LRH copyrights in the wrong hands?
As covered in the chapter about the death of L. Ron Hubbard, LRH wrote a new will the day before he died, 23rd January 1986. In itself an alarming fact as he had considerable amounts of vistaril (psyc drug) in his blood. Enough to make anybody completely unable to think clearly.
After LRH died all of his copyrights were transferred, via Author Services Inc, to a trust called Church of Spiritual Technologies (CST). This was executed by Sea Org Executive Norman Starkey. This means that LRH copyrights are now owned by CST and not by RTC (Religious Technology Center) or CSI (Church of Scientology International). This is all of the copyrights including the OT level, except the fiction copyrights which are owned by Author Services Inc. RTC only owns the trade- and service marks, which are merely graphic logo's.
RTC is running on a licence from CST to use the copyrighted materials of LRH.
RTC then sublicense the rights of using the Tech to CSI.
In short, CSI reports to RTC and RTC reports to CST. That is the order as far as the copyrighted works of LRH goes. CST can pull RTS's licence and RTC can pull CSI's licence. That gives the order of command.
A disturbing fact for the firm believer.
Find official proof of CST on the following link. You will get a search box. Type Church of Spiritual Technology and press search. Two posts for Church of Spiritual Technology will come up. Click them and then press submit. Then you will get it. This is nothing less than the official United States Copyright Office, Library of Congress http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html
See more information about CST here: http://sc-i-r-s-ology.com/
As I voiced my distrust in the legal setup of CST, OSA DK called me in for a meetingwhere they tried to make me give up my questions and just have faith in Management. They were also very eager to find out who I had been speaking to, and told me that it is suppresive to voice ones opinion of Management, that is if the opinion is not 100% in favour of Management of course.
After the meeting they issued a Non-Enturbulation Order on me to prevent me from telling my views to other Scientologists. I requested it withdrawn with reference to the Creed of Scientology, but had no response.
On earlier email correspondance OSA DK denied CST calling it entheta propaganda from the Internet.
However, by insisting on documentation OSA admitted the existence CST and called me in again on Friday 10th October 2003, after they had received the actual corporate papers from OSA Int. OSA tried to make CST an unimportant matter, calling it "Just a corporate structure like any other company". To me the entirety of LRH Technology cannot be compared to "any other company". But they showed me the documents which consist of articles and bylaws.
In short, it states that LRH donates all of his copyrights to CST. But this can only take effect once CST qualifies as fully tax exempt. In 1993 the tax exempt was achieved and CST is in full function. You probably remember the event by David Miscavige "The war is over" which was the fulfilment of the takeover of the copyrights of LRH, applauded by Scientologists from all over the world.
Further in the documents it is written that all of the accumulated income will be transferred to CST once it has achieved full tax exemption. How much money this would amount to OSA could not tell. Seemingly they didn't have a clue.
CST is headed by 3 general directors (Scientologists) and 3 special directors (non-Scientologists). Here are their names:
Lyman Spurlock, General Director
Rebecca Pook, General Director
Maria Starkey, General Director
Stephen A. Lenske, Special Director
Sherman D. Lenske, Special Director
Lawrence E. Heller, Special Director
But above those directors are the trustees. The trustees have the final authority in all matters of the copyrighted works of LRH. That basically means that they are the ultimate elite in all of Scientology. Clearly they are all Scientologists. At least in the article describing their qualifications, it says that they must be OT III, having shown good case progress, have a good grasp of LRH Policy and Tech and a good production record. And within 10 years from the appointment of trustee they must be on Solo NOTs, have become a permanent Class VIII, and OEC, FEBC graduate.
Obviously these trustees are Scientologists, BUT WHO ARE THEY??? That OSA could not tell me. They didn't even know it them selves. They said that the names of the trustees would remain confidential by reasons of security.
So we are back to square one. There must be minimum 3, maximum 7 trustees of CST. Who they are, we will probably never know. That means that you will just have to trust that it is good people with good intentions. But if it's not, these people can basically do as they please, and since they are anonymous you wont be able to do much about it. It is the very same situation with the IAS.
You can see the articles mentioned on this link. I have personally companred it to the papers I saw at OSA and they are indentical:
"In a court filing, one of the cult's many entities -- the Church of Spiritual Technology -- listed $503 million in income just for 1987." Check this link #12:
But LRH supposedly meant his works to be for the people and did not want to see it monopolised. And therefore he let his copyrights fall into the public domain already back in 1977.
The copyright law is another interesting study. In fact it is not possible to protect processes and procedures by copyrights, thus anyone can use and teach LRH Standard Tech without any kind of license.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 102, (b) (Copyright in General) of US copyright law states:
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
So this clearly states, that processes and procedures can not be copyrighted. (This apparently is to protect society and the culture itself against knowledge monopolies).
Fair Use: Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 107 (Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use) the US law says:
1) the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
2) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
3) the nature of the copyrighted work;
4) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.