“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology pages index  |  Contact

The copyrights issue and related matters  or
     Who ‘owns’ Scientology?
      (What has the future in stock for the subject of Scientology)
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help me with my research? <<  Consult my want list here !

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are marked.

Back to ‘L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order’  index


The copyrights issue and related matters

If you own the copyrights of Scientology in a sense you would own Scientology. Although this may not entirely be true as practice of Scientology does not actually require a copyright. There are some issues involved with this supposed copyright that may be seen as awkward. This page attempts to gather various theories and ideas that are going around. The aim is to forward factual information and draw logical conclusions thereof.

 
Index:


 
‘The work was free ...’  vs  ‘The authorized organizations of Dianetics and Scientology’

      
“As the organization rapidly expands, so will it be a growing temptation for antisurvival elements to gain entry and infiltrate, and attempts to plant will be made.
      
 
  To foil these, all staff members must be alert to attempts of this nature and it is their duty to inform the Technical Director, or above, of any doubts they may have and to see that the necessary action is taken.”          LRH     
          (from HCO PL 30 Oct 62 Issue I “Security Risks Infiltration”)
  

        
“... the United States government and the efforts of that government since 1955, stepped up since 1963, to seize Scientology rather than forbid or stop it ... .”          LRH    
          (from HCO PL 14 Jun 65 Issue III “Politics, Freedom from”)
         

Now how would this work?

An interesting change is observed in “The Auditor's Code”, it used to say the following:
         “25. 
I promise to cooperate fully with the legal organizations of Dianetics and Scientology as developed by L. Ron Hubbard in safeguarding the ethical use and practice of the subject according to the basics of Standard Tech.”          LRH
         
           (from HCO PL 14 Oct 68R* (Revised 1 January 1976) “The Auditor's Code”)
(the same is found in book ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition), page 190; © By L. Ron Hubbard)		  

Today it says:
         “26. 
I promise to cooperate fully with the authorized organizations of Dianetics and Scientology in safe guarding the ethical use and practice of those subjects.”
         
           (from HCO PL 14 Oct 68RA* (Revised 19 June 1980) “The Auditor's Code”)
(see also in book ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition), © By Church of Scientology International) 		 
Which is not exactly the same thing. Please reflect on it and realize its actual implications.

Please take note that point #25 became #26 on the list because of that a new #23 being added in the 1980 revision, for this reason the original #23-28 were renumbered #24-29. An additional note is that it says on the original mimeo print-off* of HCO PL 14 Oct 68RA “The Auditor's Code” that “Revisions” are “in script”. And indeed we find various changes/additions that are given in script. Point “26” itself was in script. However it is odd that the text following that number was not in script as it should have been!

It should have looked like this on the original mimeo print-off:  (revisions shown in italics, deletions in ellipsis ‘…’)
         “26. 
I promise to cooperate fully with the authorized organizations of Dianetics and Scientology … in safe guarding the ethical use and practice of those subjects … .”
         
HCO PL 14 Oct 68R (Revised 1 January 1976) “The Auditor's Code” is found in the 1976 release of the Technical Bulletins volumes, Volume VI, page 269/70.  HCO PL 14 Oct 68RA (Revised 19 June 1980) “The Auditor's Code” is found in about all auditor course packs from the early '80's. If you have both, you can verify this for yourself.

Then this ‘authorized organizations’ and the deletion of ‘as developed by L. Ron Hubbard’ was introduced after L. Ron Hubbard had disappeared from the public view (October 1979).


      
“I'll not always be here on guard.
  The stars twinkle in the Milky Way
And the wind sighs for songs
  Across the empty fields of a planet
A Galaxy away.
      
 
You won't always be here.
  But before you go,
Whisper this to your sons
  And their sons –
 ‘The work was free.
  Keep it so.’”          LRH
          (from ‘Technical Bulletins, Volume I’ (published Aug 76), page ii)
–Note: Is not anymore to be found in the 1991 release of the Technical Bulletins volumes–
(these exact same lines also appear on the backpage of ‘The Auditor 79 (UK Edition)’, [ca.Sept 72])
 
This text is originally deriving from Introduction to booklet 'Scientology: Clear Procedure - Issue One' (published 1957), (link will open in separate window). It may however be noted here that the Technical Bulletins volume IV: 1957-1958 (1991 release) does print the whole booklet, lacking however this very Introduction. The periodical ‘The Auditor 129 (UK Edition)’, Mar 77 prints the whole Introduction on page 6.

Leaves question: “Is it still free?”

Go to index
 
Back to Main Index Little about copyrights (1)  or  Who ‘owns’ Scientology?

 
Go back HCO, the owner of the copyrights  &  Some words defined

        
“The HCO* is owner and custodian of all tapes, publications, bulletins and materials of Scientology.”          LRH   
          (from HCO PL 22 Nov 58 “Owner of Materials - The Legal View”)
         

      
“The most important function of HCO in any organization is that which justifies its existence.
       
 
  HCO must then first and foremost of all its duties, be the keeper of every seal, copyright, trademark, registered mark, master tape, master book copy, and master bulletin file in the organization.
 
 
  All this applies now and later. And it will become more important as time goes on.
  
 
  Similarly, any book on Dianetics and Scientology must be copyrighted in the name of L. Ron Hubbard and the copyright becomes the property of HCO.
  
 
  Similarly any trademark, registered mark, or patent for any sign, symbol, shield, device or design for Dianetics or Scientology or their organizations must be secured for HCO. All these are registered to L. Ron Hubbard and by blanket transfer are the property of HCO only. The name in which it is done is L. Ron Hubbard.”          LRH
          (from HCO PL 15 Nov 58 “The Substance and First Duty of HCO”)
  

        
“All copyrights are made to L. Ron Hubbard, then after ‘my demise’ it says in the franchise, to L. Ron Hubbard, Founder. But all copyrights, marks and rights, by blanket assignment are the property of and will remain the property of HCO Ltd the main office. Although the copyright is to L. Ron Hubbard it becomes by that the property of HCO with no further administrative action by reason of existing contracts and franchises.”          LRH
          (from HCO PL 15 Nov 58, Issue III “Outstanding Copyrights and Marks”)
        


Definitions:

‘blanket’ (adj) as per Random House Dictionary (1967 edition):
“covering or intended to cover a large group or class of things, conditions, situations, etc.”
‘assignment’   as per World Book Dictionary (1974 edition):
“the legal transfer of some property or right, etc.”

It is very important to have a good understanding and concept of the meaning of the following 2 words, what each of them exactly represent and the actual difference between them:
‘copyright’ as per World Book Dictionary (1974 edition):
“the exclusive right to make and dispose of and otherwise control a literary, musical, or artistic work, granted by a government for a certain number of years”
‘trademark’   as per World Book Dictionary (1974 edition):
“a mark, picture, name, word, symbol, or letters owned and used by a manufacturer or merchant to distinguish his goods from the goods of others”

 
Go back a) Trademarks

Some happenings occured in 1982 concerning these trademarks.

 
Go back Trademarks owned by L. Ron Hubbard?

The book publication ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition), page 359 says the following:
        
“Until 1982, all the trademarks and service marks were owned by L. Ron Hubbard.”
         
Now, is this what it actually says in the earlier quoted HCO PL's? It said: “But all copyrights, marks and rights, by blanket assignment are the property of and will remain the property of HCO Ltd the main office.” (“marks” refers to these trademarks). Please do note that this is in diametrical contradiction of what it says in the book ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition), or at least how it is supposed to be!

Take notice:  (underlining is mine)
        
“HCO PL – Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter.
         
 
  This is a permanently valid issue of all third dynamic*, org* and administrative technology. These regardless of date or age, from the know-how in running an org or group or company.”          LRH
          ( from HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA “Issues–Types of”)
 
The policy letters HCO PL 22 Nov 58 “Owner of Materials - The Legal View”, HCO PL 15 Nov 58 “The Substance and First Duty of HCO” & HCO PL 15 Nov 58, Issue III “Outstanding Copyrights and Marks” that lay out the copyright issue are all fully valid to this present day and are found in the 1991 release of the OEC* volumes.

Also note that the notice as found in the book ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition) involves only the ‘trademarks and service marks’, and not the copyrights! In fact it is not mentioned anywhere in this book who supposedly would be the owner of these copyrights. It is generally believed and accepted by Scientologists and various that RTC would also be the owner of these copyrights.
On the Internet for example I found: “Religious Technology Center, a church-affiliated organization that owns Scientology's copyrights and trademarks.” But on the RTC website itself, you will see that it says in big characters: “Holder of the Dianetics & Scientology Trademarks”. If you look around on that site, you will note that it refers only to some ‘marks’ (=trademarks). It does not say anything at all anywhere about any copyrights. It is about ‘marks’, ‘marks’ and ‘marks’. And this is actually odd when you think about it. These ‘marks’ in fact are only about some graphical designs, and that's it. The ‘marks’ are an issue of minor importance but all attention is focused on them and not the copyrights which I find rather strange! It is the copyrights that are relating to the distribution and copying of some written materials. Supposedly this is what RTC should be all about, but it focuses only on some ‘marks’. How can it effectively protect the correction distribution and copying of the materials if RTC only owns the trademarks and not the copyrights?

Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia says: “Church of Spiritual Technology, doing business as L. Ron Hubbard Library, owns the copyrights to L. Ron Hubbard's texts.”
Do note that it says ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ and not ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. Technically this actually means that the Church of Spiritual Technology owns the revisions incorporated in these works but not the original texts.

Interesting in this respect is also what is found in the 1983 revision of HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised 10 September 1983) "Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists" (these entries are not found in earlier versions of this HCO PL nor in any other release!). The 2 below refer to the trademarks:
        
“4.  
Using the trademarks and service marks of Dianetics and Scientology without express permission or license from the owner of the marks or its authorized licensee.
         
 
14.  
Acts calculated to misuse, invalidate or alter-is legally or in any other way the trademarks and service marks of Dianetics and Scientology.”
  
The ones here under seem to indirectly refer to such a thing as a copyright, but also fails to use the word:
        
“11.  
Unauthorized use of the materials of Dianetics and Scientology.
         
 
12.  
Holding, using, copying, printing or publishing confidential materials of Dianetics and Scientology without express permission or license from the author of the materials or his authorized licensee.”
  

Who is holding these copyrights actually? Is in fact anyone holding these copyrights? More about that see section Copyrights further down in this chapter.

 
Go back Trademarks given by L. Ron Hubbard to Religious Technology Center?

The book publication ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition), page 359 continues with:
“In may of that year (1982) he (L. Ron Hubbard) gave the marks of the Scientology religion to a newly formed church, Religious Technology Center (RTC).”

To be able to give the “marks of the Scientology religion” to someone or something else (company) it is required that you actually still own them. Per HCO PL 15 Nov 58, Issue III “Outstanding Copyrights and Marks” they “are the property of and will remain the property of HCO Ltd the main office”. The main office of HCO was the Hubbard Association of Scientologists, Inc. (HASI, Inc.) of Arizona, as amongst other HCO PL 30 Sept 64 “HCO Corporations” confides to us.

So, how were these ‘marks’ returned to L. Ron Hubbard?
 
The following 2 links read in this sequence may explain what happened next (please read before continuing!):  (both links will open as pop-up windows)
    Certificate of Revocation, HASI, Inc. (May 10, 1977)
  Copyrights transferred back to ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ (May 4, 1978)

The information found at the second link correctly questions why there would have been any consideration about transferring any trademarks/copyrights back to L. Ron Hubbard, “when L. Ron Hubbard had long before assigned, into perpetuity, all Dianetics and Scientology copyrights to HCO?  HCO, at the time of this 1978 Assignment is a part of CSC (Church of Scientology of California)”.
The document mentioned is actually assigning these trademarks/copyrights back to L. Ron Hubbard, those who instigated this and actually signed this document were the “Board of Directors of the Church of Scientology of California”. We certainly do not learn about the position of L. Ron Hubbard himself from all this.

The same “THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA” wrote and issued HCO PL 10 Sept 81 “Copyright Policy Clarification”. This reference makes for very interesting reading indeed! It appears that it has been cancelled fairly shortly after that and was replaced by ‘Scientology Policy Directive 17’, 27 Jun 82 “Understanding Copyright Notices and How to Use Them” (presently in use as ‘SPD 17RA’, Revised 13 nov 82, Re-Revised 24 Aug 83). The original HCO PL release is not easy to come by, for which reason I quote it in full here (link will open as a pop-up window).

There have been issued 2 early official and public announcements to the Scientology public that relate about these happenings and these trademarks. It is quite interesting what they relate. The first one was issued to Mission Holders:

     

 ‘SO ED 2104 Int’, 7 Nov 82 “The Flow up the Bridge, The US Mission Holders Conference, San Francisco 1982”
This conference was held on October 17, '82. It starts of with telling about trademarks and copyrights, in reality however it only relates about these trademarks. All the weight is put on these trademarks, it makes a comparison with the Coca-Cola symbols. You may consult the full section of this SO ED that speaks about the trademarks here (link will open as a pop-up window).
The other announcement is:

     

 The Religious Technology Center, Information Letter #1, 2 Mar 83
This whole release is dedicated to the Service and Trademarks . It makes a rather odd comparison with a “white taped road out of the labyrinth”, and that these Service and Trademarks “are the signs — ‘white tapes’ to all that they are on the path”. It does not address the copyrights anywhere in this release either. You may consult this Information Letter in full here (link will open as a pop-up window).

It remains true that trademarks are not copyrights. It is the copyrights that may effect upon and can safeguard unaltered Scientology technology, it is not the trademarks.

 
Go back b) Copyrights & ‘Church of Spiritual Technology’ (CST)

The Religious Technology Center (RTC) was officially incorporated on January 1, '82.

As I said earlier generally it is assumed that the RTC would be the owner of these copyrights, when in fact RTC itself only claims to own the trademarks. No mention is made anywhere in any Scientology publication who supposedly is holding the copyrights. Then who is the owner of some copyrights and what then is it exactly that they own?
You can do some search on the U.S. Copyright Office site. The copyrights appear to be registered under the name of Church of Spiritual Technology (CST).You can verify this for yourself. Click here, search by Claimant (you have to check the box), then type in the seach box: Church of Spiritual Technology. In the search results you will find amongst other the following entries:  (the items # are still rising)

     

 □ CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY (4,998 items)
□ CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY (LOS ANGELES (2,158 items)
You can check these boxes and click the submit button.

This Church of Spiritual Technology (CST) then would be –strictly as per the records in that database– the actual registered owner of these copyrights. I found no hits with Religious Technology Center (RTC). I was unable to find any data at all about CST in the different Scientology publications or the official Scientology sites. So why is this like that, why-why-why are we not informed about this?

Interesting is also the realization that we are being informed that “In may of that year (1982) he (L. Ron Hubbard) gave the marks of the Scientology religion to a newly formed church, Religious Technology Center (RTC).”  (from book ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition), page 359). We are however totally missing out on the information when and how the copyrights of Scientology and Dianetics were transferred to Church of Spiritual Technology (CST). We find notices in the testaments of L. Ron Hubbard from 1982 & 1986 about these ‘marks’, but they don't relate about the copyrights or CST. Anyone care to fill me in on that?

 
Go back Change of copyright notifications

“All copyrights are made to L. Ron Hubbard, then after ‘my demise’ it says in the franchise, to L. Ron Hubbard, Founder.”          LRH
          (from HCO PL 15 Nov 58, Issue III “Outstanding Copyrights and Marks”) (underlining is mine)

“The name in which it is done is L. Ron Hubbard.”          LRH
          (from HCO PL 15 Nov 58 “The Substance and First Duty of HCO”) (underlining is mine)

The above included any and all published by the organization, be it written by L. Ron Hubbard or not. Those policy letters and writings attributed as deriving from L. Ron Hubbard maintained using ‘L. Ron Hubbard’, but in a variety of policy letters (HCO PL's) primarily written or issued in 1981 by the ‘THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA’ this literally changed! As far as I have been able to verify HCO PL 7 May 81 “L. Ron Hubbard, Founder and Author” was the first policy letter not using the ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright. It uses instead: ‘Copyright © 1981  by the Board of Directors of the Church of Scientology of California’. Later this sometimes also appears as ‘Copyright © 1981  by the Church of Scientology of California’, the latter became standard near the end of 1981. HCO PL 25 Nov 81R II (Revised 15 December 1981) “Corporate and Other Changes” was the very last one to ever use it. The question is: “Why has the original practice been abandoned?”.

On November 1, '81 the Church of Scientology International (CSI) had come into being. This incorporation of the CSI also resulted in that the copyright notification once again was changed for policy letters that were indicated to have been written by some other than L. Ron Hubbard. The mentioning of ‘THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA’ appears also to have been abandoned in the policy letters from here on out, instead it may now just say ‘THE INTERNATIONAL WATCHDOG COMMITTEE’ or ‘THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL’ or something like that. HCO PL 23 Dec 81 “International Watchdog Committee” was the very first policy letter to use ‘Copyright © 1981 by CSI’, sometimes this copyright is also referred to as ‘Copyright © 1981 by the Church of Scientology International’. This copyright notice is still in use today.

A few reality examples of how it was implemented:

    
  Issue   Initials & Copyright notice                    Attributed authorship                   
BPL 16 Mar 65R
     (Revised & Reissued
      12 August 1974 as BPL)
  Mary Sue Hubbard
  Approved by the
Commodore's Staff Aides
  and the
Board of Issues
  for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
of the
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:CSA:BI:MSH:mg
Copyright © 1965, 67, 74  
by L. Ron Hubbard		  
HCO PL 7 May 81
  BOARD OF DIRECTORS
of the
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
OF CALIFORNIA
BDCSC:JM:bk
Copyright © 1981
by the Board of Directors
of the Church of Scientology
of California 		 
HCO PL 8 Sept 83
  CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL
CSI:pm:iw
Copyright © 1983
by the Church of Scientology
International		  


The copyright designation that always had been used for the materials attributed to L. Ron Hubbard was also in for a change.


Summary:

    Writings attributed to other than L. Ron Hubbard
   1950 - 1981 Apr         ©  by L. Ron Hubbard
  1981: 7 May - 15 Dec ©  by the Board of Directors of the Church of Scientology of         California  or
©  by the Church of Scientology of California
  1981: 23 Dec - present ©  by CSI  or
©  by the Church of Scientology International

    Writings attributed to L. Ron Hubbard
   1950 - late 1986 ©  by L. Ron Hubbard
  late 1986 - present ©  by L. Ron Hubbard Library

Note:  Known to me is a leather bound copy of ‘The Way to Happiness’ that was copyrighted ‘© 1982  by L. Ron Hubbard Library’. This is the earliest instance of this being used that I know of. It is also noted that for example the latest edition (2007) of ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of mental Health’ carries a copyright for the years 1983 and 1984 with this Library. It appears that this new copyright name had been used some few times, but it did not turn a standard until late 1986, at which time it functioned as a replacement basically for the previous copyright ‘L. Ron Hubbard’, but skipping the previous copyright years that were used with ‘© L. Ron Hubbard’. It appears though that preparations and use (although limited) for this new copyright notification ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ were already ongoing and planned as early as 1982!


Once again:

“The name in which it is done is L. Ron Hubbard.”          LRH
          (from HCO PL 15 Nov 58 “The Substance and First Duty of HCO”) (underlining is mine)

“All copyrights are made to L. Ron Hubbard, then after ‘my demise’ it says in the franchise, to L. Ron Hubbard, Founder.”          LRH
          (from HCO PL 15 Nov 58, Issue III “Outstanding Copyrights and Marks”) (underlining is mine)

Why are these rules not being followed anymore?


Continue reading in following chapter!

Go to index
 
Back to Main Index More about copyrights (2)  or  What does ‘© L. Ron Hubbard Library’ actually represent?

 
Go back A new copyright

Earlier I had mentioned that a new copyright had come into being. It used to say on books and materials:
  Copyright © 19--
By L. Ron Hubbard.
All Rights Reserved.

Now it is almost always replaced with:
  Copyright © 19--
L. Ron Hubbard Library.
All Right Reserved.

Question is “Why are we having this new copyright?”. I don't seem to be able to find some explanation from the Church of Scientology about that, not in written materials, nor anywhere else. However it appears to be added after more significant changes made or newly issued in 1986 or at a later date. Some people confided to me that thousands and thousands of changes had been made. The following may very well be relating to all this:

        
“To ensure the purity of the religion and its Scriptures, RTC supervised a massive five-year project to republish all of Mr. Hubbard's writings on Dianetics and Scientology. RTC ensured that the authenticity of each work was verified by comparing them word by word with his original manuscripts — only once RTC was satisfied that the works were accurate were they republished. RTC then helped see that archival editions of these materials were produced, thus ensuring the availability of the pure unadulterated writings of Mr. Hubbard to the coming generations. As part of this project, Mr. Hubbard's original tape-recorded lectures — most of them over three decades old — were restored using state-of-the-art technology, and then accurately transcribed. Even the translations of the Scripture are scrupulously checked for accuracy by RTC prior to any publication.” 
         
  (the above text is how it appeared at http://www.rtc.org/en_US/intro/pg002.html, this is the offical RTC website, it was removed from that site since late 2005, at present you find this here with minor changes (last checked 6 March 2006), it is also found at various other official Scientology sites.)  

This five-year project started shortly after L. Ron Hubbard had dropped his body in Jan 1986, and it was concluded in 1991. As a direct result we saw the release of the new Organization Executive Course & Technical Bulletins volumes. The ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’, that appears to have been brought to live as early as 1982, turned only a standard during the second half of the year 1986. This change can be observed from the bookpublications, but especially on the original mimeo print-offs of individual references. During 1982-early 1986 various copyrights had been taken in this ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyright name, but the standard during this time period was still ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. This may appear rather strange, but this is nonetheless what we find.

I checked a variety of original mimeo print-offs of HCOB's and found that if a significant change had been made the original ‘Copyright © 19-- by L. Ron Hubbard’ was still there, but added was ‘Revisions Copyright © 19-- by L. Ron Hubbard Library’ (sometimes the word ‘Revisions’ on these original mimeo print-offs was left out). Insignificant changes changes like “Only changes are to correct typographical errors.” did not get this Library copyright added.
Unpublished material received only the annotation ‘Copyright © 19-- by L. Ron Hubbard Library’.

Sometimes things are kinda odd as can be seen in the below table. This HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “PTS Type A Handling” was originally issued as HCO PL 5 Apr 72 “PTS Type A Handling”. On October 28, 2000 then it was decided to restore this date, and at the same time it turned from a ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright into a ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyright. Even more odd may be the year 1991 that was given here (see table). It was written in 1972, during the later 70's it turned into a BPL, then it was decided to restore it into an HCO PL on October 20, '81 (which became the HCO PL date), in 1983 it was thoroughly revised. The years 1972, 1981 & 1983 then seem applicable dates to mention, but only 1991 is given which is not even the reissue date (2000). The year 1991 simply tells us in what year the ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyright had been registered.

    
  Issue   (“PTS Type A Handling”)   Initials & Copyright notice
HCO PL 5 Apr 72 Issue I
LRH:MSH:nt.lm.tda
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
HCO PL 20 Oct 81R
   (Revised 10 September 1983)
CSI:LRH:iw
Copyright © 1972, 1981, 1983
by L. Ron Hubbard 
HCO PL 20 Oct 81R
   (Reissued 3 April 1989)
LRH:CSI:iw.pp 
Copyright © 1972, 1981, 1983
L. Ron Hubbard
HCO PL 5 Apr 72RD 
   (Reissued 28 October 2000 to restore orig date)  
LRH:RTRC:cp.ks
© 1991
L. Ron Hubbard Library         

Per all the above we can conclude that the ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ does in fact stand for ‘significant alterations’ or ‘new releases of unpublished material’, and even same data reissued with a different presentation under a new date.

All the regular Dianetics & Scientology book publications give the year 1988 or 1989 under this new copyright, they do however mention ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ as the ‘Earlier editions copyright’. It suffices to say here that various changes in lesser or greater degree have been noted in these publications, but I do not intend to go into details about these changes here. More interesting here to mention is that these publications do not note any previous copyright under the ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyright. Later editions of these same books removed even the mention of the Earlier editions copyright. All that we see in these books is a recent year of copyright. In fact it even gets difficult to find out with these books when it was actually first published! Either way this should clearly indicate that there is no earlier valid and legal copyright in existence. If there were they would have been indicated in these publications. This same we in all individual references and books.
Another difference is that these regular Dianetics & Scientology publications in any and all of those earlier editions specifically say that it was ‘by L. Ron Hubbard’, if you look in any of those ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ releases you see only ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. Around this time we experience a general tendency in any and all bookpublications anywhere (not only L. Ron Hubbard that is) to not mention ‘by’ foregoing the author's name. It does not have to mean that the book was not by L. Ron Hubbard anymore, some however seem to have come to that conclusion, also this in regards to the copyright name change and the alterations incorporated in those books.

Since 1964 we have had the following:
        
“Scientology Library and Research has the purpose of collecting, safeguarding and preserving all Scientology materials, and while safeguarding the originals, compiling from such, new work and preparing it for direct dissemination as in tapes or designing and printing as in the case of written work.”          LRH     
          (from HCO PL 24 Jan 64 Issue I “Scientology Library and Research, Ltd”)
         

Not the same as a copyright, but this may explain the name library chosen. Anyway, still not explained is why we had this change of copyright. For about 36 years it always had been ‘Copyright © 19-- by L. Ron Hubbard’, so was there any necessary practical reason for changing this to something else? If there was, I have not been informed about it.
It could be because of that L. Ron Hubbard passed away in Jan 1986, but does this answer all questions? L. Ron Hubbard could not write any new material after dropping his body, so it still would be ‘Copyright © 19-- by L. Ron Hubbard’.

Do remember that it had said in HCO PL 15 Nov 58 “The Substance and First Duty of HCO”:  (underlining is mine)
        
“The name in which it is done is L. Ron Hubbard.”          LRH
         
And that an HCO PL is “is a permanently valid issue” & “regardless of date or age”.
          ( from LRH HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA “Issues–Types of”)

Let's look at this a little bit closer. If you do not own some copyright, naturally you will not be able to publish under that particular copyright. And if some copyright has been expired, then also you will not be able to use it. The question emerges: “Does ‘Church of Spiritual Technology’ actually own the ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright?”
Or is it may be so that you after some person deceases that by law you are not allowed to use that previous copyright? I know of no law saying so. In fact L. Ron Hubbard had left us instructions in regards to this:  (underlining is mine)
        
“All copyrights are made to L. Ron Hubbard, then after ‘my demise’ it says in the franchise, to L. Ron Hubbard, Founder.”          LRH
          (from HCO PL 15 Nov 58, Issue III “Outstanding Copyrights and Mark”)
         
Then if it would turn out that Religious Technology Center may use the name ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ why then do they use ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’?

There may be an additional consequence if in fact the original copyright would have expired. This in regards to the Scientology material that was originally compiled or written by someone other than L .Ron Hubbard. All of the Scientology material once has always been copyrighted in the name of L. Ron Hubbard. Now, if this copyright did expire, then it may fall back to the original compilers and writers (or their kin).
A legal matter may have caused the following lines to be written: “The scientology religion is based exclusively upon L.Ron Hubbard's research, writings and recorded lectures” (from the little publication ‘Description of the Scientology Religion’). “Exclusively” defined means ‘with the exclusion of all others’. So, why would all others who helped developing it be excluded, when in fact they received full credit for their contribution while L. Ron Hubbard was still around?
It gets even more strange as various of these writings compiled and written by others were later reissued under the name of L. Ron Hubbard (see my pages “Non-LRH turns into LRH? & Proposal to solution” and “The story of the ‘Cramming Series’ - LRH or not LRH?”, see Scientology index page).

One should also consider that once copyrights have expired they never can be brought back to life. The rule is: “Once public, forever public.”. Now if you aim to copyright some revised work, because of that the original copyright had expired, then you can only copyright those aspects of the new/revised works that are not like the works whose copyright that have expired. You could for example design a bible and you could copyright your design, the type and layout, the editing, the notes, the illustrations, the translation, and all of that, but you could not copyright the bible per se, simply because its copyright had expired. So, even if some claim they have revived the copyright, or even if they have officially registered copyrights for the revised works, no American court of law would agree that the new copyrights had revived any expired copyrights. It just can not be done.

We see that the since 1986 published Scientology materials do not carry the copyright: ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. Then the ordinary Scientology books say very clearly: ‘Earlier edition copyright L. Ron Hubbard’ and the new copyright being: ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’. From the mimeo print-offs we can see that the earlier copyright still was printed on them, however if being significantly revised we see that was added: ‘Revisions Copyright by L. Ron Hubbard Library’.
The question to ask is: “Does the fact that the copyright name had changed, acknowledge that in fact the original copyrights had expired?” We definitely have to think this over very, very carefully!
A good question is also: “Could one simply reprint the old material exactly as it was without this being a breach of any still existing and effective copyright?”

It should be mentioned that the previous bookpublications of the Organization Executive Course (HCO PL's) & Technical Bulletins (HCOB's) volumes from the 70's did mention the copyright at the end of every single reference listed in these books. Whereas this has been removed throughout in the 1991 release of all these volumes. The only copyright given is found on the reverse side of the titlepage of each of those volumes which says: ‘© 1991 L. Ron Hubbard Library’. So here we should ask why the original practice had been abandoned?

 
Go back A note about tape lecture recordings  (‘L. Ron hubbard’  vs  ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’)

These changes are not only incorporated into written and published works. I found that ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ in fact introduces edited LRH recordings! Please see earlier chapter in this ‘L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order’ study: “‘Philadelphia Doctorate Course’ Lectures  (PDC) & ‘Black Dianetics’”, last section: “Conclusion and an observation relating to copyright notices”, or click here. And my “Overview of the editing implemented in the 2006 DVD release and additional observations”, click here. (both links will open in separate windows)

Go to index
 
Final notices on the issue of copyright (3)  Interpretations (a frightful scenario)

What do we make of all this? We are facing the situation that supposedly the ownership of the copyrights got transferred back to L. Ron Hubbard (in 1978), this by a dubious document, dated May 4, 1978, only signed by an unidentified “Board of Directors of the Church of Scientology of California” and a missing involvement and/or signature of L. Ron Hubbard (consult here, link will open in pop-up window). When L. Ron Hubbard had established 20 years earlier in 1958 that “all copyrights, marks and rights, by blanket assignment are the property of and will remain the property of HCO Ltd the main office.”. We see thus no L. Ron Hubbard accepting these copyrights back to his person. But without this transferral back to L. Ron Hubbard the copyrights could not have ended up with the Church of Spiritual Technology (CST). The 1978 document directed: “4. In the event of Mr. Hubbard's demise, this assignment and transfer shall vest, in its entirety, in his successors, assigns, heirs, and legalees [sic: ‘legatees’].”.
Now, if we disregard this and we would assume this all would be in order, then why, why, why has the ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright been abandoned since? Why do we instead have the ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyright? Which basically is a replacing copyright that, and this in particular is very interesting, does not include the original copyright years as they had been in use with the ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright!


A frightful scenario

One interpretation could be that we are facing here some kind of cover-up. The actual copyrights then would have fallen into the public domain for the original works, for this reason the ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright could not be used anymore, or at least not after his demise. A new copyright then had to be thought up which had to be similar or at least including the name of L. Ron Hubbard somewhere, in order for people not getting suspicious. This came to be ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’. To be able to register the old material which copyright had expired we now have to implement ‘significant alterations’ or arrange ‘new releases of unpublished material’ if we are to publish under this new copyright. Still the copyright is only effecting these very changes, but we are not being informed about this. Naturally however the earlier copyright years as they were mentioned previously under the ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright can not be mentioned anymore or included when using the ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyright.
It could be an attempt to actually re-own the copyrights. You do not own the ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright, but you do own the ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyright (even if this is only effecting the actual changes incorporated, which you don't tell about). If you are to prevent people from using the not anymore copyrighted versions of the materials you then have to see to it that the Church of Scientology organizations only have the ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ material available in the various organizations around the world. With other words, you somehow have to start getting rid of or shred this old material. At the same time as you are doing that you compile lots of Based on L. Ron Hubbard publications, which will have full copyright protection under the new ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyright.
In the mean time though you do not wish to put very much weight on the original material, the bulk of which are still carrying the ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright (now in the public domain). For this reason you don't discuss copyrights, as you only legally own the ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyrighted material. Instead you focus on some trademarks which you do have, and you put all the weight and the importance on these trademarks. Trademarks which factually only are some graphical designs, but you present and promote these in such ways as if they are something more than that.
How exactly are we going to republish this original material? The ordinary Scientology books simply can be republished after being extensively revised or changed. The OEC and Technical Bulletins volumes should be stripped from their copyright notices for each individual issue. This will make it impossible for those who only have these new volumes to determine which individual issues still carry the ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright and which the ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyright. For sure you would effectively cover up that a variety of these could be in the public domain as all these individual issues together are copyrighted as a compilation publication, and do not witness of any individual copyright for each issue. It would also be a good idea to remove the revision notices which are found in the original mimeo print offs, data which explained why certain things had been done (its history). If you do that then you can prevent people from getting suspicious and wanting to track what had happened with these particular issues, as they are not given access to these historical revision notes that may motivate them to do so.
In regards to the Scientology material that once was compiled or written by others the ‘agreement’ has since developed in the present official Church of Scientology that these are no good. To still be able to use the material deriving from others you then need to have them rewritten, and then attribute them to L. Ron Hubbard. Of course you also have to see to it that the original versions of this Scientology related material written/compiled by others has to disappear. Imagine that some would start to do some comparison? No, we can't have that happening. A variety of this re-released material was originally issued under the BPL* and the BTB* issue-type format.

Indeed a frightful scenario! Could there be any truth in it? You yourself have to be the judge of that, but a variety of the implications that I describe in the above in fact have been confirmed that they have happened or are happening. Very applicable reading material directly relating to this you will find on my page “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2)”. Consult the first 2 chapters: “The importance of the Qual Library” & “An odd misconception about ‘KSW’ & The story of the ‘old red volumes’”. And also my page “Non-LRH turns into LRH?”. (see my Scientology index page)


If Scientology is to survive as was originally intended by L. Ron Hubbard, each one of us as an individual simply has the responsibility to see to it that all is carried out as he actually intended. Meaning that you can not just assume that all is alright solely because someone tells you that it is all alright! Keeping Scientology Working is our personal responsibility, we can't just put this responsibility on someone else's shoulders.

      
“Collective-think is always closer to bank*-think than individual reasoning. That's because the bank is the one constant people have in common. And it's crazy. So almost any individual alive can plan better than a group will execute and certainly better than a group can plan.
       
 
  Scientology groups are far superior to human groups. But the rule still applies that collective-think is always less sane than the thinking of an individual.”          LRH
          (from HCO PL 18 Jan 65 “Financial Management; Building Fund Account”)
 

Go to index
 
The ‘Church of Spiritual Technology’ preserving the technology for future generations?

Scientology & Eternity 1
Mr. Norman Starkey shows a sample of the plated copper long playing records of LRH lectures.

Church of Spiritual Technology is not mentioned anywhere by its name in any Scientology bookpublication, or magazine. The only mention ever made by the Church of Scientology (according to my memory) to this Church of Spiritual Technology was during the late 1980's. It was in regards to protecting the Scientology technology for future generations, this was at a Flag event (senior organization located in Clearwater, Florida). Practically this meant that LRH his policies and writings were being preserved and saved and imprinted on very durable material and subsequently buried in bunkers at different places on this planet. So even if we would have a nuclear war or something these would then survive. An article appeared in ‘KSW News, Issue 29’ (late 1989), read the full article here (link will open as a pop-up window). Illustration here above is also taken from this article.

There is something to say about this. Would the wrong persons some way gain sole access to these bunkers the game would be lost. Making an analogical comparison with the following may also be interesting:
        
“There is only one thing that could happen to Scientology and that is to say that it would be buried—the remedy would be buried. If it ever went out of sight, this world's done.”          LRH
          (from Philadelphia Doctorate Course lecture #20 “Formative State of Scientology, Definition of Logic”, given on 6 Dec 52)
        
           Note: for sound snippet that contains above quotation see further here below ...

If you bury these in some bunkers around this planet (7 places have been picked), there will be a record somewhere or some person(s) would know where these bunkers are located. This means that they can be seized if some would set their mind to that. Also it is imaginable that those places have been picked at forehand by those being in control, and then we do not know for sure if in fact this project is fully being carried out either. Public Relations can cover up a lot, we may have been fooled? Now, how do we know that we are not being lead behind the curtain?

“So anybody that knows the remedy of this subject—anybody that knows these techniques—is himself actually under a certain responsibility; that's to make sure that he doesn't remain a sole proprietor. That's all it takes; just don't remain a sole proprietor. Don't ever think that a monopoly of this subject is a safe thing to have. It's not safe. It's not safe for man; it's not safe for this universe.”          LRH
          (from Philadelphia Doctorate Course lecture #20 “Formative State of Scientology, Definition of Logic”, given on 6 Dec 52)

        
sound  Sound snippet (2:12) 
        

To avoid such a situation that only a few would have access to this “remedy” and that no one is the “sole proprietor” may very well be to circulate as many copies as possible of this material. This way some copy will always be in reach of those who want to use this “remedy” to ‘free man from his burden’. This one copy will suffice to make other copies and circulate these, from which further copies can be made. No world power then will be able to confiscate every copy around as they would not know where all these are located. But then if you bury this in some bunkers at some places around this planet ...

As a comparison one could ask oneself how the Nag Hammadi scriptures actually could survive?

Keep in mind:

“Thus, the first basic principle of Black Dianetics: So long as a natural phenomenon remains the knowledge of a few and is denied to the many it can be utilized to control the many.”          LRH   
          (from ‘Journal of Scientology Issue 4-G’ [ca. early Oct 52])

“For no man has any monopoly upon the wisdom of this universe. It belongs to those who can use it to help themselves and others.”          LRH   
          (from “My Philosophy” [ca 1965])


Vocabulary:

     68R, 68RA:
For example: ‘HCO PL 14 Oct 68R’ & ‘HCO PL 14 Oct 68RA’. The date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R stands for 'Revision' and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first issued. If it is revised a 2nd time it says RA, a 3rd time RB etc..
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     bank:
The mental image picture collection collection of a person. It comes from computer technology where all data is in a 'bank'. See also at reactive mind in vocabulary.
     Black Dianetics:   (as in Technical Dictionary)
1. Hypnotism. (from lecture given on sept 17, 1951 entitled ‘Black Dianetics’). 2. There are those who, to control, resort to narcotism, suggestion, gossip, slander—the thousands of overt and covert ways that can be classified as Black Dianetics. (from Scientology Journal Issue 3-G, Sept. 1952 entitled ‘Danger: Black Dianetics!’).
     BPL:
‘Board Policy Letter’, these are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology. Issue-type for policy letters not written by L. Ron Hubbard. In Jan 1974 projects were started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being valid reissued as BPL's.
     BTB:
‘Board Technical Bulletin’, these are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology. Issue-type for technical matters not written by L. Ron Hubbard.
     CSI:
‘Church of Scientology International’. A senior level within the Church of Scientology.
     HCO (HCO Division):
‘Hubbard Communications Office’: It's in charge of the org boards, personnel, hatting and communication lines. HCO builds, holds, maintains, mans and controls the organization. It's in charge of inspection and it's in charge of ethics. Has the say on all copyrights and trademarks, rights of materials and the issuance of publications.
     HCOB:
‘Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’: issue-type since Jan 74 reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only, these address technical issues, having to do with auditing procedures and courses. 
     HCO PL or PL:
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’: issue-type reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only, these address administrative issues.  One should keep in mind however that at one time not all HCO PL's were written by L. Ron Hubbard.  In present time they are either cancelled or reissued in another issue-type. 
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     OEC:
‘Organization Executive Course’. Refers to ‘The Organization Executive Course’, this is a series of books that contain the HCO PL's, and any administrative references. These references are mostly printed green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves have green bindings. Also referred to as the ‘green volumes’.
     original mimeo print-off:
Individually printed issues and distributed from the Mimeo Section of the Scientology organization as opposed to those collected in volumes. These are the issues that you may regard as the real first prints. As a rule these are typed out, mimeographed and distributed as soon as possible after having been compiled or written. They are always legal-sized, 8½ by 14 inches (approx. 21,6 x 35,6 cm). If the issue had 3 or more sides, the pages were collated and stapled together in the upper left corner. More detailed information about this is found here (link will open in a separate window).
     org:
Abbreviation for ‘organization’.
     reactive mind:
1. That portion of a person's mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it gives a certain response) which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes thoughts, body and actions. It consists of GPMs, Engrams, Secondaries and Locks. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  2. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11)  3. ‘bank’: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. This is what the procedures of Scientology are devoted to disposing of, for it is only a burden to an individual and he is much better off without it. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  4. The reactive mind acts below the level of consciousness. It is the literal stimulus-response mind. Given a certain stimulus it gives a certain response. (The Fundamentals of Though, p. 58)
     third dynamic:
There could be said to be eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. These we call dynamics. These are motives or motivations.
The ‘third dynamic’ is the urge towards existence in groups or individuals. Also referred to as the ‘group dynamic’.

Go to top of this page

Copyright © 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010   Michel Snoeck.  All rights reserved.
This page revised: 26 July, 2010