Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, decided by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in 1995, is the court's own opinion addressing the ownership and licensing of Scientology's copyrighted and unpublished advanced materials. As the primary judicial record, it is fully authoritative for what the court found about that ownership and licensing chain, which is the fact it is cited for. It settles a specific copyright dispute rather than the wider questions around the same materials that arose in other litigation, which need their own separate sourcing.
Facts
Assessment
Reliability Tier1
Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, decided by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in 1995, the top tier reflecting the court's own primary opinion, fully authoritative for what it found about ownership and licensing of Scientology's copyrighted advanced materials. Its limit is that it settles this specific copyright dispute rather than the wider questions that arose in other litigation, which need their own separate sourcing. NotesSets out the ownership and licensing chain for the copyrighted works and the unpublished advanced materials. Cited by the rights gate row in this file.
Citation
AuthorUnited States District Court for the Northern District of California
PublisherUnited States District Court for the Northern District of California
Publication Year1995
URLhttps://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/923/1231/1946287/
Source TypeCase law
Claims Backed By This Source (12 claims)
This source backs 12 claims across the atlas. As facts: 10 well-attested. Plus 2 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.
Disposition By Topic
- Sources, 8 claims: 8 well-attested.
- Organizations, 2 claims: 1 well-attested, 1 general references.
- Scriptures & Texts, 2 claims: 1 well-attested, 1 general references.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.