NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

While your reaction is somewhat extreme, it is no more so than what you are reacting TO. You will have the full support of our people in your endevor! Capitalism's attempts to spread like the disease that it is must be combatted by any means necessary. I imagine your proposal will be passed as quickly and effortlessly as the current filth, as it seems that the majority of the UN fails to even look into the debate on the current proposal, else this one would have either failed or won by a far smaller number.

Vive Liberte!

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

Though The Most Serene Republic of Lubria is a mixed system economy, we feel no need to go out of our way to protect corporations. The purpose of government is to protect the people, not corporate interests. The Most Serene Republic of Lubria does not find it necessary to eliminate the free market from our country at this time, but neither do we wish to become a corporate controlled state.

The UCPL Resolution forces our government to accept international, and as of yet unveiled, intellectual property legislation. Our government has fought to protect the rights of individual innovators above corporate ones, and we cannot sit by the wayside while all our efforts may be trampled.

The Most Serene Republic of Lubria is deeply concerned what intellectual property legislation the UN will enact globally. It is unfair to ask a country to give their support for an incomplete resolution. This proposed resolution lacks any of of the specificity required for our government to approve or oppose it, and that means we must ere on the side of caution and oppose it.

We ask that The Dominion of Anward withdraw their proposal, and if they see fit, submit a revised draft, preferable containing revisions from public debate. When The Most Serene Republic of Lubria knows what precisely the international copyright & patent regulations will be, then we will decide whether to support or oppose it. Until that time however, we maintain our objection to this proposal, as it seems to violate well defined UN regulations. We thank our fellow nations for their support, and hope that the UN administration sees fit to review our objection.

Peter Javanis
Special Envoy
Office of the Lubrian Prime Minister

First off you can't withdraw a proposal, secondly I wouldn't do it at this point when I spent 5 days gathering support, and 2 weeks in the queue.

Also I don't get in the slightest bit how this helps captalism, or major corporations. The corporations do not have any more rights than the lone-inventor.

Your proposal creates a de facto global intellectual property law. Though it carefully avoids defining such a law, the language is easily interpreted that way. If any member state wishes to engage in international trade, they must do so by the terms of your resolution.

Intellectual Property Law naturally favors corporations, who are quire adept at securing the rights to vague processes. Corporations also have more rights than individuals within intellectual property law, because they have the money to pursue infringement cases, and quash privately owned patents.

Your resolution is vague. simply put, and though we sympathize with your wait in line, we cannot offer support for a resolution simply because it is inconvenient to correct the mistakes in it.

Though you may not withdrawal your proposal from voting directly, you could ask for it to be removed by UN administration, or ensure that it does not pass by asking your supporters to change their votes. You seem more concerned with passing ANY resolution, than with passing the RIGHT resolution.

Vaguness of the terms of the law itself aside, international trade is still open as it ever was, unless of course you were selling bootlegged material to other countries. Also it is up to the oranganization to go after the offenders, if someone breaks a law, there would be not need for the other side(inventor) to even have legal representation since if offender broke the law, they broke the law.

And why am I concerned with passing this resolution? Two reasons, this has a chance of passing, if I give up this oprotunity it might not come around again. The second reason is regardless of how much more I define it, the limits of the game will make the effects of a less vague resolution the exact same as this one. So what would be the point in that?

Sheep. UN members are stupid, mindless sheep.

Blindly voting in a law that will kill them economically.

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. UN laws don't apply to non-member nations.

Kill this bill.

Fris, the real deal here is, they wouldn't. If this law would be passed the worst you would see, depending on how the chose to work it, is an increase in your economy.

Fris, the real deal here is, they wouldn't. If this law would be passed the worst you would see, depending on how the chose to work it, is an increase in your economy.
Oh, we're talking game mechanics here? Then why not post this:

asdfasdfasdfasdfa

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Anward
Description: qerqerqwerqwerqwerqewr

Because we're supposed to be emulating virtual nations considering virtual proposals that'll impact our virtual people. In order to do that, in order to have a debate over it, they need to make sense in THIS virtual framework.

Yours don't.

No, we have debated it, I am simply stating one possible outcome. The most likely outcome if it does pass. The reason I don't just put what you suggest? I am trying to emulate a resolution, but just because it doesn't suit your needs I am supposed to go back to square 1? No, I think not. I have done my best to promote this resolution, and to have free debate about this resolution. So far I have been greeted by few legitmate arguments, other than it is too vague. This is a game, there is a certain level that is needed to make, and pass a resolution, and I have met the basic requirement for that. I am now hoping this will pass, and you will forget about this, just like you have all forgotten about the Euthenasia resoultion which boosted all our civil rights with no negative effects.

Are we to Move on? Forgot past defeats and face new ones with innocence.

You talk of meeting the bare requirements for passage. If the school children of the Dominion of Anward have such a view, I weep for the future of your nation. You should strive to create the best possible resolution, not one that merely meets the most basic requirements for consideration. We are building the future here, and you toss your scribblings at us? We are to live by these half measures? These are economies we're talking about, not a homework assignment.

I am proud to say we in Lubria do not seek to merely meet requirements, we strive to exceed them. we are saddened that a fellow member state takes such an undisciplined view to international politics. No one should be proud of doing just enough. Resolutions will never be perfect, but you haven't even tried.

As far as debate, we have offered serious arguments, beyond the vagueness of your proposal, which is a serious fault nonetheless. The fact that you choose to ignore those arguments is none of our fault.

When you are ready to come to this assembly with an impassioned, serious proposal for reform, the Most Serene Republic of Lubria will be glad to review it, and offer our opinion. Until then, we have said all that should need to be said to convince you to withdrawal your current proposal.

Peter Javanis
Special Envoy
Office of the Lubrian Prime Minister

This is no different than your current copyright laws. It would not eliminate any more rights than your current copyright laws do.

Every copyright law grants some rights and removes others. If the rights granted and taken away are currently the same in all countries, then Anward's proposal to make all copyright laws the same is superfluous, since for practical purposes they're already the same. On the other hand, if some of them currently differ, then the only way to implement Anward's proposal while fulfilling Anward's promise of not eliminating any rights allowed under any nation's current copyright laws is for the new UN-wide law to grant the maximum range of rights available in any member nation.

The Theocracy of Bulgravia in particular has no copyright laws at all, and needs none, since all its printing and broadcasting is controlled by its Central Church and nothing can be published without approval of the eccliastical leadership. Also, Bulgravia has no fear of piracy, since the only materials it approves for publication are religious texts and soap operas, which we would be delighted to have reproduced in the unenlightened nations of the world, so that their unfortunate peoples can achieve the Spiritual Clarity that our own citizens have found under the saintly tutelage of our Maximum Leader, thus gaining new dues-paying followers for our Faith.

Luckily, the Rogue Nation of Gwenhwyva has already shown the path to resolving the apparent tension between Anward's two praiseworthy goals:


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.

Therefore, Bulgravia supports Anward's proposal to uniformize copyright and patent laws, only if it's amended to include Gwenhwyva's implementation prescription, namely accomplishing the uniformization by abolishing copyright and patent laws everywhere. Otherwise, Bulgravia opposes.

MSL will willingly give up it's claim to 'anything and everything' if the resolution comes to pass in the form suggested by Bulgravia. While MSL exists as a corporate entity, we have found that IP is a cause of stagnation and eats into the profits that are our main concern. While IP could represent a sizeable source of income, even after the initial research costs, it is felt that the bottom lines's cause is better served without it. If supporting this resolution will do away with IP law for all UN members than we will support it, as well as many others who are currently opposed if it were to be interpreted as such.

Sheep. UN members are stupid, mindless sheep.

Blindly voting in a law that will kill them economically.

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. UN laws don't apply to non-member nations.

Kill this bill.

I'd rather you didn't call me stupid.

The game is supposed to be about and have humour, it's sadly lacking. especially here. I'm not stupid because I chose to vote for a proposal. Neither is anyone else here.

Gigglealia stands resolute by it's acceptance of the proposal. The acceptance is based largely on the fact the proposal was clearly written with an identifiable point. We do not even entirely agree with the proposal, but are happy to vote for it on it's literary strengths alone.

As are others I am sure :)

Now lets stop calling people stupid and have some fun.

Therefore, Bulgravia supports Anward's proposal to uniformize copyright and patent laws, only if it's amended to include Gwenhwyva's implementation prescription, namely accomplishing the uniformization by abolishing copyright and patent laws everywhere. Otherwise, Bulgravia opposes.

The Community of Lagrange Five agrees with Bulgravia and MSL.
So, although we will vote for the resolution, we do so with the stipulation being that it should minimise, if not completely remove the barriers to freedom of information.

By allowing others access to, and use of, our knowledge, it will stimulate creativity and improve business [although we don't support private enterprise as per sae.]

Copyright law and IP are simply means to enforce personal gain over the improvement of socity. It benefits only those who seek to profit at the expense of others.

Grand High Poobah
Silicon.shaman

"literary strengths"?

This bill is the biggest piece of pseudo intellectual rubbish I've yet seen. Can we be expected to vote for a piece of significantly powerful legislation that will make copyright law the same between all nations in the UN, then fails to describe what this copyright law would be?

I shall be leaving the UN if this goes through, so that my nation can busy itself making pirate DVDs to sell to you schmucks.

This is not legislation but an invitation to restrict trade within the UN until such times as new laws are drawn up. I beg you to oppose this motion.

"Literary strengths"? This proposal has about as much literary strength as a book report written by a dyslexic second grader. We are unable to believe that a proposal that misuses the apostrophe in the first sentence, contains several sentence fragments, and looks like it was ejected from a random phrase generator with a predilection for talking about copyright, could be held to have "literary strength".

If one of our assistants presented us with a proposal so badly drafted for our consideration, we would order him flogged immediately.

The Lady Protector Kalicia
for The Dominion of Kermitia

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