Politechbot published a recent position paper on copyright infringement from the media relations director for the Church of Scientology International (Scientology says it's threatened by "unadulterated cyber-terrorism"). The position paper attempts to justify Scientology's silencing of its critics via copyright law. Scientology objects to publication of its secret doctrines on the Internet and uses copyright law to get those documents removed from public view. What I've always wondered though, is why these documents are protected by copyright at all.
It seems to me that a claim of revealed truth for a particular work should exempt it from copyright law under the merger doctrine of idea/expression dichotomy. The idea/expression dichotomy ensures that facts and ideas cannot be copyrighted. Under the merger doctrine, if there is only one, or a few ways to express an idea, then the expression cannot be copyrighted because it would effectively give a monopoly over the idea, which is prohibited by the idea/expression dichotomy.
Shouldn't the merger doctrine apply to claims of revealed truth? My paraphrase of the Quran is not the Quran, and it would inevitably express an idea that is different than the idea expressed by the Quran itself. The idea and expression of the Quran are one and the same; my hypothetically adulterated Quran is simply not an acceptable substitute. The same applies to Scientology. Nothing but L. Ron Hubbard's own words is acceptable; you cannot change a single word without adulterating the facts of Scientology.
In court testimony, Warren McShane, President of the Religious Technology Center (holder of Scientology's copyrights), stated that:
There cannot be any alteration at all of Mr. Hubbard's work. The way he had laid it, there is an exact sequence of steps. It's very detailed, and there can't be any alteration to it.
Indeed, the RTC webpage makes this clear:
Past religious teachings, traditionally passed down by word of mouth or recorded by scribes, were subject to both alteration and misinterpretation. In contrast, this century’s technological advances have facilitated the permanent recording of Scientology scripture in books, tape-recorded lectures and films. Because the original writings and recordings by Mr. Hubbard can always be examined and verified, the technology, in truth, can never be lost.
Alteration is not permissible - the ideas expressed would not be the same.
There are many similar quotes from Scientologists, all making the point that L. Ron Hubbard discovered certain facts and his expression of these facts cannot be altered without changing the facts themselves. By its own admission then, Scientology is using copyright to maintain a monopoly over facts.
Of course, Scientology could avoid this dilemma by admitting either that, a) Scientology is not a fact or b) Paraphrases of Scientology materials are perfectly acceptable substitutes for the materials Scientology publishes.