NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello, I am a representative of the nation of The Dominion of Anward. My resolution, the UCPL, will be up to General Assembly vote this day or the next.

I would like to tell you just why you should vote to pass the UCPL. Right now Copyright/Patent law in your varying nations may be, in fact, in conflict with free trade. My resolution hopes to eradicate barriers that prohibit the trade of ideas, and make sure that the idea is not stolen in some other country. The method of standardization I propose hopes to be of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of nations, and the greatest number of people. Perhaps some of you may feel that copyright and patent laws would instead prohibit the free trade of their ideas, or perhaps you feel this is too capitalistic. I assure you this is not the case. I believe that with my resolution, that we will nearly eliminate, if not deter all copyright and patent infringements that occur overseas, and out of your control. This is also of no greater benefit to capitalistic companies than the lone-inventors. It benefits all.

If you feel you need an overview, my resolution is at the moment, the first proposal on the list. However by the time you read this, it may be in vote. If you have any questions, or would like to comment on my resolution feel free to reply.

Thank you for your time.

I urge nations to not vote for this. Poor countries that are stricken with aids will be unable to control this deadly disease without the availability of generic drugs. Patents grant drug companies monopolies which makes them millions of dollars, while millions die. By criminalizing the sale of generic (read cheaper) drugs, the United Nations will be legislating murder

Patent laws only last for a short period of time. Now while AIDS is a very horrible disease there is no known cure for AIDS, generic or otherwise. Also I believe the previous resolution "Increased Access to Medicine" gives the poorer countries the neccessary materials for containment of AIDS or other dieases.

Patents grant drug companies monopolies which makes them millions of dollars, while millions die.
Emotional arguments shouldn't be allowed to win economic arguements. There are far more issues at stake here than the tiny portion relating to generic drugs that you identify.

Patents exist in many UN countries. Many of us recognize reciprocity with others, and won't trade with nations who refuse reciprocal agreements. We've put hard work into our inventions, whether they be AIDS drugs or I.G.N.O.R.E cannons. People deserve to be paid for their work, and patents are a way to do so.

What Madrigals is proposing is nothing more than theft of property. Their desire to care for the ills of the world overrides their sense of fair play. Allow me to point out that Frisbeeterian BioSciences, Inc, is an active participant in programs that distribute our products, at absolutely no cost, to nations in need (as identified by NGOs and the UN itself). No law requires us to do so. We do not do this for profit. Nonetheless, our NON-generic and highly effective drugs are in wide distribution to nations who would not otherwise be our customers.

Drug production costs are almost infinitesimal compared to the R&D costs required to create them in the first place. That's why we can afford to distribute large quantities of samples to those in need. Madrigals would hand the fruit of our labor to other companies, at no charge, so that THEY could generate profits from OUR work. Do you honestly think that the generic manufacturers aren't making a profit too? With their lower overhead and non-existent R&D expenses, they can undercut the originators and still come out far ahead.

Come up with another solution for your social ills, Madrigals. The only effect of your suggestion would be the end of shared research and even LESS potentially life-saving drugs.

Jean-Pierre Ramaud, Director of Research & Development
Frisbeeteria BioSciences, Inc.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

The previous statement by one of our esteemed directors does not necessarily reflect the official position of the Frisbeeterian government towards the acceptance of this proposal.

Our nation does support reciprocity and stands behind one of our most successful corporations, Frisbeeteria BioSciences, Inc., but we would prefer to refer the actual text of the proposal to counsel before announcing our support or lack thereof.

Could one be posted, please?


M.J. Donovan, CEO, Frisbeeteria.

Bahgum has noted the distinct lack of any fun in this proposal and will abstain, though we recognise that the topic is of importance. Again we feel it is a shame that the game has lost much of its fun when you come to the UN.

i also moan about the lack of fun in this proposal, in two ways:
one: it really isn't funny. plus: if you really do want to introduce an intellectual property rights measure into the UN, you are leaving a couple of important stuff out of it: for if you do want to make a proposal that lacks any hilarious details, and want to make it sound serious, be serious:
1. there is a lack of the timespan in which copyrights/patents are to be protected. 20 years? 50 years? if you leave this out, this proposal would either have to be considered as protecting copyrighghts/patents universally and eternally, or you would leave it to the national legislatures (or psychotic dicktators) which would make it essentially toothless (which i would find great though).
2. what seems to be the role-model for this proposal, the TRIPS agreement in the WTO framework is a slap in the face of any newly industrialising country: ex: india has been producing - true, by violating patents - generica for years now, and on this basis, india (others too, but india is like the biggest) has developed not only know-how in chemicals and pharmaceutics but also a pharmaceutic industry unrivaled ba any other developing country. what the TRIPS - and this proposal - would do, is putting them out of business, which would mean more power to the already allpervasive monopolies plus it would mean more show-offs in
cynicism as the case already brought (but withdrawn) to the WTO-DSB by industrialised countries against south africa (they wanted to import generica to help their millions of citizens suffering of AIDS, which no one could afford without generica)...
3. this on top of the fact, that most chemical corporations that exist now and are big have profited strongly, basically built their business on weak international patent laws in the beginning of this century: now they want to stop everybody else from doing it.
no, i don't like this proposal and i recommend everybody to vote NO!

Im concerned about the artists

Although a small nation of only a few million people, our little country of alluga is one of the most culturally rich in the world. Our little country produces over half of the worlds top 40 hits, a third of its plays, operas and paintings, and a quarter of its worldwide computer games.

This has got me very distressed about this proposal. Although copyright laws you say shall be the same in all countries, and you even mention the internet age in your speech, but you place no mention on the penalties applied for copyright breach being standardised.

If these arent standardised, P2P networking agents, although bereft of any easy going copyright laws in the network of UN nations, shall still find it easy to find a country that will not punish them very harshly for the piracy of intellectual copyrights,

So this proposal, far from being a boon to my economy is exactly the opposite, it shall stifle the greatest asset our company has, our arts.

This "free trade" proposal is just another attempt to extend the slavery of artists to corrupt corporate interests and to extent monopolistic intellectual property mafias to destroy freedom of speech and ensure that all art is watered-down mindless pabulum from the largest countries, which are capable of leveraging their armies of lawyers, bribe-carrying lobbyists and other conniving, swindling special interests into absolute control over all forms of intellectual "property."

The only "free trade" this proposal allows is the freedom of vast corporations to trade in the works of artists, who are treated as little better than slaves. Similar "globalization" efforts attempt to lower the status of the worker, to gouge as much money as possible out of consumers while shafting the actual creators, to alienate the rights of the author in favor of corporate ownership of art, to extend doctrines such as "work made for hire" and otherwise to degrade human rights such as freedom of speech, the right to create derivative works, solely so that wealthy corporations can continue to debase art for profit.

I am sure that the large and wealthy nations of the world want homogenized copyright laws so they can continue to homogenize world culture down to an indistinguishible pabulum. Those who are for the sovereignty and intellectual independence of small nations against the onslaught of garbage from the film industries of wealthy nation and the droning idiocy of their dance music will vote against this proposal.

It is time that the intellectual property cartels and pharmaceutical companies are brought to heel. Instead, we have this proposal to extend their vile death-dealing monopolies and embrace their cultural genocide.

To vote for this proposal is cultural suicide.

I am urging everyone who has an interest in seeing the United Nations function properly to vote against this resolution. The resolution skirts around the real issue; what will the international copyright law be? Instead, it prattles on about how to uphold the law it has failed to define.

A resolution must be passed that outlines the actual details of the Universal Copyright/Patent Law before we pass a resolution on how to uphold it, surely?

I am a supporter of protection of Intellectual Property and believe in the positive effect that both Copyright laws as well as Patent Laws have on the profitablility of innovation, research and more.

But I strongly advise to vote Against this resolution.

The weakest point in this resolution is to put Patents and Copyrights as 'equals', which they are not.
Copyright cannot be 'registered', Works as such hold copyright from the moment they are made (as defined in the Berner Convention), this right is hold by its owner, the author of a work.
The whoile Copyright legislation is based on a description in what form this right for different purposes can be transfered or licensed, a definition of different rights (translation rights, moral rights, fair use)

I see in this proposal a complete misunderstanding of what copyright is en what it can do.

The idea of a governing office seems to be based on the present Patent-legislation, the functioning of such a institution a Patent Trade Office is all butt indisputed.
Patent Offices leed to enormous bureaucracy, their work is hardly checked and in this form Patents can form a barrier to free Trade, because they can lead to extensive juridical trials in which often the grounds of awarding a patent is disputed.
(see: the eolas -patent, micorosoft was fined for paying for the patent on embedding dynamic content in a webpage, no need to say that the owner of this patent had nothing to do with browserdevellopment and was a mere patent-shark, aiming at milking out an extensive patent-portfolio; the lawsuit is at this moment doing extra research on claims that the patent had 'prior art')

Patents on abstract ideas, logarithmes or education methods are awarded and often they are not used to protect the innovation of Intellectual Property, they are used to secure commercial interests by threatening competititors.
(see: the one-click patent from Jeff Bezos, Amazon.com)

An centralized Office which checks Patent and Copyright laws will create a Bureaucratic Monster, it's work will be unoverseeable and most likely will introduce corruption and many errors
(see: an Australion PTO awarded an patent on the invention of the wheel, neglecting every check on 'prior art')

The free peoples of East Hackney consider this resolution an imperialist attempt to enforce the strictures of capitalism by the back door.

East Hackney recognises no copyright or patents. All art, all scientific discoveries and all inventions are funded by the government and belong to the people. The UN should not be given the power to dictate fundamental economic and legal policy in this fashion.

Double post, sorry

I'd just like to weigh in and declare my full agreement with Mappopia: Equitable universal law is all well and good, but this proposal fails to describe the intellectual property laws it plans to make universal.

Who decides how to define the different kinds of laws?
Who decides what's worth patenting/copyrighting?
How can a UN member register an objection to a procedure?
etc.

Consider the current state of affairs in the real world, in the USA: Patents and copyrights are a good thing, in principle, but in practice are being horribly abused; patents are issued on abstract concepts and even on prior art (common in software) which is supposed to be prohibited, and copyright lengths have now been extended to decades after the death of the creator!

I will be voting against this and urging my delegate to do likewise, not because the proposal is itself unworthy, but because it opens the door for any amount of abuse and any amount of subterfuge in its current form. Especially given the large number of problems that crop up when the elite members of elite nations are the ones in charge of defining "free trade", and what is "needed to support it" in other legislation.

I am the representative of the Republic of the Conspirator.

It is our opinion that the UN may not make decisions in these kind of affairs.

The UN should take more action in cases of human rights.

Thank you for your time.

I'd just like to weigh in and declare my full agreement with Mappopia: Equitable universal law is all well and good, but this proposal fails to describe the intellectual property laws it plans to make universal.

Who decides how to define the different kinds of laws?
Who decides what's worth patenting/copyrighting?
How can a UN member register an objection to a procedure?
etc.

Consider the current state of affairs in the real world, in the USA: Patents and copyrights are a good thing, in principle, but in practice are being horribly abused; patents are issued on abstract concepts and even on prior art (common in software) which is supposed to be prohibited, and copyright lengths have now been extended to decades after the death of the creator!

I will be voting against this and urging my delegate to do likewise, not because the proposal is itself unworthy, but because it opens the door for any amount of abuse and any amount of subterfuge in its current form. Especially given the large number of problems that crop up when the elite members of elite nations are the ones in charge of defining "free trade", and what is "needed to support it" in other legislation.

I'd just like to weigh in and declare my full agreement with Mappopia: Equitable universal law is all well and good, but this proposal fails to describe the intellectual property laws it plans to make universal.

Who decides how to define the different kinds of laws?
Who decides what's worth patenting/copyrighting?
How can a UN member register an objection to a procedure?
etc.

Consider the current state of affairs in the real world, in the USA: Patents and copyrights are a good thing, in principle, but in practice are being horribly abused; patents are issued on abstract concepts and even on prior art (common in software) which is supposed to be prohibited, and copyright lengths have now been extended to decades after the death of the creator!

I will be voting against this and urging my delegate to do likewise, not because the proposal is itself unworthy, but because it opens the door for any amount of abuse and any amount of subterfuge in its current form. Especially given the large number of problems that crop up when the elite members of elite nations are the ones in charge of defining "free trade", and what is "needed to support it" in other legislation.

I am a supporter of protection of Intellectual Property and believe in the positive effect that both Copyright laws as well as Patent Laws have on the profitablility of innovation, research and more.

But I strongly advise to vote Against this resolution.

The weakest point in this resolution is to put Patents and Copyrights as 'equals', which they are not.
Copyright cannot be 'registered', Works as such hold copyright from the moment they are made (as defined in the Berner Convention), this right is hold by its owner, the author of a work.
The whoile Copyright legislation is based on a description in what form this right for different purposes can be transfered or licensed, a definition of different rights (translation rights, moral rights, fair use)

I see in this proposal a complete misunderstanding of what copyright is en what it can do.

The idea of a governing office seems to be based on the present Patent-legislation, the functioning of such a institution a Patent Trade Office is all butt indisputed.
Patent Offices leed to enormous bureaucracy, their work is hardly checked and in this form Patents can form a barrier to free Trade, because they can lead to extensive juridical trials in which often the grounds of awarding a patent is disputed.
(see: the eolas -patent, micorosoft was fined for paying for the patent on embedding dynamic content in a webpage, no need to say that the owner of this patent had nothing to do with browserdevellopment and was a mere patent-shark, aiming at milking out an extensive patent-portfolio; the lawsuit is at this moment doing extra research on claims that the patent had 'prior art')

Patents on abstract ideas, logarithmes or education methods are awarded and often they are not used to protect the innovation of Intellectual Property, they are used to secure commercial interests by threatening competititors.
(see: the one-click patent from Jeff Bezos, Amazon.com)

An centralized Office which checks Patent and Copyright laws will create a Bureaucratic Monster, it's work will be unoverseeable and most likely will introduce corruption and many errors
(see: an Australion PTO awarded an patent on the invention of the wheel, neglecting every check on 'prior art')

The very protective yet creatively nurturing nation of Berkylvania agrees with the above representatives that, while the heart of this proposal may be sound, it's execution is frighteningly vauge and potentially disasterous.

It is all very well and good to mandate into existance an organization to track intellectual property rights, however there is not one jot of infrastructure included in this proposal. Where does it come from? Who runs it? Who pays for it? What sort of powers does it have?

While protecting intellectual property rights is of upmost importance, this particular resolution simply does not suffice. There is no agreed on legal framework to support an International Patent Office. What laws will be followed and who gets to decide? Is this a retroactive mandate or does it only apply to property generated on or after the Office inception date?

If the intent of the original proposal is to truly protect intellectual property rights and not simply to ensure continued dominance of economic heavyweights while creating a cumbersome, poorly administered and ultimately nightmarish new level of international beurocracy, a much better idea would be to formulate a resolution urging all UN member nations to uphold the creative property of the individual and to seek ways to cooperate with other nations concerning intellectual property rights. The current resolution, however, protects nothing and, in fact, places what little cooperation currently exists in jeopardy.

Patent and copyright laws were originally developed as a way to encourage artistic and scientific development by rewarding the artist or inventor with a monopoly on their invention so that they reap the rewards of their creativity.

It doesn't work as intended.

In modern use, copyright and patent rewards do not go to the creator but to large corporations who have the capacity to exploit the creation. Many artists never see dime in royalties for their work. Many inventors give up billion dollar inventions for $500.

In fact, under some patent systems, an inventor can NOT even win royalties against an infringer unless they can prove that they themselves had the ability to manufacture and sell the invention.

Furthermore, abuses of the copyright system are now preventing works from entering the public domain by granting near-perpetual copyright monopolies.

Monopolies, the capitalists tell me, are bad. That is why patents and copyrights are supposed to be for a limited duration. Yet, the duration of these monopolies continues to grow longer when, in fact, the cycle of innovation has grown so short that patent terms should be shorter.

In international trade, Intellectual Property (IP) laws are being used as a club by wealthy nations against poor nations. In some countries patents were not even allowed on drugs or food. Now, these same countries are being forced to accept these patents and, at the same time, are being forced to import these items because they are restricted from developing them for themselves.

Most modern seeds are bound under patent licensing agreements so that farmers can no longer keep their own seed stores as they have done for thousands of years. Farmers that do not even use these seeds have been successfully sued because the wind carried pollen or seeds from a nearby field into their own field.

In short, the IP system is out of control and no longer serves its intended purpose. It needs to be reformed, not made universal. Please oppose UCPL

Finally, let's have some silly proposals so that I don't spend time at work on this stuff.

[OOC - To be read with a thick Russian accent...har.]

Esteemed leaders of the U.N.,

I imagine those more inclined to the legal aspects of this are in an uproar over this proposal. Not only do I personally oppose and will ask that my Regional Delegate to do the same, I strongly urge that ALL within the United Nations REJECT this absurd proposal, for the reasons that

A.) It is an extremely vaguely written, prattle-laden proposal and thus susceptible to various legal loopholes that pirates are quite bound to notice.

B.) This proposal is quite unenforceable, at least in regard to movies, music, etc... especially when dealing with these so called Peer to Peer networks. I would give a thousand Euros to any that are able to shut down such notorious networks as Kazaa or Limewire. Most of you are aware that these programs do not rely on a specific server to met out it's music, movies, programs, etc.. Therefore, how would one be able to prosecute? The technologically inclined masses have learned their lesson from Napster. Please pardon if I am mistaken but such a measure as this has already been attempted, but with negative or little positive results.

C.) Though I am slightly disinclined to allow such freedom as these, I do believe that this would be an inherent waste of money, resources, and time for both my Country and the U.N as a whole.

While I acknowledge that I do not share the proclivity for the written word as the rest of you, I do hope that my words make sense.

Regards,
Emperor Vladmir Chekovski, East Jablip

[Edited for better readability]

We in the Community of Ecopoeia share the discomfort expressed by many of our brother and sister nations. Our concern is that this legislation is vulnerable to exploitation and, furthermore, wholly at odds with our own nation's belief that knowledge and invention are to be shared amongst the people without the presumption of compensation.

We offer our own discoveries, inventions and creations to all peoples of the world and expect no reward in return. Of course, if others were to reciprocate we would be very grateful but this has to be voluntary.

Vlad Taneev
Speaker for the Economy

It's obvious to the intelligent mind that this is nothing more than an attempt by the capitalists to gain control over communist nations. This idea of "copyright protection" is ridiculous within a communist framework in an interior mode, much less being forced to acknowledge the overly numerous copyrights of foreign countries. What happens to the James Beardsley Shoe Plant & Rubber Factory when they receive a cease-and-desist from Nike because their shoes are essentially the same shape? What happens to the proletariat farmers when they are told that they need to spend several thousand more dollars a year because the seeds need to bought from another country, as any sort of agricultural advance is already copyrighted in other countries! Ridiculous, simply ridiculous, and I strongly advise nations interested in any sort of personal autonomy to vote "NO" on this resolution, though I'm sure the ignorant capitalist pig-dogs will no doubt vote yes without paying attention to the public debate.

The Most Serene Republic of Lubria will not support any UN proposals that are vague in substance, especially ones that may drastically affect the nature of our economy.

1. Copyright/Patent Law be the same between all UN members.

What exactly will these laws be? The Dominion of Anward is very unclear on this matter. Are laws to be relaxed? Are they to be stricter? Or is some median to be reached between all extremes? There is no mention of these in the proposal. How can a nation be asked to lend its support to a proposed resolution without first knowing what the detailed ramifications of said resolution will be?

There is far too much of a “gray area” in this proposal by the The Dominion of Anward. The Dominion of Anward seems committed to the protection of corporations over individuals. The Most Serene Republic of Lubria cannot agree to allow our patent and copyright laws, designed to hold true to the initial spirit of invention by dedicated individuals, to be altered by corporate lapdog states.

The Most Serene Republic of Lubria will not offer her support on a proposed resolution with truly global ramifications on intellectual property rights without a clear enumeration in the proposal of what the World's Copyright and Patent laws are to become.

In future, The Dominion of Anward would do better to bring their notions of change before public debate before submitting a proposal to the docket. The Allied States of Frisbeeteria have set a powerful example in this respect, and the Prime Minister and myself would like to extend our congratulations for their progress in developing their proposed Bill of Rights and Responsibilities of Nation States.

The Most Serene Republic of Lubria will not hand over the future livelihoods of our citizens, and dutiful corporations, to an international agency with unlimited power to reshape any member state's intellectual property laws.

Peter Javanis
Special Envoy
The Lubrian Prime Minister

A thousand apologies for the duplicate postings; I had a connection error.

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint does not view the issue of copyright/patent laws as being an issue the U.N. should be addressing. What some nations call 'Free Trade', others call communism. Beyond that, this proposal does not address the issue of already extant copyrights in separate nations, for the same material, and how those rights will be apportioned were this to become U.N. mandate.

We respectfully request the esteemed members of the U.N. to vote AGAINST this resolution.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs
Greenspoint

You Strongly got my vote I Agree with your fully

The Great Nation of Batesville

You Strongly got my vote I Agree with your fully

The Great Nation of Batesville

The high ministers of Karzakistan would like to proclaim our heartfelt opposition to this bill for the following reasons.

Firstly it is unneccessarially vague and does not define what the copyright laws would in fact be.

Secondly our nation, and many others, are founded partly on the ideal that information wants to be free. Copyrights and Patents fly in the face of this

Thirdly, if patents are applied as they are in the United States of America, which is often held up as a model for international laws by this governing body then many things which many nations feel are common property or cannot be owned will be defined as property. One example is genetic code, if some corporation holds the patent on your genetic code they could file suit for patent infringement on you for having children and thus reproducing their property. a patent on genetic material also leads to suits against farmers who's fields have been invaded by the genetically modified crops of their neighbor.

Fourthly, art in my country and doubtless amy others would be badly stifled, because information is free in my nation artists are free to use other's art as part of their own. one example is Karzakistan's thriving hip hop scene, the DJ's will often sample each other or music from outisde the genre, Karzakistan also has large techno and industrial scenes and these would suffer badly if the artists involved were no longer allowed to use samples. our visual arts would also suffer, as visual samples are a common occurence, and our movie industry would be in big trouble, using actual cuts from other films is common in many cases and satire of other films is also quite common, not only in Karzakistan but in all nations that we have knowledge of the film scene. parodying a previous film or play could be considered an infringement of copyright if the laws are not drafted properly.



We sincerely hope that everyone will register their votes AGAINST this proposition.

i must vote NAY to this proposal.

not because its not a theoretical good idea, but because of its vagueness and its lack of disposition.

the issues are these: different companies have different requirements for a patent to be granted. different countries allot for a different length of time for a patent to be protected, and also have different policies for whether or not a patent holder has exclusive rights to re-establish that patent when the time for the original patent draws to an end.

therefore, in order for this 'universal' patent law to take effect...the patent process must be made universal as well, and what is asked for and required to obtain a patent must be specifically spelled out in the proposal.


also, the proposal doesnt address current copyright issues. if multiple nations have multiple companies all claiming a right to a similar or identical patent, who gets it? how is this to be determined? if a national or international agency is blamed for the delay of processing papaerwork on a patent while another national agency or a different international agency location slam things through, who is to blame? what is the resolution?

if two patents are eerily similar but come from different sides of the globe, what entity will determine who will ultimately reap the benefits of the patent, and the 2 entities will clash over them in internbational court. what will be the deciding factors?

these are just some of the issues the proposal does NOT address.

again, while the intent is good, the proposal fails to meet the expectations of a resolution because of its lacks of specifics.

Kitsilano would vote against this resolution. It is a good idea in theory, but we feel that the costs outweigh the benefits.

This resolution proposes the following entities be created:
- a new International Copyright Organization, with chapters in *every* capital
- a sub-agency, to correctly translate the copyright/patents, into *each chapter's* native language
- An additional sub-agency be created to be informed of, and monitor all copyright/patent infringements.

Kitsilano has seen such goverment-sponsored good ideas turn into a morass of bloated fat-cats at the taxpayer trough. The creation of such a far-reaching Organization will have too much waste. It assumes that (and creates offices for the purpose of) every nation entering into trademark contracts with every other nation. This will not happen, so the majority of the regional offices will be full of people doing nothing.

Let individual nations who have specific copyright/TM issues to deal with deal with it on a one-to-one basis, or some centralized *single* office.

We encourage those nations who respect the efforts of their citizens, and wish to keep the tax burden to a minimum, to reject this good-intentioned but poorly-planned idea.

In a preemptive action the nation of karzakistan has issued patents and copyrights on all works and processes currently known to mankind. these patents are held by the ministry of copyrights and patents. Now when the law goes into effect we will have as much stake in the battle as to who controls the copyrights as anyone else. The people of karzakistan are also embarking on mass tours distributing free psychedelics and talking with people about the fact that information wants to be free and that the only sensible organization to hold patents and copyrights is one like the karzakist ministry as it will ensure that there are no restrictions on the flow of information.

In a preemptive action the nation of karzakistan has issued patents and copyrights on all works and processes currently known to mankind. these patents are held by the ministry of copyrights and patents. Now when the law goes into effect we will have as much stake in the battle as to who controls the copyrights as anyone else. The people of karzakistan are also embarking on mass tours distributing free psychedelics and talking with people about the fact that information wants to be free and that the only sensible organization to hold patents and copyrights is one like the karzakist ministry as it will ensure that there are no restrictions on the flow of information.

I agree with this law except for the part regarding that copyright and patent laws be the same in all nations.

We here in Judg3 have rewritten the copyright and patent laws from the ground up some decades ago. We believe we have created a fair mix that both encourages innovation as well as allowing the information to be free.

An example of this is our patent office: Out patent office grants patents, but the length of time they are protected varies depending on the innovation level as well as the amount of research which was required to achieve a new product.

One such point I can recall from memory is out great work in curing cancer. A new drug, Pavilol, is an amazing anti-cancer drug which severly slows the morphing of normal cells to cancer cells. Patients on this drug respond to the traditional cancer treatments 94% better then those not on it. It took approximately 30 years and 7.7 billion dollars for "Dutch Pharmaceuticals" to create this treatment. Their patent will last for 25 years before expiring - about the length of time out inhouse staticticians predict it will take to pay off the research costs and gain a 10% profit (About 770,000,000BR (Blood Rubies)).
This is in stark contrast to our copyright law example - the recent record "Stuff is Cool" by the Judg3 punk band "Injured?". Their copyright exists for 1 year for whole works and 15 years for deritive works (Samples). Due to the reduced cost it took to create the music, their copyright expires a lot sooner.

We like this method we have established, and don't wish to change it to a more restrictive set of laws that many other of out UN brethren hold. We have no problem at all instigating laws and a complete enforcement unit to protect the IP laws of other nations, but we wish they would also adhere to our more 'lax' rules.
To be quite honest, we may place a modified UCPL before the UN which more closely follows our current patent and copyright laws. Look for it soon

After much review of the proposed resolution by the The Dominion of Anward, The Most Serene Republic of Lubria would like to raise objection to this proposal being brought to vote in the first place. The proposal calls for the formation of a multi-level, international agency to oversee patent and copyright laws, which seems to be expressly forbidden by the UN Moderator, as stated in his address of Oct 03, 2003,

Proposals can and do cover all manner of agendas. However, there are three broad categories of proposal which will always be removed from the queue before they become able to be voted on by the general membership of the United Nations... "The UN should create <multinational organization>". All of these proposals propose changes to the Game Mechanics governing the running of NationStates.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=77286

The Most Serene Republic of Lubria asks that our objection be reviewed, and if it is upheld, we ask that the proposed resolution by the The Dominion of Anward be removed from voting at once. If our objection is upheld after voting has been closed, we ask that the UN Moderator rule on whether this resolution can go into effect, since it thusly violates the rules on proposals.

If we are mistaken in this matter, The Most Serene Republic of Lubria asks for the forgiveness of the Assembly and its Moderators, but will continue to voice our opposition for this proposal.

Gregori Oldrich
Special Counsel
Office of the Lubrian Prime Minister

We second Lubria's motion to dismiss this law from UN voting and demand it be irradiated at once! Not only does this law go against accepted UN regulations, hurt free trade and threaten developing countries but it also has large loop holes within itself.

The proposal says that individual countries will be in charge of the prosecution of copyright offenders. If passed the state of AnubisThe will fine offenders the equivalent of $.0001 US currency per offense as a MAXIMUM FINE, regardless of past copyright infringement. We will follow the word of the law and disregard the heart. AnubisThe will also refuse to expedite any copyright offenders to other UN countries, as we will handle the matter as we see fit.

I do not see how this changes game mechanics. Also if you want to be very technical, then every proposal that has passed has changed the so called game mechanics.

All these posts anger me, not because they disagree with my proposal, but because they bring up issues that are the problem with every proposal. My proposal is being nitpicked to death, and I do not know why. I have read over every passed proposal, many suffer by the same amount of vaguness I am accused of. When these proposals are written there is no possible way to account for every idiotic reason you think this proposal would not work. You are asking for the definition of common words, and you are misquoting my writing. So far this post has been a dissmal failure for backing up either side of the issue.

You all need to lighten up, there is no way a proposal can ever be written that will suit everyone, and include every possible situation, and you know why the supposed loopholes don't matter? Because they game is not going to be exploiting them. People are not going to die, just because you say they will.


I will now stop addressing the general, and address the specific.

Bahgum has noted the distinct lack of any fun in this proposal and will abstain

I am sorry I do not entertain you. I realize this is a game, but I at the very least attempt to make my proposals have meaning other than your entertainment.

So this proposal, far from being a boon to my economy is exactly the opposite, it shall stifle the greatest asset our company has, our arts.

Your country already would have copyrighted works, and this proposal isn't going to change anything, except for to make sure other countries can not claim right to your work.


This "free trade" proposal is just another attempt to extend the slavery of artists to corrupt corporate interests and to extent monopolistic intellectual property mafias to destroy freedom of speech and ensure that all art is watered-down mindless pabulum from the largest countries, which are capable of leveraging their armies of lawyers, bribe-carrying lobbyists and other conniving, swindling special interests into absolute control over all forms of intellectual "property."

Slavery of artists? If anything this gives artists an advantage, and some proof to the work was originally theirs to begin with.

I am urging everyone who has an interest in seeing the United Nations function properly to vote against this resolution. The resolution skirts around the real issue; what will the international copyright law be? Instead, it prattles on about how to uphold the law it has failed to define.

So you want me to make a 1000 page proposal, just like most copyright/patent laws are?

The weakest point in this resolution is to put Patents and Copyrights as 'equals', which they are not.

I never defined them as equals.
Additonally Copyright is defined as: The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.

Patent is defined as: A grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time.

They are different because, in short, one deals with written works, and the other deals with inventions.



A.) It is an extremely vaguely written, prattle-laden proposal and thus susceptible to various legal loopholes that pirates are quite bound to notice.

B.) This proposal is quite unenforceable, at least in regard to movies, music, etc... especially when dealing with these so called Peer to Peer networks. I would give a thousand Euros to any that are able to shut down such notorious networks as Kazaa or Limewire. Most of you are aware that these programs do not rely on a specific server to met out it's music, movies, programs, etc.. Therefore, how would one be able to prosecute? The technologically inclined masses have learned their lesson from Napster. Please pardon if I am mistaken but such a measure as this has already been attempted, but with negative or little positive results.

C.) Though I am slightly disinclined to allow such freedom as these, I do believe that this would be an inherent waste of money, resources, and time for both my Country and the U.N as a whole.

You are being too vague, it depends on what your defintion of 'is' is.

If passed the state of AnubisThe will fine offenders the equivalent of $.0001 US currency per offense as a MAXIMUM FINE, regardless of past copyright infringement.

You couldn't the agency that would make the recommended course of action would not recommend that the fine be that small.

An International organization would have to be funded by members of the UN and hence raise all of our taxes slightly. It would also clog up our court systems, requiring even more taxes. The simple fact is, it breaks UN regulations and must be eliminated from voting. The proposal for the humane treatment of the mentally ill creates no such international organization and leaves each nation to monitor and punish offenses as they see fit. A new proposal COULD be made with the elimination of the organization, but again my country would be forced to oppose such a proposal. In either event the law would require us to pay money to the UN which is a feature not in the game and hence is not an allowable proposal.

We have the right to do as we please with our offenders, and throw your "recommendations" out the window. No such resolution has passed saying you may FORCE my nation to adhear to the "strick" punishments your country sets or any organization recommends!

There is no way the Bariloche government (or the people for all that matters) will vote in favor of this proposal, this goes against civil and economical freedoms that we hold dear. This would only mean a down, not an up, in the international market, since all the people trading with a copyrighted product (which their nation did not recognized previously as copyrighted) will have to answer to the owner of that copyright, hence losing hability to commerce freely and most importantly making corporations grow, monopolies easier to build and harder to control.

This will absolutely not be accepted, and if this is approved Bariloche will leave the UN for good.

Pablo B.
President
Community of Bariloche

- double post -

In response to the Dominion of Anward's objections to the "unfair" treatment of their proposal over others, The Most Serene Republic of Lubria would remind the Dominion of Anward that they are calling for a radical restructuring of most member state's intellectual property laws, and in some cases, the instituting of such laws in member states that do not recognize copyrights and patents as properties of individuals. This proposal does not cover a binary topic, such as Euthanasia or the Banning of X, it is a topic of grays.

Some of the world's problems can be handled in statements of brevity, others require tomes of regulations. Intellectual Propoerty rights fall somewhere in between. We would remind The Dominion of Anward that they choose to introduce this proposal without consultation the Assembly at large. Though it is not a requirement to do so before submitting a proposal, one can only expect that your proposal's weaknesses will be attacked if one ignores the variety of opinions that exist within the Assembly on such an issue. As there is no method for editing a proposal once it has been submitted, all a member state may do if they believe the proposal is not sound is vote against it, and urge all other member states to do so.

Perhaps in future, The Dominion of Anward will consider presenting a draft of their proposals for open debate before submittal, and then after hearing the concerns and criticisms of the Assembly, edit your draft as you see fit before submittal.

The Most Serene Republic of Lubria welcomes any well drafted, precise, and well structured proposal, but will not support half measures and vague statements that seem only designed to bring one's nation to the forefront of public interest.

Peter Javanis
Special Envoy
Office of the Lubrian Prime Minister

4. An additional sub-agency be created to be informed of, and monitor all copyright/patent infringements. Reducing the need for the government to take the time to investigate the actions. A recommended course of action will then be reported, and a court of the nation of the offender make the ruling.


Considering this clause, we, the legitimate businessmen of the Italian-Arabian society must vote against it. By monitoring all copyright abuses, you are effectively peering into every fourteen year old's bedroom window, and besides Shakespearean paedophillia issues and the disruption of that young boy's important corruption to become a fully fledged member of the Mafioso, the tax drain funding such a Soviet-esque secret police initiative like this would be absolutely enormous. We cannot endorse this breach of contract with this penalty clause inserted. If, you resubmitted the UCPL without the fourth clause and it got to a resolution we would gladly promote it. As it stands we cannot. Good day.


"Death To Griefers Is 00000000's Cry!"
U.N. Representative, Eddie "Fast" Themansioni
Italian Arabian Alliance of al`Pacino

An International organization would have to be funded by members of the UN and hence raise all of our taxes slightly. It would also clog up our court systems, requiring even more taxes. The simple fact is, it breaks UN regulations and must be eliminated from voting. The proposal for the humane treatment of the mentally ill creates no such international organization and leaves each nation to monitor and punish offenses as they see fit. A new proposal COULD be made with the elimination of the organization, but again my country would be forced to oppose such a proposal. In either event the law would require us to pay money to the UN which is a feature not in the game and hence is not an allowable proposal.

Anubis, you need to learn something. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH. Basic economic rule. Any ruling made by the UN would require money. Paying for all of these delegates would require money, the paper the proposals are written on require money. Everything that exists, including proposals that did not pass have cost the UN money. Mine is no different.

4. An additional sub-agency be created to be informed of, and monitor all copyright/patent infringements. Reducing the need for the government to take the time to investigate the actions. A recommended course of action will then be reported, and a court of the nation of the offender make the ruling.


Considering this clause, we, the legitimate businessmen of the Italian-Arabian society must vote against it. By monitoring all copyright abuses, you are effectively peering into every fourteen year old's bedroom window, and besides Shakespearean paedophillia issues and the disruption of that young boy's important corruption to become a fully fledged member of the Mafioso, the tax drain funding such a Soviet-esque secret police initiative like this would be absolutely enormous. We cannot endorse this breach of contract with this penalty clause inserted. If, you resubmitted the UCPL without the fourth clause and it got to a resolution we would gladly promote it. As it stands we cannot. Good day.


"Death To Griefers Is 00000000's Cry!"
U.N. Representative, Eddie "Fast" Themansioni
Italian Arabian Alliance of al`Pacino

Honestly stop with these idiotic highly unlikely situations. Also this particular issue the agency wouldn't be monitoring anything anyone until they are informed of it. So your case would be reduced greatly from your original figure of 'every fourteen year old boy'.

If someone were to make the proposal 'Free Beer for all Delegates', this forums response, if there was one, would go like this:

-What color is the Beer?

-The Beer is obviously poisoned, my country will not take up on this offer!

-I don't drink Beer, so I will not support this issue.

-What kind of Beer is it?

-Is the Beer actually an ale?

-How big a glass of Beer?

-Will it even be a glass, or will it be a cup?

-Will this be alcoholic Beer, or non-alcoholic?

-I assume you mean it is flat Beer, so I will not vote for your proposal.

-Beer is the Devil! No one drink it!

-Beer sucks, I like wine, so I will not vote for your proposal.

-etc, etc

Renounce this legislation. For one, how can you implement this kind of law across all these nations with different economic/government systems? Second, you claim that this is simple. Yet you outline an agency that has sub-agencies in each nation, translation agencies in each nation, and another agency for investigation purposes. Let's take 1 patent application and guide it through.

1. I apply for the patent.
2. It goes up through the patent offices on my nation's level.
3. It goes up through the UN translation office to get it ready for UN approval.
4. It goes up to main UN body.
5. It goes to each nation's UN translation office.
6. Each UN agency in each nation has to investigate to ensure it does not exist already in that nation.
7. Findings reported, and returned to me.
8. Appeal? Right, go back 1-7.

What if there are kinks in this? What if someone decides THEY want my patent, and take it for themselves? Let's keep the greedy UN out of our economic systems and lets manage our own trade.

sorry, double post and can't get it deleted.

Renounce this legislation. For one, how can you implement this kind of law across all these nations with different economic/government systems? Second, you claim that this is simple. Yet you outline an agency that has sub-agencies in each nation, translation agencies in each nation, and another agency for investigation purposes. Let's take 1 patent application and guide it through. For simplicity, I will make something up, let me call it NOUCPL.

1. I apply for the patent on NOUCPL.
2. It goes up through the patent offices on my nation's level.
3. It goes up through the UN translation office to get it ready for UN approval.
4. It goes up to main UN body.
5. It goes to each nation's UN translation office.
6. Each UN agency in each nation has to investigate to ensure it does not exist already in that nation.
7. Findings reported, and returned to me.
8. Appeal? Right, go back 1-7.

Let's manage our own economies and keep the grubby UN out of places it doesn't belong.

What if someone wants to steal your patent in your own nation? That aspect is no different on an international level.

Anward, i understand that you are upset that people are picking apart your proposal...

WELCOME TO POLITICS!!!!

why do you think common sense laws in so many countries, even the US, (hell, especially the US) are boondoggled and filibustered to death in committee before they ever even make a vote? everyone has their own agenda. and they will speak up for it.

i noticed many of the past proposals that were highly vague got through, i also noticed many of the people now saying they dont like the vague stuff are all relatively new to the game. perhaps the 'old boy netowrk' of sliding things through is coming to an end?

the last bill about mentally ill treatment i spoke against because of vagueness, but it passed overwhelmingly. your bill is still up 3-1.

however more people are starting to debate in the forums whicgh is a positive sign.

also, in the real world, every piece of legislation is spelled out exact and to the letter. i understand you think it would take 4 days to spell out your proposal for every little thing, but thats what happens in reality. so if the game moves closer to reality, thats a GOOD thing.

too many people who play this gam,e appear to be 9th and 10th grade kids who just found out their school has a political debate team. life isnt a simple paragraph, politics is worse than life.

dont take people banging you for vagueness as offensive, take it as constructive criticism. no one is calling you an idiot for the vagueness, we are just trying tobring about change, change for the better, for more realistic play.

eventually, all those vague laws the UN has passed will wind up with someone like me taking time over a weekend and rewriting them as new, more exact proposals to take their place.

im even working on a proposal to make all proposals have a uniform code. so that in the future all proposals will have a bill appearance, and this one and 2 sentence paragraph thing will end, your proposal wasnt bad here, you at least attempted to use a bill outline form, more than your predecessors can say.

everything is a work in process.

perhaps some of the people on this board who are tired of the status quo and want more realistic game play and proposal writing will work with me to help write new proposals to bring this into effect.

First off a little about the real me. I have taken government, I have been on the Academic Team, Debate Team, I often talk politics, I have an above average understanding of the world around me. I thrive on debate, I love winning and losing. I love the cycle. I can tell you this is not debate, it is an amalgamated mass of random ideas that aren't even relevant to this discussion. There are topics I agree with, and I have left talking about those alone.

Yes, I could have added more to proposal, but I haven't and I am not going to stop my proposal just because a detail is a little vague to some. Also a rule in debate, DO NOT USE HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS TO BACK UP YOUR REBUTTAL. something I would only expect of those '9th, and 10th' graders who are on the 'political debate team'.

If you want to have a debate, at least do a good job at it, and if at all possible in some resembling an actual debate style.

The Government of the Comonwealth of Inner Qwghlm will be opposing this measure for the following reasons.

1. This is a matter for individual Nations, it is not within the UN's remit and should not have been put to vote.
2. The proposal as it stands has more holes than a 100kg of Emmental [Big holes, too!] most holes have already been identified by previous posters, so I will not duplicate these here.
3. There is no agreed standard to which to allign individual Nation States' laws on this issue. Thus the proposal has no real meaning.
4. The cost of implementing these proposals, even if some meaningful legislation can be extacted from them, will, by our estimates, cripple our Public Sector. We estimate that the cost of implementation of this policy may exceed the revenues generated by Copyright/Patent. [If this proposal is passed Inner Qwghlm will as implement a tax on Patent/Copyright derived income comensurate with this cost, ie potentialy over 100%]

We have read the responses posted by the proposer and have the following comments,

1. just because other badly worded/un thought through provisions have been passed by the Delegates & Membership of the UN, does not mean we should continue to do so, rather the opposite.
2. the proposer has, in the main, not addressed concerns raised by objectors, rather has whined in an unapealling and pathetic manner. Accept that your proposal is flawed and withdraw it with dignity.
3. where some attempt to address issues has been made the arguments put forward are trite, overly simplistic, ill-thought through and or plain wrong eg
'Your country already would have copyrighted works' not necessarily, some nations do not recognise the concept of copyright, thus copyrighted works cannot exist within that Nation, 'So you want me to make a 1000 page proposal, just like most copyright/patent laws are?' how complex you make the law is up-to-you, but yes We would like to know in advance just waht we are going to be compelled to legislate; 'Additonally Copyright is defined as: The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.

Patent is defined as: A grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time.'
Who's defenitions are these? Do they apply in all Nations?

We could go on ad nauseum, in fact We may already have done so, so shall cease at this point.

Rt. Hon Lord Ralph Dfrrtghk-Skghth
Inner Qwghlm Ambassador to the UN

Okay, buddy, I acknowledge your understanding of debate, but remember, this isn't debate, this is POLITICS. This is premium-grade BS being shoveled as far as the eye can see. Maybe hypothetical situations WON'T win points in debate, but politicians don't play for points, see, they play for votes, and voters have this strange habit of not MINDING that the situation is hypothetical, eh? We're not proving it wrong, we're not debating for fun, we're trying to win UN voters to vote the way WE want them too and by God and heaven, we'll use whatever means necessary to do so! That's the real world, sorry if your little personal vision disagrees, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. And cliches win votes, too.

Anward, I'm afraid since the law itself is still hypothetical, there is no precedent which can be called upon to support not passing it, so we cannot treat this as litigation.

As a philosophy student (and I do understand this is not a purely philosophical issue), I use hypothetical situations all the time. By carrying an argument to it's extreme conclusion, you can often "win" the debate by forcing your opponent to concede limitations, or in the best circumstances, abandon that argument all together.

There are only two things that ever stop the government from doing anything, politics, and money. In the case of this proposal, it seems to be both. Some don't like the idea of global copyright police, and some don't want to fund a multi-level agency such as the one you propose.

As for debate, I believe I have offered many fine points, excepting my previous objection, which was a matter of parliamentary procedure. I have stated that your proposal is too vague, a valid criticism. Something as complex as copyrights requires detailed explanation. I have pointed out that you do not state what exactly the global copyright/patent laws are to be, something I expect of a proposal on Universal Copyright/Patent Laws.

Complex ideas require detailed explanation in most cases. You have proposed a complex idea (Global standardization of Copyright/Patent laws among all UN member states) and failed (in my opinion) to provide a detailed explanation (What the laws will be to be precise).

I'm afraid this is how politics really works. People argue over the tiniest points of what you think is an adequate bill. You are fortunate that no one can add amendments to your proposal, or you would most likely find it inundated with pork barrel projects.

Best of luck on this proposal, it looks as if it will pass, but I wonder what will happen afterwards? This is a classic example of a throwaway idea. JFK's moon flight was a throwaway idea, he just said, we're going to the moon by the end of the decade. Not how, not how much, just go!

I'm afraid intellectual property law is not as exciting as going to the moon, so don't expect applause.

Finely, none of what I've said is meant to be ad hominem, it is criticism of your ideas, not you.

After much review of the proposed resolution by the The Dominion of Anward, The Most Serene Republic of Lubria would like to raise objection to this proposal being brought to vote in the first place. The proposal calls for the formation of a multi-level, international agency to oversee patent and copyright laws, which seems to be expressly forbidden by the UN Moderator, as stated in his address of Oct 03, 2003,

Proposals can and do cover all manner of agendas. However, there are three broad categories of proposal which will always be removed from the queue before they become able to be voted on by the general membership of the United Nations... "The UN should create <multinational organization>". All of these proposals propose changes to the Game Mechanics governing the running of NationStates.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=77286


The Rogue Nation of Gwenhwyva joins this objection.

Additionally, in requiring that all nations have identical copyright laws, while failing to specify what these laws will be, it preempts national constitutions and quite possibly even basic human rights such as the right to free speech. We are perturbed on this detail, especially since the right to speech is absolute in our nation.

We do not accept the notion, promulgated by the wealthiest, largest and most corrupt nations, that copyright law respects freedom of expression simply because it says it does. In fact, representatives of larger nations have even claimed that the speech of our computer programmers (code is certainly speech in our society) must be stopped due to vague claims that somehow an algorithm is illegal if it can in any way be used to "infringe" on the "rights" of their vast intellectual property Mafias.

But that is tagential.

Again, we join Lubria's procedural objection.

The problem with this Resolution is that, while it says that Copyright and Patent laws should be the same in all member states, it fails to specify what those laws should be, or to provide any means of making that determination.

Lacking this specification, the resolution is hopelessly vague, and we cannot give it our support for that reason.

My dear fellow members of the United Nations;
Upon first viewing the title of this proposal, I thought great. Free Trade, the removal of barriers to the export of my peoples blood, sweat and tears, and the import of desireable niceties.

Instead what do I find? A blatant protectionist agenda to help improve the lot of poor multi-billion dollar corporations over the people of the world.

What goods really require copyrights or patents? Life saving drugs that improve the lot of the worlds people? The technology required to produce machines that peer into the body and perform surgury to save lives? The Open source software used to automate dangerous jobs? Or maybe the mind-numbing cultural propaganda being exported as music and movies?

Is it not so that what one man creates another may re-create? I can not force your nation's companies to sell their so called "special property" in my nation. So if it is being sold by them of their own free will (for a profit I'd wager), why is it my nations responsibility to protect them? To provide this service to my own nations companies, I am forces to charge a small tax. Will my fellow nations collect the necessary administrative taxes and forward them to the nations where your own companies are conducting business?

I know not what your views may be, but for myself, and my nation, I must vote against this blatant corporate protectionist bill.

Thank you my friends, and remember.. Shamaniland Cheese is the best cheese. And our Uranium gives the best bang for it's buck.

The People of the Dominion of Lesser Kermitia rise in steadfast opposition to this proposal. It would, on its own terms, create an international organization to substitute for our benevolent judgment in all matters related to artistic and technological rights, areas which the People hold dear to their hearts and minds. We see no evidence that we will be invited to participate in this international organization, nor do we have any inkling of what the nature of this law might be or how we might influence its change. In addition, the proposal misuses the apostrophe, which is a very serious offense in Lesser Kermitia; convicted violators may be sentenced to shovel out the National Ferret Cage for up to six weeks as punishment.

This proposal is odious and should never have been allowed to come to a vote, let alone be adopted. It should, and must, be defeated. In the event that it is adopted, we will, in concert with other like-minded nations, cause to be submitted a proposal mandating all member nations to adopt artistic rights laws which conform to its national expectations on these matter.

We also rise in support of the procedural objection raised by the delegate from Lubria and call for the United Nations administration to withdraw this proposal from consideration immediately.

The Lady Protector Kalicia
for The Dominion of Lesser Kermitia

This is no different than your current copyright laws. It would not eliminate any more rights than your current copyright laws do. This does not elminate any constitutional rights you say you have, nor does it it give any more rights to billion dollar corporations. I do not understand why I have to continually state this.

This is no different than your current copyright laws. It would not eliminate any more rights than your current copyright laws do. This does not elminate any constitutional rights you say you have, nor does it it give any more rights to billion dollar corporations. I do not understand why I have to continually state this.

Your sole response to any of the fatal flaws in this proposal seems to be simply to state repeatedly "No, it doesn't." Considering that our current copyright laws barely exist, it is ludicrous on its face to insist that forcibly dismantling our Constitution in order to conform to the worst copyright laws on the Earth is not going to eliminate rights.

MitsubishiSonyLockheed has approved the copyrights and patents to anything and everything that has been or will be created in perpetuity to the Incorporated States of MitsubishiSonyLockheed. We urge all other members of the United Nations to vote for the UCPL, so that we may begin receiving the royalties due to us.

The People of Lesser Kermitia do not understand how the representative from Anward can so blithely assert that this proposal would not change our "copyright" law. On its face, this resolution would, if adopted, require that all nations have the same "Copyright/Patent law". Does the government of Anward guarantee us that this means that the artistic and technological rights law of the Dominion will be adopted by all other Member Nations and that its law, and no other, will be the universal law to be enforced by the International Copyright Office? And if they do, what of our good friends, the nation of Gwenhwyva, whose law differs from our own on this delicate matter for reasons that make sense to them, if not to us? Why should they be subjected to Lesser Kermitia's law? Our wisdom need not be their wisdom, after all.

No, we find the statements of the delegate from Anward perplexing in the extreme. Perhaps the delegate should take a moment and actually read the proposal that the nation of Anward has presented for our collective consideration before advocating its advancement further, as it is seems quite clear that the good delegate is not well advised as to its content.

The Lady Protector Kalicia
for The Dominion of Lesser Kermitia

Not only have I read my proposal several times, I have read other proposals, actual copyright law, and everything I type out before I post it. You obviously did not understand the message. Copyright law is being changed, but there would be no noticable affects in any country of the change. The main change would be that other countries could not have stolen your idea, because you already got the copyright in your own nation, and since the laws would be the same in all nations it would be acceptable in all UN nations. I do not see how this does any of horrible stuff I continue to here it will supposedly do. All I hear is opinion on what the worst outcome would be.

MitsubishiSonyLockheed (MSL) feels that the representative from Anward is mistaken, as under our countries copyright laws all knowledge is owned for perpetuity by MSL. If the UCPL were to pass, then all member of the United Nations would have to compensate MSL for any use of our knowledge base including but not limited to: speaking, reading, writing, thinking (a biological process for which we hold the patent), birthing, and dying. We urge all members to support the proposition as it is written.

...since the laws would be the same in all nations it would be acceptable in all UN nations.

Two simple numbers:

The United Nations has 35,443 member nations
The world contains 111,084 nations

If this law passes, UN members all have to observe the same copyright laws. The other 75,641 can steal our work with impunity. They can undercut us. We can't compete.


You're screwing UN members to the wall because you think NationStates is the same as the real world. It isn't. Different rules apply, and all your studying is irrelvant here.

Kill this bill.

MitsubishiSonyLockheed (MSL) feels that the representative from Anward is mistaken, as under our countries copyright laws all knowledge is owned for perpetuity by MSL. If the UCPL were to pass, then all member of the United Nations would have to compensate MSL for any use of our knowledge base including but not limited to: speaking, reading, writing, thinking (a biological process for which we hold the patent), birthing, and dying. We urge all members to support the proposition as it is written.

After careful consideration of the arguements presented, The Republic of Boringville has chosen to side with those AGAINST this bill. We urge all other nations that are FOR it to reconsider their position, and join us AGAINST this bill.

You know if we are just going to through this BS out there, I am going to say I was the first one to have a patent on speaking, reading, writing, thinking, birthing, and dying, before Mitsubishi, which nullifies his patents under this. Since I am the first no one can nullify my hypothetical situation. Also I am such a nice guy, even though I now hold all those patents, I am not going to charge anyone for there use ever.

The point the delegate from MSL was trying to make (if I am interpreting it correctly), was that your proposal establishes no standards for who has valid rights to intellectual property, and so his nation state can easily pass laws allowing it to patent such fundamental processes as speaking, writing, farting, etc. Since your proposal honors the originator you must accept his right to charge royalties as he sees fit. You making the same statement only proves his point doubly over. Your proposal is vague when it needs to be specific. One should not be able to drive convoys through the loopholes of a resolution of the world's governing body. Either make appropriate laws, or do not make any.

The Most Serene Republic of Lubria does not doubt your intentions, but we question your execution.

You have just ignored my point entirely. I can continue to make these hypothetical situations until I win the conversation, just as some of you have. This is a flaw. We need some grounds on what is, and what is not considered legitmate for use in a conversation. My point is, every game has rules, yet this one is seemingly lacking in rules for these hyopthetical sitautions.

We doubt very much that MSL was serious in his claims, we prefer to think of it as clever rhetoric showing the loopholes in your proposal. However, as the game has no rules regarding the patenting or copyrighting of nations works in the first place, it is difficult to see how MSL could claim to patent such things. But, using standard RW definitions, he cannot, for a patent is a unique invention of the individual who holds the patent. As MSL can show no evidence for the invention of speech (his nation having not been around for its creation) he cannot hold the patent on it, and even if he did, no court in a reasonable country would uphold it.

All this being said, if your proposal is made law, and as it lacks any provisions to prevent MSL from pursuing his claims, he is in the right, having declared his patent on such things first.

Yes, we can throw this BS around all day, but I do not take serious MSLs claims, and I and others have presented other reasons why this proposal should not be ratified, none of them wildly outside the realm of possibility.

We at MSL are serious about our patent laws which were signed into being today, and are willing to sue anyone who infringes on our inherent right to everything. We are willing to deal with individual governments who are intrested in maintaing the same knowledge base as us, so that they may offer all IP to their citizens freely the same as we do here at MitsubishiSonyLockheed. While we understand that not all nations would agree with MSL that all knowledges belong solely to us, it is in the interest of our sharholders (citizens) that we answer any challenge to our sovereign laws in court unless a suitable out of court offer is made (please remember that we are claiming the rights to everything forever, so a few hundred trillion does not even compare to the possible profits we could gain). Unless the UCPL is passed in it's current form the MSL will withdraw it's support for the movement as we will not allow for foreign interests to dictate how we may apply our current or future knowledge base.

ooc: MSL, I have another Acronym for you, SCO :)

I believe god has the majority of creation under an open source liscense.

Upon review of the original proposal and the collected comments of the representative of the nation of Anward, we have concluded that Anward intended to create a regime in which the artistic and technological rights related to any particular artifact or invention would be determined in all Member Nations by the law of the Member Nation in which that particular artifact or invention was created, invented, or discovered. We regret to inform our colleague that Anward has failed to draft a proposal which would have that effect, should it be adopted.

Nor do we believe that this would be a desirable situation. What would prevent a Member Nation from declaring that anything invented anywhere was deemed as a matter of law to have been invented by itself, and granting exclusive rights unto itself? We believe this to be the situation set forth in the comments by the representative from MitsubishiSonyLockheed. Wouldn't that seem to create the situation where one nation has effectively claimed to own everything, and where every other Member Nation must acceed to those claims? Clearly this is intolerable.

Oh, but it gets worse. Suppose two nations do so. Now there is a conflict: how can two nations simultaneously own everything? Now multiply that by the over 30,000 members of the United Nations. Every Member Nation would be subjected to over 30,000 different versions of artistic and technological rights law, all in force simultaneously and frequently in total conflict with one another. Now, we are trained as an attorney (although not currently practicing as one, except insofar as being Lady Protector demands it of us) and find conflicts law to be especially fascinating, but such matters cannot possibly be good for anyone's economy. Nearly any transaction involving an interest in artistic or technological rights would be subject to countless lawsuits involving terribly confusing issues that even the best of jurists would be ill-equipped to reliably set to rights. No, this shall not do. Let us find another approach to this issue, if indeed it is an issue at all.

The Lady Protector Kalicia
for The Dominion of Lesser Kermitia

I believe god has the majority of creation under an open source liscense.

Sorry, God no longer exists.

Checking "God"... RESERVED. That name was used by a former nation.

MSL would also like to claim copyright on all creation myths and would appreciate if Lubria would no longer use our trademarked name of God as operated and licensed from our SCO division.
While MSL feels that it is owed much from the ongoing theft of it's IP, we must concur with Lesser Kermitia that this resolution is not structured in a useful manner.
While MSL does not relinquish any of it's claims, the legal opinion of Lesser Kermitia that more than one nation may have the same IP law as us, could cause a legal tangle which we have no wish to engage in.
Also it has been suggested that any nation who's IP laws expressly give the right of use to all people for all IP would undermine MSL's case in claiming our IP, and possibly annul all IP laws throught the UN.
In the interest of maintaing our IP, it is recommended that this proposal be changed from it's current format, as otherwise this will descend into a 70,000 way legal tug-of-war.
MSL has law offices throughout the world and are willing to represent individual nations if this comes to pass, for more information contact your local branch of DeloitteTouche&Gamble (a MSL subsidiary).

[color=red]WE don't need an maffia orginisation. I have internet file swaping and I will not let some small minded maffia type try to tell my citizen that they can't swap file. this is BS

KILL THIS NOW!!!![

the end resoult will be that they will have power to go in to your nation and your computer to see if you having copy right that they think yopu should pay for.

Please help stop them!!! STOP THIS BILL!!!/color]

because you already got the copyright in your own nation, and since the laws would be the same in all nations it would be acceptable in all UN nations.

Your proposal actually has nothing to do with copyrigth law itself. It only deals with how such laws should be upheld.
- If a nation decides to patent every citizens genome. The could profit on their citizens procreation.

- If a nation decides to patent democracy, and such a patent was legal under national law. The UN would be forced to uphold such a law, and it would automatically be international law.

Bakuniland hereby claim copyrigth on democracy!

Bakuniland: MSL must remind you that we already hold the copyright for democracy (as well as everything else), and may be forced to sue you for trademark infringement in the use of MSL's trademark 'Bakuniland' once this resolution passes.

In the event of the passing of this bill, the People's Republic of our great Founding Father James Beardsley will both contest MLC's copyright on Communism, and also will attempt to persecute all other communist nations for copyright infringement, with the goal being a reward of all lands, building, weapons, cash reserves, and citizens of the infringing nations. While this temporarily goes against our Golden Ideals, in the long wrong this can do nothing but benefit the Noble Proletariat of our Sister Countries! For while their attempt at communism are laudable, they pale in comparison to the strength of Jamesism.

-Eli Beardsley
Head of the Bureau of Law and Order
The People's Republic of James Beardsley

The weakest point in this resolution is to put Patents and Copyrights as 'equals', which they are not.

I never defined them as equals.
Additonally Copyright is defined as: The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.

Patent is defined as: A grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time.

They are different because, in short, one deals with written works, and the other deals with inventions.

It would be positive to be able to read this difference between Copyright and Patents in your Proposal,
yet I can't see it, instead it suggest an equal treating of both completely different legislations,
both are almost consistantly named as "Copyright/Patent" in the proposal.

In the 2nd suggestion, about the sub-agency it only refers to 'Copyrights':
to be judges by a "Copyright/Patent organization"
Copyright/Patent organizations be modified to accommodate the number of requests for copyright. This should be done by establishing a new International Copyright Organization, with chapters in every capital. This agency would receive other chapters' copyrights, and send copyrights established in that country to all other chapters. With the Internet Age, this is a simple process.

Copyright is the exclusive right granted by the author to republish, re-use a work to others,
in such it is only a matter of business between author and publisher, a state- or UN-controlled organisation has nothing to do with it, as long as there is no conflict between them.

to put a sub-agency in between author and publisher, is to create extra bureaucracy: I see state-controlled Trade, not Free Trade as you implie to support.
In effect this legislation can have a desastrous effect:
as it failes to define any ground on which 'copyright' can be assigned by this 'sub-agency', it would be a death-blow to the present Copyright system en in that form, put all works that are not registered by this sub-agency into the Public Domain.

A small comparison:
What if Property as such is only recognised if the owner officially registers an object at a centralized agency?
Meaning, if you buy a table, it is only recognized as being in your property if you officially let it be registered with an official and centralized agency;

That is exactly the proposal you make for Intellectual Property.
Your proposal on Copyright effectivily legalises Theft of Intellectiual Property, unless the owner takes extra measures in asking the aid of a bureaucratic centralised agency wich registers all property.

Wkile this definitely looks like a good idea, Luidor still opposes this resolution. While this would require the UN to create the new copyright/patent laws, but doesn't specify their exact wording. This is just too vague for us to support it.

The Elven Kingdom of Luindor

The Republic of connectingthings

Recognising the importance of copyright and patent law in protecting the rights of artists and inventors to benefit from their work.

Sympathising with the difficulties expressed by the Dominion of Anward and other nations with regard to ensuring those rights Internationally.

Refusing to bend to corrupt corporate greed which applies patent law to gain monopolies on artistic expression.

Rejecting the policies of censorship and thought control which abuse copyright law in the name of protecting the innocent.

Is resolved to vote against this motion stating:

Many times past we have here in the UN council chamber heard weak, inarticulate, wooly and downright incomprehensible motions, some such have been made in the heat of passionate debate and can be forgiven a small momentary lack of clarity, some have been made seemingly in a deliberate effort to delay and obfuscate the work of the UN whilst other such motions appear to suffer only from laziness and lack of thought on the behalf of the sponsoring party.

This particular motion in front of us today is one of the worst offendors in that last category.

This is a non motion; it is, in its current state, totally unworthy of consideration.

The Republic of Connectingthings appeals to the sponsor to withdraw the motion and save the entire UN from yet more unhelpful debate.

We were initially inclined to have some sympathy for the nation of Anward, having assumed that the resolution proposed was not ill-intentioned. However, our sympathy has been more than somewhat diminished by the increasingly petulant responses made in the face of fully justified criticism.

Our position is simple: we have no copyright/patent laws in our nation as all discoveries, ideas, etc. are treated as gifts to all people, for the benefit of all people. We naturally have no objection to treaties between individual nations, alliances, trading blocs, etc. However, this proposal will inflict blanket laws on our nation that have no place in our society. We cannot therefore accept it. Please understand this.

Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations
Community of Ecopoeia

The Theocracy of Coffey would like to voice it's opinion on the issue at large. I will not support this resolution for three reasons.

1. Through the UCPL, the UN would basically control the economy. By allowing only one entity a patent for a product, the world will be over run by miniature monopolies. Small companies are dangerous to society and can destroy a smooth running economy.

2. The chapters and sub-agencies would be riddled with corruption. To give the power for one entity to decide who will make money on what is lunacy. It only works on a small scale. I know this to be true. It's how I gained power here.

3. If the UN passes this resolution, it will move away from what it's intentions were in the begining: to help resolve world conflicts, and to enable people to live better lives in the world community. It will turn into a police state, and, as I said, that works only on a small scale. A dictaroship on the large scale would raise an outcry from too many people to effectivly ignore.

Thank you for reading,
Jerome, Theocratic Dictator of Coffey

The free peoples of East Hackney second Ecopoeia's comments and note that the nation of Anward has not addressed our legitimate criticism of this proposal.

We reiterate our stance that this motion represents an underhand attempt to destroy East Hackney's democratically chosen structures of corporate and intellectual property law. No nation - be it capitalist, communist or anarchist, laissez-faire or regulated - should tolerate this attempt to hand powers to the UN that it has no right to take on.

Where is Global Market when we need him?!

As East Hackney is saying, I believe Libreral Capitalists, Communists, Socialists and Anarchists should team toghether against this horrible proposal.

We, members of the community of Feliz, have been working on patents and copyrights since last year.
We decided to creat a copyright for "patents and copyrights", the cost for creating a copyright is only proportional to the possible benefits. We hope that it will not damage our trading reciprocity.
Best Regards,

Professor Wolfgang, delegate for capitalism disturbing

If this resolution goes true I think we need to start punish nation that are trying to destroy the corporation between different nations. They are using UN for they own winning. This will create friction between friendly nations. We should do everything to try to stop the kind of using the UN as a dictation over sovereign nations. If you have friendly of business with nations or regions that support this resolution, cut them off. We have to show our sensibly against this kind of abuse on sovereign nations!!
UN should not be use as a business tools!
Stop This Resolution!

Thanks for letting me speak,
Prez RealBigSwede

The proposal claims to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce, however the measures it seeks to implement will have exactly the opposite effect.

The proposal requires that all copyrighted works in the entire world be translated into every language in existence, and furthermore that buildings in every capital city will be devoted to this endless task, and that agencies and sub-agencies of beurocrats will operate all this. Who will pay for this? certainly not the taxpayers of Teebeestroika!

How can this measure 'Reduce the need for the government to take the time to investigate the actions' of copyright violators when our governement currently does nothing at all about them and leaves the job entirely to Free Enterprise?

The best way to increase trade is to reduce taxes. This proposal is bad for business, bad for trade, and therefore bad for all right-thinking capitalists.

I rest my case.

Maybe there is something wrong with the forums if there are this many unintentional double postings?

We are but a small country, but our beliefs are unitede against this proposal. We may choose to die by the sword, but we will not be strangled by wasteful spending. This bill not only subverts the copyright laws of every land, it also is quite unnecessary, especially for small nations that can ill affor to pay for it. We humbly beg other delegates to deny this proposal. For the little ones.

-High Shogun Rayeth
Leader of the Deathseekers

Thought for the Day: To die by an enemy's blade is the most glorious death for a Deathseeker. We all shou be so lucky as to have such a death....

Here in Gleeb, copy-right and patent-right are rights granted exclusively to a human person. One, and only one person can enjoy the rights of copy-riight or of patent-right, which are not transferable to another, although industrial establishments may act under license. The right of copyright or of patent ends after 15 years, or with the individual's death, whichever comes first.
This, if a Universal Copyright Law is established, is the law that Gleeb demands be established.

Or else, whose law will be adopted?

I like it except for that every country has to have the same laws. I think every country should have similar, but not the same laws about copyright stuff.

I was actually FOr this proposal, but after reading all the reasons against it I have voted against.

I find it interesting that about 90% of the people who are discussing this topic are against, and yet more than 50% of the vote is for. It was the same for Euthanasia, it was the same for Fair Treatment o the Mentaly Ill. Should it not be a duty of every delegare to read and debate the issue before voting? Or do people just vote for what they feel is 'right' without looking into the deeper meaning of things?

Maybe there is something wrong with the forums if there are this many unintentional double postings?

Sometimes the forums lag.. and return a 'cannot find this page' If you hit 'refresh' you will actually wind up posting again. (One of the reasons I check forums VERY early in the morning)

It's an outrage that you people would even consider letting this pass! :shock: I can't believe you are even considering it! The UN should have no say in this type of thing. If anything, the UN should be paying more attention to Human Welfare. Even so, the proposal COMPLETELY evades the main issue in this proposal. WHAT are the regulations going to be? Let's just turn the UN into a GIANT dictatorship well we're at it, huh? Whaddya say to that?

I like it except for that every country has to have the same laws. I think every country should have similar, but not the same laws about copyright stuff.
That's what this proposal is ALL ABOUT! If you don't like this, you don't like the proposal. Come ON people!