NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, i read the weirdo allow napster resolution and I HAD to respond. Comments below please. Im not a member so i cant submit anything. if someone wants to pick it up, go right ahead, but contact me before you do it.

THE GENREAL ASSEMBLY,

Acknowledging that sharing of information contributes to better informed citicens everyware,

Aware off the worldwide history of sharing information,

Also aware off the worldwide financial malice of writers or otherwise creators of intellectual property,

Deeply concerned about the popular believe that original toughts belong to the world at large,

Realising that closing down streams of information is difficult to acomplish without resorting to cencorship,

Also realising that intellectual property is easy to multiply and to distribute,

1. DEFINES intellectual property as
a. all information created by any individual or groups of individuals
b. all information created by automated systems;

2. REALISES that creaters of intellectual property as defined in clause 1. a. are mainly artists and scientists;

3. CALLS UPON all memberstates to establish ownership of intellectual property as defined in clause 1. a. to its creator;

4. NOTES that the qusetion of ownership of intellectual property as defined in clause 1.b. is not solved by this resolution;

5. DECLARES that intellectual property, as any property can be sold, purached, leased, let and given away as any other property, in which case it no longer;

6. CALLS UPON all memberstates to protect the ownership off intellectual property;

7. STRESSES that selling uer licenses together with the information of intellectual property does not entail selling the intellectual property itself;

8. DECIDES to remain seized by the matter and actively searching for other solutions to the problems raised or remained unsolved by this resolution.


Yeah, i know, my English bites, my grammar is crap, my spelling is worse. Please comment on the content of this resolution.

We recognise intellectual property as a legal reflection of the integrity of a piece. We therefore don't allow it to be sold outright; a creator can allow someone to use his intellectual property, but they can't buy it outright - only for specific uses. We're therefore not happy about 5.

I understand, it was written rather quickly. The UN should probably not say it should be allowed to be sold, but that it IS an option. would the delegate be satisfied by that?

The Commonwealth agrees with the underlying charge of this proposal, that intellectual property should be protected. You need to be carfeul not to use terms like "artist" and "scientist", however, as these are open to a great deal of interpretation.

I would suggest confining the resolution to the act of creating an original product, then define what is regarded as an original product. That said, the intellectual property for those items remains with the authority involved in its creation. This would include private individuals, as well as corporations funding research. As is standard practice, any piece of work paid for by a corporation becomes the intellectual property of that corporation (this is also includes, to a certain degree, research work undertaken at institutions such as universities).

Trademarking and Patents should require registration, as these are the most legally complicated. They should be laid down by each country's regulatory authorities. Copyright, on the other hand, which can be extended to include works of art and original text, does not need to be registered, and need not even have a Copyright identifier.

We just need an affirmation that the UN recognises the right to the producer of a given original product to the proceeds of that product, and that they have the necessary ownership right to control distribution. Any original product reproduced or distributed without the permission of the producer carries penalties against Copyright as dependent on the laws of member nations.

OK, i read the weirdo allow napster resolution and I HAD to respond. Comments below please. Im not a member so i cant submit anything. if someone wants to pick it up, go right ahead, but contact me before you do it.

The Confederacy of Alphared would take issue with a non-NSUN member nation postulating a proposal in such a way as to sway one or several NSUN member states to bring such a proposal into being, no matter how agreeable or cleverly couched. If such a state of affairs were to/does exist then what is the incentive for non-delegate nation-states to become members of the NSUN?

If you're saying that intellectual property is property like any other, you're removing any duration limitations on it--and intellectual property can potentially last forever. If a pharmaceutical corporation held the rights to a vaccine, it would have a monopoly in perpetuity. Bach's descendents would charge royalties for every CD of his work sold, require payments whenever anyone performed one of his pieces.

Also, this proposal would remove any fair use rights. You couldn't cite or quote anyone anywhere without explicit permission from the person you're quoting. You might be able to discuss a work, but then again maybe not. It's a nightmare.

Add a provision about expiration of intellectual property rights and another about fair use, and you're in business.

The Commonwealth agrees with the underlying charge of this proposal, that intellectual property should be protected. You need to be carfeul not to use terms like "artist" and "scientist", however, as these are open to a great deal of interpretation.

I would suggest confining the resolution to the act of creating an original product, then define what is regarded as an original product. That said, the intellectual property for those items remains with the authority involved in its creation. This would include private individuals, as well as corporations funding research. As is standard practice, any piece of work paid for by a corporation becomes the intellectual property of that corporation (this is also includes, to a certain degree, research work undertaken at institutions such as universities).


I adressed a complex isue rather quickly. the mean target of writing this was to get people thinking about htat other proposal on the table. However I will defend my little writing a little. In reference to clause 2: it just states that the ownership defined in clause 1.a. would be mostly scientists and artist. It defines nothing it just clarifies. therefor it doesnt have to be defined excactly as it is merely a claryfying clause. No scientist or artist can claim intellectual property based on clause 2.

Now the structure how I see it (and which this resolution supports) is that intellectual property is placed with its creator. However, intellectual property is also up for free trade. an agreement between an employer/scientist/artist could entail giving up all the rights of intellectual property you create during work time lies in the hands of the compagny. This is actualy not a really powerfull resolution, it merely sugests guidelines how one could handle intellectual property.

Now to come to the fair use issue:
There has to be something in it about it, i agree. If anyone can write out a spiffy idea, or just vaguely word it, im open to all sugestions. I will think about it some too.

I hope ill be able to discuss some of these issues with you,

Regards,
Martijn of PaoGenua

P.S. I have absolutely no message to people disliking my resolution because they don't like my attitude towards your group. I provide food for tought an maybe a free resolution or you're little club. Like it? Improve it and use it. Dislike it? Disregard it. But dont start on this resolution based on your toughts on me.

Okay, here's another draft. (Parentheticals) are explanatory comments.

"THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

Acknowledging that sharing information contributes to better informed citizens everywhere,

Aware of the global history of sharing information,

Also aware of the worldwide financial malice of creators of intellectual property,

Deeply concerned about the popular belief that original thoughts belong to the world at large,

Realizing that closing down streams of information is difficult to acomplish without resorting to censorship,

Also realizing that intellectual property is easy to multiply and to distribute,

(minor technical corrections to preceding sections)

1. DEFINES intellectual property as
a. all information created by any individual or private groups of individuals;
b. all information created by automated systems owned by an individual or group of individuals;
(minor addendum; an unowned automated system doesn't produce intellectual property, restricting ownership to sentient life)

2. CALLS UPON all member states to establish ownership of intellectual property as defined in clause 1. a. to its creator;

3. ASSERTS that intellectual property as defined in clause 1. b. belongs to the owner of the automated system;
(in the original, the status of information from automated systems was in doubt; this clarifies that)

4. DECLARES that intellectual property, as any property can be sold, purchased, leased, let and given away as any other property;
(deleted "in which case it no longer")

5. FURTHER STIPULATES that intellectual property may be used according to "Fair Use" doctrine;

6. DEFINES "Fair Use" as
a. citation of intellectual property in a non-derivative work, as in an analysis of information created by another;
b. distribution of intellectual property that does not infringe on the owner's ability to use the intellectual property for personal remuneration as defined by each member state;
c. a derivative work that does not perform a function similar to that of the original work;
c. requiring appropriate attribution or citation of the owner of the intellectual property;
d. not granting the status of intellectual property to the information utilized under clause 6. a. and 6. b.;
(two sections on fair use. This allows you to use intellectual property by analyzing it and producing intellectual property that includes only the analysis, not the data; it also allows, for example, a person to take newspaper clippings and make a collage with them without acquiring a license; 6.b. would allow me to hand out short excerpts from a novel, for instance, and since I'm not providing a replacement product of a free novel, it doesn't infringe.)

7. CALLS UPON all member states to protect the ownership of intellectual property;

8. STRESSES that selling user licenses together with the information of intellectual property does not entail selling the intellectual property itself;

9. ITERATES that all citizens have the right to waive their rights to intellectual property in whole or part;
(this protects issues such as the Creative Commons licenses and the GNU/GPL)

10. DECIDES to remain seized by the matter and actively searching for other solutions to the problems raised or remained unsolved by this resolution."

How is this?

[qupte]As is standard practice, any piece of work paid for by a corporation becomes the intellectual property of that corporation (this is also includes, to a certain degree, research work undertaken at institutions such as universities).[/quote]

We only assign intellectual property to listed groups of individuals, not vague organisations. Once the last member of the named group dies, the intellectual property rights expire. We consider it ridiculous to extend intellectual property fifty, seventy, ninety years after the death of its originator, and we consider this to apply to all intellectual property, including that originating from outside our country.

We like the current proposal because it doesn't infringe on our ability to restrict intellectual property in this way.

Okay, here's another draft. (Parentheticals) are explanatory comments.

"THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

Acknowledging that sharing information contributes to better informed citizens everywhere,

Aware of the global history of sharing information,

Also aware of the worldwide financial malice of creators of intellectual property,

Deeply concerned about the popular belief that original thoughts belong to the world at large,

Realizing that closing down streams of information is difficult to acomplish without resorting to censorship,

Also realizing that intellectual property is easy to multiply and to distribute,

(minor technical corrections to preceding sections)

1. DEFINES intellectual property as
a. all information created by any individual or private groups of individuals;
b. all information created by automated systems owned by an individual or group of individuals;
(minor addendum; an unowned automated system doesn't produce intellectual property, restricting ownership to sentient life)

2. CALLS UPON all member states to establish ownership of intellectual property as defined in clause 1. a. to its creator;

3. ASSERTS that intellectual property as defined in clause 1. b. belongs to the owner of the automated system;
(in the original, the status of information from automated systems was in doubt; this clarifies that)

4. DECLARES that intellectual property, as any property can be sold, purchased, leased, let and given away as any other property;
(deleted "in which case it no longer")

5. FURTHER STIPULATES that intellectual property may be used according to "Fair Use" doctrine;

6. DEFINES "Fair Use" as
a. citation of intellectual property in a non-derivative work, as in an analysis of information created by another;
b. distribution of intellectual property that does not infringe on the owner's ability to use the intellectual property for personal remuneration as defined by each member state;
c. a derivative work that does not perform a function similar to that of the original work;
c. requiring appropriate attribution or citation of the owner of the intellectual property;
d. not granting the status of intellectual property to the information utilized under clause 6. a. and 6. b.;
(two sections on fair use. This allows you to use intellectual property by analyzing it and producing intellectual property that includes only the analysis, not the data; it also allows, for example, a person to take newspaper clippings and make a collage with them without acquiring a license; 6.b. would allow me to hand out short excerpts from a novel, for instance, and since I'm not providing a replacement product of a free novel, it doesn't infringe.)

7. CALLS UPON all member states to protect the ownership of intellectual property;

8. STRESSES that selling user licenses together with the information of intellectual property does not entail selling the intellectual property itself;

9. ITERATES that all citizens have the right to waive their rights to intellectual property in whole or part;
(this protects issues such as the Creative Commons licenses and the GNU/GPL)

10. DECIDES to remain seized by the matter and actively searching for other solutions to the problems raised or remained unsolved by this resolution."

How is this?

SWEET!
thanks for all the help!

Now to the what i dont like part. I dont like clause three. Intellectual property as in 1.b. is a bitch, concidering i.e. dreamweaver, mathematica or name whatever softwareproduct you use. Does ownership belong to the owner of the program or to the licence holder? i htink it should belong to the licenceholder unless otherwise is said in the licence. but who reads a licence anyway (you SHOULD)!

i think my englsih is to poor to fully understand 9.

about the change in 1.b.: why should it be owned. i think the information produced by an unowned automated system would simply be unowned itself too, but still intellectual property. sorta like an abandoned house. Noone owns it, but its still property.

Hm...what if we change "owner" to "operator"? Or rather, "individual or group operating the automated system"?

As for clause 9, it's just saying that if I create intellectual property, I don't have to claim ownership of it; I can put it in public domain so anyone can use it as they wish, or I could give up some of my rights to it. For instance, if I write a book, I can let anyone copy and redistribute it if they want but refuse to let anyone change it or make money off it--or I could let anyone do anything at all with it.

I think the issue at clause 1.b. is so comlpex it needs its own resolution.

So, concluding: Anyone willing to pick up this resolution and see if you can sell it?

now, resolution for the taking for anyone who wants to put it up for vote. this will be my only active *bump* so if it bleeds to death after that, you have wasted a perfectly fine resolution. Anyone? Noone?

His Holiness the Governor-General recognizes authoriship and inovation may only florish when authoriship and inovation is accredited, and therefore His Holiness most whole-heartedly agrees with and supports this proposal as written.

His Holiness is aware how information should be shared, and understands that copyright laws support global and unimpeaded distribution of abstract works be they scientific or literary.

His Holiness suggests any parties wishing to debate the merrits of copyrights, and I.P. in general, need only read the works of the American politician Thomas Jefferson, who most ardently opposed I.P. legislation in concept but most ardently supported I.P. legislation in practice. Any nation wishing to practice the concepts of Good Governence would be derelict if they did not fully comprehend the works of such statesmen.

It is His Holiness's opinion the absence of copyright protections must lead to thievery and a New Dark Ages for both science and literature.

His Holiness closes by noting that only because of the protections of copyrights did he make the above argument with due credit to Thomas Jefferson rather than attempt to plagiarise such sound and well thought arguments as his own.

[signed]
The Bishop Fred al-Rubei of The Directorate of Foreign Relations of The Dominion of North East Cathanistan