I am not of the view that trying to prove OIF does not own the copyrights will go anywhere. OIF demonstrates a continuity of activity in this regard, and therefore the onus would be on OFI to prove that OIF does not own the copyrights, or alternatively to prove that some other entity owns the copyrights. For example OFI would have to prove that some Indian publishing company did not transfer the copyrights to some American publishing company, rather than trying to show OIF has no proof of this transfer. OFI is trying to show that OIF does not have the documentation to prove the transfer. However OIF has operated as if the publishing rights were transferred, this was before Osho left the body, and Osho has both directly and indirectly demonstrated his agreement with this.
The way I see it there are four possible avenues worthy of investigation. I am sure there are many more.
Prem Abhay’s Notice of Eviction is an example of the first line of inquiry. OIF has the copyrights of Osho as representatives of him. It has its authority through its operation by members of the Inner-Circle. These representatives have shown increasing and troubling incompetence. A second major example of this is the failing to protect the resort immediately following the German Bakery bomb blast. OIF itself also has serious competence issues, in for example heavy editing and restricting the availability of quality Osho works.
In the second line of inquiry, if it can be clearly demonstrated that a group of people from the original Inner-Circle have not ceased to undertake their responsibilities in this regard, even though they are no longer part of the current Inner-Circle, then they can make claim that they are a collective of legitimate and founding Osho Inner-Circle members. It follows that they can legitimately request the responsibility of protecting Osho’s legacy with respect to his works, including the copyrighting function.
The third line follows in part from the understanding in the trademark ruling. The trademark ruling was made against OIF because Osho is a famous historic figure. OIF failed to make this clear, and so illegitimately attained numerous trademarks. The other aspect of this line of inquiry is based on the changing nature of the image of Osho. It is a little like great painters who only became famous after they die.
When Osho was in the body he was generally perceived as an infamous cult leader. In just a few short years after leaving the body this perception has changed remarkably. He is now viewed as a famous historic spiritual figure. When he was known as a dangerous sex ‘guru’, the question of protecting his wisdom and making it freely available does not arise (from a social humanity perspective). Of course Osho was in the body, and so had the ultimate responsibility in this regard anyhow.
Now that Osho has left the body, and now that he has undergone a revolution in his image, everything is changed. To think that an entire collection of his works is in the Indian National parlamentiary library. This is almost inconceivable when one thinks of the way governments previously viewed him, especially a conservative nation like India.
It would seem absurd that someone could own the copyrights to Krishna, or Christ, or Muhammad. Imagine if the Indian government would like a second entire collection, and all that was available was heavily edited versions. No person would have the ability to get a genuine, unedited version of Osho’s works, unless OIF allowed it. This demonstrates the complete idiocy of the current situation.
So, Osho is no longer in the domain of sex cult leader. He is in the domain of famous historic spiritual figure. Because he is a famous historic person, no one can own the copyrights to his works. The copyrights of OIF are therefore invalid. Of course there should still be an entity to ensure that his works are available in a quality format, and that people do not exploit or misuse him or his works. This was supposed to be the function of OIF, and they have gone way outside their jurisdiction. Not surprisingly the Inner-Circle has done the same.
Of course a fourth avenue of exploration is to undertake democratic reforms, and vote the Inner-Circle out of office.
No person or persons can use the above arguments without the express permission of the author.
© Swami Detective 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment