Desperate Desiree – the Universal Medicine cult’s feeble copyright claimsPosted: August 5, 2013 | |
For as long as we’ve been blogging exposure of the Universal Medicine cult’s copious harms, they’ve been telling nervous followers that we’re criminals, they’re going to sue us and have gone so far as to pass the hat around for contributions to a legal fund to defend downtrodden multi-millionaire Serge and his precious enablers. If our exposure really was ‘lie lie lies’, they could have finished us by now with a defamation action. Knowing they’d lose lose lose spectacularly they’ve tried to shut us down with dirty tricks instead, using Google’s paranoia about being sued to their advantage, and now with piss petty copyright claims – the latest from Desiree Delaloye for use of images of the cult’s unlawful privacy invading workshop consent form. We’ve left the notices unchallenged so far because the images of the butt ugly healing symbols and the woolly headed mugshots are not worth the hassle, but if the cult thinks they’ll shut us down citing copyright infringement of a pseudo legal document, they have another thing coming – or perhaps it’s already arrived in Desiree’s Inbox.
UPDATE: Desperate Desiree also squealed copyright infringement on all the workshop manual images of inappropriate touching, suspending them from both the Accountability and FACTS site. However, counter notices were issued to WordPress, agreeing to settle the matter in a court of law. Legal action (based on bogus claims) was not forthcoming and the images have been restored.
The fair dealing exemption
That other thing is the ‘fair use’ exemption in copyright law, here and in the US. As usual the cult is using their own self-loving and Esoteric interpretation of law, and probably under the bumbling guidance of the Esoterically TALENTED solicitors at Universal Law, Mullumbimby, who aren’t exactly renowned for their court room successes. Solicitor Paula Fletcher also impressed by managing to cock up an ‘anonymous’ blog trolling sortie by signing in with her gravatar ID.
Copyright law was established to protect intellectual property from plagiarism and from plagiarists profiting from using other people’s original material. It was not established as a tool for censorship of FACTS, and attempts to use it that way will not hold up in court.
When we write on the WordPress platform we are operating under US jurisdiction. From the Wikipedia entry on fair use:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords 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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
If WordPress refers us to a local judiciary, the Commonwealth Copyright Act of 1968 is similar:
Screenshots and reproductions are permitted under Part 3 Division 3 of the Copyright Act 1968, which allows reproduction for purposes of research, study, criticism, review, parody, satire, and reporting of news.
In other words, the cult’s dimwitted claims of copyright infringement won’t be upheld in court. So far they’ve gone after us for reposting, unaltered, Dr Rachel Hall of Evolve Dental Healing, and SergeProp Commandant Rebecca Baldwin’s sexual abuse denying comments that included links to the original comments. Then Paula not on the payroll Fletcher of Universal Law squealed copyright infringement of Serge Benhayon’s idiotic healing symbols, followed by cult mug shot photographer, Clayton Lloyd of Flawless Imaging, Goonellabah doing the same for our use of his photographs of the knuckle shaped heads of Esoteric ‘real men’, including EPA Chairman and energetic Inquisitor, Neil Ringe.
Whatever. WordPress can suspend our sites if we get more copyright infringement notices, unless we issue a counter notice and consent to court jurisdiction here or in the US to contest them. Up until now these petty assaults have been great blog fodder, demonstrating to our readers just what precious petals the self loving numbskulls ‘truly are’. But seriously, who could be bothered?
However, Serge Benhayon’s long term business partner and yes artist, Desiree Delaloye, took a moment from having her breasts stroked and hating men to serve us with a copyright infringement notice for my use of images of her ‘design’ of the UNLAWFUL privacy invading consent form. This is where we get serious. No fucking way Desiree et al are going to close our blogs because they decide to abuse copyright law.
Perhaps you’ve received the counter notice already, Desiree, so see you in court, darling.
Desiree and her self-loving accomplices will lose because our blogs are not commercial. We don’t profit from the damage the cult has done to people or from its rubbish products, its smarmy mug shots or abuse denying comments. We’ve cited or linked to the origins of material we’ve posted at all times, and we’ve done so as journalists for the purposes of criticism and as a service to the public, exposing harmful, deceptive and criminal behaviour.
The privacy invading workshop consent form which has the cashed up underachieving unqualified Benhayon family collecting private medical information, including HIV status, from participants at one day Livingness workshops, is in breach of the Australian Privacy Act. No judge on earth is going to uphold a charge of copyright infringement of a consent form that was publicly downloadable from the Universal Medicine website that is hardly a work of original expression, scam artistry notwithstanding. Nor is a judge going to press copyright infringement for criticizing the thing, and particularly since it’s been submitted to the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission and the Australian Privacy Commission. In other words, me and the staff at either commission aren’t planning on plagiarizing or profiting from that bit of nastiness. Rather, it’s on file in case a victim comes forward and makes a privacy complaint for the Benhayons’ unlawful use of their personal information. For which, mind you, victims could be awarded compensation.
Similarly we could challenge the removal of the mugshots and the hideous symbols because we posted them for the purpose of criticism, parody and satire. But frankly, the sites look better without them.
Note that consent form infringement notice wasn’t issued by any member of the overpaid Benhayon tribe because that would become admissable evidence of their culpability, and nor would Universal Law solicitors of Mullumbimby ‘claim it’, because they know we’d send that to the Legal Services Commissioner as a formal complaint for devising an unlawful pseudo legal document.
Making false statements is against the law
So sweet Desiree is left carrying the can, and seeing she signed a legal document, if she’s found to have made a false claim, she is open to prosecution under the Criminal Code Act of 1995 Part 7.4, Division 136 for false or misleading statements in applications. The legal document she signed states that she holds the copyright for the consent form she designed for the client, but we all know she is not responsible for its pseudo legal wording and anyone who read the post on the Accountability blog knows the images and screenshot were posted there for criticism.
Bogus DMCA notices are not a legal substitute for defamation action, or a get of jail card for unlawful behaviour or for censoring criticism, Desiree. Making a false application could get you prosecuted.
So will the Benhayon parasites cover your legal costs when you front court with that shit? You’ll be covering ours too when you lose.
In the meantime, if the cult decides to give us our day in court we’ll be bunging a PayPal button on our sites and starting our own legal fund. We have enough readers now incensed by the endless stream of harms we’ve uncovered. We didn’t need SEO experts to get us to the top of search pages, and we’ve done it in spite of numerous cease and desist applications made to Google to limit Google searches – some of you may have noticed. Our readers are rightly mortified by the destruction of their families and the targeting of the vulnerable; sexual abuse victims, cancer patients, people with eating disorders and the like, as well as the damage done to children, which the cult makes no attempt to curb, attempting instead to conceal their abuses and escalate their desperate attempts to bully us and shut us down.
If the copyright notice goes to court in the US, we’ll be getting a referral from a certain cult expert of our acquaintance who has successfully defended a number of legal threats from cults, with the assistance of some ardent protectors of justice and freedom of speech at Harvard Law school. If it goes to court here, the cult might be surprised at who in the legal profession they’ve mightily pissed off and how well connected we are. And our accusers had better be prepared to face the cameras.
Defending free speech and keeping the bastards honest
Also, attempts by abusive groups to censor criticism tends to attract attention. My post on cults becoming the new internet censor gets a steady stream of page views. The Universal Medicine cult might want to consider the origins of online hacktivist group, Anonymous, who grew out of a movement to counter Scientology’s attempts at internet bullying and censorship. Their movement and other anti-censorship groups succeeded in curtailing Scientology’s online aggression without the assistance of government regulation or law. Anonymous has now broadened their focus to outing sexual predators and other abusers and exploiters, and who knows, Serge’s material might find its way to their sites if Universal Medicine continues to piss people off. Similarly, Wikileaks posted all of Scientology’s ‘educational’ material, so that interested parties could achieve Operating Thetan Level whatever without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. Wikileaks doesn’t give a damn about copyright.
In the meantime, as the apologists scurry around trying to shut us down, our questions about the Universal Medicine cult’s plethora of horrors go unanswered, the denials persist, but through gritted teeth, and brave Serge hides from the public spotlight, continuing to evade questions and accountability whilst manipulating his closest supporters to become complicit in his misdemeanours. Business as usual in the pyramid scheme of abuse.
But they won’t be silencing our exposure of their toxic practices by abusing the legal process.
Not a self-loving chance.