NationStates Jolt Archive

The first post has strayed too far off of the key issues. So I am making this topic.

Why copyright and patent laws are important:

For example, if Drug company DrugCo. wants to invent a cure for cancer, they will invest 100s of millions of dollars trying to find it, over an extended period of time probably 10+ years. Now, lets say they are the first to make a breakthrough, they have the cure for cancer, so they patent their drug and market it worldwide, making more money than they spent.

Now consider Drug company BizzaroDrugCo. who also wants to invent a cure for cancer, they will also invest 100s of millions of dollars trying to find it, over an extended period of time probably 10+ years. Now in this universe patent laws do not exsist. So as soon as it comes to market the idea is stolen by other companies who had no involvement with the project what so ever. So after manufacturing costs, it is pure profit for them, since the generic companies are able to undercut whatever BizzaroDrugCo. charges.

In BizzaroDrugCo.'s world no one bothers to invent any new medicines, as they will not turn a profit for them. Hardly anything would be invented, except for a few things by kind-hearted individuals who saw the need for the item.

Also if you consider the government controlling DrugCo., then you have no competition, so they stagnate, and there is no progress made. No drug is made. Now this is after dealing with 10+ years of lobbying to attempt the government to even consider such a resolution. In the unlikely event that the cure for cancer is made through a government company, then it will immediantly be stolen by other nations, and the Nation has lost a valuable export product.


My proposal is vague on just what laws would be carried out, my mistake, but I do not think I, or anyone else here is capable of correctly writing an unflawed copyright law, since there are so many sitations. In exhange for this vagueness I would like to explain in detail on just how I see this law affecting a nation.

1. A weaved basket is invented.
2. Person A in Country A files for the patent for weaved basket, which is sent to his local chapter.
3.This chapter makes sure no one else in the UN has already patented a weaved basket. No one has.
4. Person A is sent the patent for weaved basket, the local chapter sends the patent to the database located in all other chapters.
5.Person B files for a patent for a weaved basket 2 years later in Country B, sends it to his local chapter.
6.Local chapter finds a weaved basket has already been patented, his patent is rejected.
7.Person C in Country C makes a weaved basket.
8.Person C doesn't file for a patent, but begins to make an identical weaved basket that has already been patented.
9. Someone tips off Country C's chapter, they investigate if this claim is true, and if it is true, then report it back to Country A, and begin to make a recommendation for Country C.
10. Country C recieves the recommendation, and then arrests, and charges the individual in their own courts.



That is how I wished to make my proposal work, I believe despite the vaguness in what exactly the law is, I still believe that this will work, and work well.

I , for one, would like to know just how you propose to fund such a program. A giant, multi-national system like that isn't going to be cheap. To be effective it's going to reguire that each nation spend a large chunk of money to update computer systems, not to mention the addition of trained personal whom are capable of doing thier job well. Then you have the issue of language barriers, which means that you are going to have to pay for translation classes for employees, and how do you handle corruption of this organization? Should it be on the local
goverments back to keep track of everything it's chapter is doing, or is there going to be a system of checks and balances in place. Plus where exactley is leardership of this organization going to be? In my opinion we should do things like we always have, it's called free trade for a reason, because in most cases, a business or person bends the rules to become fiscaly ahead of the game. When they bend them to far, then you come down on them. This just seems like a bad idea to create such a powerful economic force, unless they are regulated well. Which means each branch will work diffrently then the next, because all of our goverments regulate at diffrent levels of freedom. Therefore I request that you remove this motion from voting , at least until you can build a system of regulation, or find the proper funds for it.

The first post has strayed too far off of the key issues. So I am making this topic.

Why copyright and patent laws are important:

For example, if Drug company DrugCo. wants to invent a cure for cancer, they will invest 100s of millions of dollars trying to find it, over an extended period of time probably 10+ years. Now, lets say they are the first to make a breakthrough, they have the cure for cancer, so they patent their drug and market it worldwide, making more money than they spent.

So now, DrugCo has a legal monopoly on the drug and no competition. When a company wants to maximize its profits it sets the price so that the formula profit = price * #customers has a maximum value. In general, as the price goes up, the number of customers goes down.

When DrugCo owns the monopoly, they can set the price anywhere they want so that only a priviledged few can afford the drug. Some will sacrifice everything they have for that drug so that they can live a few days longer.



Now consider Drug company BizzaroDrugCo. who also wants to invent a cure for cancer, they will also invest 100s of millions of dollars trying to find it, over an extended period of time probably 10+ years. Now in this universe patent laws do not exsist. So as soon as it comes to market the idea is stolen by other companies who had no involvement with the project what so ever. So after manufacturing costs, it is pure profit for them, since the generic companies are able to undercut whatever BizzaroDrugCo. charges.


Wrong. BizarroDrug still has Trade Secret Protection. While some inventions may be reverse engineered, chemical inventions and especially
drugs are extraordinarily difficult to reverse engineer. Even when the process is known, it canrequire extremely sophisticated (and expensive) people and equipment to manufacture that drug.


In BizzaroDrugCo.'s world no one bothers to invent any new medicines, as they will not turn a profit for them. Hardly anything would be invented, except for a few things by kind-hearted individuals who saw the need for the item.


You are obviously not a scientist or a doctor. Inventors invent for the same reason artists create. They have a deep seated need to do so. Thankfully, you are not a doctor since I would hate to go to a doctor who is only in it for the money.



My proposal is vague on just what laws would be carried out, my mistake, but I do not think I, or anyone else here is capable of correctly writing an unflawed copyright law, since there are so many sitations. In exhange for this vagueness I would like to explain in detail on just how I see this law affecting a nation.


Well, actually I probably could come close but I gave up practicing patent law because I discovered that A) it doesn't work as it claims to and B) I really wanted to be in the lab instead.


1. A weaved basket is invented.
.....
10. Country C recieves the recommendation, and then arrests, and charges the individual in their own courts.


So you want to make simple infringement a criminal and not a civil matter? Are we going to also outlaw the academic research exception and the reverse engineering exception?

While your explanation does explain the business process, partially, it does not address the basic philosophical and political differences between nations with regard to WHAT may be patented. Different countries have, for good reasons disallowed patents on food, drugs, DNA, business processes and other things. This proposal needs to address these issues in detail. The WTO is proof that Intellectual Property, when used as a club by rich nations, is a dangerous weapon.

The funds for this will be aquired the same way the funds for every other proposal that passed is funded.

So now, DrugCo has a legal monopoly on the drug and no competition. When a company wants to maximize its profits it sets the price so that the formula profit = price * #customers has a maximum value. In general, as the price goes up, the number of customers goes down.

When DrugCo owns the monopoly, they can set the price anywhere they want so that only a priviledged few can afford the drug. Some will sacrifice everything they have for that drug so that they can live a few days longer.



Who is to say it is a monopoly. Also in normal laws patents only last for a few years anyway.



Wrong. BizarroDrug still has Trade Secret Protection. While some inventions may be reverse engineered, chemical inventions and especially
drugs are extraordinarily difficult to reverse engineer. Even when the process is known, it canrequire extremely sophisticated (and expensive) people and equipment to manufacture that drug.


Who said they had Trade Secret Protection? That is not a basic right. So they don't automatically have it. And once you have the equipment to manufacture and reverse engineer a drug, you can continue to do it. Still making more of a profit than the original maker.



You are obviously not a scientist or a doctor. Inventors invent for the same reason artists create. They have a deep seated need to do so. Thankfully, you are not a doctor since I would hate to go to a doctor who is only in it for the money.


You are obviously not an American. Because if you were, you would realize this is the exact process drug companies go through in America, and to my guess the rest of the world. There is no deep seated need to do so, and besides the research team, and the doctors that distribute the drug, there are no doctors involved in the process.



Well, actually I probably could come close but I gave up practicing patent law because I discovered that A) it doesn't work as it claims to and B) I really wanted to be in the lab instead.


So you are saying that you can correctly right a 1000ish page proposal outlining every possible situation for fair and equal copyright?


So you want to make simple infringement a criminal and not a civil matter? Are we going to also outlaw the academic research exception and the reverse engineering exception?

While your explanation does explain the business process, partially, it does not address the basic philosophical and political differences between nations with regard to WHAT may be patented. Different countries have, for good reasons disallowed patents on food, drugs, DNA, business processes and other things. This proposal needs to address these issues in detail. The WTO is proof that Intellectual Property, when used as a club by rich nations, is a dangerous weapon.

How are these cases when they actually occur, any less criminalistic than when they occur through my resolution.

Do the arguments set out above not underline the case that this is not a matter for the UN, it is a matter for individual Nation States.

The truth of the situation is that there is no agreed standard approach for dealing with Intelectual Property Rights across the Membership of the UN. Until this fundamental step is taken there can be no point in forcing all members to implement the same law. That law simply does not exist, and will not be created by this proposal as it stands.

Until this fundamental flaw is addressed Inner Qwghlm will oppose the proposal and prefer to maintain it's own, existing, IPR laws and practices.

I appeal to all uncommited Members and to those who have voted, in good faith, in favour of this proposal to vote against, and prevent this unworkable proposal from passing into our laws.

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

[1 edit for typo]

Info should be free. Property, even intellectual property, is theft, after all.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pìg!ome, g||xòfùme.-I am a human, not a tool.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Is that the law that this proposal will implement across all our lands?

'Property is theft - all inventions and creative works will be patented and copyrighted with an enforced licence fee of zero'

The above is as valid within the current proposal as any other approach, this is why the proposal must fall.

Vote against this flawed proposal, vote now!

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

Until this fundamental flaw is addressed Inner Qwghlm will oppose the proposal and prefer to maintain it's own, existing, IPR laws and practices.


I have put a lot of thought, and time investigating this, but I am pretty sure now that if the law has not been passed in the issues section, or if a UN resolution has not been passed, then it is nonexsistant.

Ex:
1. Country A has a small group of indigenous people who have weaved baskets for hundreds of years. They have sold such baskets across the region for pre-stated time and do not have the legal representation, technology or resources available to apply for copyright.

2. There is a vacationer from Country B who travels to Country A and buys one of said baskets. This genius flies back to Country B and files for and gains copyright of said basket.

How would the proposal possibly protect Country A from intellecual rights theft and who would punish Country B for said act of theft?

No proposal or law should govern industry and invention for the entire NationStates.

Vote against.

_Redsand.

Just to echo what Inner Qwghlm has already said: this resolution is pointless at best, and dangerous at worst, because it says nothing about what copyright law will actually be enforced, and there is 'default' which can be assumed to be in place. Thus, if this resolution passes, the best that can be hoped for is that it will simply be a gigantic waste of money; the worst outcome would be every member of the UN being legally obliged to abide by copyrights from every other nation in the UN, regardless of how nonsensical they are. If you look at provisions #2 and #4:

2. 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.

...

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.

You will see that, if interpreted literally, this would mean that someone could put a copyright or patent on something in any country in the world that this resolution applies to, and demand that it be respected everywhere else, even if such things normally could not be patented or copyrighted elsewhere. While one might argue that this wouldn't actually come about because the courts of the nation of the "offender" would simply throw the case out, it would be an enormous waste of time and effort to no purpose whatsoever.

Ex:
1. Country A has a small group of indigenous people who have weaved baskets for hundreds of years. They have sold such baskets across the region for pre-stated time and do not have the legal representation, technology or resources available to apply for copyright.

2. There is a vacationer from Country B who travels to Country A and buys one of said baskets. This genius flies back to Country B and files for and gains copyright of said basket.

How would the proposal possibly protect Country A from intellecual rights theft and who would punish Country B for said act of theft?

No proposal or law should govern industry and invention for the entire NationStates.

Vote against.

_Redsand.

You need to read it carefully, Country B has done no theft. It is Country C that has done the theft. Also it doesn't govern it anymore than normal copyright laws. You see several countries in the real world have this agreement to honor the others copyrights, I am simply seeking to extend this real world process to all nations in the UN, not all Nation States.

[OOC]Correcting a misconception here:
Because if you were, you would realize this is the exact process drug companies go through in America, and to my guess the rest of the world. There is no deep seated need to do so, and besides the research team, and the doctors that distribute the drug, there are no doctors involved in the process.
IRL I work for the second largest international pharma company, and work with these people on a daily basis. We have lots of MDs working in our firm. Of the 11,000 people on my site, I'd estimate that 500 to 1000 are MDs. Our director of R&D is an MD. Lots of the microbiologists started as practicing doctors, but moved to research.

While this discussion is about patents, I also need to point out that of the 95,000 employees working worldwide in our firm, probably 60,000 are primarily involved in regulatory and patent approval. It could be higher, just an estimate. Just wanted to point out that the business of regulation is huge, costly, and onerous to the corporations. The billions we make selling our products go in large part to paying the salaries of those who are required for the regulatory process.

Adding more layers to the mix wouldn't benefit anyone, Anward. IRL it might be practical, only because the bulk of industrial nations capable of producing patentable items all belong to the UN. In NS, the most powerful and longest lasting nations opted out of the UN long ago. This type of proposal would only work if it were universal, and it can't be.

------------------

Rather than copying a RL proposal, why not come at it from another side? Create a UN bureau of patents. Don't make it an enforcement arm - make it a clearing house for information sharing. Participation is voluntary. Let those nations who believe that 'property is theft' donate the work of their scientists to this information bank. Share open source code. Share generic patents. Require that anyone using the patent clearly identify on the packaging, "This fine product was created from ideas from the most excellent nation of Frisbeeteria" and let it go at that. Nobody gets coerced, nobody has to give up their hard won secrets, and everyone in the UN benefits for having access to the Patent Library.

Sounds blissful and unrealistic, right? Well, look around. It would fit in with this crowd quite nicely.

MSL appreciates Anward's dedscription of how to implement a system for future patents, but neglects to explain what will happen to current patents which are issued to multiple individuals/corporations/groups in seperate nations.

I, for one, think that a monopoly shouldnt occur for their should be another company that can create that kind of product and pay a percentage of profit to the founder, but if the monopoly were to happen, couldnt the government just set up a corporation to cut that other businesse's profits? I believe they did that to Mircosoft, since it had such a monopoly on the market, they split up the corporation so others can make money. So, couldnt that be a soulution if that were to happen, the monopoly, that is? (plus I'm new at this, so I dont mind criticisim ^_^)

Who is to say it is a monopoly. Also in normal laws patents only last for a few years anyway.


The basic purpose of patents from the original kings of England until now is to grant a monopoly of over a certain domain of commerce. In the USA, this power was granted to congress by explicit constitutional mandate in order to restrain the executive from having this power.

Originally patent terms were 14 years - this period was twice the length of an apprenticeship. The concept being that, if an apprentice created an invention his master would earn the profit during the term of his apprenticeship and, when he became a journeyman he would still be able to benefit from his monopoly for at least 7 years.

In the 18th & 19th century 14 years was an extremely long time relative to the rate of innovation. In the twentieth century, when the rate of innovation increased, rather than decreasing patent terms they increased to 17 years from the date of grant. Recently, the US government increased that term to 21 years from the date of filing.



Who said they had Trade Secret Protection? That is not a basic right. So they don't automatically have it. And once you have the equipment to manufacture and reverse engineer a drug, you can continue to do it. Still making more of a profit than the original maker.


US Case law and nature says they have trade secret protection for as long as they can maintain the trade secret. Thus, if they can maintain it, they can keep that protection in perpetuity.

Again, reverse engineering drugs is far from simple and even if it is accomplished, the likelihood of making a greater profit than the original company is low since there are now two competitors in the marketplace.



You are obviously not an American. Because if you were, you would realize this is the exact process drug companies go through in America, and to my guess the rest of the world. There is no deep seated need to do so, and besides the research team, and the doctors that distribute the drug, there are no doctors involved in the process.


In the mid 1980s after ten years of consistently being the top most profitable companies in the world (15% profits consistently). The American drug companies went to congress and cried that they were losing profits because of the amount of time required for FDA testing and approval. Congress responded by granting special extensions for drug patents so their patents would be 17 years from the date of grant PLUS the total time for FDA approval. After this change in the law US drug company patents shot to over 22% per year.

And, again, while those doctors and research scientits are getting paid for what they are doing, they are unlikely to have spent the extra years in college to do something they hate or are no good at.

So, yes, I am American.


Well, actually I probably could come close but I gave up practicing patent law because I discovered that A) it doesn't work as it claims to and B) I really wanted to be in the lab instead.



So you are saying that you can correctly right a 1000ish page proposal outlining every possible situation for fair and equal copyright?


Well, first I would start with the Berne convention since the Berne convention is THE international treaty for copyright standardization. (You did read the Berne convention didn't you?) However, since patents are a different legal device, I would have to start with a different system.

Naturally, I would not start from scratch. I would probably rely heavily on "Chisum on Patents." However, having watched my professor and a friend edit the latest version of that beast I can readily say I have no desire to spend my time on it.

In any case, your argument is specious since you are basically saying that since no one has written a perfect law in 6 years of trying, you shouldn't have to try and even write a credible one.


How are these cases when they actually occur, any less criminalistic than when they occur through my resolution.

Criminal copyright infringement occurs when someone makes a copy and then makes a profit from the illegal copy. (Counterfeiting) Civil copyright infringement occurs when you make an unauthorized copy but don't sell it. One results in you having to pay the originator for your copy, the other results in jail time.

What this means is that if you are big corporation who can afford the $500K to withstand a patent lawsuit, you can steal anything you want from any poor schmuck who can't afford defend his patent or copyright. (Such cases are rarely taken on contigent fees. The costs of expert depositions alone are cost-prohibitive.)

Patents and copyrights do not protect the small inventor/artist. They only protect large corporations which never go to jail.

The first post has strayed too far off of the key issues. So I am making this topic.

The very fact that you need to start a new thread to divert attention away from the numerous valid criticisms of your proposal is indicative of how deeply flawed it is. You should be happy that despite this, the sheep of the UN are going to overwhelmingly approve it, without even knowing what it means.

My proposal is vague on just what laws would be carried out, my mistake, but I do not think I, or anyone else here is capable of correctly writing an unflawed copyright law, since there are so many sitations. In exhange for this vagueness I would like to explain in detail on just how I see this law affecting a nation.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is all interpretation of the proposal. The meaning of a proposal should be clear from the proposal itself. The proposal and the language of the proposal is what is being voted upon. The time for discussing its language is before voting on it, a process you stampeded over with no regard for orderly process.

Then, you have the extraordinary gall to try this brazen bait and switch, where now that the proposal is going to be voted into effect (with total disregard for its illegality), you tell us what it actually means.

The meaning of the proposal must be manifest in its own language. You are now doing exactly what I stated you would.

I have to condemn in the strongest possible terms these "secret law proposals," where a tyranny of the majority abolishes the Constitution and legal processes of member nations of the UN with a vague, hand-waving proposal ordering all nations to comply with some unknown laws. Then when the proposal passes, you suddenly tell us what are laws are going to be.

Our nation will do nothing that contradicts our Constitution because should we do so, we would be abandoning a long history of fundamental human rights such as the right to free speech, in favor of corporate monopolies. We are not reassured by vague platitudes in response to concrete concerns.

If a multinational body is formed based on this illegal proposal, Gwenhwyva will refuse to abide by its illegitimate orders. Furthermore, should anyone attempt to eject us from the UN, we will demand full and legitimate process for such ejections.

If this resolution passes, it is in contradiction of UN policy, it is beyond what a resolution can demand and be enforceable, and it is in contradiction of basic human rights, earlier UN resolutions and national sovereignty. The multinational organization it effectively proposes would have no legitimacy and no jurisdiction. Our freedom of expression and right to create is not subject to being done away with by fiat.

We also again renew our objection to the very notion of these "secret law" resolutions in which the "meat" of the law is only revealed AFTER the resolution passes. This is bait and switch and forecloses debate.

:twisted:

I'd just like to take the initial example to task for being horribly flawed. This is just another attempt by the capitalists to oppress the other regions of the world, and to force their way of life upon others in the UN who do not subscribe to their dehumanizing ideals...

"In BizzaroDrugCo.'s world no one bothers to invent any new medicines, as they will not turn a profit for them."

This is based upon the assumption of a capitalist society, where parties are motivated primarily by the prospect of acquiring some arbitrary resource.

I think you have far too little faith in humanity. People will always invent new medicines and tools if only to save their own wretched little lives, or the lives of those they care for--profit is not be a motivating factor for human ingenuity--laziness and greed is. There's no need for profit in a nation that outlaws currency.

I also agree that this proposal is flawed, and I've pointed it out to Anward on several occasions. That said ...
----------------------------

I've noticed that the only respondents to this topic (with the single exception of one chronic poster) all joined NationStates in the last month or so. Looking over the UN Forum, you'll see that this is a regular occurence. In fact, the bulk of proposals seem to come from new players who just got their second endorsement and want to "rite that killar porposal". They post their proposal and wait for the wave of accolades to come rolling in.

It doesn't happen. They get destroyed in the forums. Some of them obviously deserve it, but far from all. Most all of them either drop out of the UN or they drop out of the game. I don't see that helping to produce good proposals - I see that as abandoning this forum to n00bs and idiots. I don't see any benefit from that.

Almost everyone who has responded with any sort of rational or relevant commentary has ripped Anward and his proposal to shreds. (I'm one of them too, lest you think I'm singling anyone out.) Some of the criticisms have been incredibly well written and scholarly. Why are you devoting so much time and effort to destruction, instead of a) offering positive suggestions or b) writing up your own proposals?

Yeah, it's flawed. It would have been nice if s/he'd put it up for discussion first. All these things are true, but what good do they do? The proposal can't be retrieved, and you're negative rants aren't reaching the rank and file of the voters. You're preaching to the choir.

Being positively critical is much harder than being negatively critical, but it's worth the effort. Make suggestions to improve the post, and do it in a way that doesn't insult the originator or the reader. Write your own proposals, and put 'em here for a week or two first. Listen to the criticisms, and accept that some of them are valid. Modify your proposal with the best of them, and see if it flies. Discuss it in your regional forums, and try to get the General Assembly to change their votes for the right reasons, not just because 'it sucks'.

It's not easy being on the receiving end of hatred and bile. My current proposal (my first) is being roundly ignored, despite a week of previews and revisions. It's disheartening. It isn't fun. And fun is why we're all here, or so I thought.

Read this quick before it gets taken of nytimes website and charged for.

You'll need to create a free account if you don't already have one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25COPYRIGHT.html

Yeah, getting your bill trashed in the forums has to be a horrible feeling.

Regardless, Autonomous Peers will not accept this bill, UCPL.

We will not sit idly by while foreign corporations slap copyrights and patents on our traditions, knowledge, scientific work, and possibly even genetic material due to some unknown and unwritten provision of a vague uniform international copyright law to be decided by a new, unaccountable, international bureaucracy.

We have no internal copyrights or intellectual property - we are of the "property is theft" persuasion - and though we would love all the nations of the UN to join us in agreeing on this point, we know that they will not. And if this UCPL goes through, there is no way to know whether our beloved freedoms will be enshrined or foreign capitalists will impose their oppressive property laws on our people.

Therefore, if UCPL looks likely to pass, we must regrettably resign from the UN community.

While it's true that most of Proudhon's work is obsolete, this is basicly what he was talking about. You have a way of squeezing profit out of everyone who like your idea. The government protects your power.
So in conclusion, I'd like to say a few things:
Property is theft.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pìg!ome, g||xòfùme.-I am a human, not a tool.
No Mods, No Masters!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Until this fundamental flaw is addressed Inner Qwghlm will oppose the proposal and prefer to maintain it's own, existing, IPR laws and practices.


I have put a lot of thought, and time investigating this, but I am pretty sure now that if the law has not been passed in the issues section, or if a UN resolution has not been passed, then it is nonexsistant.

In reply to the Representative from Anward.

We have chosen not to take offence at your assertation that our laws do not exist, just because you are ignorant of them.

Inner Qwghlm has, since time immemorial, maintained and developed mechanisms for handling Intellectual Property Rights, I can assure you that our system is mature, sophisticated, effective, efficient and well liked by the peoples of Inner Qwghlm, though others no doubt (eg Outer Qwghlm) may disagree and prefer their own, inferior, methods that is fine for them.

Hence our opposition to this proposal, it is not appropriate for the UN to impose a single law across the mebership for matters such as these. Perhaps if your proposal had suggested that each Member Nation be required to establish agreed IPR mechanisms with all it's trading partners, and left the details to the parties concerned (thus no need to draw up the terms in question within the Proposal) then Inner Qwghlm may have taken a different stance.

Hon Ms. Sopia Pthgggrk
Inner Qwghlm Deputy-Ambassador to the UN

The first post has strayed too far off of the key issues. So I am making this topic.

The very fact that you need to start a new thread to divert attention away from the numerous valid criticisms of your proposal is indicative of how deeply flawed it is. You should be happy that despite this, the sheep of the UN are going to overwhelmingly approve it, without even knowing what it means.

My proposal is vague on just what laws would be carried out, my mistake, but I do not think I, or anyone else here is capable of correctly writing an unflawed copyright law, since there are so many sitations. In exhange for this vagueness I would like to explain in detail on just how I see this law affecting a nation.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is all interpretation of the proposal. The meaning of a proposal should be clear from the proposal itself. The proposal and the language of the proposal is what is being voted upon. The time for discussing its language is before voting on it, a process you stampeded over with no regard for orderly process.

Then, you have the extraordinary gall to try this brazen bait and switch, where now that the proposal is going to be voted into effect (with total disregard for its illegality), you tell us what it actually means.

The meaning of the proposal must be manifest in its own language. You are now doing exactly what I stated you would.

I have to condemn in the strongest possible terms these "secret law proposals," where a tyranny of the majority abolishes the Constitution and legal processes of member nations of the UN with a vague, hand-waving proposal ordering all nations to comply with some unknown laws. Then when the proposal passes, you suddenly tell us what are laws are going to be.

Our nation will do nothing that contradicts our Constitution because should we do so, we would be abandoning a long history of fundamental human rights such as the right to free speech, in favor of corporate monopolies. We are not reassured by vague platitudes in response to concrete concerns.

If a multinational body is formed based on this illegal proposal, Gwenhwyva will refuse to abide by its illegitimate orders. Furthermore, should anyone attempt to eject us from the UN, we will demand full and legitimate process for such ejections.

If this resolution passes, it is in contradiction of UN policy, it is beyond what a resolution can demand and be enforceable, and it is in contradiction of basic human rights, earlier UN resolutions and national sovereignty. The multinational organization it effectively proposes would have no legitimacy and no jurisdiction. Our freedom of expression and right to create is not subject to being done away with by fiat.

We also again renew our objection to the very notion of these "secret law" resolutions in which the "meat" of the law is only revealed AFTER the resolution passes. This is bait and switch and forecloses debate.


The Representatives, and indeed the Government and Peoples, of Inner Qwghlm concur most hartily with the entirety of the Gwenhwyvan Representative's recent statement on this issue.

In particular we agree with the Gwenhwyvaian assertation that the original debate was curatailed by the Proposer not least because he was losing the argument there (even if winning, so far, the vote elsewhere). We presumed that this is what 'strayed too far off of the key issues' means.

Additionaly, we fully support and, as you will shortly see, fully stand behind, the passages - 'Our nation will do nothing that contradicts our Constitution because should we do so, we would be abandoning a long history of fundamental human rights such as the right to free speech, in favor of corporate monopolies. We are not reassured by vague platitudes in response to concrete concerns.

If a multinational body is formed based on this illegal proposal, Gwenhwyva will refuse to abide by its illegitimate orders. Furthermore, should anyone attempt to eject us from the UN, we will demand full and legitimate process for such ejections.'

I, as the Senior Inner Qwghlm Representitive at the UN have been instructed by my Government to offer a negotiation of Alliance on this matter to Gwenhwyva. We believe that many other Member Nations will flock to our just cause and stand with us against this most inappropriate imposition, should it come to pass. We further assert that 'Unity is Strength' and believe that a group of like minded Nations may be more successful in this matter than individual Nations working alone.

We look forwar to receiving the response to our offer, from Gwenhwyva and others, in the very near future.

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

I also agree that this proposal is flawed, and I've pointed it out to Anward on several occasions. That said ...
----------------------------

I've noticed that the only respondents to this topic (with the single exception of one chronic poster) all joined NationStates in the last month or so. Looking over the UN Forum, you'll see that this is a regular occurence. In fact, the bulk of proposals seem to come from new players who just got their second endorsement and want to "rite that killar porposal". They post their proposal and wait for the wave of accolades to come rolling in.

It doesn't happen. They get destroyed in the forums. Some of them obviously deserve it, but far from all. Most all of them either drop out of the UN or they drop out of the game. I don't see that helping to produce good proposals - I see that as abandoning this forum to n00bs and idiots. I don't see any benefit from that.

Almost everyone who has responded with any sort of rational or relevant commentary has ripped Anward and his proposal to shreds. (I'm one of them too, lest you think I'm singling anyone out.) Some of the criticisms have been incredibly well written and scholarly. Why are you devoting so much time and effort to destruction, instead of a) offering positive suggestions or b) writing up your own proposals?

Yeah, it's flawed. It would have been nice if s/he'd put it up for discussion first. All these things are true, but what good do they do? The proposal can't be retrieved, and you're negative rants aren't reaching the rank and file of the voters. You're preaching to the choir.

Being positively critical is much harder than being negatively critical, but it's worth the effort. Make suggestions to improve the post, and do it in a way that doesn't insult the originator or the reader. Write your own proposals, and put 'em here for a week or two first. Listen to the criticisms, and accept that some of them are valid. Modify your proposal with the best of them, and see if it flies. Discuss it in your regional forums, and try to get the General Assembly to change their votes for the right reasons, not just because 'it sucks'.

It's not easy being on the receiving end of hatred and bile. My current proposal (my first) is being roundly ignored, despite a week of previews and revisions. It's disheartening. It isn't fun. And fun is why we're all here, or so I thought.

OOC -

a heartfelt post, with which I have some sympathy, however...

1. I'm playing my Nation In Character, the UN Forum is not an 'In Character' Forum, but that does not mean I cannot. There is no way that the Characters running Inner Qwghlm could ignore the pile of monkey poo that is the UCPL proposal, though they would be far too polite to go anywhere near calling it that. Nor any other defective proposal, after all the basis of most of 'my' objections have been not about the principle, which I more or less (wel less probably) share, but the quality of the Proposal itself.

2. It is not 'Anwar''s fault that his proposal is getting mud thrown at it (justifiably, IMO) but the fault of the UN Reps who didn't filter it out in the first place, tha after all is their job, (only job?).

3. Having said 2., criticism comes with the teritory when you pop your head up out of the trenches with something like this, it always will and always has. I don't think any of the criticism I have made has been unjustifiably personal as regards 'Anwar'.

4. This brings us to the crux of the matter, as I see it, 'Why are you devoting so much time and effort to destruction, instead of a) offering positive suggestions or b) writing up your own proposals?' 'cos a) positive suggestions have been made, in this case at least, but are not taken up, b) it's hard to write a well structured, thought through, meaningful, workable, practicable Proposal when you're busy trying to put out fires. :D

5. I agree totaly and unreservedly with 'Write your own proposals, and put 'em here for a week or two first. Listen to the criticisms, and accept that some of them are valid. Modify your proposal with the best of them, and see if it flies. Discuss it in your regional forums, and try to get the General Assembly to change their votes for the right reasons, not just because 'it sucks'. But ... But... But I'm not going to stand by and let a deeply flawed and worisome Proposal through 'on-the-nod' whilst I'm doing it.

6. Where/What is your proposal, I'd be interested to read it. (Newbie :oops: so sorry if I should be able to quickly find it .)

7. Some Nations are attempting to draw up a 'pro forma' or standard procedure (I'm not quite sure which yet) for UN Proposals, with the aim of assisting draftees in their task, is anyone here interested in this project?

I have tried my hand and drafting Proposal templates, as well as recomendations for delegates on what proposals should be approved, and why. I'd be very interested in joining such a project Inner Qwghlm.

Just for future reference, I wanted the name Anwyn, but that was taken, so I went with Anward, which had nothing to do with war, it just sounds like Onward. That was all there was behind the name.

6. Where/What is your proposal, I'd be interested to read it.
I didn't want to poke my head in every topic ... but since you asked so nicely ...

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=117900

Search for "Duties" in the List Proposal view

What is to become of the societies that have no concept of intellectual property? The Protectorate of teh Deathseekers is a feudal society ruled by myself the High Shogun. We have many artisans who work to serve the Protectorate, and would never dream of claiming credit for themeselves. Such a thing would shame them in the eyes of their peers. No musician, business, or atrisan would ever dream of claiming credit. There is simply no such idea in our country. Being exposed to other nations as I am, I have some concpet of this idea, but I do not understand why profit is so important. Is not honoring and glorifing your nation enough? Must there be an ulterior motive?

The Portectorate of the Deathseekers believes this proposal to not only be against the best interests of itself, but also to be a shameful and dishonorable way to stop theives which other nations corrupt police cannot deal with. Is this not why your International Police Body is for?

-High Shogun Rayeth
Leader of the Proctorate of the Deathseekers

Thought for the Day: We shall not stand idly by as other besmirch the honor of a fellow deathseeker. To be a deathseeker is to live for honor. To besmirch a deathseeker's honor is to face his blade...

An oni has clearly infected my thought for me to commit such an error. Forgive my failings.

-High Shogun Rayeth
Leader of the Protectorate of the Deathseekers

This law is injurious for the economies of the small nations, as some instruments that the corporations are trying to apply in the "real world".

Excuse my bad english, is not easy to discuss the UN issues for not english speaking people, but was important for us to tell it. Candombe voted against the UCPL and call all the poor countries to do the same.

The knowledge must be for the well-being of the humanity, but not a property to guarantee profit and power to the corporations.

This law is injurious for the economies of the small nations, as some instruments that the corporations are trying to apply in the "real world".

Excuse my bad english, is not easy to discuss the UN issues for not english speaking people, but was important for us to tell it. Candombe voted against the UCPL and call all the poor countries to do the same.

The knowledge must be for the well-being of the humanity, but not a property to guarantee profit and power to the corporations. :x

A delicate balance between maintaining corporate power and contributing to the public good must be maintained. In the case of the pharmaceutical industry that was used earlier in this thread, the proponents of protecting the industry do make a decent point. Developing drugs is extraordinarily expensive, in the same way that mining and oil drilling are expensive. You just don't know if and when you will find or develop what you want. Clearly, in this respect, it is only a fair reward to provide legal protection of chemical and other inventions. Yet, at some point, the sharing of inventions and developments is crucial to scientific progress. Thus, it would be wise to provide mechanisms for reviewing patents and copyrights on a case-by-case basis that fit the needs of various countries. Not every country is the same, and while all countries have intellectual property as a potential source of revenue, it would a devastating error to fully protect intellectual rights, as it would limit progress to willing companies, and it would be devastating to fully deny such rights due to economic demands. I urge the members of the United Nations to repeal this resolution in the interest of more balanced and thoughtful solutions to this problem.

Jan. 2004? Why did you gravedig this thing?

Jan. 2004? Why did you gravedig this thing?

I would assume to keep discussion about it concentrated in a single topic.

I would assume to keep discussion about it concentrated in a single topic.

Please do. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=456158)

http://home.ripway.com/2005-11/523187/zombies.jpg

There was absolutely no need to go looking for something that old. Yes, it does relate to the resolution at vote, but arguments this old need to rest in peace.

I would assume to keep discussion about it concentrated in a single topic.
Yes, and he could just as easily have posted in the Repeal UCPL thread and included a link to this.