[Lnc-business] protecting party assets

Mon Aug 7 16:18:39 EDT 2017

Erin, I concur.

And I am frankly concerned that singling out people who caused the Party a
good deal of trouble last convention as a target was extremely unwise.
Think Hillary and Pepe.

-Caryn Ann

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> ===Again, this PAC business is a complete red herring.===
>
> Yes because the joke FB group of the Nudist Caucus is OBVIOUSLY more
> important than TWO LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OREGONS.
>
> ===It is based on a false narrative, created by the unwillingness of the
> state and this body (despite decisions of its EC) to stand up to former
> officers who, without any basis in reality other than a set of "bylaws"
> never properly adopted, decided to pretend to be the leadership of their
> party, and demanded that the LNC recognize them as such.  It has absolutely
> nothing to do with the point at hand: should or should not this party
> defend its intellectual property?  If the answer is yes, then you determine
> who is using it without permission.  The decision shouldn't be based on who
> will be found to have used it improperly.==
>
> And the PAC is using it without permission.  I am not re-arguing the
> Oregon case because my position has never been whether or not the
> interpretation or the decision of the LNC was correct - My position is that
> the LNC had no business to make it.  That is what most people's position
> is.  So if we are going to talk about false narratives, let's stop
> confusing the issue.
>
> ==To be honest, I feel rather silly typing that final sentence.  For my
> part, I hope my fellow board members recognize the absurdity of simply
> walking away from our property or failing to police our trademarks.==  I
>
> The absurdity and absolute ridiculousness of using a FB joke group that is
> poking fun of the LNC as the political target is apparent. And this hasn't
> been enforced in 16 years.  The elephant in the room has been openly
> publishing things using that since 2006, and prior iterations since the
> late 1970s.
>
> ==It is difficult for me to believe I'm in a conversation about this
> topic, or that anyone can lob the attacks I've seen at this most basic
> fiduciary responsibility.  We all talk a good game about stewardship, and I
> think this is a much larger stewardship issue than, e.g., meeting in a
> meeting room instead of a Dennys.==
>
> It potentially is.  Let me lay out why some people are upset for those
> following this:
>
> It is certainly the job of any LNC member to bring up concerns that
> potentially affect assets. That is the job. Even if we don't like the
> statist implications - just like it was a legitimate debate whether or not
> we would take federal funding. If I were concerned, I would bring it up.
>
> But that is only telling part of the story - why are people upset?
>
> Well let's say that for decades Organization A has been in a pendulum
> swing between different groups. During this time, Organization A has let
> slide hundreds of uses of the name "Organization A" - one example going
> back decades. Some people from Group C really embarrassed some in
> Organization A at a big event, but the body never voted to expel or take
> any action. What the person did wasn't against core beliefs, was just in
> bad taste or inappropriately used a forum- that person happens to be the
> poster-person for Group C. There is also Group D that didn't do that, but
> some in Organization A don't like them very much either.
>
> Group C starts a few action groups as they would like to change
> Organization A and used their name in the title - which could be seen as a
> threat to the people presently in charge of A or an act of revenge. Group D
> had been doing this in the open over a long period of time. Someone in A
> uses one of those groups as an example of where they might want to take
> legal action for an activity that Organization A was well aware of for
> years and years and would have the added benefit of indirectly threatening
> Group D without even having to name them.
>
> The way this should have been handled is by not singling anyone out. And
> for the love of God, not singling out your particular political
> opponents.===
>
> ==As for the Party name, the way I read it, the bylaw is talking about
> using in the sense of 'identifying as,' as in 'I am speaking for the LP'
> 'This group is the LP,' etc.  Certainly it doesn't mean referring to,
> talking about, and so on. ==
>
> I agree with you.  And the Libertarian Party Nudist Caucus nor any others
> is doing that YET THAT IS WHO WAS SINGLED OUT.
>
> -Caryn  Ann
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:01 PM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> How pervasive is the alleged IP and branding fraud that this discussion
>> is focused on? Is this a solution looking for a problem?
>>
>> Frankly, I am more concerned about a myopic authoritarian police-state
>> mentality that could easily distract us from the much more important big
>> picture ideological root-cause analysis that will pave the way to the
>> innovative practical solutions and messaging technique strategy
>> enhancements that are necessary to streamline our pursuit of freedom and
>> accomplish our Libertarian mission of returning social services back into
>> the private sector where they belong within our lifetimes before it is too
>> late.
>>
>> Where's the 'fraud' beef? What is the relative priority of this
>> distraction?
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>>
>> On Aug 7, 2017 1:40 PM, "Joshua Katz" <planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Again, this PAC business is a complete red herring.  It is based on a
>>> false narrative, created by the unwillingness of the state and this body
>>> (despite decisions of its EC) to stand up to former officers who, without
>>> any basis in reality other than a set of "bylaws" never properly adopted,
>>> decided to pretend to be the leadership of their party, and demanded that
>>> the LNC recognize them as such.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the
>>> point at hand: should or should not this party defend its intellectual
>>> property?  If the answer is yes, then you determine who is using it without
>>> permission.  The decision shouldn't be based on who will be found to have
>>> used it improperly.
>>>
>>> To be honest, I feel rather silly typing that final sentence.  For my
>>> part, I hope my fellow board members recognize the absurdity of simply
>>> walking away from our property or failing to police our trademarks.  It is
>>> difficult for me to believe I'm in a conversation about this topic, or that
>>> anyone can lob the attacks I've seen at this most basic fiduciary
>>> responsibility.  We all talk a good game about stewardship, and I think
>>> this is a much larger stewardship issue than, e.g., meeting in a meeting
>>> room instead of a Dennys.
>>>
>>> It's an interesting move, to be sure, to cite the bylaw while arguing we
>>> should completely ignore it.  Nonetheless, I think what I've said is in
>>> line with the bylaw.  "The party or an organization to which the Party
>>> grants affiliate status or as otherwise provided in these bylaws."  These
>>> bylaws say that the LNC may freely delegate its powers.  The Policy Manual
>>> allows for the use of Party resources (such as the logo, which is my
>>> concern here) when permission is given by the state chair.
>>>
>>> As for the Party name, the way I read it, the bylaw is talking about
>>> using in the sense of 'identifying as,' as in 'I am speaking for the LP'
>>> 'This group is the LP,' etc.  Certainly it doesn't mean referring to,
>>> talking about, and so on.  A candidate saying "I am seeking the Libertarian
>>> nomination," is not using it in that sense.  A candidate saying "I am the
>>> Libertarian candidate," when the nomination is contested, is doing so.  It
>>> seems entirely reasonable to tell people not to do the latter.
>>>
>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oregon certainly does.  There is a PAC using our name.
>>>>
>>>> When I see that name at the top of the target list rather than a silly
>>>> Facebook group - who is promoting our values- then I will cease to think
>>>> that this more than political maneuvering.
>>>>
>>>> The utter foolishness of this tact astounds me.  And I moderate a
>>>> libertarian discussion group.  I thought nothing could astound me.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure donors will LOVE our efforts going to attack our own activists
>>>> rather than say, candidate support or ballot access.
>>>>
>>>> And it's unenforceable.
>>>>
>>>> And this is going to be a fun convention in a way we won't like.  I
>>>> don't think we could think of a worse way to provoke antics than actually
>>>> targeting the Nudity Caucus.
>>>>
>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>
>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:07 AM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am skeptical on IP.  Nonetheless, I believe that this board is not
>>>>> an ideological sounding chamber, but a governing board, and takes its
>>>>> fiduciary responsibilities in the real world, not our ideology.  I do not
>>>>> think we're fulfilling our responsibilities if we acquire IP and then fail
>>>>> to defend it.  In the case of purchased IP such as our logo, that amounts
>>>>> to giving away money.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding pre-nomination candidates: Sure, we want to see our logo
>>>>> being made visible far and wide.  So does, say, Cabot Cheeses.  But it
>>>>> doesn't follow that Cabot will be thankful if some other cheese company
>>>>> throws their logo onto their product.  The logo doesn't exist just to be
>>>>> seen, but to function as a form of imprimatur.  To allow pre-nomination
>>>>> candidates to use it (other than when the state affiliate has said they
>>>>> can, which I am fine with) is to allow people to represent themselves as
>>>>> being approved by us, with absolutely no process.
>>>>>
>>>>> The same holds for groups.  It is was mentioned somewhere in this
>>>>> thread that, well, people can do research and see if the group actually
>>>>> speaks for this party.  I disagree entirely.  No good advertisement rests
>>>>> on the viewer doing further research, and people who are offended by the
>>>>> group seeming to speak for us (such as the Augustus Invictus / Hoppe
>>>>> Caucus) are not going to do further research - they're just going to
>>>>> conclude they don't like us, and tell all their friends the same thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> RE:  Oregon:  Suffice it to say I disagree with just about everything
>>>>> that's been said on the topic on this thread, but I'm also not sure it's
>>>>> relevant anyway.  The fight in Oregon is over who the leadership is of the
>>>>> affiliate, not who the affiliate is, and therefore I think it's a bit off
>>>>> the point to refer to the PAC as relevant here.  The point remains, though
>>>>> - whoever the leadership is, presumably they will decide to whom they grant
>>>>> permission to use our IP.  All sides should agree, I would think, that
>>>>> whoever is not the leadership (I am sure I know who that is, but seem to
>>>>> have failed to convince this board) should not be able to give out
>>>>> permission to use our IP.  I don't think the Oregon question, therefore,
>>>>> has anything at all to do with how this matter should be decided.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oliver Hall's attention is requested for this email:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LP Bylaws, Article 5.1, "No person, group or organization may use
>>>>>> the name "Libertarian Party" or any confusingly similar designation except
>>>>>> the Party or an organization to which the Party grants affiliate party
>>>>>> status or as otherwise provided in these bylaws."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This provides a very narrow scope for use of our party name.  Yet one
>>>>>> only has to search on Facebook for the name "Libertarian Party", and you
>>>>>> will find many groups that are not the national party, and are not an
>>>>>> affiliate of the national party, but they use our party name to increase
>>>>>> their profile in search results, build their own following, and use the
>>>>>> group for their own purposes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One such example can be found here:  (fair warning - this page
>>>>>> contains varying degrees of nudity)
>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/233590827023815/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We also have a trademark on the name "Libertarian Party".  My
>>>>>> understanding of intellectual property law is that we need to actively
>>>>>> defend our right to the name or else over time we diminish our ability to
>>>>>> successfully defend it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our bylaws don't mention the logo, but am I correct to presume that
>>>>>> we have also staked out a legal claim to our past and present logos?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also see other groups (not our affiliates) using our logo in their
>>>>>> memes, incorporated into their own logos, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of these could potentially be rectified by merely asking the
>>>>>> groups to cease using our name and/or logo.  Others might need to receive
>>>>>> cease-and-desist letters from our attorney.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to discuss this at our upcoming LNC meeting.  Perhaps it
>>>>>> makes sense to just make it part of the Special Counsel agenda item, since
>>>>>> we'll likely want to chat with Mr. Hall about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Alicia
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>>>
>>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>>> *We defend your rights*
>>>> *And oppose the use of force*
>>>> *Taxation is theft*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> *We defend your rights*
> *And oppose the use of force*
> *Taxation is theft*
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170807/679b6717/attachment-0002.html>