| Revision as of 18:04, 17 September 2014 editZambelo (talk | contribs)2,921 edits Mirror← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 22:56, 31 October 2023 edit undoAvatar317 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,107 edits Fix redirect when subsection name was changed.Tag: Redirect target changed |
| (69 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
#REDIRECT ] |
|
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled --> |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous|timestamp=20140916030314|year=2014|month=September|day=16|substed=yes|help=off}} |
|
|
|
{{Redirect category shell|1= |
|
<!-- For administrator use only: {{Old AfD multi|page=Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous|date=16 September 2014|result='''keep'''}} --> |
|
|
|
{{R to section}} |
|
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> |
|
|
|
{{R from merge|Landmark Worldwide}} |
|
{{Infobox film |
|
|
| name = Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous |
|
|
| image = Inside Landmark Forum 2 of 6.jpg |
|
|
| caption = '''"Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus"''', 2004 |
|
|
| director = ] |
|
|
| producer = ],<br />],<br />] |
|
|
| writer = '']''<br />'''''(Incriminating Evidence)'''''<br>(French news program) |
|
|
| starring = ], Host/Moderator;<br />Laurent Richard, ] ] ];<br />Alain Roth, ] head, France;<br />Sophie McLean, Landmark Education spokeswoman and ];<br />], Attorney;<br />], ], author of ''Mechanics of the Sects'';<br />], Deputy Mayor, ];<br />], ], ];<br />Jocelyne Berthelot, Landmark Education volunteer;<br />], former ] member;<br />Laurent Mournais, former participant;<br />Brigitte Thelier, former participant;<br />Pierre, anonymous former participant;<br />], consultant;<br />], intelligence officer and author of ''A Major Enquiry on Scientology'' |
|
|
| music = |
|
|
| cinematography = |
|
|
| editing = Pascal Richard,<br /><br />Emmanuel Charrieras |
|
|
| distributor = ] |
|
|
| released = 24 May 2004 |
|
|
| runtime = 65 minutes |
|
|
| country = France {{Flag icon|France}} |
|
|
| awards = |
|
|
| language = French |
|
|
| budget = |
|
|
| preceded_by = |
|
|
| followed_by = |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
'''''Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous''''' ('''''Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus''''') is a French ]. It presented an investigation of the activities of ]. The ] program '']'' started filming the documentary in 2003, and the channel ] broadcast it in France on 24 May 2004. |
|
|
|
|
|
==Background== |
|
|
] (born John Paul Rosenberg), a California-based former salesman, training manager and executive in the encyclopedia business,<ref name="et8490">{{cite book | first=William Warren | last=Bartley | authorlink=William Warren Bartley | title=]: The Founding of EST | publisher=Clarkson Potter | year=1978 | pages = 84, 90 | isbn=0-517-53502-5}}</ref><ref name="pressman">{{cite book | last = Pressman | first = Steven | authorlink = Steven Pressman | title = ] | publisher = ] | year = 1993 | location = ] | pages =5–7 | isbn = 0-312-09296-2|id=] }}</ref> created the ] (''est'') course in 1971.<ref name="hukill">{{cite news| last =Hukill | first =Tracy | title =The est of Friends: Werner Erhard's protégés and siblings carry the torch for a '90s incarnation of the '70s 'training' that some of us just didn't get | periodical=] |publisher=]|date =July 9, 1998 | url =http://www.metroactive.com/landmark/landmark1-9827.html | archiveurl =http://web.archive.org/web/20091021101004/http://www.metroactive.com/landmark/landmark1-9827.html | archivedate =2009-10-21 | accessdate = 2008-04-11 }}</ref> est was a form of ],<ref name="fisher">{{Cite book| last1 =Fisher|first1 =Jeffrey D.| last2=Cohen Silver|first2=Roxane|last3=Chinsky|first3=Jack M.| last4=Goff|first4=Barry| last5=Klar|first5=Yechiel| title =] | place=New York | publisher =Springer-Verlag | year=1990 | isbn = 0-387-97320-6|page=142| postscript =<!--None-->}}</ref><ref name="denison">{{cite journal | last =Denison | first =Charles Wayne | title =The children of EST: A study of the experience and perceived effects of a large group awareness training | journal =Dissertation Abstracts International | volume =55 | issue =12-B | page =5564 | publisher =] | location =] | date =June 1995 | id ={{ISSN|0419-4217}} }}</ref> and was part of the ].<ref name="mcgurk">{{cite journal| last =McGurk | first =William S. | title =Was Ist ''est''? | journal =Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books | volume =22 | issue =6 | pages =pp. 459–460 |date=June 1977}}</ref> est was a four-day, 60-hour self-help program given to groups of 250 people at a time.<ref name="berzins">{{cite journal| last =Berzins | first =Zane | title =Getting It | journal =] | volume =82 | page =25 | publisher =] | date =February 6, 1977 }}</ref> The program was very intensive: each day would contain 15–20 hours of instruction.<ref name="mcgurk" /> During the training, est personnel utilized jargon to convey key concepts, and participants had to agree to certain rules which remained in effect for the duration of the course.<ref name="bader">{{cite journal| last =Bader | first =Barbara (Editor) | title =Getting It | journal =] | volume = 44 | issue =Part II, Section No. 14 | date =July 15, 1976 | page = p. 821 }}</ref> Participants were taught that they were responsible for their life outcomes, and were promised a dramatic change in their ].<ref name="mcgurk" /> |
|
|
|
|
|
est was controversial: critics characterized the training methods as ],<ref>{{cite news | last =Brewer | first =Mark | title =We're Gonna Tear You Down and Put You Back Together | work =] | date =August 1975 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last =Lande | first =Nathaniel | title =Mindstyles, Lifestyles: A Comprehensive Overview of Today's Life-changing Philosophies | publisher =Price/Stern/Sloan | date =October 1976 | page =135 | isbn = 0-8431-0414-7}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last =Koocher | first =Gerald P. |author2=Patricia Keith-Spiegel | title =Ethics in Psychology: Professional Standards and Cases | publisher =Oxford University Press | year =1998 | page =111 | isbn = 0-19-509201-5}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last =Bardini | first =Thierry |authorlink=Thierry Bardini | title =Bootstrapping: Douglas Engelbart, Coevolution, and the Origins of Personal Computing | publisher =Stanford University Press | year =2000 | page =205 | isbn =0-8047-3871-8 }}</ref> and suggested that the program had ] and ] tendencies.<ref name="mcgurk" /> Proponents asserted that it had a profoundly positive impact on people's lives.<ref name="mcgurk" /> By 1977 over 100,000 people completed the est training, including public figures and mental health professionals.<ref name="mcgurk" /> In 1985, ] repackaged the course as "The Forum", a seminar focused on "goal-oriented breakthroughs".<ref name="hukill" /> By 1988, approximately one million people had taken some form of the trainings.<ref name="hukill" /> In the early 1990s Erhard faced family problems, as well as tax problems that were eventually resolved in his favor.<ref name="hukill" /><ref name="faltermayer">{{cite news | url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101980316-138763,00.html | title=The Best Of Est? | first=Charlotte | last=Faltermayer | publisher=] | date=2001-06-24 | accessdate=2007-09-28}}</ref><ref name="leaderofest">{{cite news|title=Leader of est movement wins $200,000 from IRS|work=Daily News of Los Angeles|date=September 12, 1996|location=]|url=http://www.thefreelibrary.com/LEADER+OF+EST+MOVEMENT+WINS+$200,000+FROM+IRS.-a083966944}}</ref> A group of his associates formed the company ] in 1991, purchasing The Forum's course "technology" from Erhard.<ref name="hukill" /> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Subjects of the program== |
|
|
The documentary included Alain Roth, a ] leader and former head of Landmark Education's now defunct division in France. |
|
|
|
|
|
Part of the documentary recounts how journalists from ''Pièces à Conviction'' originally wanted to interview Roth, but that Landmark Education flew Sophie McLean from New York City to France to speak with them instead. |
|
|
|
|
|
McLean dismisses the description of her ] as a "cult" or even as "cult-like", and disparages the view that its ] depends on ]. In support of her contention, she cites three academics: Dr. ] (former president of the ]), Prof. Dr. ] (Chief, department of forensic psychiatry, ],<ref></ref> and French ] ]. Landmark paid Abgrall to do a report<ref name="Nouvel"> translation of Nouvel Observateur timeline.</ref> on it, but later in the documentary Abgrall denies that he took a position either way on characterising Landmark as a cult or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
==On-screen commentators== |
|
|
France 3's ''Pièces à Conviction'' series brought in several noted French academics and authors to sit on its commentator-panel during the program. And apart from those discussed below, the program included Jocelyne Berthelot (a participant in Landmark Education and a Landmark Education ]); former Landmark Education participants Laurent Mournais and Brigitte Thelier; and a person using the pseudonym "Pierre". Other notable commentators included attorney ], politician ], ], president of UNADFI, and ], secretary general of ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Solicitor Jean-Pierre Jougla=== |
|
|
<!-- Commented out: ] discussing ] with ] and ].]] --> |
|
|
|
|
|
] works as a ] with the ] in ]. He wrote the preface to the book '']'' , and founded the department of "victimology related to the ] harmful effect" at the ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Asked to give his expert opinion on the Landmark Forum, and to analyze why individuals did not leave the room, Jougla painted a picture of the enrollees "in a state that made it impossible to leave". He went on further to describe what he referred to as "mental manipulation", and stated that one can often accomplished ] through methods that seem harmless. Methods he observed included "confining people for 3 or 4 days in a room with no windows". He went on to characterize "mental manipulation" as just that: it happens "without the victim knowing it". |
|
|
|
|
|
Later, Jougla commented on what he called the "doctrine" inherent within Landmark Education, stating that: "What influences public opinion is only the storefront." He believes that certain cults hide behind a "religious pretense". However, he also stated that though Landmark Education lacks a religious element, an evident doctrine still exists. He went on to describe this doctrine as Landmark Education's "concept of authenticity": ''The basis of Landmark’s doctrine essentially rests on a philosophical concept. It’s the concept of authenticity. "We’re going to teach people to be authentic."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
===Psychiatrist Jean-Marie Abgrall=== |
|
|
], ], a French ], ], specialist in ], and graduate in ], wrote ''La mécanique des sectes'' (Payot 1996 et 2004, ISBN 2-228-89505-9), which has appeared translated into at least ten different languages (English-language translation: ''Soul Snatchers: The Mechanics of Cults'', published by Algora, 1999: ISBN 1-892941-04-X). He has served as an ] in the Supreme Court of Appeal {''Court of Cassation (France) | Cour de cassation'') and in the Court for Businesses (''Tribunal de commerce'') in France on the subject of cults.{{Citation needed|date=February 2007}} Landmark Education paid Abgrall ]45,600 ]s to write a positive report on itself in 2001, and to declare the organization "not a cult". |
|
|
|
|
|
''Pièces a Conviction'' staff interviewed Abgrall and asked him to comment on his alleged assertion that Landmark Education is not a cult. He responded by saying "It's not true that I said it's not a cult! I neither wrote that it is a cult nor that it's not a cult." He went on to point out that "here is no control of a psychologist". He continued by elaborating on his concern of the lack of training of the individuals who led the Landmark Forum, saying: "These guys aren't trained, as if tomorrow you set up shop as a psychotherapist. I mean, that's what's shocking." |
|
|
|
|
|
This interview also appeared in '']''.<ref>, '']'', 28 May 2004.</ref> (MILS, the predecessor to ], dismissed Abgrall in consequence of a ] regarding the payment he accepted from Landmark Education.<ref>''Le Nice Matin'', 29 May 2004.</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
===Deputy mayor Jean-Pierre Brard=== |
|
|
], the deputy-mayor of ], served as the vice-president of the ] (''Commission parlementaire sur les sectes en France'') which reported its investigation on ] in France to the ] in 1995. |
|
|
|
|
|
The television host ] asked Brard to explain why his committee had classified Landmark Education as a cult, without performing direct ] research through observation. ] explained the position of the investigating committee on cults. He stated that ''there's a guru who destabilizes people to enslave them, to make them subservient, which has been said by witnesses.'' He also stated that features of the Landmark Forum's structure ''"make you relinquish critical thought, and break the person down so that they can pick up the pieces."'' He also referred to a "network of money", stating that ''"The ultimate goal is to press its power and clean out the students' wallets. And by using the students, to attempt to earn more."'' He summarized his position by pointing to three main criteria: ''"domination, a network of money, subordination and brainwashing. So it's a sect."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
===Psychoanalyst Christian Lujan=== |
|
|
Dr. ], a ], psycho-] and professor at ], has written two popular French books on ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
He appeared in the documentary and commented on why the Forum Leader, Alain Roth, brought out "fears from childhood". When questioned by host ], Dr. Lujan responded: "The goal is to destabilize the individual and to negate - and I emphasize this - the notion of the subject. The individual doesn't own his own past. Only they know what's good for him. At any moment, an exercise like this can take away a person's introspection." |
|
|
|
|
|
===Mona Vasquez=== |
|
|
<!-- Commented out: ] discussing similarities between the jargon of ] and that of ] with ex-Scientologist and author, ].<br>part 5 of 6<br>in documentary. {{deletable image-caption|Sunday, December 19, 2010|date=December 2010}}]] --> |
|
|
|
|
|
] wrote the book ''Et Satan créa la secte'' . A member of ] for seven years, she appears in the documentary addressing what she sees as extensive and precise similarities between Scientology and Landmark Education, especially the use of ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
==Response and commentary== |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Allegations concerning fine === |
|
|
|
|
|
A statement released in French by Landmark Education hints that ] preferred to risk a "tiny" fine for a violation of the media's ] rather than present a documentary more favorable to Landmark Education.<ref> |
|
|
''Malheureusement, considérant que les amendes à payer sont minimes pour une violation du code de déontologie des médias, France 3 a décidé qu'il valait mieux pour son taux d'audimat payer ces amendes symboliques plutôt qu'offrir au public le reportage juste et objectif qu'il était en droit d'attendre.'' |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
Translation: |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
"Unfortunately, seeing how minimal the fines are for a breach of the media Code of Practice, France 3 determined it better for its audience share statistics to pay this symbolic fine rather than to offer the public the fair and objective reporting which it had the right to expect." |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
Unattributed statement published on Landmark Education's French web-site at http://www.landmarkeducation.fr/menu.jsp?top=20447&siteObjectID=21551</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
===Landmark Education's reply=== |
|
|
Under French law, when journalists or the media mention or allude to an entity, that entity has a legal ], and the media must publish that reply.<ref>http://www.mediawise.org.uk/files/uploaded/Right%20of%20reply%20in%20Europe.pdf</ref> |
|
|
Landmark Education's response started by thanking France 3 for publishing the response without adding extensive sound-effects{{Citation needed|date=February 2007}} as it did in the broadcast. Landmark Education denied some of the points made in the documentary. (] subsequently cancelled a scheduled rebroadcast{{Citation needed|date=February 2007}} and (according to Landmark Education) removed a transcript from its web-site. Note that the generally held copies, but not transcripts, of ''Pièces à Conviction'' broadcasts.) |
|
|
|
|
|
In Landmark Education's legal right-of-reply to France 3's documentary, a woman, after having seen the broadcast, complained: "My face is hidden, but my voice is not masked. I feel betrayed by this journalist who did not respect the necessary confidentiality in this broadcast." She went on to express her dismay at the manner in which the broadcast showed only a part of her conversation. Though she characterized the conversation itself as "difficult", she maintained that it enabled her to "live better" and to have a better ] with her daughter.<ref name="Landmark reply"> |
|
|
, |
|
|
</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Landmark Education responded to France 3's insinuation that Landmark Education gained large sums of money by using volunteers in France. It stated that Landmark Education lost money each year in France, but maintained its center open for its participants. France 3 estimated that the receipts of Landmark Education amounted to nearly 1.5 million ]s ''per annum'', whereas, according to Landmark Education's assertions, they did not exceed 590,000 ]s ''per annum''.<ref name="Landmark reply" /> |
|
|
|
|
|
Landmark Education commented on Dr. Jean Marie Abgrall's position in its reply, stating that Dr. Abgrall had declared that, with regard to the ten elements identified by the ], only four "minor characteristics" applied to Landmark Education, but that ''"None of the six relative major elements of a cult applies to Landmark Education"''.<ref name="Landmark reply" /> |
|
|
|
|
|
], the General Counsel and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Landmark Education, commented on the France 3 broadcast in Landmark Education's ] to Google in 2006. He stated that ''"the apparent purpose of the report was to portray Landmark Education as a harmful cult."'' Schreiber went on to assert that the program contained inaccurate, biased statements as well as serious unfounded accusations. He accused France 3 of operating unprofessionally, and ''"using tactics including lying, manipulating, using illegally obtained materials, and intentionally presenting materials out of context."'' He claimed that France 3 had used unauthorized confidential footage of the Landmark Forum, shot by an undercover reporter attending the course under a false name. He stated that after the broadcast of the documentary in France, ''"Landmark's attorney in France sent a detailed letter to TV3 in which he refuted, point by point, the gross inaccuracies and defamatory and libelous representations in their program."'' Schreiber claimed that after receiving the letter, France 3 removed a transcript of the broadcast from their web site.<ref> |
|
|
, ], October 2006 |
|
|
</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
In its reply, Landmark Education also quoted a 1995 letter from Dr. ], past President of the ], which reflected his personal opinion. The Fowler letter stated that: ''"In my opinion, the Landmark Forum is not a cult or anything like a cult, and I do not see how any reasonable, responsible person could say that it is."'' Fowler went on to provide lack of evidence, stating that he did not directly witness anything in his experience of the Landmark Forum course that could be harmful to the course participants. Fowler expressed the belief that if the French government were to "look at the question more closely", they would conclude that Landmark Education appeared on the list of cults in error.<ref> |
|
|
, 1995, Landmark Education website, Document number "L-014E". |
|
|
</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
===Commentary from ''Pièces à Conviction'' personnel=== |
|
|
Pascal Richard, Editor-in-Chief of ''Pieces a conviction'' drew attention to the special circumstances of this documentary in a on the show's official web-page. Richard described the program as a "difficult broadcast", which utilized the "modern tools of television". He went on to state that only through the use of hidden cameras and microphones could the producers ''"go the extra mile and deliver the facts"''. Richard stated that only by using these techniques could the journalists get past the "slick facade" projected by "this unusual group", as well as the statements which had been ''"carefully prepared and organized by a New-York communications firm"''.<ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
<br> |
|
|
C'est une émission difficile qui n'a pas l'écriture habituelle de ''Pièces à Conviction''. Nous avons pris ici le parti de nous servir des outils de TV modernes, comme ces caméras et ces micros dissimulés. C'était, en effet, notre seul moyen d'aller au-delà et de livrer l'info. Le seul moyen aussi de capter une autre réalité que la façade lisse qu'aimerait montrer cette étrange société. Et d'aller au-delà des discours soigneusement préparés et organisés par une société de communication new-yorkaise. </ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
(The France 3 web-site continued to make these comments available on the web until at least the time of the archiving of the dated 13 July 2004. By 10 October 2004 the monthly program's had moved on in the normal manner of operation — to featuring more recent episodes of ''Pièces à Conviction''.) |
|
|
|
|
|
==The documentary on the Internet== |
|
|
From September 2006 onwards, anonymous posters sent copies of the documentary — including versions with English-language subtitles — to several video-sharing web-sites and ] sites.<ref> |
|
|
, Electronic Frontier Foundation, November 30, 2006.</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
In October 2006 Landmark Education issued ]s pursuant to the ], a piece of United States legislation which allows content-owners to issue subpoenas to identify alleged infringers — even without filing a lawsuit. Landmark Education sent subpoenas to ], ] and the ], demanding details of the identity of the person(s) who had uploaded copies (with English-language subtitles) to these websites. |
|
|
|
|
|
Challenges to Landmark Education's efforts arose on multiple fronts. The Internet Archive commenced fighting its subpoena from Landmark Education, and the ] (EFF) filed official objections on its behalf. The EFF (operating on behalf of the anonymous entity who uploaded the video) also planned to file a motion to quash Landmark's DMCA subpoena to Google Video. Google advised Landmark that it would not produce the requested information pending a ruling on that motion. YouTube sent notification to the user about its subpoena, and planned to give the user a reasonable opportunity to move to quash it.<ref> |
|
|
. |
|
|
. |
|
|
. |
|
|
.</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
], Chairman of the Board of Directors of Landmark Education, commented on the issue, raising issues of ] (IP) in '']'' in an article dated 2006-11-03. Schreiber affirmed that the Electronic Frontier Foundation had released a statement characterizing Landmark Education's copyright claims to the documentary as "bogus". He went on to portray the claim of the Electronic Frontier Foundation as "entirely inaccurate".<ref>, ] |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
“The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) challenged our actions and alleged to the press that our copyright claims were bogus, which statement was then disseminated on the Internet. |
|
|
Landmark Education’s goal is not to silence anyone, but to protect its core IP resources, which were infringed by the video. While we appreciate the work of the EFF, the allegation that our copyright claim is bogus is entirely inaccurate. The facts are clear that the Landmark Forum program has for many years been copyrighted. Materials covered by this copyright registration were included throughout the video.”</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
On 8 November 2006 the Electronic Frontier Foundation posted a ''Draft Motion to Quash Landmark Subpoena'' on their website.<ref></ref> Independent filmmaker Enric Cirne interviewed a representative from the Electronic Frontier Foundation on Landmark Education's usage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.<ref> |
|
|
, Enric Cirne, 8 November 2006, .</ref> Cirne also interviewed another staff attorney on-camera about the Electronic Frontier Foundation's actions regarding the issuing of the DMCA subpoenas.<ref> |
|
|
, Enric Cirne, November, 2006, .</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
On 9 November 2006 the Electronic Frontier Foundation responded to Art Schreiber's commentary and raised the issue of ] in a post entitled "". In their statement, the Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that any use of alleged material — even if it were copyrighted — occurred "for purposes of criticism and commentary" and constituted a "non-infringing fair use". The Electronic Frontier Foundation asserted that Landmark's copyright claim remained "bogus".<ref> |
|
|
"", ], 9 November 2006 |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
"While we appreciate the kind words, we disagree with Mr. Schreiber's copyright analysis. To the extent that the documentary includes any materials copyrighted by Landmark, that use is clearly for purposes of criticism and commentary, i.e., a non-infringing fair use. Yesterday we released a draft of our motion to quash, which explains in detail (see pages 11-16) why Landmark's copyright claim does not hold water. Indeed, it's not even a close call. Sorry, Landmark, but your claim is still bogus."</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
On 10 November 2006, the ] newsservice published an article about the dispute.<ref>""</ref>'']'' and many other news sources subsequently disseminated this article. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Cult Awareness Information Centre (Australia: http://www.caic.org.au/ ) has made a non-official copy of the video available in ] format. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has cited this location,<ref> |
|
|
, Electronic Frontier Foundation, case page, Landmark's Misuse of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act |
|
|
</ref> as has an article about Landmark Education on the " website,<ref> |
|
|
, , 2006.</ref> '']''<ref> |
|
|
, '']'', 1 December 2006</ref> and '']''.<ref>, ], 1 December 2006.</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
On 17 November 2006, the ] website received a "]" letter from attorneys in ] representing Landmark Education. The letter stated that Landmark Education demanded Apologetics Index remove their ] to the ''Cult Awareness Information Centre'''s streaming video version of the documentary, due to alleged "copyright infringement" of their "Landmark Forum Leaders Manual" (TXu 1-120-461). The Apologetics Index responded on their site that after reading the responses from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, they did not intend to comply with Landmark's demands.<ref> |
|
|
, Religion News Blog, Netherlands, November 17, 2006, Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson</ref> Further information on this matter appears on the devoted to Landmark Education. |
|
|
|
|
|
Within the same period of time, Landmark Education also sent a cease-and-desist letter threatening legal action to the ] of the ''Cult Awareness and Information Center'' website, "StudioSolutions", in Australia. Landmark again used the argument of alleged copyright infringement of material from their "Landmark Forum Leader's Manual".<ref> |
|
|
, Landmark Education, to StudioSolutions, concerning ''Cult Awareness and Information Centre'', 13 November 2006.</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
The Electronic Frontier Foundation issued a statement in a post on their website regarding Landmark Education's legal letters in Amsterdam and Australia, entitled: . The post includes a request to Landmark's General Counsel Art Schreiber, utilizing some ] (''take a stand'', ''racket'', ''winning formula''): |
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
In public statements, Landmark General Counsel Art Schreiber insists that Landmark supports free speech. We urge Landmark to take a stand for the principles of free expression and get out of the censorship racket—the answer to criticism is to explain and promote your own view. Landmark may believe that using copyright notices to takedown criticism is a winning formula, but it will ultimately come back to haunt Landmark.<ref> |
|
|
, Electronic Frontier Foundation, 17 November 2006.</ref></blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
In an agreement reached on 30 November 2006, Landmark Education withdrew their subpoenas against Internet Archive and the anonymous poster to Google Video. The settlement included the acknowledgment that the poster of the video will not repost it to the Internet "in whole or in part."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.informationweek.com/landmark-drops-copyright-infringement-subpoenas-on-google-and-anonymous-critic/d/d-id/1049456?|title=Landmark Drops Copyright Infringement Subpoenas On Google And Anonymous Critic - InformationWeek|date=1 December 2006|work=]|accessdate=17 September 2014}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
The ], a French association for the defense of religious freedom and conscience, criticized the documentary for its lack of contradictory debate, stating that the program is "an undertaking of destruction of Landmark Education".<ref>{{Cite web|author=CICNS |title=Émission "pièces à conviction du Lundi 24 mai 2004 su France 3 : ''Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous''" |url=http://www.sectes-infos.net/Television.htm#2 |publisher=''Sectes-infos'' |language=French |accessdate=23 August 2009}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
==See also== |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* '']'', |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
==References and footnotes== |
|
|
{{Reflist|2}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==External links== |
|
|
* , ] |
|
|
* , Landmark Education's response to the ] documentary. |
|
|
|
|
|
;Media/Press |
|
|
* , '']'', 10 November 2006 |
|
|
* , PressZoom, 1 November 2006 |
|
|
* , p2pnet.net News, 10 November 2006 |
|
|
*, interview with Attorney for ], regarding Landmark's DMCA Subpoenas, November 2006 |
|
|
* , ] |
|
|
*, Warez.com News, 14 November 2006 |
|
|
* , '']'', French newspaper, 19 May 2005, by Marie Lemonnier. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{commons|Category:Landmark Education and the Internet Archive}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{est and The Forum in popular culture}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{DEFAULTSORT:Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous}} |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|