[START FAX] OPERATION CLAMBAKE Page 1 of 2 The Fight Against Scientology on the Net www.xenu.net Stavanger, January 6, 2000 Andrews & Kurth L.L.P. Attorneys 600 Travis, Suit 4200 Houston, Texas 77002 USA Fax: 00 1 713 220 4285 Attn.: John P. Courtney RE: ALLEGED COPYRIGHT INFRIGEMENT AT WWW.XENU.NET Thank you for your detailed fax today regarding the new stunt from RTC. As you might have understood by now this is not about protection of copyrights, trademarks or service marks - this is a game of check where lawyers are used as pawns. RTC knows very well that I will not give away my freedom of speech without a fight. Every attempt from this cult to sabotage free speech is just petrol on the fire, and when they managed to wear down or destroy a critic the net result is no longer in the favor of the cult. Their method is to exploit any "weak points" in the chain, and on the Internet arena that is currently the ISP. It is my belief that the cult deliberately is trying to create so much hassle and extra cost for the ISP to force them to consider canceling account of critics. It is all about who controls the information. If critics of this cult means extra trouble, the cult hopes many will stay away from their critics. The file in question this time is not a new one, it has been on my site for quite some time now, both at Interliant and other places. The cult has no valid case since this is well within fair use, but it is not illegal to claim they believe it isn't and they know your client most probably will act upon any complaint. This is most likely not the last file they "forgot" to complain about, new 40+ paged letters will come your way. My dilemma is that I refuse to let the cult win this game, but on the other hand I don't want your client to suffer any cost or extra work because of my battle with a criminal cult. Because of this I have decided also this time to temporarily remove the mentioned file from my account at Interliant. This is in no way an acknowledge of the claims made by RTC, but an attempt to save Interliant from some of the trouble RTC wish to cause them. I will now investigate if this particular file is easier to defend by only hosting it here in Norway. I also want to show that I appreciate that Interliant have shown good will and done their best to inform and communicate with me when they receive complaint about my Internet pages. It is --- OPERATION CLAMBAKE Page 2 of 2 The Fight Against Scientology on the Net www.xenu.net Stavanger, January 6, 2000 also reassuring to notice that they this time did not shut down my whole site before I got the chance to act upon the accusations from RTC. As for the NOTs 34 Analysis it is authored by and copy protected to Tilman Hausherr who is a fellow critic of the previously mentioned cult. I have in my possession a permission from Hausherr to host his analysis on my site and if your client so request I will see to it that you receive a proper copy of this permission and his claim of authorship. The claim from RTC that the analysis only has "gratuitous remarks placed here and there" is an offending and untrue accusation that is obvious just by reading the analysis. I suspect the author, Tilman Hausherr, will contact you regarding this when he learns what RTC are trying to do. I will also return to you with more comments regarding this particular text. For future reference and as a guideline it would be valuable to know how Interliant interpret the US fair use doctrine. What is considered to be within this right to quote from copy protected works and in what way is the mentioned file authored by Tilman Hausherr not within Interliant's understanding of the fair use doctrine? If Interliant has no view on this issue, does that then mean that they will demand that all text with any type of quotes on their system, per default, must be removed if Interliant ever receive a complaint saying the copyright holder of the work is of the opinion that it is not within the right of fair use doctrine? For your amusement I would like to comment on the letter dated December 10 1999 from Small Larkin, LLP where the URL to the disputed document is mentioned. As you saw from their following letter they corrected the URL; initially they had replaced XENU in my domain name with XXXX. The reason for this is that Xenu is the name of a galactic overlord described in the (former) very secret and confidential OT 3 levels of the "Scientology Bridge" (it would cost you tens of thousands of dollars to reach this point in Scientology). It is so secret that Scientologists aren't even allowed to say or write his name. This causes obvious problems for them when they complain about critical pages on the Internet, since critics often include "XENU" in the address just because of this. The lawyers at Small Larkin were obviously not aware of this weird practice in Scientology. I would also like to wish you a happy new year and hope the information provided here is sufficient for your client to reconsider their decision and that they are able to reply to the questions raised as soon as possible. With best regards, [sign] Andreas Heldal-Lund www.xenu.net Copy sent my Norwegian lawyer Knut Vigeland (fax +47 22 55 69 03) and posted to the 'Net with all referenced documents attached. [FAX END]