NationStates Jolt Archive

the current resolution at hand would serve only to handicap the member states of the un.
it seems as though wh have forgotten that there are nations in this world who are non un, and therefore not bound to these socialist copyright rules.

with this resolution, how do we engage i free trade with them?

would we not just be hurting the un member states?

unless we mean "select group of un nations 'global' free trade" when we say "GLOBAL free trade"

This is correct, unless most nations in the UN only trade with other UN members, I don't think that is the case. And trying to impose this legislation to all the world is imposible, even if it could be done it would get the UN in REALLY BIG TROUBLE, that means wars all over the place if anyone listening this is a little slow.

Leonardo Fernández
UN Representative for the
Community of Bariloche

OOC -

could you kindly explain how you came to the conclusion that the UCPL proposal represents 'socialist copyright rules', i'd be interested :)

OOC -

could you kindly explain how you came to the conclusion that the UCPL proposal represents 'socialist copyright rules', i'd be interested :)

becasue it puts the needs of the many in a higher priority over the rights of the individual

It quite evidently would do no such thing; indeed the global [read UN] harmonisation of standards will facilitate the legal free flow of ideas and intellectual property.

OOC -

could you kindly explain how you came to the conclusion that the UCPL proposal represents 'socialist copyright rules', i'd be interested :)

becasue it puts the needs of the many in a higher priority over the rights of the individual

Interesting paradox, since the point of a copyright is that the individual who owns it gets credit and legal dictation over the copyrighted material.

OOC -

could you kindly explain how you came to the conclusion that the UCPL proposal represents 'socialist copyright rules', i'd be interested :)

becasue it puts the needs of the many in a higher priority over the rights of the individual

Interesting paradox, since the point of a copyright is that the individual who owns it gets credit and legal dictation over the copyrighted material.

It would be, if the Proposal would follow the definition of Copyright according to the Berner Convention of 1971.

in which a Copyright is defined as a right that is automatically assigned to an 'creator' of a work.

In this proposal it is suggested that copyrights are not automatically assigned, but are decided over by a centralised 'agency', there is no relation or a minor demand that the claimer of a copyright is in any way also the 'creator' of a work.

this proposal takes a viewpoint in which Property is not an natural Good as it would be in most capitalistic societies, where econmic laws form a natural way of controlling it.
A centralised government-agency is created to take ultimate control over property, decide who holds property and which property is not acceptable.

In that form, there is not much difference between an ultimate state-controlled socialistic principle, where the state has the power to decide on the validity of property.

The present copyright proposal is in direct contradiction with a more capitalistic viewpoint, in which there is no direct need for a governement to have a direct and total control over economic trade.

The United Nations is not a body where trade laws and conventions are established.

The UN is not a world government, it is a colletive security institution. The UN has a narrow role and it is not to be some super-govenment.

While intellectual property rights is a valid issue, it is not appropos to the narrow definition of the UN.

:roll: Of course this is all true in the real world, but here it seems the UN is intended to ride rough shod over National Sovereignty.


In that case...there is nothing wrong here. UN nations can still trade with non UN nations, but there will be no universal guarantee of Copyrights, this is not to say that there won't be any copyrights, but just that there won't be the same protections. Who's is to say that the protections won't even be better.

Semper Vert affirms the resolution

The UN is not a world government

The UN is the world's governing body.
~ NationStates FAQ

What is this "Real World" you speak of? Perhaps you need to take advantage of some of the basic services provided by the UN's Resolution for Fair Treatment of the Mentally Ill.

Copyrights are by definition unregistered. They are not given to anyone. They go hand in hand with the creation of an original work that requires at the least some basic creativity. To have to register a copyright defies the definition. The rights of individuals, especially artists, are the first to be trampled by government. Lubria is committed to protecting our citizens, nor our corporations, the latter are wealthy enough to look after themselves.

The ability to control the reproduction of your artistic works is one of the motivations for artists to publish their works. It allows them to share their creations without losing control over them.

Patents and Copyrights are not the same thing. They cannot be treated the same. There is no precedence for the formation of a "Copyright Office" in countries that recognize the individual's right to control over their artistic endeavors.

Again, for those of us who will not take the time to lookup the very words, let alone define them in their proposals, a copyright is:

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.

No where is registration mentioned, at all. All rights and responsibilities of control lie with the holder of the copyright, not with the government.

A patent is:

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.

Here the government grants the right; it is not inherent in the creation of the invention. Also, there is a set limit of time.

In copyrights, works pass into the public domain only after the death of the author, and a set period of time after that. However, the creator can still define how his work is to be reproduced, such as Bernard Shaw’s proviso that all copies of his play, Pygmalion, were to include his introduction.