View source for User:Abbie Normal/Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous

{{Infobox film
| name           = Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous
| image          = Inside Landmark Forum 2 of 6.jpg
| caption        = '''"Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus"''', 2004
| director       = [[Karima Tabti]]
| producer       = [[France 3]],<br />[[Elise Lucet]],<br />[[Herve Brusini]]
| writer         = ''[[Pièces à Conviction]]''<br />'''''(Incriminating Evidence)'''''<br>(French news program)
| starring       = [[Elise Lucet]], Host/Moderator;<br />Laurent Richard, [[France 3]] [[undercover]] [[investigative journalist]];<br />Alain Roth, [[Landmark Worldwide|Landmark Education]] head, France;<br />Sophie McLean, Landmark Education spokeswoman and [[Landmark Forum Leader]];<br />[[Jean-Pierre Jougla]], Attorney;<br />[[Jean-Marie Abgrall]], [[Psychiatrist]], author of ''Mechanics of the Sects'';<br />[[Jean-Pierre Brard]], Deputy Mayor, [[Montreuil, Seine-Saint-Denis|Montreuil, France]];<br />[[Christian Lujan]], [[Social psychologist]], [[Psychoanalyst]];<br />Jocelyne Berthelot, Landmark Education volunteer;<br />[[Mona Vasquez]], former [[Scientology]] member;<br />Laurent Mournais, former participant;<br />Brigitte Thelier, former participant;<br />Pierre, anonymous former participant;<br />[[Thomas Lardeur]], consultant;<br />[[Arnaud Palisson]], intelligence officer and author of ''A Major Enquiry on Scientology''
| music          =
| cinematography =
| editing        = Pascal Richard,<br />[http://www.lightstalkers.org/lioneldeconinck Lionel de Coninck]<br />Emmanuel Charrieras
| distributor    = [[France 3]]
| released       = 24 May 2004
| runtime        = 65 minutes
| country        = France
| awards         =
| language       = French
| budget         =
| preceded_by    =
| followed_by    =
}}

'''''Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous''''' ('''''Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus''''') is a French [[television documentary]] that reported on the activities of [[Landmark Worldwide|Landmark Education]]. The [[investigative journalism]] program ''[[Pièces à Conviction]]'' [''Incriminating Evidence''] started filming it in 2003, and [[France 3]] broadcast it in France on 24 May 2004 &ndash; during prime time, a first for the show.<ref name="huma_Fran">{{Cite web
| title = France 3. L'investigation prend du galon
| last = Roy | first = Anne
| work = L'Humanité
| date = 24 May 2004
| accessdate = 2014-09-21
| url = http://www.humanite.fr/node/306038
| language = fr 
| quote = le sujet est tourné en caméra cachée. Une technique qui permet de rapporter des informations bien gardées par la société, qui donne au reportage une dimension idéale pour tenir en haleine les spectateurs à 20 h 50. Le journaliste Laurent Richard a infiltré Landmark Education, une société américaine de " développement personnel " classée depuis 1996 parmi les " sectes " répertoriées par la commission d'enquête parlementaire. "
}}</ref> After the broadcast, the French government released information it had gathered on Landmark,<ref name="deri_Etud">{{Cite web
| title = Etude Landmark Education International - Mai 2004 {{!}} Miviludes
| author = 
| work = derives-sectes.gouv.fr
| date = 27 December 2014
| accessdate = 2014-09-20
| url = http://www.derives-sectes.gouv.fr/publications-de-la-miviludes/etudes-et-sondages/etude-landmark-education-international-mai-2004
| language = fr 
| quote = 
}}</ref> and Landmark left the country.

==Background==
{{see also|Landmark Worldwide}}
In 1971, [[Werner Erhard]] created the [[Erhard Seminars Training]] (''est'') course<ref name="hukill">{{cite news| last =Hukill | first =Tracy | title =The est of Friends: Werner Erhard's protégés and siblings carry the torch for a '90s incarnation of the '70s 'training' that some of us just didn't get | periodical=[[Metro Silicon Valley]] |publisher=[[Metro Newspapers]]|date =July 9, 1998 | url =http://www.metroactive.com/landmark/landmark1-9827.html | archiveurl =http://web.archive.org/web/20091021101004/http://www.metroactive.com/landmark/landmark1-9827.html | archivedate =2009-10-21 | accessdate = 2008-04-11 }}</ref> as a form of [[Large Group Awareness Training]],<ref name="fisher">{{Cite book| last1 =Fisher|first1 =Jeffrey D.| last2=Cohen Silver|first2=Roxane|last3=Chinsky|first3=Jack M.| last4=Goff|first4=Barry| last5=Klar|first5=Yechiel| title =[[Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training]] | place=New York | publisher =Springer-Verlag | year=1990 | isbn = 0-387-97320-6|page=142| postscript =<!--None-->}}</ref><ref name="denison">{{cite journal | last =Denison | first =Charles Wayne | title =The children of EST: A study of the experience and perceived effects of a large group awareness training | journal =Dissertation Abstracts International | volume =55 | issue =12-B  | page =5564 | publisher =[[University Microfilms International]] | location =[[Ann Arbor, Michigan]] | date =June 1995 |issn=0419-4217 }}</ref> and was part of the [[Human Potential Movement]].<ref name="mcgurk">{{cite journal| last =McGurk | first =William S. | title =Was Ist ''est''? | journal =Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books | volume =22 | issue =6 | pages =pp. 459–460 |date=June 1977}}</ref> It was a four-day, 60-hour self-help program given to groups of 250&nbsp;people at a time.<ref name="berzins">{{cite journal| last =Berzins | first =Zane | title =Getting It | journal =[[The New York Times Book Review]] | volume =82 | page =25 | publisher =[[The New York Times Company]] | date =February 6, 1977 }}</ref> The program was very intensive: each day would contain 15–20&nbsp;hours of instruction.<ref name="mcgurk" /> Participants had to agree to certain rules which remained in effect for the duration of the course.<ref name="bader">{{cite journal| last =Bader | first =Barbara (Editor) | title =Getting It | journal =[[Kirkus Reviews]] | volume = 44 | issue =Part II, Section No. 14 | date =July 15, 1976 | page = p. 821 }}</ref> They were taught that they were responsible for their life outcomes, and were promised a dramatic change in their [[self-perception]].<ref name="mcgurk" />

est was controversial: critics characterized the training methods as [[brainwashing]],<ref>{{cite news | last =Brewer | first =Mark  | title =We're Gonna Tear You Down and Put You Back Together | work =[[Psychology Today]] | date =August 1975}}</ref><ref>{{cite book  | last =Lande | first =Nathaniel | title =Mindstyles, Lifestyles: A Comprehensive Overview of Today's Life-changing Philosophies | publisher =Price/Stern/Sloan | date =October 1976 | page =135 | isbn = 0-8431-0414-7}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last =Koocher | first =Gerald P. |author2=Patricia Keith-Spiegel | title =Ethics in Psychology: Professional Standards and Cases | publisher =Oxford University Press | year =1998 | page =111 | isbn = 0-19-509201-5}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last =Bardini | first =Thierry |authorlink=Thierry Bardini | title =Bootstrapping: Douglas Engelbart, Coevolution, and the Origins of Personal Computing | publisher =Stanford University Press | year =2000 | page =205 | isbn =0-8047-3871-8 }}</ref> and suggested that the program had [[Fascism|fascistic]] and [[Narcissism|narcissistic]] tendencies.<ref name="mcgurk" /> Proponents asserted that it had a profoundly positive impact on people's lives.<ref name="mcgurk" /> By 1977 over 100,000&nbsp;people had completed the training, including public figures and mental health professionals.<ref name="mcgurk" /> In 1985, [[Werner Erhard and Associates]] repackaged the course as "The Forum", a seminar focused on "goal-oriented breakthroughs".<ref name="hukill" /> By 1988, about a million people had taken some form of the training.<ref name="hukill" /> In the early 1990s Erhard faced family problems, as well as tax problems that were eventually resolved in his favor.<ref name="hukill" /><ref name="faltermayer">{{cite news | url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101980316-138763,00.html | title=The Best of Est? | first=Charlotte | last=Faltermayer | publisher=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] | date=2001-06-24 | accessdate=2007-09-28}}</ref><ref name="leaderofest">{{cite news|title=Leader of est movement wins $200,000 from IRS|work=Daily News of Los Angeles|date=September 12, 1996|location=[[Los Angeles, California]]|url=http://www.thefreelibrary.com/LEADER+OF+EST+MOVEMENT+WINS+$200,000+FROM+IRS.-a083966944}}</ref> A group of his associates formed the company [[Landmark Worldwide|Landmark Education]] in 1991, buying The Forum's course "technology" from Erhard.<ref name="hukill" />

==Subjects of the program==
The documentary included Alain Roth, a [[Landmark Worldwide|Landmark Forum]] leader and former head of Landmark's now defunct division in France.

Part of the documentary recounts how journalists from ''Pièces à Conviction'' originally wanted to interview Roth, but that Landmark flew Sophie McLean from New York City to France to speak with them instead.

McLean dismisses the description of her company as a "cult" or even as "cult-like", and disparages the view that its [[business]] depends on [[brainwashing]]. She cites three academics: Dr. [[Raymond D. Fowler|Raymond Fowler]] (former president of the [[American Psychological Association]]), Prof. Dr. [[Norbert Nedopil]] (Chief, department of forensic psychiatry, [[University of Munich]],<ref>[http://www.forensik-muenchen.de/ Homepage, Abteilung für Forensische Psychiatrie, Klinikum Innenstadt der Universität München]</ref> and French [[psychiatrist]] [[Jean-Marie Abgrall]].

==On-screen commentators==
France 3's ''Pièces à Conviction'' series brought in several noted French academics and authors to sit on its commentator-panel during the program. Apart from those discussed below, the program included Jocelyne Berthelot (a participant in Landmark and a Landmark [[Landmark Education#Assisting Program|volunteer]]); former Landmark participants Laurent Mournais and Brigitte Thelier; and a person using the pseudonym "Pierre". Other notable commentators included attorney [[Olivier Morice]], politician [[Phillippe Vuilque]], [[Catherine Picard]], president of UNADFI, and [[Gilles Bottine]], secretary general of [[MIVILUDES]].

===Solicitor Jean-Pierre Jougla===
[[Jean-Pierre Jougla]], a [[solicitor]] and academic, described the enrolees "in a state that made it impossible to leave". He went on further to describe "mental manipulation" of which the subject may be unaware, and stated that one can often accomplish [[brainwashing]] through methods that seem harmless. Methods he observed included "confining people for three or four days in a room with no windows".

Later, Jougla commented on what he called the "doctrine" inherent within Landmark, stating that: "What influences public opinion is only the storefront." Although Landmark lacks a religious element, it had a doctrine: Landmark's "concept of authenticity", and the promise "to teach people to be authentic".

===Psychiatrist Jean-Marie Abgrall===
[[Jean-Marie Abgrall]], [[Doctor of Medicine|M.D.]], a [[psychiatrist]], [[criminologist]], specialist in [[forensic medicine]], graduate in [[criminal law]], and noted [[anti-cult movement|anti-cult activist]],<ref>James T. Richardson and Massimo Introvigne Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Vol. 40, No. 2 (Jun., 2001), pp. 143-168</ref> 
wrote the book whose English translation is titled ''Soul Snatchers: The Mechanics of Cults'' (1999). He has served as an [[expert witness]] in the Supreme Court of Appeal (''[[Court of Cassation (France)|Cour de cassation]]'') and in the Court for Businesses (''Tribunal de commerce'') in France on the subject of cults.<ref name=palmer/> Landmark paid Abgrall [[Euro|€]]45,600 [[Euro]]s to write a positive report on itself in 2001, and to declare the organization "not a cult".{{Citation needed|date=September 2014}}

''Pièces a Conviction'' staff interviewed Abgrall and asked him about his alleged assertion that Landmark is not a cult. He denied that he had or hadn't called it a cult.  He went on to point out that "[t]here is no control of a psychologist".{{Vague|date=September 2014}} He continued by elaborating on his concern of the lack of training of the individuals who led the Landmark Forum, saying: "These guys aren't trained, as if tomorrow you set up shop as a psychotherapist. I mean, that's what's shocking."

This interview also appeared in ''[[Le Parisien]]''.<ref name="lepa_L'em">{{Cite web
| title = The Embarrassing Report of the Anti-cult Expert
| author = Frédéric Vézard
| work = leparisien.fr
| date = 28 May 2004
| accessdate = 2014-09-20
| url = http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/l-embarrassant-rapport-de-l-expert-antisectes-28-05-2004-2005017489.php
| language =  French
| quote = 
}}</ref> (MILS, the predecessor to [[MIVILUDES]], dismissed Abgrall in consequence of a [[conflict of interest]] regarding the payment he accepted from Landmark.{{citation needed|date=September 2014}})

===Deputy mayor Jean-Pierre Brard===
[[Jean-Pierre Brard]], the deputy mayor of [[Montreuil, Seine-Saint-Denis|Montreuil]], served as the vice-president of the [[Parliamentary Commission about Cults in France|Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France]] (''Commission parlementaire sur les sectes en France'') which reported its investigation on [[cult (religious practice)|cults]] in France to the [[French National Assembly]] in 1995.

The television host [[Elise Lucet]] asked Brard to explain why his committee had classified Landmark as a cult despite not having researched it. He responded: “There’s a guru who destabilises people to enslave them… Landmark’s structure makes you relinquish critical thought, and breaks the person down so that they can pick up the pieces. The ultimate goal is to…clean out the students’ wallets…and using the students…to earn more”. He pointed to four characteristics of a sect, and saying, "Enfin! It's a ''secte''!" Landmark sued Brard in 2004 after he appeared on the show.<ref name="palmer">{{cite book|last=Palmer|first=Susan|authorlink=Susan J. Palmer|title=The New Heretics of France: Minority Religions, la Republique, and the Government-Sponsored ''War on Sects''|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=pY5pAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27|date=2011-09-23|publisher=Oxford UP|isbn=9780199875993|pages=27, 186}}</ref>

===Psychoanalyst Christian Lujan===
Dr. [[Christian Lujan]], a [[psychoanalyst]], [[Social psychologist]] and professor at [[ESCP-EAP European School of Management]], has written two popular French books on [[human resource management]].

He appeared in the documentary and commented on why the Forum leader, Alain Roth, brought out "fears from childhood". Lujan said: "The goal is to destabilize the individual and to negate - and I emphasize this - the notion of the subject. The individual doesn't own his own past. Only they know what's good for him. At any moment, an exercise like this can take away a person's introspection."

===Mona Vasquez===
[[Mona Vasquez]] wrote the book ''Et Satan créa la secte'' [''Satan Created the Cult: Memoirs of an escapee'']. A member of [[Scientology]] for seven years, she appears in the documentary addressing what she sees as extensive and precise similarities between Scientology and Landmark, especially the use of [[jargon]].

==Response and commentary==
After the documentary aired, Landmark left France, according to the Romanian newspaper ''[[România Liberă]]''<ref name="roma_Land">{{Cite web
| title = Landmark: 4,000 Romanians were paid to cry in group
| last = Thomas | first = Laura
| work = RomaniaLibera.ro
| date = December 9, 2009
| accessdate = 2014-09-21
| url = http://www.romanialibera.ro/special/investigatii/landmark--4-000-de-romani-au-platit-ca-sa-planga-in-grup-172073
| language =  Romanian
| quote = Around 200,000 people yearly follow these courses, and Romania is the only country in Eastern Europe that activates Landmark. In France, however, the company was closed after a journalistic investigation by France 3, entitled "Journey into the realm of new gurus". Among other things, the French have labeled as a cult Landmark emotionally destabilizing participants.
}}</ref> and the Huffington Post.<ref name="huff_Insi">{{Cite web
| title = Inside The Landmark Forum
| last = Badt | first = Karin
| work = The Huffington Post
| date = 17 November 2011
| accessdate = 2014-09-21
| url = http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karin-badt/inside-the-landmark-forum_b_90028.html
| quote = It was this TV program that closed down the Landmark in France, leaving it only 24 other countries in which to spread its word.
}}</ref>

Matthieu Cosu, of the [[UNADFI]], when asked about the response to the airing of the documentary, responded: "It was huge! I have been contacted by nearly three thousand people. People whose relatives were in the sect, families who requested a hearing, an advice".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://television.telerama.fr/television/ces-docs-qui-ont-change-le-monde-4-5-voyage-au-pays-des-nouveaux-gourous,63449.php/ |title=Ces docs qui ont changé le monde (4/5) : "Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous"|last= Marzolf |first=Hélène  |date=11 December 2010 |website=Telerama |accessdate=19 September 2014}}</ref>

Dialogue Ireland, an [[anti-cult movement|anti-cult group]] write that the "contents (of the documentary) reflect the complaints Dialogue Ireland has received over the years", and that it has "received numerous testimonies from course participants who have slammed the group for high-pressure sales tactics and cult like behaviour". It notes that "after (the) documentary was broadcast nationally in France Landmark left the country." <ref name="dial_Land">{{Cite web
| title = Landmark: Journey to the Land of the New Gurus ~ France 3 documentary:
| author = 
| work = Dialogue Ireland
| date = 
| accessdate = 2014-09-20
| url = http://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/landmark-journey-to-the-land-of-the-new-gurus-france-3-documentary/
| quote = We direct the readers’ attention to the documentary “Journey to the Land of the New Gurus”. This French piece features undercover footage of [sic] taken during a Landmark course, and its contents reflect the complaints Dialogue Ireland has received over the years:
}}</ref>

''Le Parisien'' described the report as "damning" - and remarked on how authorities had until then been powerless against the activities of the group.<ref name="leparisien">{{Cite web
| title = Une secte démasquée grâce à la caméra cachée
| author = 
| work = leparisien.fr
| date = 24 May 2004
| accessdate = 2014-09-21
| url = http://www.leparisien.fr/loisirs-et-spectacles/une-secte-demasquee-grace-a-la-camera-cachee-24-05-2004-2005006048.php
| language =  French
| quote = Le document de ce soir montrera non seulement en quoi consistent ces fameux « stages », mais aussi comment les pouvoirs publics sont restés à ce jour impuissants face à ces agissements. A l'heure où nous bouclons, la société mise en cause n'a pas cherché à empêcher la diffusion de ce reportage accablant.
}}</ref> ''[[Le Point]]'' describes the investigation as "thorough (and) alarming"<ref name="lepo_Voya">{{Cite web
| title = Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous - Le Point
| last = Tessier | first = Odine
| work = lepoint.fr
| date = 20 May 2004
| accessdate = 2014-09-21
| url = http://www.lepoint.fr/culture/2007-01-17/voyage-au-pays-des-nouveaux-gourous/249/0/28932
| language = fr 
| quote = Sur le plateau, Elise Lucet donne la parole à tous les protagonistes : d'anciens participants aux forums qui dénoncent la manipulation ; d'autres au contraire, comme Jocelyne, qui a trouvé un épanouissement ; le responsable de la mission interministérielle de vigilance et de lutte contre les dérives sectaires, un psychologue, un avocat, deux députés, etc. Une enquête fouillée et alarmante
}}</ref> and that the host Elise Lucet gave voice to all the actors in the affair: ex-participants, people who found it beneficial, the head of the [[Mission interministérielle de lutte contre les sectes]] and a psychologist, lawyer, and two deputies.

=== Allegations concerning fine ===
A statement released in French by Landmark hints that [[France 3]] preferred to risk a "tiny" fine for a violation of the media's [[code of ethics]] rather than present a more favorable documentary.<ref>
''Malheureusement, considérant que les amendes à payer sont minimes pour une violation du code de déontologie des médias, France 3 a décidé qu'il valait mieux pour son taux d'audimat payer ces amendes symboliques plutôt qu'offrir au public le reportage juste et objectif qu'il était en droit d'attendre.''
<br />
Translation:
<br />
"Unfortunately, seeing how minimal the fines are for a breach of the media Code of Practice, France 3 determined it better for its audience share statistics to pay this symbolic fine rather than to offer the public the fair and objective reporting which it had the right to expect."
<br />
Unattributed statement published on Landmark's French website at http://www.landmarkeducation.fr/menu.jsp?top=20447&siteObjectID=21551</ref>

===Landmark's reply===
Under French law, when journalists or the media mention or allude to an entity, that entity has a [[right of reply]], and the media must publish that reply.<ref>http://www.mediawise.org.uk/files/uploaded/Right%20of%20reply%20in%20Europe.pdf</ref>

In Landmark's reply to France 3's documentary, a woman, after having seen the broadcast, complained: "My face is hidden, but my voice is not masked. I feel betrayed by this journalist who did not respect the necessary confidentiality in this broadcast."  She went on to express her dismay at the manner in which the broadcast showed only a part of her conversation. Though she characterized the conversation itself as "difficult", she maintained that it enabled her to "live better" and to have a better [[Interpersonal relationship|relationship]] with her daughter.<ref name="Landmarkreply">
[http://www.landmarkeducation.fr/menu.jsp?top=20447&siteObjectID=21551 Landmark Education's legal right of reply], [http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.landmarkeducation.fr%2Fmenu.jsp%3Ftop%3D20447%26siteObjectID%3D21551&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8 translated]{{dead link|date=September 2014}}
</ref>

In response to France 3's insinuation that it gained large sums of money by using volunteers in France, Landmark stated that it lost money each year in France, but maintained its center open for its participants. Although France 3 estimated that the receipts of Landmark amounted to nearly 1.5 million [[euro]]s ''per annum'', Landmark said they did not exceed 590,000 euros.<ref name=Landmarkreply />

Landmark commented on Jean Marie Abgrall's position in its reply, stating that Abgrall had declared that, with regard to the ten elements identified by the [[Parliamentary Commission about Cults in France]], only four "minor characteristics" applied to Landmark, but that "None of the six relative major elements of a cult applies to Landmark Education".<ref name=Landmarkreply />

Art Schreiber, the General Counsel and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Landmark Education, commented on the France 3 broadcast in Landmark's [[subpoena]] to Google in 2006. He stated that ''"the apparent purpose of the report was to portray Landmark Education as a harmful cult."'' Schreiber went on to assert that the program contained inaccurate, biased statements as well as serious unfounded accusations. He accused France 3 of operating unprofessionally, and ''"using tactics including lying, manipulating, using illegally obtained materials, and intentionally presenting materials out of context."'' He claimed that France 3 had used unauthorized confidential footage of the Landmark Forum, shot by an undercover reporter attending the course under a false name. He stated that after the broadcast of the documentary in France, ''"Landmark's attorney in France sent a detailed letter to TV3 in which he refuted, point by point, the gross inaccuracies and defamatory and libelous representations in their program."'' Schreiber claimed that after receiving the letter, France 3 removed a transcript of the broadcast from their web site.<ref>[https://www.eff.org/legal/cases/landmark/google_DMCAsubpoena.pdf Subpoena to Google], Art Schreiber, October 2006</ref>

Landmark Education also quoted a 1995 letter from Dr. [[Raymond D. Fowler|Raymond Fowler]], past President of the [[American Psychological Association]], which reflected his personal opinion. The Fowler letter stated that: "the Landmark Forum is not a cult or anything like a cult, and I do not see how any reasonable, responsible person could say that it is."  Fowler stated that he did not directly witness anything in his experience of the Landmark course that could be harmful to the course participants. He said that if the French government were to "look at the question more closely", they would conclude that Landmark appeared on the list of cults in error.<ref>[http://www.landmarkeducation.com/uploaded_files/694/Fowler.pdf ''English Letter''], 1995, Landmark Education website, Document number "L-014E".</ref>

===Commentary from ''Pièces à Conviction'' personnel===
Pascal Richard, Editor-in-Chief of ''Pieces a conviction'' drew attention to the special circumstances of this documentary in a [http://web.archive.org/web/20040606222805/info.france3.fr/emissions/1389638-fr.php note] on the show's official web-page. Richard described the program as a "difficult broadcast", which used the "modern tools of television". He went on to state that only through the use of hidden cameras and microphones could the producers get past the "slick facade" projected by "this unusual group" and statements "carefully prepared and organized by a New-York communications firm", "go the extra mile and deliver the facts".<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20040606222805/info.france3.fr/emissions/1389638-fr.php Archived version of the ''Pieces a conviction'' web-page of 6 June 2004]
<br />
C'est une émission difficile qui n'a pas l'écriture habituelle de ''Pièces à Conviction''. Nous avons pris ici le parti de nous servir des outils de TV modernes, comme ces caméras et ces micros dissimulés. C'était, en effet, notre seul moyen d'aller au-delà et de livrer l'info. Le seul moyen aussi de capter une autre réalité que la façade lisse qu'aimerait montrer cette étrange société. Et d'aller au-delà des discours soigneusement préparés et organisés par une société de communication new-yorkaise. ['''Translation''': This was a difficult broadcast, one which did not have the usual ''Pièces à Conviction'' signature. In this case we adopted the use of the tools of modern television, such as these hidden cameras and microphones. Indeed, only in this way could we go the extra mile and deliver the facts. Also, only in this way could we get a different reality, rather than the slick facade which this unusual group would like to project. And to get beyond the statements carefully prepared and organized by a New-York communications firm.]</ref>

(The France 3 web-site continued to make these comments available on the web until at least the time of the archiving of the [http://web.archive.org/web/20040713033249/info.france3.fr/encadres/2801506-fr.php version] dated 13 July 2004. By 10 October 2004 the monthly program's [http://web.archive.org/web/20041010221851/info.france3.fr/encadres/4589420-fr.php web-page] had moved on in the normal manner of operation — to featuring more recent episodes of ''Pièces à Conviction''.)

==The documentary on the Internet==
{{see also|Landmark Education litigation}}
From September 2006 onwards, anonymous posters sent copies of the documentary — including versions with English-language subtitles — to several video-sharing web-sites and [[BitTorrent (protocol)|bitTorrent]] sites.<ref>[https://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_11.php#005029 Self-Help Group Backs Off Attack on Internet Critic], Electronic Frontier Foundation, November 30, 2006.</ref>

In October 2006 Landmark issued [[subpoena]]s pursuant to the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]], United States legislation which allows content-owners to issue subpoenas to identify alleged infringers — even without filing a lawsuit. Landmark sent subpoenas to [[Google Video]], [[YouTube]] and the [[Internet Archive]], demanding details of the identity of the person(s) who had uploaded copies (with English-language subtitles) to these websites.

Challenges to Education's efforts arose on multiple fronts. The Internet Archive started fighting its subpoena from Landmark, and the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF) filed official objections on its behalf. The EFF (operating on behalf of the anonymous entity who uploaded the video) also planned to file a motion to quash Landmark's DMCA subpoena to Google Video. Google advised Landmark that it would not produce the requested information pending a ruling on that motion. YouTube sent notification to the user about its subpoena, and planned to give the user a reasonable opportunity to move to quash it.<ref>
[https://www.eff.org/legal/cases/landmark/#19d Landmark and the Internet Archive].
[https://www.eff.org/legal/cases/landmark/archive_landmark_request.pdf#19d Landmark's letter to the Internet Archive].
[https://www.eff.org/legal/cases/landmark/google_landmarkdec.pdf#19d Landmark's letter to Google].
[https://www.eff.org/legal/cases/landmark/eff_letter.pdf#19d Internet Archive's objections to Landmark subpoena].</ref>

Art Schreiber, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Landmark Education, commented on the issue, raising issues of [[intellectual property]] (IP) in ''[[Red Herring (magazine)|RedHerring]]'' in an article dated 2006-11-03. Schreiber affirmed that the EFF had released a statement characterizing Landmark's copyright claims to the documentary as "bogus". He went on to portray the claim of the EFF as "entirely inaccurate".<ref name="redherring">{{Cite web
| title = Landmark Fires Back at EFF
| last = Medford | first = Cassimir
| work = Red Herring
| date = November 3, 2006
| accessdate = 2014-09-21
| url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070311093821/http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=19552&hed=Landmark+Fires+Back+at+EFF&sector=Industries&subsector=EntertainmentAndMedia
| quote = Organization says its subpoena of Google and YouTube is self-protection, not free speech muzzle.
}}</ref>

{{quote|The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) challenged our actions and alleged to the press that our copyright claims were bogus, which statement was then disseminated on the Internet. Landmark Education’s goal is not to silence anyone, but to protect its core IP resources, which were infringed by the video. While we appreciate the work of the EFF, the allegation that our copyright claim is bogus is entirely inaccurate. The facts are clear that the Landmark Forum program has for many years been copyrighted. Materials covered by this copyright registration were included throughout the video.|Art Schreiber|Red Herring<ref name=redherring/>}}

On 8 November 2006 the Electronic Frontier Foundation posted a ''Draft Motion to Quash Landmark Subpoena'' on their website.<ref>[https://www.eff.org/legal/cases/landmark/ Landmark and the Internet Archive]</ref> Independent filmmaker Enric Cirne interviewed a representative from the EFF on Landmark's use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.<ref>
[http://techalley.cirne.com/2006/11/22/eff-on-landmark-educations-dmca-subpeona-621/ Video Interview with Electronic Frontier Foundation], Enric Cirne, 8 November 2006, [http://techalley.cirne.com/ Tech Alley].</ref> Cirne also interviewed another staff attorney on camera about the EFF's actions regarding the issuing of the DMCA subpoenas.<ref>
[http://techalley.cirne.com/2006/11/27/jason-schultz-at-eff-on-dmca-take-down-notices-part-iv-556/ Second Video Interview with Electronic Frontier Foundation], Enric Cirne, November, 2006, [http://techalley.cirne.com/ Tech Alley].</ref>

On 9 November 2006 the EFF responded to Schreiber's commentary and raised the issue of [[fair use]] in a post titled "[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004994.php EFF and Landmark: Cards on the Table]". In it, the EFF argued that any use of alleged material — even if it were copyrighted — occurred "for purposes of criticism and commentary" and constituted a "non-infringing fair use". The EFF asserted that Landmark's copyright claim remained "bogus".<ref>
"[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004994.php EFF and Landmark: Cards on the Table]", [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]], 9 November 2006
<br>
"While we appreciate the kind words, we disagree with Mr. Schreiber's copyright analysis. To the extent that the documentary includes any materials copyrighted by Landmark, that use is clearly for purposes of criticism and commentary, i.e., a non-infringing fair use. Yesterday we released a draft of our motion to quash, which explains in detail (see pages 11-16) why Landmark's copyright claim does not hold water. Indeed, it's not even a close call. Sorry, Landmark, but your claim is still bogus."</ref>

On 10 November 2006, [[Reuters]] published an article about the dispute.<ref name="uk.r_Goog">{{Cite web
| title = Google faces legal challenges over video service {{!}} Reuters
| author = 
| work = uk.reuters.com
| date = 
| accessdate = 2014-09-20
| url = http://uk.reuters.com/article/2006/11/11/oukin-uk-media-google-video-idUKN1039190320061111
| language =  
| quote = 
}}</ref>
''[[The Washington Post]]'' and many other news sources subsequently disseminated this article.

The Cult Awareness Information Centre (Australia: http://www.caic.org.au/ ) has made a non-official copy of the video available in [[flash video]] format. The EFF has cited this location,<ref>[https://www.eff.org/legal/cases/landmark/ Landmark and the Internet Archive], Electronic Frontier Foundation, case page, Landmark's Misuse of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act</ref> as has an article about Landmark on the "[http://yadleachim.org/Index.asp?CategoryID=164 Yad L'Achim] website,<ref>
[http://yadleachim.org/Index.asp?ArticleID=228&CategoryID=111 Landmark Education piece (Hebrew)], [http://yadleachim.org/Index.asp?CategoryID=164 About Yad L'Achim (English)], 2006.</ref> ''[[InformationWeek]]''<ref>[http://www.informationweek.com/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196601049 Landmark Drops Copyright Infringement Subpoenas on Google and Anonymous Critic], ''[[InformationWeek]]'', 1 December 2006</ref> and ''[[Yahoo! News]]''.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20061202/tc_cmp/196601049 TechWeb article], [[Yahoo! News]], 1 December 2006.</ref>

On 17 November 2006, the [[Apologetics Index]] website received a "[[cease and desist]]" letter from attorneys in [[Amsterdam]] representing Landmark, stating that Landmark demanded the removal of a [[hyperlink]] to the Cult Awareness Information Centre's streaming video version of the documentary, due to alleged "copyright infringement" of their "Landmark Forum Leaders Manual" (TXu 1-120-461). The Apologetics Index responded on their site that after reading the responses from the EFF, they did not intend to comply with Landmark's demands.<ref>
[http://www.religionnewsblog.com/16570/landmark-education-vs-a-link-on-apologetics-index Landmark Education vs. a link on Apologetics Index], Religion News Blog, Netherlands, November 17, 2006, Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson</ref> Further information on this matter appears on the [http://www.apologeticsindex.org/l30.html Apologetics page] devoted to Landmark.

At about the same time, Landmark also sent a cease-and-desist letter threatening legal action to the [[Internet service provider]] of the Cult Awareness and Information Center website, "StudioSolutions", in Australia. Landmark again used the argument of alleged copyright infringement of material from their "Landmark Forum Leader's Manual".<ref>
[https://www.eff.org/legal/cases/landmark/caic_notice.pdf "Cease and desist" letter], Landmark Education, to StudioSolutions, concerning ''Cult Awareness and Information Centre'', 13 November 2006.</ref>

The EFF issued a statement regarding Landmark's legal letters in Amsterdam and Australia, titled: [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005013.php "Landmark Forum's Internet Censorship Campaign Goes Down Under"]. The post includes a request to Landmark's General Counsel Art Schreiber:

{{quote|In public statements, Landmark General Counsel Art Schreiber insists that Landmark supports free speech. We urge Landmark to take a stand for the principles of free expression and get out of the censorship racket&mdash;the answer to criticism is to explain and promote your own view. Landmark may believe that using copyright notices to takedown criticism is a winning formula, but it will ultimately come back to haunt Landmark.|EFF|EFF.org<ref>
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005013.php Landmark Forum's Internet Censorship Campaign Goes Down Under], Electronic Frontier Foundation, 17 November 2006.</ref>}}

In an agreement reached on 30 November 2006, Landmark withdrew their subpoenas against Internet Archive and the anonymous poster to Google Video. The settlement included the acknowledgment that the poster of the video will not repost it to the Internet "in whole or in part."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.informationweek.com/landmark-drops-copyright-infringement-subpoenas-on-google-and-anonymous-critic/d/d-id/1049456?|title=Landmark Drops Copyright Infringement Subpoenas On Google And Anonymous Critic - InformationWeek|date=1 December 2006|work=[[InformationWeek]]|accessdate=17 September 2014}}</ref>

The [[:fr:Protagonistes du débat sur les sectes en France#CICNS|Centre d'Information et de Conseil des Nouvelles Spiritualités (CICNS)]], a French association for the defense of religious freedom and conscience, criticized the documentary for its lack of contradictory debate, stating that the program is "an undertaking of destruction of Landmark Education".<ref>{{Cite web|author=CICNS |title=Émission "pièces à conviction du Lundi 24 mai 2004 su France 3 : ''Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous''" |url=http://www.sectes-infos.net/Television.htm#2 |publisher=''Sectes-infos'' |language=French |accessdate=23 August 2009}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[About-Picard law]]
* ''[[The Century of the Self]]'', [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6111922724894802811&q=CENTURY+OF+THE+SELF episode part 3 of 4]
* [[Human Potential Movement]]
* [[Investigative journalism]]
* [[Landmark Education litigation]]
* [[MIVILUDES]]
* [[Parliamentary Commission about Cults in France|Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France]]
* [[Status of religious freedom in France]]

==References and footnotes==
{{Reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [http://www.caic.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1243&Itemid=12 The full documentary and transcript]
* [https://www.eff.org/legal/cases/landmark/ Landmark and the Internet Archive], [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070827065840/http://www.landmarkeducation.fr/menu.jsp?top=20447&siteObjectID=21551 Réponse officielle à France 3], Landmark's response to the [[France 3]] documentary.

;Media/Press
* [http://uk.reuters.com/article/2006/11/11/oukin-uk-media-google-video-idUKN1039190320061111 Google faces legal challenges over video service], ''[[The Washington Post]]'', 10 November 2006
* [http://presszoom.com/story_120492.html Landmark Forum Violates Constitution and Federal Law by Trying to Chill Speech], PressZoom, 1 November 2006
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20120329183620/http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10385 Landmark Ed, EFF, negotiations], p2pnet.net News, 10 November 2006
*[http://techalley.cirne.com/2006/11/22/eff-on-landmark-educations-dmca-subpeona-621/ Video interview with Kurt Opsahl], interview with Attorney for [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]], regarding Landmark's DMCA Subpoenas, November 2006

{{Commons category|Landmark Education and the Internet Archive}}

{{est and The Forum in popular culture}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous}}
[[Category:Documentary television films]]
[[Category:Investigative journalism]]
[[Category:Human Potential Movement]]
[[Category:Personal development television series]]
[[Category:Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown incidents]]
[[Category:French documentary television series]]