Google bends over to Scientology

S. Alexander Jacobson
Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:45:44 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

IANAL, but here is a plan that could save some
save money and erase Scientology from Google.

=Reflect Scientology legal claims back at them=

The Scientologists are making claims about
pages clearly not owned by them on the assumption
that most site owners will not be willing to pay a
lawyer to submit a counter claim.

1. Get a copy of the Scientology letter to Google

2. Modify it to claim ownership and demand
   removal of all sites linked to Scientology

3. Get a copy of the counter-notification they
   submit to Google in response

4. Submit that counter-notification on behalf of
   all the sites they tried to eliminate

5. If the scientologists sue for
   misrepresentation of ownership of their sites,
   use the same filings to sue for
   misrepresentation of the sites they tried to

If the Scientologists are willing to pay a lawyer
to come up with the legal forms, why not use

An interesting side effect of this will be
explicit notification to Google of the common
ownership of many of the Scientology sites.  Once
Google recieves this official notification, it
could quite reasonably consolidate them from a
link analysis perspective.  The result of
this consolidation would be a drastic drop in
scientology sites' Google rankings.


S. Alexander Jacobson                   i2x Media
1-212-787-1914 voice                    1-603-288-1280 fax

On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 Robert Harley wrote:
> So the Church of Scientology went after Google (for linking to pages
> which expose the scam that is Scientology) under DMCA and by claiming
> ownership of copyright on those pages.  What a crock of shit.  The
> guys at Google should grow some balls, IMO.
> Where's the EFF when you need them?
> See extract below.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Andreas Heldal-Lund - <>
> Subject: DMCA notification to Google
> [...]
> 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:
> 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:
> [...list of URLs omitted...]
> [...list of URLs omitted...]
> [...list of URLs omitted...]
> Best wishes,
> Andreas Heldal-Lund  #  #
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> If anyone  can show me,  and prove  to me,  that I am  wrong in
> thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth,  which
> never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion
> and ignorance which does harm.
> ------------------------------------------[Marcus Aurelius]----
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> C ya,
>   Rob.
>      .-.                                                               .-.
>     /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
>    /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
>   /       \       /     \     /   \   / \   /   \     /     \       /       \
>  /         \     /       \   /     `-'   `-'     \   /       \     /         \
>             \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
>              `-'                                               `-'
> --__--__--