NationStates Jolt Archive

My friends, I have proposed a new resolution, to be found on page 16 of the UN Proposals. It urgently needs your support. The text of the proposal is below.

Resolution 1337: Online Music Legalization.

RESOLVED: That online music file-sharing, swapping, Peer-to-peer trading, and downloading must be legalized, as well as the burning of CD's. Sorry, kids, I'd love to legalize those porn videos you like so much, but there just isn't time.

A "Yes" Vote shall have the effect that online files under the extention ".mp3" shall be legal to create, download, trade, swap, burn, share, and use.

A "No" Vote shall have the effect that anyone who uses files under the extention ".mp3" is in violation of the law and can be arrested and sued at any time. You are Metallica's bitch. The RIAA owns you. Resistance is Futile.

So please, if you're a fan of music, or just a fan of free trade, The Holy Empire of Ustasha urges you to vote "yes".

Thank you for your time. Rock on.

-His Excellency and Total Badass, Emperor Jim.

um, by the way, does onyone know how you approve of a proposal, I can't find a link on or near my own proposal.

It should be at the bottom of your proposal. If it isn't make sure youre still the delegate of your region lol.

Awesome! Four people have already endosed it!

My friends, my enemies, everyone, listen!!!! This is important! Online music file sharing must be legalized! Urge your local delegate to endorse my proposal, which can be found on page 16 of the UN proposals. Time is a factor. We only have 3 days left!

Thank you for your time. Rock and Rule.

-Emperor Jim.

The reason you can't endorse any resolutions Utasha, is the because you are not a delegate. While all UN members can propose resolutions, only delegates can endorse them.

As for your resolution, we cannot support any initiative that essentially results in the theft of property. We firmly beleive that electronic or artistic works fall under the category of intellectual property and must be protected from exploitation and theft just as material property is.

The people of New Clarkhall stand against this proposal.

As for your resolution, we cannot support any initiative that essentially results in the theft of property. We firmly beleive that electronic or artistic works fall under the category of intellectual property and must be protected from exploitation and theft just as material property is.

The people of New Clarkhall stand against this proposal.

Property? A song is property? The Mona Lisa is property. It's a painting. If I want to see it live, in person, I can go to the Louve in France and pay to see it. If I want it to be on my wall, I can buy a print from an art store. But if I want to see it on a computer screen and save the .JPEG on my hard drive, you're saying I should have to pay for it.

Metallica is a band. If I want to see them live, in concert, I'll pay the $400 and go. If I want to own a CD of theirs for my CD collection, I'll pay the $21.99 and buy it. But music is not property, despite what the RIAA would tell you. Music is art, and it should be treated as such.

I think this is kind of pointless really, any country that doesn't legalize music sharing is going to be drastically economically hindered compared to ones that do. The reason being is countries that do not have intellectual property rights (like mine) will still be able to send music files to people in the countries that have illegalized music file sharing without any legal penalty on them, and the only way the country could penalize the users downloading the music would be by infringing privacy rights in some way.

And no way in hell I would let some company in another country sue my citizens for downloading music.

I think this is kind of pointless really, any country that doesn't legalize music sharing is going to be drastically economically hindered compared to ones that do. The reason being is countries that do not have intellectual property rights (like mine) will still be able to send music files to people in the countries that have illegalized music file sharing without any legal penalty on them, and the only way the country could penalize the users downloading the music would be by infringing privacy rights in some way.

And no way in hell I would let some company in another country sue my citizens for downloading music.

Listen, this Resolution legalizes music downloads for every UN member nation. No one will be able to sue you if it passes. It is urgent that we pass it immediatley. The RIAA must be stopped.

I think this is kind of pointless really, any country that doesn't legalize music sharing is going to be drastically economically hindered compared to ones that do. The reason being is countries that do not have intellectual property rights (like mine) will still be able to send music files to people in the countries that have illegalized music file sharing without any legal penalty on them, and the only way the country could penalize the users downloading the music would be by infringing privacy rights in some way.

And no way in hell I would let some company in another country sue my citizens for downloading music.

Listen, this Resolution legalizes music downloads for every UN member nation. No one will be able to sue you if it passes. It is urgent that we pass it immediatley. The RIAA must be stopped.

I think you didn;t even read my post, the RIAA is completely powerless in NS world. There is no way a government can stop it's citizens from downloading music in NS world without infringing thier privicy rights greatly.

I think this is kind of pointless really, any country that doesn't legalize music sharing is going to be drastically economically hindered compared to ones that do. The reason being is countries that do not have intellectual property rights (like mine) will still be able to send music files to people in the countries that have illegalized music file sharing without any legal penalty on them, and the only way the country could penalize the users downloading the music would be by infringing privacy rights in some way.

And no way in hell I would let some company in another country sue my citizens for downloading music.

Listen, this Resolution legalizes music downloads for every UN member nation. No one will be able to sue you if it passes. It is urgent that we pass it immediatley. The RIAA must be stopped.

I think you didn;t even read my post, the RIAA is completely powerless in NS world. There is no way a government can stop it's citizens from downloading music in NS world without infringing thier privicy rights greatly.

Oh!
*starts listening to Metallica for free!*
*starts feeling guilty.*

Man, I screwed up. I thought that this was one Resolution we could agree on.

Hippies, Communists, Liberals, and Socialists should be down for this, because they're all about sharing and they hate big corporations.

Conservatives and Republicans like myself should be down for it because they don't like paying for something unless there's absolutley no way of getting around it, and we like good music.

Anarchists should support it because free music downloads means free Nirvana, Sublime, and Tool songs.

Jews should support it 'cause you can download all of Adam Sandler's hilarious comedy tracks.

Muslims should support it because you can download new chants for Ramadan, as well as Bin Laden's Greatest Hits and new tracks from the Iraqi Information Minister.

Christians should support it, in fact, it is your GOD-FEARING CHRISTIAN DUTY TO SUPPORT IT, so you can download Creed.

Bhuddists should support it because Bhuddism is all about sharing. And the Beastie Boys are Bhuddist, so you can download them.

And Hindus? Yes, even Hindus should support it. I'm sure there's some great Hindu music out there. Or something.

You see, I bet nearly all of the rulers of these Nation States have at least one Mp3 on their hard drive somewhere. If you have ever downloaded an Mp3, and you don't vote for this proposal you're a damn, dirty hypocrite!

So if you like music, and hey, who doesn't, get your delegate to endorse my proposal today!

Rock on!

-His Excellency and Most Totally Awesome and Righteous Dude, Emperor Jim.

You left out moral individuals from the list of those that should support it, and for good reason.

Essentially, you want to strip a creator of his right to control the terms of distribution of his creation. It doesn't get more evil than that, folks.

The reaons I won't support this bill:

1) The songs are the property of the artist/music company. Therefore this is theft.

2)Good music would go away as it would become unprofitable for the musician/record as sells would plummit into oblivion.

3)It is unwise to make laws that hurt buisness as we all rely on buisness for entertainment, food, housing etc. Dont bite the hand that feeds you.
Dont believe that? How will you buy groceries if the buisness you work for goes out buisness because the legilation that just passed made what you produced free for public use?

4)It's selfish, your thinking of only youself and not the people who work hard to produce the product and the folks who would be out of work if this proposal passes.

I would agree with everything stated by Kalamshan, and would add the following.

This proposal seems to be slanted against organizations such as the RIAA. You preach of freeing these band names to download, but I think you are forgetting one vital fact. Every band whom is under the RIAA's jurisdiction willingly signed with a label, and willingly gave IP rights to the RIAA (or whatever your nation's equivalent is). I believe such ideas should be left up to the band. If the band so chooses, they can post their music on their websites and free it to open download. Otherwise, let the band make money off what they want to do, it is not the governments place to interfere with the band's right to their own musical creations (and of course, that is my nations view, you may disagree)

Jack, Citizen of Michopolis

Michopolis I agree. If the bands and the record label whant to make the music free, It's alright a mighty fine, It is thier product after all.

Jesus H. Christ, are you people serious? Am I the only Nation State with Mp3's on my hard drive?

Jesus H. Christ, are you people serious? Am I the only Nation State with Mp3's on my hard drive?

Personally, I have a number of MP3s on my hard drive. They're recordings of artists and producers who have chosen to make their music legally downloadable for free. There are plenty of such artists--you just have to look for them. Many of them find free downloads to be an excellent marketing tool. If, on the other hand, you want to listen to Big Music, you need to play by Big Music's rules. Why on earth anyone would want to listen to Big Music is anyone's guess.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Personally, I have a number of MP3s on my hard drive. They're recordings of artists and producers who have chosen to make their music legally downloadable for free. There are plenty of such artists--you just have to look for them. Many of them find free downloads to be an excellent marketing tool. If, on the other hand, you want to listen to Big Music, you need to play by Big Music's rules. Why on earth anyone would want to listen to Big Music is anyone's guess.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Umm, define "Big Music". I listen to everything from Led Zepplen to Beethoven to Eminem. All of which are illegal, and in my opinion, unjustly so. Are you telling me the ONLY Mp3's you have are ones that are legally downloadable for free? If you could provide a link to such a website, I would be much obliged.

Audiogalaxy.com used to host files by some acts who'd made their music available for free, but that's neither here nor there.