream of a shared-and-equal-wealth society, would any rational person defend this act of theft as ``free speech''? Of course not. They would call the police.
The crime is the same on the Internet when misappropriated copyrighted works are displayed there, for sale or for free, by someone who does not own them. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides a mechanism for the peaceful coexistence of the right of free expression and an author's right to determine the extent of the dissemination of his writings. It gives the copyright owner a vehicle for action, absolves ISPs from responsibility for content and liability when they remove infringements, and provides simple recourse to the user who feels wronged. Not bad for an area that was in utter turmoil before the DMCA was enacted.
The Church sending a letter to Google to remove links to specific pages containing substantial copyright infringements is about as brash as a Des Moines tea party. The Mercury News editorial calling this a ``brash tactic'' is almost laughable.
Millions of such letters are sent by copyright owners every year, including the handful from Scientology churches on which so much attention has been focused.
As for our letters being posted on another website, if the intent was to generate a chilling effect on our dedication to exercising our constitutional rights in protecting the copyrighted works of the Scientology religion, no such chill has been achieved and never will be.
Debate over the propriety and legality of posting these letters is vigorous, but from our view the upside is that anyone who is interested can see them for himself, free of the hysterical rhetoric used by some to mischaracterize their content and import.
For 50 years, Scientologists have championed all forms of free expression, including uncovering atrocities of suppressive regimes, providing a platform for voiceless minorities and giving teeth to the Freedom of Information Act that has served media and others seeking access to government files. We will continue to do so.
Ultimately, the only guarantee of safeguarding the Internet's potential resides in all who use it sharing the responsibility to ensure that the lawless minority who abuse it are not permitted to bring upon all of us the burdens of overregulation.
Had it not been for this unethical minority, online copyright regulation would not even have been necessary; ample copyright law existed already. It is up to the law-abiding majority to ensure the Internet remains truly free.