23-01-2004, 03:40
This proposal, if enforcable, would do away with the prime principle of our nation. There is no universal copyright law which, enforced upon the minority at gunpoint, would be consistent with our Constitution.
By making these laws and procedures universal and enforced by an international body not answerable to our citizens, we would be surrendering all our basic rights, our right to free speech, our right to a trial by citizens, not some sham international body, and the right to extensive use of even copyrighted materials in criticism, commentary, parody and other uses, which are often not respected by the copyright laws this proposal would make universal. For example, a common parody of our young people is to replace the dialogue in movies with parody text. In many countries, this would not be acceptable.
However, despite the fact that our courts have already ruled that this is acceptable, this proposal would wipe away our Constitutional rights. It would require us to comport to the laws of the most fascist and dictatorial countries.
Effectively, this is equivalent to a proposal to "do away with Communism" or "enforce capitalism on all countries" or "eliminate the right to trial."
Such broad and sweeping changes to the Constitution as this proposal would require of our nation require the overwhelming public approval of 90 percent of all citizens. It is not for nothing that we have made amending our Constitution so difficult.
This proposal would be unlikely to get even majority approval in our nation. It is either doomed to be passed as an unenforceable joke, or to require wrangling to force those of us who will refuse to adhere to it or "comply" with it in ineffective ways out of the United Nations.
Depending on what enforcement there is, our nation may very well refuse to comply with it and fight removal from the United Nations on the grounds that the wholesale elimination of their Constitution is not a demand the UN can make of its members.
It is clear from the vote as it stands that this proposal will be passed regardless of the gross procedural irregularities that preceded the vote. It is also clear that the serious flaws in it are simply going to be brushed over in the mad rush to force capitalism on all nations over their objections and contrary to the human rights of their citizens.
These objections should have been addressed long before this came to a vote. Instead, the proposal has stampeded over all the procedural hurdles that should have prevented it from coming to a vote in the first place.
Our nation is considering a counter-proposal, since the current proposal does not address what the copyright laws are to be which are being made universal without the majority of the UN even knowing what they are to be! This is essentially a "secret proposal" where literally anything could be unveiled as a "copyright law." It is astounding that there is such a rush to greenlight this "secret law."
Our counter-proposal would be this: the copyright and patent laws which are to be made universal are the total abolition of all copyright and patent laws, and the forcible dismantling of any regulatory agencies or international bodies addressing copyright laws and patent laws.
Naturally, we would reconsider this retalitatory counter-proposal should the current proposal be withdrawn by its proponent and resubmitted to address the serious procedural and content concerns raised. Simply trampling over the process in which these concerns should have been addressed is unacceptable, especially with a proposal like this which seeks to impose "secret laws" on all nations.
By making these laws and procedures universal and enforced by an international body not answerable to our citizens, we would be surrendering all our basic rights, our right to free speech, our right to a trial by citizens, not some sham international body, and the right to extensive use of even copyrighted materials in criticism, commentary, parody and other uses, which are often not respected by the copyright laws this proposal would make universal. For example, a common parody of our young people is to replace the dialogue in movies with parody text. In many countries, this would not be acceptable.
However, despite the fact that our courts have already ruled that this is acceptable, this proposal would wipe away our Constitutional rights. It would require us to comport to the laws of the most fascist and dictatorial countries.
Effectively, this is equivalent to a proposal to "do away with Communism" or "enforce capitalism on all countries" or "eliminate the right to trial."
Such broad and sweeping changes to the Constitution as this proposal would require of our nation require the overwhelming public approval of 90 percent of all citizens. It is not for nothing that we have made amending our Constitution so difficult.
This proposal would be unlikely to get even majority approval in our nation. It is either doomed to be passed as an unenforceable joke, or to require wrangling to force those of us who will refuse to adhere to it or "comply" with it in ineffective ways out of the United Nations.
Depending on what enforcement there is, our nation may very well refuse to comply with it and fight removal from the United Nations on the grounds that the wholesale elimination of their Constitution is not a demand the UN can make of its members.
It is clear from the vote as it stands that this proposal will be passed regardless of the gross procedural irregularities that preceded the vote. It is also clear that the serious flaws in it are simply going to be brushed over in the mad rush to force capitalism on all nations over their objections and contrary to the human rights of their citizens.
These objections should have been addressed long before this came to a vote. Instead, the proposal has stampeded over all the procedural hurdles that should have prevented it from coming to a vote in the first place.
Our nation is considering a counter-proposal, since the current proposal does not address what the copyright laws are to be which are being made universal without the majority of the UN even knowing what they are to be! This is essentially a "secret proposal" where literally anything could be unveiled as a "copyright law." It is astounding that there is such a rush to greenlight this "secret law."
Our counter-proposal would be this: the copyright and patent laws which are to be made universal are the total abolition of all copyright and patent laws, and the forcible dismantling of any regulatory agencies or international bodies addressing copyright laws and patent laws.
Naturally, we would reconsider this retalitatory counter-proposal should the current proposal be withdrawn by its proponent and resubmitted to address the serious procedural and content concerns raised. Simply trampling over the process in which these concerns should have been addressed is unacceptable, especially with a proposal like this which seeks to impose "secret laws" on all nations.