Enlighten Me Free


Housekeeping: As is posted on the EMF Message Board page, this forum is for support, sharing opinions and experiences for those who have left RSE and have doubts and concerns about their tenure there. It is NOT a place for proselytizing for RSE, JZK Inc or Ramtha.  Play nicely or your post will be sent to cyberspace time-out for all eternity. The disclaimer for EMF is located on this page http://enlightenmefree.com/disclaimer.html and all posters agree to the terms of the disclaimer. Be sure you've read it before posting.

You may also want to visit a complementary forum at FACTNet http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/779.html

If you wish to use a Spell Checker, you may wish to use this free one: http://www.jacuba.com/

Want to contact the EMF moderators? Email messageboard@enlightenmefree.com



General Forum
Start a New Topic 
Copyright questions

Hey guys,

I am writing a song about my experience (or about my relationship and RSE's contributions to it's downfall) with RSE, and I was wondering if anyone knows how far the RSE copyrights are taken.

If I was to post a link to the recording of my song on this site, I understand it could probably wind up in the hands of some RSE people who troll this message board.

Could they pursuit legal action for my use of phrases like "Create your day"? Would they go as far as threatening slander because of the blatantly anti-Ramtha bend to the song? The song doesn't ever mention JZ, Ramtha or RSE specifically. It just talks about a group stealing the mind of a girl and feeding it contradictions, etc. But it does use RSE trademarked terms like "create your day", etc.

Also- If I took Audio clips from JZ/R (for instance, ones that were publicly posted by the RSE Web Team on Youtube) and placed them into the song, could that get me in trouble even though they are posted publicly on the web?

I'd REALLY like to play some contradictory statements from JZR in the breakdown part of the song, but I won't do that if the legal risks are high.

Anyone able to help me on this?

Re: Copyright questions

Their you tube presentations are covered under copywrite. I'm not sure the term "create your day" can be copywritten other than as a teaching.
And yes you can probably be sued for slander. I think that even posting something truthful, with the intent to harm can be considered slanderous.
A few years ago I read of a case where someone sued for slander and won (similar circumstance).
You can always check with a lawyer to make sure.

Re: Copyright questions

If I don't use the audio clips, I should be ok right?

Again, I don't mention the school, JZ or Ramtha by name once.

It's just kind of a vague folk/rock/punk tale of a girl succumbing to a greedy, self motivated group. I can't find the lyrics right now (which actually makes me nervous...that means I might have left them where one of the Ramsters at my my house could find them ) but I don't recall any really Ramtha-specific lyrics besides maybe two references to Creating Your Day and a couple word plays about the Days to Come.

Even if my lyrics were completely attacking of the school, those references wouldn't be enough for a successful slander case, would they? And the lyrics aren't even objectively against RSE, just my personal views. Would that be considered any more slanderous than what has been said on this board?

Re: Copyright questions

I work in an intellectual property law firm...just want to say, be careful...like, instead of saying, "create your day", could you maybe say something like "give form to your sunlight hours"...although, common English words or phrases are hard to get exclusive rights to...so, "create your day" may not be entitled to a wide ambit of protection. I urge you to paraphrase...not quote anything directly. good luck.

Re: Copyright questions


Slander is a falsification. People's posts here are for their experiences and opinions as ex-students, or family/friends of loved ones connected to RSE, and for support of same.

With what you're considering doing, if you are concerned about the legalities, it's probably best to speak with an attorney about it to be sure.

Good luck.

Re: Copyright questions

I work in intellectual property - Trade Marks, Copyrights and Patents...
It would, IMO, be better not to use the excact phrases or titles of lessons or concepts or publications, to paraphrase as much as possible - although, one possible defense is where the word or phrase in question is a common one, and there is more than one entity with virtually the identical phrase or word already on the official register.
You can look up some of the words on the United Stated Patent and Trademark Office website.
Or, better yet, come up with your own words or phrases that convey the exact same flavour and information.
Good luck...would like to hear the song when you are done!

Re: Copyright questions

Hey Lost,

Have you ever come across the copyright or tm of anything like JZ has done??
Are there any challanges of similar "entities that you know of??

Sort o sounds like it might be a bit "miracle on 34th st." ish.

Re: Copyright questions

how about....Create YOur Life....

Make a remarkable life.....

make a sign of pythagorus's rule: a star..

how about: make your year yours?

Just do it ( nike hasn;t sued JZ yet)

Re: Copyright questions

I am in Canada...we do have U.S. clients though. I did look up several RSE terms, phrases on the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) database...no sign of them. Could explore the US ones.
What I might find interesting is, often it has been suggested here that the school, or its leadership, have borrowed extensively from other writers, sages, mystics, entire religions and trains of thought, or scientific discoveries, and sought to pass them off as unique to the school...and that would truly constitute fraud...not consumer fraud, as has also been suggested here, i.e. the school not delivering what it promised, but commercial fraud. But I am just a legal assistant, not a lawyer...any lawyers out there?

Re: Copyright questions

My opinion is go for it but I dont live in the US and we aren't as litigious in Australia. If I were you I write whatever I wanted and post it on youtube, maybe there is a disclaimer you can put to cover yourself why dont you post if from a hotmail account at an internet cafe, how would they find you? Sorry I'm probably telling you how to go about covering up a crime!

I watched that ridiculous Rockumentary the other day when my partner was out (the only JZ/Ramtha thing I have actually watched apart from 2 minutes here and there on youtube), I was thinking of doing a bit of editing and posting it on youtube, could be hysterical. She's just a drunken woman acting like a man to shock the audience into thinking she is something other than she is. No wonder my partner fell in love with me, JZ reminds me of me when I've had too much, a bit crude and ballsy, he probably thought I was channelling the first night we went out.

Re: Copyright questions

"Give form to your sunlight hours = create your day."

LOL, LOL, LOL, this is too funny! Hurry, use it before "Ramtha" does. It is so clever it will surely turn up as a "teaching" soon!

Give form to your sunlight hours...

Re: Copyright questions

Zyxwv… Nov 7th, 2007 - 5:48 PM

Can you be more specific with your statement that..

“Would that be considered any more slanderous than what has been said on this board”?

If EMF has slandered anybody then it will be removed immediately,


Re: Copyright questions


you may find this article helpful...

10 Big Myths about copyright explained
- by Brad Templeton

An attempt to answer common myths about copyright seen on the net and cover issues related to copyright and USENET/Internet publication.

1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."

This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.
It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn't post that either.
The correct form for a notice is:
"Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]"
You can use C in a circle © instead of "Copyright" but "(C)" has never been given legal force. The phrase "All Rights Reserved" used to be required in some nations but is now not legally needed most places. In some countries it may help preserve some of the "moral rights."

2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."

False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is an exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money.

3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."

False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.

Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material into the public domain. It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated licence that the copier was aware of.
Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post the item in the first place. If the poster didn't, then all the copies are pirated, and no implied licence or theoretical reduction of the copyright can take place.
(*) Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting something into the public domain, and there are some fine points on this issue regarding older copyright law versions. However, none of this applies to material from the modern era, such as net postings.
Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete abandonment of all rights. You can't make something "PD for non-commercial use." If your work is PD, other people can even modify one byte and put their name on it.

4) "My posting was just fair use!"

See other notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear the following in mind:
The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.
Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously, copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he pardoned Nixon.
Note that most inclusion of text in followups and replies is for commentary, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it is almost surely fair use. Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, though. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.
The "fair use" concept varies from country to country, and has different names (such as "fair dealing" in Canada) and other limitations outside the USA.
Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, but their expression and structure can. You can always write the facts in your own wordsthough
See the DMCA alert for recent changes in the law.

5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that name copyrighted!"

False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also can't "copyright a name" or anything short like that, such as almost all titles. You may be thinking of
trade marks, which apply to names, and can be weakened or lost if not defended.
You generally trademark terms by using them to refer to your brand of a generic type of product or service. Like an "Apple" computer. Apple Computer "owns" that word applied to computers, even though it is also an ordinary word. Apple Records owns it when applied to music. Neither owns the word on its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesn't mean complete control -- see a more detailed treatise on this law for details.
You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would steal the value of the mark, or in a way that might make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or which might allow you to profit from the mark's good name. For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I would be very wary of trying to label my works with a name like "mtv." :-) You can use marks to critcise or parody the holder, as long as it's clear you aren't the holder.

6) "If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me."

False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you need that author's permission.
Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably a copyright violation. If you want to publish a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount's permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that.
There is a major exception -- criticism and
parody. The fair use provision says that if you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don't need their permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can't just take a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality. The way "fair use" works is you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did copy, but that your copying was a fair use. A subjective judgment on, among other things, your goals, is then made.
However, it's also worth noting that a court has never ruled on this issue, because fan fiction cases always get settled quickly when the defendant is a fan of limited means sued by a powerful publishing company. Some argue that completely non-commercial fan fiction might be declared a fair use if courts get to decide. You can read more

7) "They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!"
Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would usually get sued, not be charged with a crime. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Sorry, but in copyright suits, these don't apply the same way or at all. It's mostly which side and set of evidence the judge or jury accepts or believes more, though the rules vary based on the type of infringement. In civil cases you can even be made to testify against your own interests.

8) "Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?"

Actually, in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At least you get the protections of criminal law.) On the other hand, don't think you're going to get people thrown in jail for posting your E-mail. The courts have much better things to do. This is a fairly new, untested statute. In one case an operator of a pirate BBS that didn't charge was acquited because he didn't charge, but congress amended the law to cover that.

9) "It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising."

It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do. Time past, ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a large and appreciative Usenet audience for a fee, but some person didn't ask, and forwarded it to a mailing list, got caught, and the newspaper chain that employs Dave Barry pulled the column from the net, ******* off everybody who enjoyed it. Even if you can't think of how the author or owner gets hurt, think about the fact that piracy on the net hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new technology to do more than read other people's flamewars.

10) "They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it."

To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail you write is copyrighted. However, E-mail is not, unless previously agreed, secret. So you can certainly report on what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says. You can even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody who sues over an ordinary message would almost surely get no damages, because the message has no commercial value, but if you want to stay strictly in the law, you should ask first. On the other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts E-mail you sent them. If it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all E-mail), you probably won't get any damages if you sue them. Note as well that, the law aside, keeping private correspondence private is a courtesy one should usually honour.

11)"So I can't ever reproduce anything?"

Myth #11 (I didn't want to change the now-famous title of this article) is actually one sometimes generated in response to this list of 10 myths. No, copyright isn't an iron-clad lock on what can be published. Indeed, by many arguments, by providing reward to authors, it encourages them to not just allow, but fund the publication and distribution of works so that they reach far more people than they would if they were free or unprotected -- and unpromoted. However, it must be remembered that copyright has two main purposes, namely the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used.

While copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce almost any new creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if the work is unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very little protection. The author in this case can sue for an injunction against the publication, actual damages from a violation, and possibly court costs. Actual damages means actual money potentially lost by the author due to publication, plus any money gained by the defendant. But if a work has no commercial value, such as a typical E-mail message or conversational USENET posting, the actual damages will be zero. Only the most vindictive (and rich) author would sue when no damages are possible, and the courts don't look kindly on vindictive plaintiffs, unless the defendants are even more vindictive.
The author's right to control what is done with a work, however, has some validity, even if it has no commercial value. If you feel you need to violate a copyright "because you can get away with it because the work has no value" you should ask yourself why you're doing it. In general, respecting the rights of creators to control their creations is a principle many advocate adhering to.
In addition, while more often than not people claim a "fair use" copying incorrectly, fair use is a valid concept necessary to allow the criticism of copyrighted works and their creators through examples. But please read more about it before you do it.
In Summary
These days, almost all things are copyrighted the moment they are written, and no copyright notice is required.
Copyright is still violated whether you charged money or not, only damages are affected by that.
Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don't grant you any permission to do further copying except perhaps the sort of copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow of the net.
Fair use is a complex doctrine meant to allow certain valuable social purposes. Ask yourself why you are republishing what you are posting and why you couldn't have just rewritten it in your own words.
Copyright is not lost because you don't defend it; that's a concept from trademark law. The ownership of names is also from trademark law, so don't say somebody has a name copyrighted.
Fan fiction and other work derived from copyrighted works is a copyright violation.
Copyright law is mostly civil law where the special rights of criminal defendants you hear so much about don't apply. Watch out, however, as new laws are moving copyright violation into the criminal realm.
Don't rationalize that you are helping the copyright holder; often it's not that hard to ask permission.
Posting E-mail is technically a violation, but revealing facts from E-mail you got isn't, and for almost all typical E-mail, nobody could wring any damages from you for posting it. The law doesn't do much to protect works with no commercial value.
DMCA Alert!
Copyright law was recently amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which changed net copyright in many ways. In particular, it put all sorts of legal strength behind copy-protection systems, making programs illegal and reducing the reality of fair use rights.
The DMCA also changed the liability outlook for ISPs in major ways, many of them quite troublesome.



Re: Copyright questions

Here's a link to the legal definition of slander and what is actionable, etc:


Re: Copyright questions

PS: Slander is spoken, what you are thinking about it libel, which pertains to written material, etc., so check that out as well. There have been changes in the libel laws in recent years which are more allowing for free speech under certain restrictions.

Re: Copyright questions

Thanks for your help, esp. David, Lost and Bodhi.

What I meant by my slanderous statement was not to say that this board is slanderous, but to say that my song is no more slanderous than the board. What I am saying is that I don't feel my song is slander or libel, and if it is, then this board certainly is as well.

Some lyrics that I guess would be questionable would be:

He'll tell you "have no fear, it's just the days to come are near
Everything will be fine when you come here"
Then he'll say "better be scared and get yourself prepared
Though what I say has no merit you'll just have to grin and bare it"


The days are coming and the thunder is drumming
Everyone better march to the tune this "channeler" is humming
In your hovel you will hide to get away from the tide
Give your money, your time and come along for the ride.


So take a pill to be a zombie, or heal on one's own,
Create reality yourself, but do as your shown?
Live simply with few possessions and be self sustained
but make money, play the game because you are what you've gained?
They'll present these contradictions for which no answers exist
If you can't conjure one up then you can't manifest for ****"

Those are by far the most slanderous/copyright infringing sections. Again, I never mention JZ or Ramtha or RSE. I think I'm going to just go for it. I've never stopped writing something out of fear, I certainly don't see a reason to let it start now.

Re: Copyright questions

Please somebody go film this guy and put him on YouTube!

Re: Copyright questions

Absolutely go for it, RSE promotes so much fear in its students dont let it frighten you. If you are worried at all, I will put it up on Youtube for you. That freaky blonde woman doesn't scare me at all! Bring it on JZ, I'm ready to rumble anytime you like. I have achieved something you will never get, the true knowing of who I am and that gives me power you can't imagine.

Re: Copyright questions


GO FOR IT ! You have the right to your creativity. What a great job. I can't imagine you'd have trouble with it.

Re: Copyright questions

zyxwv, those words are very lyrical and poetic. go for it.

Re: Copyright questions

thanks everyone. I am not going to put it on youtube because my friends in RSE including my girlfriend watch Ramtha videos on youtube and I don't want them stumbling across it. If my girlfriend and I break up, or if she gets out of RSE, then I'll let her hear the song, but not until then.

I will record the song when I find people to play on it (a drummer, lead guitarist and hopefully a mandolin player- I am just a bassist and rhythm guitarist). I will then post an Mp3 of it online for you guys to hear and I'll post the lyrics. I just don't feel comfortable yet putting it somewhere so easy to search, like youtube.

Re: Copyright questions

I know all three - lead guitar, mandolin and drums - young men who had a super group but their CD never came out. They're in the states, though. But not afraid to speak truth, are they.

GO FOR IT. The words are provocative, and those who don't know who/what you're referring to will wish to know. Do you know any professional vocalists who aren't afraid to stir up the truth?

(There's always "Band-in-a-Box" - do they still make it? I have an old copy of it.)

Re: Copyright questions

I certainly would not even consider using a professional vocalist, for a number of reasons. music is really important to me; my mediocre voice is part of the honestly and appeal of my music. I also think it's weird to sing someone else's lyrics of have them sing yours on a song you wrote.

I have been looking for members to form this band with for quite some time, maybe i'll record an acoustic version just to have a rough recording of it, but the full version of this song is going to go on the next album I make, once I have a full band.

Re: Copyright questions

check out the dude on myspace: