http://www.cineman.ch/en/movie/2010/GuruBhagwanHisSecretaryAndHisB/trailer.html

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

These are some key points from the conversation with Ma Sangeet (the lawyer who fought the case for Osho friends international).

1. The US case was a TRADEMARK case, not a COPYRIGHT case, so the trademark case was not a direct ruling on the copyright issue and has no direct impact.

2. The copyright issue did arise in the trademark case, in that OIF claimed it owned the trademark because it owned the copyright. That would have been an absurd legal argument, even if true, but in 9 years of litigation OIF was unable to produce any documents to prove it owned copyrights. Because the trademark case was before an entity called the US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, that board did not have jurisdiction to rule on the copyright issue and the trademark decision can’t be cited to prove OIF doesn’t own the copyrights. So, practically this ruling will have only indirect effects on Osho copyright case.

The documents OIF relies on to claim copyright ownership are posted on the OFI-site (http://oshofriendsinternational.com) along with explanations of why those documents don’t prove Osho International Foudation owns any intellectual property rights.

Copy right and trademark kind of things are like the discussion, how we can sell the dead wood for good amount of money.
Why we don´t talk about the LIVING Tree, the LIVING movement of religiousness, why we cannot take care of Osho´s investemnt on all of us in a solid way. Why we are so reckless to spend all our inheritance on non essential things, why we have lost the will to continue His model experiement of meditatting and sharing.

Were not Osho’s guidelines that there are 21 members of inner circle ALL THE TIME and they should always work it out to get consensus on EVERYTHING? So, if some people leave (or are forced to leave) and new members come in, shouldn’t they ALL accept the new members (I mean shouldn’t old members accept the new one also)? Are any of these people acting according to the guidelines? The first 21 names were public, why not any more?

And how can ordinary sanyasins carry ANY responsibility for what THEY do, if we do not get any information and if we are not allowed to say anything about anything? Are OFI authentic authority and everybody else on emotional anti-authority trip with them if you disagree on anything?

Is it a practical decision making or religious power to decide what books come out and when, who therapists works there, decide who gets banned, and raise entrance fee from 10 rupees (that was it when osho left his body) to 700 rupees 20 years latter? I just wonder because these decisions make difference on individuals spiritual lives.

I have tried to look at this from many angles…

When I read all of your posts, I must say, I have been feeling very hurt for what is happening. I am so touched by you all. Thank you for sharing. I love being Osho sanyasin. I know it will change. Very soon.
Love and hugs

I hope this movie will again renew people´s interest in Osho. Just the other day, i have visited a friend who got 1984 edition of Osho´s book in German and she cannot sleep witrhout reading few pages every night and cannot believe the kind of rumours were spread around Him.

World at large was suppose to misunderstand the model of life presented by Osho. His people who have spend the years around Him owe to themselves and to the evolutionary forces to continue the O process, instead of making it middle class.