On another thread
Steven wrote:
Yeah, if you're seriously trying to argue that no "revolutionary" organisation should ever try to use legal means to help with disputes, then I don't think you're going to find many people to agree with you here. And TBH it's a completely different discussion, so you should start a new thread about that and stop derailing this discussion.
If a 'revolutionary' organisation acquires a right of property by means of the law, can it be regarded as revolutionary?
From the statement by the CNT:
Legalization of the International is necessary to defend against wrongful use of the acronym by non-member unions attempting to benefit from the historic name of the IWA without practicing anarcho-syndicalism or revolutionary unionism. The financial accounts of the organization should no longer in the name of individuals and should be in the name of the IWA itself, avoiding the need to rely blindly on the moral integrity of each secretary that manages these funds.
The moral integrity of each secretary is not an issue because the financial accounts of the IWA are not in the name of an individual - just one of a few errors of fact contained in the statement. But it raises more important questions around whether or not the ends justify the means or the means determine the ends.
I'm told that the CNT has already instructed lawyers to have the name copyrighted and that has indeed occurred. Was this a decision of the CNT Congress? I put the question directly to CNT_Exteriores but no reply as yet.
If it is true, does that mean that the CNT will sue the IWA in a court of law? If the CNT has copyrighted the name IWA, it would have a legal right to do so. A legal right guaranteed by the authority of the State through its judiciary.
And if it did, does that not bring into question their claim to be anarcho-syndicalist or revolutionary? For what makes an organisation anarcho-syndicalist or revolutionary if not their practice?
The CNT have no right, no authority and certainly no mandate to claim to the name of the IWA. The CNT has only ever been a constituent part of the IWA. (not even a founding member if I recall correctly). Any decision to copyright the name IWA or not can only be taken in a duly constituted Congress of the IWA. The CNT Congress does not make decisions for the IWA but IWA Congress decisions are binding on all sections from the moment they are admitted to the IWA until moment they leave of their own free will or are disaffiliated or are found to be defunct.
The CNT has the right to leave the IWA and form whatever organisation at an international level with whatever other organisations they wish to enter into agreements with but they will never have a legitimate claim to the IWA no matter how many lawyers they have retained.
I hope the ASF re-affirms its commitment to the IWA at the ASF Congress in June. I would find it fascinating if the CNT decided to sue the ASF for acknowledging itself as the Australian section of the IWA. How much money would the CNT expect to get? Not much I think.
Even more fascinating would be to see who lines up with the CNT supporting them exercising their legal rights bringing court cases against the IWA.
A name can't be copyrighted,
A name can't be copyrighted, but it can be trademarked. Copyright is based on time since the death of the author whereas trademarks last as long as you maintain them.
Trademarking the IWA name would be difficult, not least because it needs to be trademarked and defended in every jurisdiction that it is used. This is one reason why big companies often sue tiny ones with the same name, to keep a trademark it needs to be registered but you also need to protect it, so that could potentially be a massive drain on resources. They would also, iirc, have to prove their ownership and that might not be easy either.
hmm not really sure this
hmm not really sure this discussion is related to my comment at all.
But yes basically I think Jef is right, they could only trademark it. I don't believe they have yet, but I believe that they intend to try.
Going back to the original question, in principle I don't think there is any inherent problem with "revolution" organisations trademarking or copyrighting things, although I am opposed to copyright in principle, and many do, mostly things like anarchist publishers.
However it would be completely out of order to start suing comrades, or using legal means to try to further factional disputes, like I guess you are concerned may happen in this scenario (and which I am concerned about as well)
Thanks Jef, that is certainly
Thanks Jef, that is certainly clearer.
There was anarchist poet 'Pie-O' in Melbourne who put on his publications; No Copy, Right?
Steve, I am concerned. How can avowedly libertarian organisation propose such a thing?