[Lnc-business] protecting party assets

Tue Aug 8 18:05:38 EDT 2017

Joshua,

	It sounds like you're responding to points in a previous message I wrote, but you did not quote that message in your reply, so I've recopied it in the thread below.

	I didn't say we should ignore the bylaw in question, I said it is poorly written and needs to be revised, and encouraged you and the other members of the Bylaws Committee to take action on that. Even if one accepts the interpretation of its meaning that you have put forward below ("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."), it still appears to tell Libertarian parties in other countries, among others, that they may not use the term. I think that contravenes our mission of achieving a free world.

	A candidate deliberately purporting to be "the Libertarian candidate" in a U.S. race where the party's nomination is contested is perpetrating fraud, and we can counter it on that basis as needed without claiming trademark ownership of the term "Libertarian". 

	You seem to be taking as a given the dubious claim that the term "Libertarian Party" is our property. Even while admitting to skepticism about the validity of the concept of intellectual property, and even though the bylaws do not task the LNC with the responsibility of asserting party ownership over such property, you apparently think the LNC must take legal action to defend ownership of a term for which we paid no money and which we may in fact not own even if there were agreement among Libertarians that IP is legitimate. Even in cases where money was exchanged, such as the LNC paying to have a logo designed for us, I'm not sure it was necessarily with the intent of purchasing rights to that logo as exclusive intellectual property which others may not use without our permission.

	I think part of the problem here is when people try to think of the Libertarian Party as if it were a for-profit corporation. We are not the board of directors of a company trying to make money selling cheese – we are elected representatives in a grassroots, people-powered movement seeking to change the world! If we put what we think is financially good for ourselves as an organization ahead of what's good for the cause of freedom, we're not accomplishing anything other than wasting the freedom movement's time and resources. 

	The term "fiduciary responsibility" is probably one best avoided by the LNC, as it tends to erroneously lead us into this kind of corporate-oriented thinking. But I believe we are entrusted with a responsibility to our members, and that responsibility first and foremost is to defend libertarian ideology and libertarian values as reflected in the Non-Aggression Principle and our Statement of Principles by doing what is good for the cause of freedom. When the two are at odds, this obligation must take precedence over upholding the narrow fiscal interests of the Libertarian Party as an organization.

Love & Liberty,

                                    ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                         RealReform at earthlink.net
                                 (415) 625-FREE
                                   @StarchildSF

On Aug 7, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Joshua Katz 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 
> 
> On Aug 6, 2017, at 7:42 PM, Starchild wrote:
> 
> 	I agree with Caryn Ann Harlos, Craig Bowden, and (if I understand him correctly) Daniel Hayes. I don't think we should be trying to police the use of the words "Libertarian Party" or any slogans or logos we may employ. The widespread visibility and use of such memes helps us more than it hurts us.
> 
> 	However, the bylaw cited by Alicia Mattson does tend to point in the direction of the action she suggests (sending "cease and desist" letters):
> 
>> 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."
> 
> 
> 	I would encourage the Bylaws Committee to take a look at revising this language, which as written is contrary to our platform. Platform plank 1.2 "Expression and Communication" states, "We support full freedom of expression". Yet Bylaws Article 5.1 flies in the face of that. It doesn't just say other groups can't call themselves "Libertarian Party" – which would be bad enough in itself, as it essentially tells our allies in the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties such as the Libertarian Party of Canada and the Libertarian Party of Russia that they cannot use those names – but is so loosely written that by a literal reading it asserts people can't even use the term "Libertarian Party" in speech or in writing unless they are part of the LPUS or one of our affiliates! So much for media coverage, lol!
> 
> 	Our platform is silent on the subject of intellectual property. Should we really be devoting resources to issuing legal threats against other groups on the basis of a concept which we have not even endorsed and which many libertarians find dubious or outright oppose? I say no. We should be concerned with our own use of words, logos, and ideas, and making sure that we are using them in a manner consistent with upholding the Non-Aggression Principle and advancing the cause of freedom. But unless a group or individual is clearly pretending to be us, or to speak for us, i.e. crossing the line into intentional fraud, I think we should leave them alone. Not only is trying to prevent other usage basically unenforceable as Caryn Ann points out, but as Craig points our we would be shooting ourselves in the foot with respect to Libertarian candidates who have not (yet) won party endorsement and others.
> 
> 	In cases where some individual or group using a Libertarian name, slogan or logo is clearly promoting a message at odds with libertarianism, there are other things we can do to call them out, distance ourselves from them, etc. (in cases where doing so won't just be helping them by giving them more publicity and visibility). More often, any attempt at consistent enforcement of dubious trademark rights would likely put us in the position of initiating conflicts with groups that largely share our values and commitment to freedom, as I'm guessing is probably the case with the Libertarian Party Nudist Caucus (not being a Facebook user, the site won't let me view the page). Alienating such groups with threats of censorship strikes me as highly counter-productive.
> 
> 	I think a much better use of our efforts would be seeking to ensure that an actual Libertarian Party asset (or group that should be a party asset!) the Libertarian National Campaign Committee, which this body created, is accountable to the Libertarian Party and faithfully representing the libertarian vision instead of making us sound like conservatives by focusing overwhelmingly on economic freedom while saying little in defense of personal or lifestyle freedom or to decry militarism (see http://www.lncc.org/about/ ).
> 
> Love & Liberty,
> 
>                                     ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                           RealReform at earthlink.net
>                                   (415) 625-FREE
>                                    @StarchildSF
> 
> 
> On Aug 7, 2017, at 8:06 AM, Joshua Katz 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 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170808/55e7ce48/attachment-0002.html>