http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2015/07/menzingen-muzzles-archbishop.html


DOMINICANS OF AVRILLÉ FRENCH SITE


On June 9, 2015 we received a letter from the District of France of the SSPX:

The association of worship of the "Society of St. Pius X" holds the copyright of its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.  However, on your website you quote from the works of Archbishop Lefebvre (a 1989 conference in Econe, etc.) without any authorization.  Therefore you will kindly delete all these quotes within forty-eight hours.

On June 22nd our lawyer received a message from the lawyer of the Society:

Instituted universal legatee of sir Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the association of worship "Society of St. Pius X" is the owner of the intellectual works of the deceased and therefore, owns the copyright of the entirety of said works.
As such, it is opposed to anyone, and in particular the Dominicans of Avrillé, exploiting said works.

Then, on July 2nd , our lawyer received a new message:

Unless my client is mistaken, he has found that a number of works and quotes from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre have been removed from the websites of the Dominicans of Avrillé.
However, there is one from April 25, 2005, [sic] "From Campos in 1991 to Santa Cruz in 2015". [...]
This article should be likewise removed from the websites of the Dominicans of Avrillé WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT HOURS OF RECEIPT OF THIS OFFICIAL MESSAGE.
For useful purposes, you need to verify:

If this article has been removed.

If there are other articles published.


http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2015/07/menzingen-muzzles-archbishop.html

Centro,

Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention.

It is the madness of modern copyright laws which allows this to happen. The state forbids quoting a public figure's conferences and public speeches because an organization "owns" the words he said and must "authorize" their use - madness!
Think of what the heretical sects would have done with such an advantage. "Sorry, Mr. Augustine of Hippo, the Donatist association of worship owns the works you cited from, therefore you will kindly burn all of your docuмents which contain that".

How much respect does the New Society wish to lose? Although, the real question is what are they so afraid of in Abp. Lefebvre's words to merit such a response?

Then again, at least subconsciously maybe they were imagining themselves as substitutes for the Church authorities, so that the Dominicans needed their imprimatur. It wouldn't be the first time the New Society usurped jurisdiction regarding the Dominicans (Steffeshousen Foundation).

Since when has it been illegal to quote someone provided proper credit is given?

This will not hold up in the general sense. There is much of the Archbishop's commentary that is in the public domain. Many statements which were in interviews and reported news. They have perhaps corraled the legal ability to suppress what the Archbishop said, however if he said it, and wrote it, and it is a true representation of what he said, then they have no moral or ethical right to suppress such uses.  What they are doing is protecting their revenue stream, that is the bottom line.

The Society is in the hands of the Jєωs now, at least in their thinking, with lawyers, advertising, branding real estate development, and other carnal business pursuits. An SSPX softening on Nostra Aetate is just around the corner. That will be the entre into the conciliar entity.

The key that unlocks the door to the inner sanctum of the ѕуηαgσgυє.

The neo-SSPX should be booed and laughed off the stage at this point -- at least by any decent Catholics of good will who are aware of this latest news.

They're treating Archbishop Lefebvre as a "secret sauce" like KFC's recipe for fried chicken.

Or they're treating him like a proprietary algorithm that is critical for profitability and the future of their very much FOR-PROFIT business: SSPX, Inc.

They are treating Archbishop Lefebvre (tm) as a trademark that can't be used by other businesses (like the Resistance). Or a trade secret or algorithm, critical to the functioning of their business.

Or maybe the best analogy is a PATENT. They think that the SSPX has a right to the "invention" of "the Archbishop Lefebvre" which is defined by the official US Patent Registry as, "A device which causes traditionally-minded Catholics to immediately soften, raise their spirits, get all kinds of nice internal feelings, as they believe that he speaks for them -- and for the truth -- which causes them to reach for their wallet or purse to make another donation."

Obviously a rival company (e.g., the Resistance) using this proprietary invention for its own ends is not acceptable.

Archbishop Lefebvre invented the POINT AND CLICK INTERFACE in the Trad world. He spoke for Trads better than anyone else, and his "keep the Faith" system or package was the most Catholic and risk-free.

The neo-SSPX is trying to be Apple. (If you know anything about Apple, you'd know what an insult that is. Remember they tried to patent any rectangular tablet-type device? They'd claim a patent on Oxygen if they could.)

Some organizations like to make threats that wouldn't stand a chance of holding up legally. If the Dominican's comply with legal threats even when the threat is bogus, they've muzzled themselves for no reason. They should do a bit of work to make sure they aren't really breaking any copyright laws and then proceed with anything they believe to be legal despite scare tactics. Remember the SSPX sent CathInfo a bogus threat in 2012:

That brings me to Part II. This past Thursday (Nov 15), I did receive a letter (via email) from a lawyer working for the Society. The letter is requesting that I remove a SINGLE POST which they believe is defamatory of the Society and Bp Fellay. I've attached the letter with the specifics removed because I don't believe it has anything at all to do with that single post. FIRST, the post itself almost certainly DOES NOT meet the legal description of defamation. It refers to the possibility of a future event and does not refer to anyone as having already done something. Also, given that it's a single post and not a series of posts, it would be quite difficult for even a crafty lawyer to prove actual malice on part of the poster. SECOND, the letter specifically says that I'm liable for the posts of others on CathInfo. This is false. The Communications Decency Act is a federal law that protects web forum owners from liability arising from user-generated content. It has been in existence for over 15 years now. If this law didn't exist, sites like ripoffreport.com would have gone under a long, long time ago.

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/News-from-Matthew-and-Mater

Some organizations like to make threats that wouldn't stand a chance of holding up legally. If the Dominican's comply with legal threats even when the threat is bogus, they've muzzled themselves for no reason. They should do a bit of work to make sure they aren't really breaking any copyright laws and then proceed with anything they believe to be legal despite scare tactics. Remember the SSPX sent CathInfo a bogus threat in 2012:

Quote from: Matthew

That brings me to Part II. This past Thursday (Nov 15), I did receive a letter (via email) from a lawyer working for the Society. The letter is requesting that I remove a SINGLE POST which they believe is defamatory of the Society and Bp Fellay. I've attached the letter with the specifics removed because I don't believe it has anything at all to do with that single post. FIRST, the post itself almost certainly DOES NOT meet the legal description of defamation. It refers to the possibility of a future event and does not refer to anyone as having already done something. Also, given that it's a single post and not a series of posts, it would be quite difficult for even a crafty lawyer to prove actual malice on part of the poster. SECOND, the letter specifically says that I'm liable for the posts of others on CathInfo. This is false. The Communications Decency Act is a federal law that protects web forum owners from liability arising from user-generated content. It has been in existence for over 15 years now. If this law didn't exist, sites like ripoffreport.com would have gone under a long, long time ago.

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/News-from-Matthew-and-Mater

I agree. Contributions to the Dominicans would be helpful since it is costly and Menzingen knows they don't have the resources. Mine will go out today.

Collectively, the resistance should flood the media with ABL's written work and conferences if it means business.

Wessex makes a good point here.  There was a woman on the now defunct Ignis Ardens, who did this with regularity.  This task should be taken up again, with copies of such future posts being always forwarded to Society headquarters.