The Landmark Forum provides a technology that enables participants to think and act outside existing views and limits, both in their personal lives and relationships in the wider communities and areas of concern in which they are engaged.

est, Warner Erhard: Personal transformation seminar promising individual growth, business management skills, stress reduction, etc. Teaches the world has no objective meaning, enlightenment, and to live moment to moment with no regard for the future. New Age themes. [...] est has been discontinued and replaced by the Forum and later Landmark.

To round things up, everything in short:

1. THE BAIT
A friend/relative tricks you with the most sincere words into attending an introductory meeting, while appealing to your trust and curiosity, or actual weakness, or all of the above.

2. THE TRAP
Group pressure techniques and wordplay are used upon you and at least 100 more people in 3 days, during which, proper rest and natural needs are denied from you.

3. THE EFFECT
Overwhelming. Might lead to personality disorders. The Forum becomes the most important thing, not its outcomes. You might become a zealot for the Forum (without even registering for the advanced courses), or addicted to it by registering for more, or both. The real effect, most importantly, is economically beneficial to the Forum (unless, of course, you lose your mind and sue them...)

Critics say Landmark is an elaborate marketing game that relies heavily on volunteers. Says Tom Johnson, an "exit counselor" often summoned by concerned parents to tend to alumni: "They tire your brain; they make you vulnerable." Says critic Liz Sumerlin: "The participants end up becoming recruiters. That's the whole purpose." Psychiatrists who speak on Landmark's behalf dispute these claims. But Sumerlin says a 1993 Forum turned her fiance (now her ex) into a robot. She organized an anti-Landmark hot line and publications clearinghouse. Landmark officials made sounds to sue her.

Although the Elle article made it clear that Landmark and its programs are not cult-like, the lack of research and the thoroughly evident intent of the writer to denigrate the reputation of Landmark and our employee Beth Handel with irresponsible statements and shoddy research require a legal response.

Once word about my story got around, popping up in an online Landmark newsgroup, it somehow made its way into the office of Art Schreiber, general counsel of Landmark Education Corporation.

Schreiber responded swiftly with a 10-page letter advising me of his "serious concern" that I might defame Landmark. What followed were six pages explaining why Landmark is not a cult, a page of why Landmark cannot be said to brainwash its enrollees, a page and a half of why I must not defame Werner Erhard or est, and a tedious summary explaining that should I "leave Landmark and its programs depicted in a false light ... Landmark is fully prepared to take the appropriate legal action."

Landmark does not expect that its work will always be perfectly represented in the media and public conversation, and recognizes that as with any corporation or enterprise, there will be valid criticism and room for improvement.

At the same time, Landmark is committed that it be represented in the media and public conversation consistent with the facts regarding the quality, content, and results of its programs. Landmark's policy is to take appropriate action to both generate consistent representations and to correct misrepresentations.

In the late 1960s, Erhard studied Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard became a significant influence. Scientologists to this day accuse Erhard of having stolen his main ideas for est from Hubbard. We do know that when Erhard set up est he considered making it a church, as Hubbard had done with dianetics and the Church of Scientology. But Erhard decided to incorporate as an educational firm for profit in a broad market.

Erhard and his supporters accuse Scientology of being behind various attempts to discredit Erhard, including hounding by the IRS and accusations of incest by his children.
(...)

est bears little resemblance to Dianetics or Scientology, however. est is a hodgepodge of philosophical bits and pieces culled from the carcasses of existential philosophy, motivational psychology, Maxwell Maltz's Psycho-cybernetics, Zen Buddhism, Alan Watts, Freud, Abraham Maslow, L. Ron Hubbard, Hinduism, Dale Carnegie, Norman Vincent Peale, P.T. Barnum, and anything else that Erhard's intuition told him would work in the burgeoning Human Potential market.

The video was posted on several websites, including the Internet Archive, YouTube and Google. In October 2006, Landmark Education started to send threatening cease and desist letters to online service providers who hosted the material. In addition to disputing the truth of the documentary program's allegations, Landmark Education claimed the French documentary infringed its own U.S. copyright in the "Landmark forum leaders manual" (Copyright Reg. No. TXu-1-120-461).

Using the copyright allegation as a pretext, Landmark then issued subpoenas pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allows content owners to issue subpoenas to identify alleged infringers even without filing a lawsuit. Subpoenas were sent to Google Video, YouTube and the Internet Archive, demanding to find the identity of the uploader(s).

A review of the video makes clear that the documentary does not contain a copy of the leader manual referenced in Landmark's letters. Rather, it is a news documentary critical of the Landmark organization in France. Moreover, even if Landmark's copyrighted works were visible in the documentary, any such limited and transformative use of a copyrighted work for purpose of criticism, commentary and news reporting is self-evidently fair use and, therefore, noninfringing.

Landmark is not seeking to identify those who originally made the documentary, since it already knows who made it. Nor are the subpoenas based upon the defamation claims Landmark's letter asserts -- DMCA subpoenas are only authorized to identify alleged infringers of the sender's copyright. They are not, however, designed to allow content owners to identify their critics, as Landmark is attempting to do here.

Last week, EFF announced that it was fighting against Landmark Education's campaign to identify individuals who posted a French documentary, entitled Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous (Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus), that was critical of the Landmark program, and included hidden camera footage from inside a Landmark Forum event in France.

EFF is currently talking with Landmark in an attempt to reach an amicable resolution about Landmark's DMCA subpoena to Google. In the hope that we can resolve this without need of litigation, EFF has held off on filing its motion to quash that subpoena.

In the mean time, Landmark responded to our press release, according to Red Herring magazine:

"While we appreciate the work of the EFF, the allegation that our copyright claim is bogus is entirely inaccurate," [Art Schreiber, general counsel for Landmark Education] said. "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."

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.

Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous, (Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus) is a TV documentary that presents an investigation of the activities of Landmark Education in France. The documentary was made in 2003 by the investigative journalism program Pièces à Conviction [Exhibits], and aired in France on May 24, 2004 on the channel France 3. The documentary has been the subject of various legal repercussions in France and the United States. As of June 2004, Landmark Education ceased its activities in France.