NationStates Jolt Archive

Read it if you like what you see please support

UN nations resolve to establish a public domain. If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the exclusive rights that apply to a copyrighted work.

Works pass into the public domain when:
(1) the term of copyright for the work has expired
(2) the author failed to satisfy statutory formalities to perfect the copyright
3) it is a work of a UN Government
4) it is deemed "freeware" or "shareware"

MyrthEdit -- Changed title to fit its new Resolution at Vote status

I support this proposal and have voted in favor of it.

This seems to be a proposal for a way to steal somebody else's hard work. I have voted against it and encourage others to do the same.

"3) it is a work of a UN Government"

Does this include military? I don't want my 'black projects' going public domain.

With something like that in effect, authors HARD WORK will receive absolutely no recognition, I urge people to vote AGAINST this resolution.

I'm about to cast my vote, but there's still one thing that's bugging me. The passing of the 40 Hour Workweek lowered my economy from Strong to Good. Will the Public Domain Resolution do the same thing? Will it lower or raise my economy?

I agree with legions. I like all of it EXCEPT for #3. Other than that i would have voted yes.

I am going to vote it down because it could allow people to steal the work of an author, and spoil military projects, leaving all UN nations with a huge security threat. I advise every person who will make a vote to think about this very carefully.

In regards to the author's HARD WORK, I believe that the public domain protects a work from being exploited by a money-grubbing corporation. If the author wants to share their creative genius with the world at no charge they should be able to, without the fear that someone will STEAL it and try to make money off of it.

"3) it is a work of a UN Government"

Does this include military? I don't want my 'black projects' going public domain.I'm still waiting for an answer.

If you don't answer, I will assume it does include military and will urge my delegate to vote against it. Also if you meant it to include military, then I salute your technique for control over other nations through UN Resolution vagueness. It is a lost art, last seriously practiced by the GDODAD.

I support this proposal fully and have voted for it as a delegate and I also approved of it in its proposal stage.

Regarding article 4, let's just say I believe in the Freedom of Information Act (cough...IRAN/CONTRA...cough)

Yeah, I voted against it because of article 3. As I read it, it's a huge hit to socialist-leaning member states; it means that any intellectual property nationalized by your government becomes property of the world, so that you can't, for example, sell intellectual rights to another country, company, or individual. Baaaad mojo.

UN nations resolve to establish a public domain. If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the exclusive rights that apply to a copyrighted work.

Works pass into the public domain when:
(1) the term of copyright for the work has expired
(2) the author failed to satisfy statutory formalities to perfect the copyright
3) it is a work of a UN Government
4) it is deemed "freeware" or "shareware"
1. Why do we need to have a resolution to create a public domain? Isn't the public domain what exists until you have a copyright? ;)

2. Why should the author of a work have to sell it in order to hold a copyright on it?

this sounds like a stepping stone towards legalizing free music downloads, and things such as that.

I'm a strong believer in copyrights. This resolution sounds stupid. If I work hard, I want my reward. Period.

I plan to eventually make my living as a classical music style composer, and this would ruin my life long dream for no good reason at all. Many others have dreams of being authors, or making computer programs of and by themselves to make a living, and this also takes away thier dreams and financial security.

Come to think of it, this would ruin everyone's economy, because people would no longer pay for music, books, or art.

Correction:
Regarding Article THREE, let's just say I believe in the Freedom of Information Act (cough...IRAN/CONTRA, CIA support of Chilean dictatir Pinochet, Hoover's COINTELPRO, have I made my point?...cough)

But why only governments? Why not firms as well I mean cough*ENRON*cough cough*WORLDCOM*cough

Guess what is in the real world public domain?
Books by Karl Marx, Mark Twain, Emily Bronte, A.A. Milne and many others
Scores by Bach, Haydn, and Mozart
GNU/Unix software

Long after your death, would you deny someone the pleasure of reading, listening to, or using your work just because they couldn't afford it? Or would you rather it be lost because someone tried to hoard it and charge money for it? You can't put a price on the genius of the human race. If you love someting set it free, or cage it and watch as it withers and dies.

That's all well and good, but your definition does not reflect any real world conceptions of the public domain.

I agree. This is not public domain as we know it. If this resolution passes, I will withdraw of the UN. I've tolerated some ill-phrased resolutions in the passed, but this one is completely ill-conceived.

-Delegate Coffee

I agree with smok:

This resolution is pooly phrased and poorly defined. It should not have passed as a DRAFT in its current design, nevermind made it up for a vote. While, the people of the Jovian Worlds have no love for government secrecy, it is possible to foresee certain situations where the security of a people might be compromised by this resolution.

The resolution has no explicit definition of what is covered by public domain.

Who defines what is *public domain*? Is it the government? Is it the person who creates a work of intellectual property (I am only assuming that this law deals with intellectual property, as it does not state this!!)

As a firm supporter of GOOD policy--not just well intentioned policy, unless convinced otherwise, stand against this resolution. Back to the drawing board!

Now, it's time to start TG'ing delegates. Let's see something better come of this.

g.e.
Spokesperson for the future peoples of the jovian worlds
Delegate for the Democratic Underground

Well, I have swayed the masses in support of my proposal so you may be withdrawing in a matter of days. The UN is a geopolitical game my resolution can either be win or loss for you. You can either ride it out, fight it, or quit all together.

This proposal is flawed. The author(s) seem to believe "shareware" should be in the public domain, as should "freeware."

The Allied States of DragonIV have a large contingent of software developers, who will glady tell you that while the software may be "freeware" or "shareware," that does not mean that you may use the code to your own devices and give no credit or compensation--only the executable (and not a decompiled version of it) is considered "free."

As it stands, I cannot and will not support this resolution.

Fang Aldersoot
Commissioner of Technical Sciences
Allied States of DragonIV

This resolution is quite harmless. Let me explain:

(1) the term of copyright for the work has expired
Solution: extend copyrights as needed.

(2) the author failed to satisfy statutory formalities to perfect the copyright
Solution: set minimal 'statuatory formalities'

3) it is a work of a UN Government
Solution: governments produce no 'work', people do. governments and capitalists should not take credit for people's work.

4) it is deemed "freeware" or "shareware"
Solution: new catagories should be created, so that nothing is designated 'freeware' or 'shareware' but the defacto catagories still exist under different names

-Alexander Berkman,
FOEnet

Free Outer Eugenia:

But then the question is what are the ramifications as far as the in-game stats are concerned:

A) Does a mod see the proposal when it passes and then decides how it affects national stats?

or

B) Does the categorization and strength dictate the effect entirely?

If the case is latter, we must scuttle the resolution. Otherwise, it's just another waste of everyone's time and energy.

For what it's worth, A seems to be way more trouble than its worth, since this would take too much time to maintain, and would require the person responsible for setting the variables with each new resolution to really research what hte potential effects might be.

So more likely the latter.

And even so, we should still stop it from passing as this is not worthy of a world governing body.

Works pass into the public domain when:
(1) the term of copyright for the work has expired
(2) the author failed to satisfy statutory formalities to perfect the copyright
3) it is a work of a UN Government
4) it is deemed "freeware" or "shareware"

While I agree with the first two point, the third could make this proposal a hazard to the national safety of my country. Government works could include classified documents about national security.

And even so, we should still stop it from passing as this is not worthy of a world governing body.We agree, but it seems that the world governing body doesn't.

Long after your death, would you deny someone the pleasure of reading, listening to, or using your work just because they couldn't afford it?

Yes I would. The person who created such works should have the power to dictate its terms of use. It is not up to others to decide on these terms of use.

Position: AGAINST.

Why is it that so many of these proposals should be voted AGAINST yet they seem to always pass?

My regional delegate has already voted against this resolution, and I intend to follow suit. Every provision is either redundant or potentially harmful. Going point by point:

1. This article is redundant, since by definition something enters public domain when the term of copyright has expired.

2. This article potentially allows an author's work to be stolen. It is common for the statutory formalities of "copyright perfection" to involve a small fee to cover the cost of cataloging and archiving the work. For this reason, countries like the U.S. take the sensible step of not requiring an author to instantly register his or her work in order to keep the copyright. However, under the provisions of Article 2 as written, it is possible for an author who has not "perfected" his or her copyright--say, because said author sold the story to a small magazine that pays less than the fee to register the copyright--to have the story stolen by an author from another nation where the work might find a larger audience.

3. It has already been pointed out that the terms of this article as written could make classified documents of UN member governments public domain, thus compromising the security of member nations.

4. At first glance, this provision would seem redundant. However, it actually represents a great expansion of the definition of "freeware" and "shareware." Most free downloaded software includes a list of terms and conditions governing its use and modification, which are created by the author of the program. However, if the author of the program loses all rights to the program by calling it "shareware" or "freeware," then it is permissible for someone to modify the program and sell the modified version.

One other point: It occurs to me that it's silly to have a resolution creating an international public domain in the absence of a resolution establishing international conventions of copyright recognition.

I have decided to support this Resolution.

With the termination, after a certain period tof time, of Copyright, I feel it is appropriate that they be placed in the Public Domain and be freely accessable.

There's such a thing as a statutory formality to get a copyright? In most RL nations, an author's work is automatically copyrighted the moment he writes it, as is any other work covered by copyright. Thus, this very post you're reading is, technically, my copyrighted material. I'm assuming it works the same here?...

While I agree with the spirit of it, this resolution is unnecessary and redundant, since public domain already exists and this is simply rehashing existing laws.

Fears of "people making money from your work" are moot. Record companies make money from the artist's work. Publishers and bookstores make money from the author's work. I believe that copyright is meant to prevent plagarism, not profit.

I support the intention of this resolution, but I cannot vote for it in the current form. I believe in reducing copyright lengths and forcing most work to automatically enter the public domain after a resonable time, however this resolution does more than that. I know the other people have already written on this aspect, but I wanted to add some extra detail. Sorry, but software protection is a personal pet peeve.

4) it is deemed "freeware" or "shareware"

This section is not something I agree with at all.
There is a big difference between public domain and any type of freeware.

An earlier post in this thread suggested that GNU/UNIX software was public domain. This is not at all the case, GNU software is licenced under the GPL licence, setting some specific restrictions on software modification. In particular it protects against the work being stolen by big buisness. No such protection exists in the public domain; if the author wants _anyone_ to modify it in any way, then they can already choose the public domain.

Shareware and freeware set extra restrictions on the usage of the software, such as enforcing trial periods, licencing and preventing all modification. As such these software licences are even furthur away from the public domain. If an author chooses to use one of these licences (which I don't agree with, by the way), then they are specifically choosing NOT to put the software into the public domain (or use an open source licence).

Similar licences are available for non-software, such as 'Creative Commons'.

I don't know why I'm writing this post since this resolution is obviously going to pass anyway.

I see that many have commented on the ramifications of my proposal. If you have seen my past proposals like "Trustbusters" and "Legalize Filesharing", you can probably guess the sentiment of the current Public Domain proposal. Neither of those proposals gained any major support so I opted to draft the Public Domain proposal and as you can see it has gained major support.

"Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage." - Ambrose Bierce

You've utterly failed to answer any of the objections brought against you apart from to say, essentially, 'I know this proposal is senseless and I don't care'.

Only problem is, you drafted it badly, ESPECIALLY article 4.

Freeware and shareware are NOT public domain. The creators of free- and shareware programs ABSOLUTELY RETAIN INTELLECTUAL RIGHTS of their products. Such programs always come with licenses (just like commercial products) which describe what you can or cannot do with the program. For example, you are not allowed to decompile or modify the program in any way. Furthermore, shareware is not even financially free, because going by the word of law, you MUST pay for it after the evaluation period expires. Yes, all those millions of people who have never payed a single dollar for WinZip are, legally speaking, criminals who have violated the copyright law.

By declaring freeware and shareware programs as "Public Domain", you are essentially taking the intellectual property of developers by force. It would be just like declaring that Windows XP is Public Domain from now on. Free- and shareware developers have the same rights about their products as Microsoft Corporation.

Does this mean then anyone, can say "accidently" put a virus on there? What other harmful things can be placed on there? You know what to do VOTE NO

You've utterly failed to answer any of the objections brought against you apart from to say, essentially, 'I know this proposal is senseless and I don't care'.

To tell you the truth, I agree. This proposal was created to throw the NationStates world into utter chaos, which is the only way I think it can exist.

Most of my major opponents have posted things here and I respect your opinions. But if you really don't want to be affected by this you can campaign against it or withdraw from the UN.

You've utterly failed to answer any of the objections brought against you apart from to say, essentially, 'I know this proposal is senseless and I don't care'.

To tell you the truth, I agree. This proposal was created to throw the NationStates world into utter chaos, which is the only way I think it can exist.

Most of my major opponents have posted things here and I respect your opinions. But if you really don't want to be affected by this you can campaign against it or withdraw from the UN.

Thankfully, your proposal is weak enough to be circumvented with some fairly tricksy uses of law. However, the above statement has eliminated any hope of sympathy or support we might have had for you reckless and irresponsible nation.

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

To tell you the truth, I agree. This proposal was created to throw the NationStates world into utter chaos, which is the only way I think it can exist.

We are appalled and stunned by your comments. Many UN nations work months to gain respect in these forums. Others work endlessly on excellent proposals, sometimes spending months doing research, to provide thought provoking debates on issues they feel strongly about.

Granted we have seen many bad proposals, but for the most part bad or not, the authors do have strong believes, which even if I don’t agree, I respect. I find myself however, unable to find any respect for someone who could not even be bothered to author a proposal they believe in or try and have some form of intellectual recourse in the face of objection.

Honourable members, in the face of this from the author I am unable to vote in favour of this resolution and request others to follow suit. I simply cannot in good conscience vote for a resolution if the author’s sole motivation is the defamation, humiliation and anarchy of this body for their own personal amusement.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

To tell you the truth, I agree. This proposal was created to throw the NationStates world into utter chaos, which is the only way I think it can exist.

We are appalled and stunned by your comments. Many UN nations work months to gain respect in these forums. Others work endlessly on excellent proposals, sometimes spending months doing research, to provide thought provoking debates on issues they feel strongly about.

Granted we have seen many bad proposals, but for the most part bad or not, the authors do have strong believes, which even if I don’t agree, I respect. I find myself however, unable to find any respect for someone who could not even be bothered to author a proposal they believe in or try and have some form of intellectual recourse in the face of objection.

Honourable members, in the face of this from the author I am unable to vote in favour of this resolution and request others to follow suit. I simply cannot in good conscience vote for a resolution if the author’s sole motivation is the defamation, humiliation and anarchy of this body for their own personal amusement.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

Maybe that is the problem with the UN, too many nations, like my own, try to act like Power Brokers watching as the huddled masses follow suit and conform to an idea that would radically change their way of life. Maybe this can be a lesson to you all: Appease the populace! A few comments in the Forum won't change anything. There is still major support for my proposal so if you want to stop it I suggest you take sides and fight.

To tell you the truth, I agree. This proposal was created to throw the NationStates world into utter chaos, which is the only way I think it can exist.

We are appalled and stunned by your comments. Many UN nations work months to gain respect in these forums. Others work endlessly on excellent proposals, sometimes spending months doing research, to provide thought provoking debates on issues they feel strongly about.

Granted we have seen many bad proposals, but for the most part bad or not, the authors do have strong believes, which even if I don’t agree, I respect. I find myself however, unable to find any respect for someone who could not even be bothered to author a proposal they believe in or try and have some form of intellectual recourse in the face of objection.

Honourable members, in the face of this from the author I am unable to vote in favour of this resolution and request others to follow suit. I simply cannot in good conscience vote for a resolution if the author’s sole motivation is the defamation, humiliation and anarchy of this body for their own personal amusement.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

Maybe that is the problem with the UN, too many nations, like my own, try to act like Power Brokers watching as the huddled masses follow suit and conform to an idea that would radically change their way of life. Maybe this can be a lesson to you all: Appease the populace! A few comments in the Forum won't change anything. There is still major support for my proposal so if you want to stop it I suggest you take sides and fight.

As a real captialist (anarcho capitalist), I believe copyright should be a (collection of) private institution(s), if anything. The goverment should have no say in this matter at all.

If you can't spread/use your own idea in the most competitive way, then it's nobodies problem but your own.

To tell you the truth, I agree. This proposal was created to throw the NationStates world into utter chaos, which is the only way I think it can exist.

We are appalled and stunned by your comments. Many UN nations work months to gain respect in these forums. Others work endlessly on excellent proposals, sometimes spending months doing research, to provide thought provoking debates on issues they feel strongly about.

Granted we have seen many bad proposals, but for the most part bad or not, the authors do have strong believes, which even if I don’t agree, I respect. I find myself however, unable to find any respect for someone who could not even be bothered to author a proposal they believe in or try and have some form of intellectual recourse in the face of objection.

Honourable members, in the face of this from the author I am unable to vote in favour of this resolution and request others to follow suit. I simply cannot in good conscience vote for a resolution if the author’s sole motivation is the defamation, humiliation and anarchy of this body for their own personal amusement.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

Maybe that is the problem with the UN, too many nations, like my own, try to act like Power Brokers watching as the huddled masses follow suit and conform to an idea that would radically change their way of life. Maybe this can be a lesson to you all: Appease the populace! A few comments in the Forum won't change anything. There is still major support for my proposal so if you want to stop it I suggest you take sides and fight.

Fortunately this proposal is relatively inoffensive and be circumvented fairly easily. That doesn't excuse your actions.

Unfortunately, a rash of ill-advised proposals are have reached quorum in the last week. Your proposal is the least of our worries.

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

DP

TP

I am opposed to this resolution, and have voted against it.

While the majority of the resolution is agreeable, Article 3 is the striking point on my disapproval, it is obvious the framers of this resolution have not considered the full implications to security it presents. While I would agree that situation like the Iran/Contra affair were bad, and this would indeed make such a thing possible, what is the FULL COST of implimenting such a system? Is preventing Iran/Contra situations so important as to put into further danger and compromising submarine ELINT and other operations of effecting national security? This would compromise ANY and ALL operations of military units that rely on stealth to complete their missions... and put them all in further risk, both personally, and professionally.

Had article 3 been otherwise written, I may have supported this resolution. But the author in their fairly well intentioned, "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" attitude, failed to take their blinders off and look at the BIG PICTURE, the full implications of what this resolution would do, not just in terms of propert, but in terms security....

I am glad to see that a new UN member is getting into the swing of things.
If you didn't like this proposal you'll be glad to hear that I have submitted two new proposals, "NS Food Bank" and "Public Media". If the Mods don't delete them feel free to comment on them in the new thread I am making: "Support the NS Food Bank and Public Media"

I for one Agree with this resolution.

You can still copywrite work and just don't let it wear off and u'll be fine. Also you should never tell others about achievments before you have copywritten it.

I for one Agree with this resolution.

You can still copywrite work and just don't let it wear off and u'll be fine. Also you should never tell others about achievments before you have copywritten it.

My fellow UN nations I bring to you the word from our wise sovereign, Holy Emperor Salvarus.

"Though out history the works of great artists have been protected by the government and a social code. Though by entering a new computer era this code is being broken every second of everyday. Is the current copyright law code fair, I say no. Though polical freedoms and powers in our Holy Empire music, television, writing, and movies have increaed in quilty ten fold. This is, of course, ture to the removeal of the drive for wealth. Though many UN and TYW nations do not support communsim in the matter of copyright law it should be applied

This resolution also protects the rights of writers, the works will not pass into "public domain" intill the copyright has expired. Any real artist would perfer it this way, as their work would reach more people. Though this also meaningless copyright lawsuits that pluage Capitalist nations will be forgotten.

I urge the to vote "yes" on this resolution. It will be a step forward for all artists, and enhance freedom of speech as well."

I repeat my objection - while the establishment of a public domain is a good and worthy concept, the definition is overly broad and overtly harmful to many member nations. The mere fact that it's passing doesn't make it a good idea - most people don't bother to read the forums and probably don't recognize that this is a potentially harmful proposal. They just see "establishing a public domain" and think "ah, that's a good and sensible use of the UN", instead of seeing "this establishes all freeware and SHAREware as public domain, as well as all governmental intellectual property of any UN member nation".

I won't withdraw from the UN on such an objection, but it is annoying that we are forced to obey such laws without a proper public debate on the issues. It'd be nice if a PRO and CON explanation was given to the general assembly before they were asked for a vote...

I repeat my objection - while the establishment of a public domain is a good and worthy concept, the definition is overly broad and overtly harmful to many member nations. The mere fact that it's passing doesn't make it a good idea - most people don't bother to read the forums and probably don't recognize that this is a potentially harmful proposal. They just see "establishing a public domain" and think "ah, that's a good and sensible use of the UN", instead of seeing "this establishes all freeware and SHAREware as public domain, as well as all governmental intellectual property of any UN member nation".

I won't withdraw from the UN on such an objection, but it is annoying that we are forced to obey such laws without a proper public debate on the issues. It'd be nice if a PRO and CON explanation was given to the general assembly before they were asked for a vote...

Mr. Repersentitive from The Most Serene Republic of The Midget Isles,
Why do you, or any member nation, wish to hide your millitary secreats from the public. Should the people of a nation know what their govenment is doing? And should the UN as a peace keeping force know what each nation has?

My friends,
This resolution should NOT pass for several reasons.

1. It is an authors hard work, not the UN's.

2.If we continue to give the UN power over our economies and authors it will lead down the slippery slope allowing the UN access of military records that will be "shareware" that ANY country can see.

3. By letting this pass the UN may start to rule over the countries.

From http://www.angelfire.com/il/randomnity/warinusa.html


Currently the UN or United Nations is working towards the goal of a one world government. One essential part of this goal to disarm the peoples of all countries, so that the UN’s visions may be implemented. UN visions
1. To disarm all people whom are non law enforcement and military in nature.
2. To expand governmental control in the daily lives citizens
3. To create detailed files on each individual to include bar coded military id and drivers licenses
4. To locate all opposing forces to the UN’s ideals i.e. militias, patriots, and gun owners.
5. To allow each country no matter the size to have an equal vote in the UN council on worldly matters


Keep ypur author's works copyrighted. Keep the UN from dominating! vote against.

We need to protect authors from theft, not encourage theft. This resolution is ridiculous and Apple Hill has voted against it.

I'm sure all of you will be glad to see that I may have to vote AGAINST my proposal:

Seconds ago The Federation of Our Own Laziness

For: 2
Against: 4

I am glad to see there is some conversation about my proposal. Usually voter turnout isn't that big. If I am forced to vote against my proposal I will, such is the whim of democracy.

This is from my region's civil headquarters

The first two articles are perfectly agreeable. The third and fourth however trouble my nation. Our nation cannot and will not reveal secret files and information. Revealing such files to the public will endanger our citizens and our troops overseas and in the country. The fourth articles, totally destroys the purpose of freeware and shareware, and will destroy a valuable marketting tool for computer software companies. If you value your economy, your military, your security, and your freedom, you will not vote for this resolution.

The so-called “Public Domain” proposal is a travesty. It flies in the face of artists’ rights, as well as those of any other creator of a copyrighted work.

Were we to desire to do so, our nation could limit copyright to one year, after which by the terms of this proposal, all rights would become public domain.

All works of government would include private information about our citizens.

The government of Upper Marzipania strongly opposes this misguided legislation and encourages all others to vote against it.


Skyhawk Zero
Prime Minister,
Grand Funk Council,
Upper Marzipania

Mr. Repersentitive from The Most Serene Republic of The Midget Isles,
Why do you, or any member nation, wish to hide your millitary secreats from the public. Should the people of a nation know what their govenment is doing? And should the UN as a peace keeping force know what each nation has?

The Midget Isles have no military secrets to keep from the honorable United Nations. However, given our progressive social policies, many intellectual works developed by government grant become the property of the government. According to this provision, the Midget Isles would lose all right to sell intellectual property (music, writing, computer software, etc.) to other member nations, since the government cannot itself hold intellectual property rights - they become in effect the property of the UN.

We're not comfortable with giving up our right to sovereignty over intellectual property, including, say, the software which allows our monorail to function, to anyone and everyone in the world, without regard to national security or the desires of the author.

Sincerely and Fraternally,
Jeremy Switch
Minister of Foreign Affairs
The Most Serene Republic of the Midget Isles

In 3 weeks as a UN member, I've been disappointed by the poor draftsmanship of resolutions. Like this one. It appears there is no quality control (unlike real legislatures and the real UN), and it's too easy to get on the ballot.

So be it. I have no intention of quitting the UN, and will make the best of a bad situation.

The United States of The Bills voted for it. We will take the economic benefits of passage. Then we will interpret the resolution consistent with USB law. We feel this is appropriate, since not even the author can explain the resolution clearly.

Parts 1 and 2 -- We see no reason to change anything. These provisions add no significant requirements to existing USB copyright law.

Part 3 -- USB government documents are not copyrighted, so they are already in the public domain. However, the Government has certain rights to classify national security information, to keep it out of the public domain. We do not believe this resolution gives other nations any rights to our classified information whatsoever.

Part 4 -- This provision makes no sense, so we will continue to follow our own laws. If a USB citizen chooses not to copyright software, he/she has no complaint if someone copies it.

To those voting No, more power to you; a number of good objections were raised. I'm not happy having to be so cynical, but in my view, the resolution is a cynical attempt to get something for nothing.

G.D. Whitney
President of The United States of The Bills

1) there should be a way an author can mark it as public domain and require any use to notify the author so they can keep an eye out with a public reporting avenue so others can report mis-use or profiteering off public domain stuff.

2) free-ware and share-ware are not public domain. they are a method of distributing items while retaining copywrite protections. when something is public domain all you do is prevent un-acceptable profiteering off it.

3) by the wording it would include goverment secrets and such and would make it illegal to do things without full disclosure. if i want to do something i was put in charge of my nation because i am responsible for the consequences of the actions. just because something happens does not mean everyone needs to know about it.

It is the opinion of Her Most Serene Majesty, Queen Mezzenrach, that this abominable resolution should be soundly defeated for several reasons, not the least of which being that it works to undermine the hard work of artists, writers, composers and anyone else enjoying the protection of current international copyright treaties.

Copyright is different in many countries, though the basic idea of it being that a written work is owned by the creator until about fifty (50) years after the death of the author (and in some countries this is 75 years). Furthermore, there are then other applications which may be made by the estate, where it exists, for an extension, to be applied towards the surviving family (or an assigned third party, according to the wishes of the composer). An example of this would be well seen through the operas of Giuseppe Verdi. At the time of his death, in 1901, he left the rights to all of his works to the establishment of a home for aging musicians in Milan. His will allowed for this home to have the copyrights reassigned, thus allowing them to continue to enjoy the gift that this great artist had endowed them with, long after his death.

Those who create must be allowed to determine the course of their works. While they are alive, they own their works, unless they voluntarily forfeit OR sell the work. Otherwise, a work does not enter the Public Domain until the expiration of the assigned copyright.

We cannot stress how much this new resolution diminishes this RIGHT, and would, therefore, discourage those who dedicate so much of their personal industry into the creation of new works, knowing that they may lose the rights to their material arbitrarily.

The "Public Domain" ALREADY EXISTS - as previously mentioned, the works of many composers, such as Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart, and many others, are now in the public domain, meaning that orchestras and ensembles can use their music without regard of the publication (unless it is a new edition). However, there are NEW editions of some "classical" works, which are NOT in the Public Domain, such as the works of Hector Berlioz, which were published, and then re-issued with changes - which re-established the copyright to the estate for an additional 75 years.

It is NOT simply a "black and white" situation that can be addressed in a four-point resolution, and thus, Mezzenrach STRONGLY recommends that this resolution be defeated. It is flawed at the most basic level, and should have never been accepted as a proposal, let alone as a resolution.

For Her Most Serene Majesty, Queen Mezzen,
Prime Minister Mesto auf Mezzenrach &
An'dor, Minister of International Relations & Intergovernmental Affairs

There's such a thing as a statutory formality to get a copyright? In most RL nations, an author's work is automatically copyrighted the moment he writes it, as is any other work covered by copyright. Thus, this very post you're reading is, technically, my copyrighted material.

I don't know about other RL nations, but in the United States--while it is technically true that any work is considered copyrighted the second it is "fixed in a tangible form"--you have to register the copyright in order to have the right to sue someone for copyright infringement. It currently costs $30 to register a copyright. Fortunately, if you register within five years, the registration is just as potent as if you had registered it the second you created it. This allows someone to find out if their newly created work is going to make money before they spend their $30 to register the copyright.

However, the second condition for entry into the public domain under this resolution would allow a work to become public domain if the creator of the work doesn't register the copyright or do other such paperwork immediately. Imagine the case of an author in Mygrathea who sells his work to a small literary magazine, which pays only the equivalent of $5 or two free copies of the magazine. Obviously, the author wouldn't copyright the work because he would be losing money on the transaction, even though our copyright fees are somewhat lower than those in the RL U.S. However, if this provision were in effect, his work would be public domain. This would mean that someone from another country who happened to look at the magazine could take the story as is and submit it for publication in another country where it might find a more receptive audience and make more money.

This provision would not hurt established artists, writers, and composers, but it would have a devastating impact on young, aspiring artists who may face a choice between paying all their bills and registering the copyright on their work.

For more information on U.S. copyright laws, follow this link.

http://www.copyright.gov/

The sovereightny of individual nations, which are a part of the UN has been sacraficed enough. If this resolution passes, which it looks like it will, it will destroy free trade because every nation will have access to what every other nation has (excluding the private sector), and individual member nations will lose even more sovereignty. I urge everyone to vote against this resolution, as I have.

If there's any justice, this resolution will pass, and the Powers That Be decide that its effect is to set the Economic Strength of all UN member countries to "Terrible". Shareware and GNU license software companies will fold, the entire software industry will fall into the hands of large monopolies, states and national companies file a score of monopoly lawsuits, the entire IT industry collapses under the stress of forced company break-ups, dragging along the stock exchange and plunging the world into an economic depression. That would teach the gullible sucker... respected UN member states to read a proposal thoroughly before voting on it.

Thank the gods His Majesty had the wisdom and foresight not to join the UN.

If there's any justice, this resolution will pass, and the Powers That Be decide that its effect is to set the Economic Strength of all UN member countries to "Terrible". .Not the way it works, pal. The economic effects are based solely on the issue catagory and strength.

WOW So much controversy! I'm really glad about how this turned out! Usually my proposals don't get the time of day. Thanks to all those who commented and as I've said before IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, FIGHT IT! My proposal still has unwavering support by a majority of the UN body.

Just goes to show that the forums are rather impotant as far as influencing the vote goes.

But then again the strength of the arguemnts on behalf of the 40 Hour Workweek is what gave probebly it it's slim margain of victory against a massive outcry of ignorance and outright malicious distortion.

This seems to be a proposal for a way to steal somebody else's hard work. I have voted against it and encourage others to do the same.
True. We dont need another liberal idea like this going through the UN. A persons work is a persons work. The UN should worry about humanitarian needs peace before they dictate laws on copyright that should be left to the national goverments of the world.

Laziness,

What is your reply to the problem of Article 3 revealing military operational plans and foreign intelligence? Is your nation comfortable making this information known to all UN members (and, thus to ALL nations, in short order)?

Please accept my renewed assurances of the highest consideration,

The Honorable Stanley Bombast
Fairly Tolerant Dudes Ambassador to the UN

This proposal ensures that no government work will be copyrighted, it does not interfere with any nation's ability to classify certain documents.

If you want to know the US stance on this go here (check 503.33):
http://www.fmc.gov/cfr/503.htm

Is it just me or didnt that last UN Resolution Lower my economy from "strong" to "good", But hey whatever... I will make this short People wont want to make anything if they know that someone can just come along and steal it... seems like a perfect way to steal someones work :roll: Now i wonder what this would do to the economy if it is passed...incase you dont know what i mean i will tell you... Lower it even more.

Postion: Against

I Vote Against.

Allowing someone to use something in public domain as they wish will not promote advancement.
There need be restrictions such as in the GNU and GPL for software and whatother policies maybe in effect for other mediums.

My Position: Against.

Reasons: First off this proposal is poorly worded at best. Second off I do not really think that someone should be able to use someone else's things without permission. I myself do a small bit of writing, as well as making images as well. I do not condone that sameone would be able to steal a writing of mine or even an image, without asking, and use it.

Another poorly written resolution by an author who has little knowlage of the subject at hand. In so being, it fits perfectly along the last few resolutions, where will to change is stronger than the knowlage of what you're changing. Or even the understanding of what the change will mean.

How ever, this resolution is not the disaster that some portray it as. That what an U.N goverment has created is now public domain does not change the fact that what is secret is secret. Anyone can copy it, but that doesnt mean that anyone can access it.

There's a difference between copyright, patent and intellectual property as well, which is friviously confused on this and other threads on the subject.

Ilcaris votes no.

WOW So much controversy! I'm really glad about how this turned out! Usually my proposals don't get the time of day. Thanks to all those who commented and as I've said before IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, FIGHT IT! My proposal still has unwavering support by a majority of the UN body.


This is all our own Laziness has said in defense against all of our points against this resolution. I think that the UN deserves some answers. Our own laziness needs to come back and say how his resolution will be better than these points, because right now he is doing a terrible job defending his own resolution. And if he cannot defend his own resolution this might mean that he does not completely agree, and if this is the case then it shouldnt be voted for.

Allison
President of the Confederacy of Bamada

WOW So much controversy! I'm really glad about how this turned out! Usually my proposals don't get the time of day. Thanks to all those who commented and as I've said before IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, FIGHT IT! My proposal still has unwavering support by a majority of the UN body.


This is all our own Laziness has said in defense against all of our points against this resolution. I think that the UN deserves some answers. Our own laziness needs to come back and say how his resolution will be better than these points, because right now he is doing a terrible job defending his own resolution. And if he cannot defend his own resolution this might mean that he does not completely agree, and if this is the case then it shouldnt be voted for.

Allison
President of the Confederacy of Bamada

WOW So much controversy! I'm really glad about how this turned out! Usually my proposals don't get the time of day. Thanks to all those who commented and as I've said before IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, FIGHT IT! My proposal still has unwavering support by a majority of the UN body.


This is all our own Laziness has said in defense against all of our points against this resolution. I think that the UN deserves some answers. Our own laziness needs to come back and say how his resolution will be better than these points, because right now he is doing a terrible job defending his own resolution. And if he cannot defend his own resolution this might mean that he does not completely agree, and if this is the case then it shouldnt be voted for.

Allison
President of the Confederacy of Bamada

WOW So much controversy! I'm really glad about how this turned out! Usually my proposals don't get the time of day. Thanks to all those who commented and as I've said before IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, FIGHT IT! My proposal still has unwavering support by a majority of the UN body.


This is all our own Laziness has said in defense against all of our points against this resolution. I think that the UN deserves some answers. Our own laziness needs to come back and say how his resolution will be better than these points, because right now he is doing a terrible job defending his own resolution. And if he cannot defend his own resolution this might mean that he does not completely agree, and if this is the case then it shouldnt be voted for.

Allison
President of the Confederacy of Bamada

WOW So much controversy! I'm really glad about how this turned out! Usually my proposals don't get the time of day. Thanks to all those who commented and as I've said before IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, FIGHT IT! My proposal still has unwavering support by a majority of the UN body.


This is all our own Laziness has said in defense against all of our points against this resolution. I think that the UN deserves some answers. Our own laziness needs to come back and say how his resolution will be better than these points, because right now he is doing a terrible job defending his own resolution. And if he cannot defend his own resolution this might mean that he does not completely agree, and if this is the case then it shouldnt be voted for.

Allison
President of the Confederacy of Bamada

WOW So much controversy! I'm really glad about how this turned out! Usually my proposals don't get the time of day. Thanks to all those who commented and as I've said before IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, FIGHT IT! My proposal still has unwavering support by a majority of the UN body.


This is all our own Laziness has said in defense against all of our points against this resolution. I think that the UN deserves some answers. Our own laziness needs to come back and say how his resolution will be better than these points, because right now he is doing a terrible job defending his own resolution. And if he cannot defend his own resolution this might mean that he does not completely agree, and if this is the case then it shouldnt be voted for.

Allison
President of the Confederacy of Bamada

WOW So much controversy! I'm really glad about how this turned out! Usually my proposals don't get the time of day. Thanks to all those who commented and as I've said before IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, FIGHT IT! My proposal still has unwavering support by a majority of the UN body.


This is all our own Laziness has said in defense against all of our points against this resolution. I think that the UN deserves some answers. Our own laziness needs to come back and say how his resolution will be better than these points, because right now he is doing a terrible job defending his own resolution. And if he cannot defend his own resolution this might mean that he does not completely agree, and if this is the case then it shouldnt be voted for.

Allison
President of the Confederacy of Bamada

WOW So much controversy! I'm really glad about how this turned out! Usually my proposals don't get the time of day. Thanks to all those who commented and as I've said before IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, FIGHT IT! My proposal still has unwavering support by a majority of the UN body.




This is all our own Laziness has said in defense against all of our points against this resolution. I think that the UN deserves some answers. Our own laziness needs to come back and say how his resolution will be better than these points, because right now he is doing a terrible job defending his own resolution. And if he cannot defend his own resolution this might mean that he does not completely agree, and if this is the case then it shouldnt be voted for.

WOW So much controversy! I'm really glad about how this turned out! Usually my proposals don't get the time of day. Thanks to all those who commented and as I've said before IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, FIGHT IT! My proposal still has unwavering support by a majority of the UN body.


This is all our own Laziness has said in defense against all of our points against this resolution. I think that the UN deserves some answers. Our own laziness needs to come back and say how his resolution will be better than these points, because right now he is doing a terrible job defending his own resolution. And if he cannot defend his own resolution this might mean that he does not completely agree, and if this is the case then it shouldnt be voted for.

Allison
President of the Confederacy of Bamada

I think Bamada has made their point, but the fact remains that this is a badly worded resolution. If Our Own Laziness cannot defend the resolution positively, then it should be withdrawn. Unfortunately, we're left with having to vote the resolution down.

...One other point: It occurs to me that it's silly to have a resolution creating an international public domain in the absence of a resolution establishing international conventions of copyright recognition.

Hear! Hear! At last, a breath of sanity on this illbegotten proposal.
This whole thing is rotten, for the reasons Mygrathea states, and especially for the single reason that there is no Copyright Act.
Just another case of whittling away our freedoms and rights, just for the sake of enacting a resolution... <phththththththt> :P

Oh, for the record, I voted AGAINST, and have requested my Delegate do the same.

Here is my defense to all the articles of my proposal so Bamada can shut up:

1) There is no UN Copyright law (the UCPL never actually states the term of a copyright) so the expiration date is up to the individual government. After expiration the work will enter the Public Domain.
2) Statutory formalities pertains to copyright renewal, if a copyright is not renewed the work will enter Public Domain.
3) Just because a UN Government work cannot be copyrighted doesn't mean it cannot be classified by said government, depending on the governments laws/constitution. This only pertains to works PUBLISHED by the government otherwise the public wouldn't even see them.
4) If your gonna offer something as freeware or shareware you might as well give it away, or turn it into crippleware or donationware.

This proposal was created to establish the terms of the public domain because as of yet none had been made. My proposal is still heavily supported so if my opponents really don't want it to pass I suggest they get to campaigning instead of griping about it in the forums, nobody really reads these things anyway.

I voted...FOR

4) If your gonna offer something as freeware or shareware you might as well give it away, or turn it into crippleware or donationware.
WTF are you talking about? You have yet to state why the UN should take away the authorship rights of those who seek to distribute their work this way.

I have no time to read this whole topic.
But, on nationstates as well as in real life, this resolution is crap.

Why would freeware not be copyrighted? You can share it, give it away, let other people use it for free..but still you own the source?

And why would the author of any piece of software, text, whatever be required to take actions to get his copyright? Thats bullshit.
Isnt it in the US required to place a (c) below ur text? Why?
Every text i write is my own propertie. It is bullshit to have to ask for it to be copyrighted. *sigh* bureaucracy

Errenya is firmly opposed to this proposal. Many have already pointed out that it does not establish a public domain, unless perhaps there are countries in the UN which do not already recognise one. It simply provides for four means by which a work becomes public domain.
The first, expiry of copyright, is already well established in practically all nations.
The second is established practice in some nations. Others have explicitly legislated for the establishment of copyright by default, requiring no statutory formalities.
The third is the most dangerous change. Freedom of information laws in all truly democratic governments allow for the publication of government documents after a period of time, but this does not extinguish any copyright the government chooses to hold. It certainly does not place potentially sensitive data in the public domain from the start.
The fourth is a radical and ill-placed attempt to redefine the status of software in what ought to be a general statement on all intellectual property. It dictates that any holder of software copyright guard all their rights at all times.

Nations seeking to protect the rights of citizens to intellectual property must vote against this resolution. Conversely, nations seeking the free exchange of information must also vote against this resolution, as others have already shown how it can be abused to restrict that freedom. If this resolution passes, Errenya will seek another resolution that will supersede it and establish proper standards of both copyright and public domain.

4) If your gonna offer something as freeware or shareware you might as well give it away, or turn it into crippleware or donationware.
WTF are you talking about? You have yet to state why the UN should take away the authorship rights of those who seek to distribute their work this way.

The fourth article is a preventative measure. Here are a few reasons why:

FEAR OF DAMAGING SYSTEMS – Regular users do not download shareware because it has a reputation for carrying viruses, Trojans, spyware,adware, and files that will damage their computers.

POOR QUALITY – Professionals do not download shareware because they
view shareware as inferior, unreliable, not as advertised, annoying
when it's crippled or time-limited, and generally not worth the hassle
of downloading and registering.

The other growing reason for not downloading shareware is fear of
legal repercussions. Some of this is due to misunderstanding of what
shareware is. Some people seem to think that downloading shareware is
equivalent to downloading music from a P2P service. Wrong as that may
be, the fear is real and it effects their decisions to download.

And, of course there are those people who believe everything on the
internet should be free.

Errenya is firmly opposed to this proposal. Many have already pointed out that it does not establish a public domain, unless perhaps there are countries in the UN which do not already recognise one. It simply provides for four means by which a work becomes public domain.
The first, expiry of copyright, is already well established in practically all nations.
The second is established practice in some nations. Others have explicitly legislated for the establishment of copyright by default, requiring no statutory formalities.
The third is the most dangerous change. Freedom of information laws in all truly democratic governments allow for the publication of government documents after a period of time, but this does not extinguish any copyright the government chooses to hold. It certainly does not place potentially sensitive data in the public domain from the start.
The fourth is a radical and ill-placed attempt to redefine the status of software in what ought to be a general statement on all intellectual property. It dictates that any holder of software copyright guard all their rights at all times.

Nations seeking to protect the rights of citizens to intellectual property must vote against this resolution. Conversely, nations seeking the free exchange of information must also vote against this resolution, as others have already shown how it can be abused to restrict that freedom. If this resolution passes, Errenya will seek another resolution that will supersede it and establish proper standards of both copyright and public domain.

Please read this all are explained but article four can be contested:

1) There is no UN Copyright law (the UCPL never actually states the term of a copyright) so the expiration date is up to the individual government. After expiration the work will enter the Public Domain.
2) Statutory formalities pertains to copyright renewal, if a copyright is not renewed the work will enter Public Domain.
3) Just because a UN Government work cannot be copyrighted doesn't mean it cannot be classified by said government, depending on the governments laws/constitution. This only pertains to works PUBLISHED by the government otherwise the public wouldn't even see them.
4) If your gonna offer something as freeware or shareware you might as well give it away, or turn it into crippleware or donationware.

This proposal was created to establish the terms of the public domain because as of yet none had been made. My proposal is still heavily supported so if my opponents really don't want it to pass I suggest they get to campaigning instead of griping about it in the forums, nobody really reads these things anyway.

Nutballistan is in favor of the creation of Public Domain.

Twonky Zwiloc,
Prime Minister of Nutballistan

Please read this all are explained but article four can be contested:

1) There is no UN Copyright law (the UCPL never actually states the term of a copyright) so the expiration date is up to the individual government. After expiration the work will enter the Public Domain.
2) Statutory formalities pertains to copyright renewal, if a copyright is not renewed the work will enter Public Domain.
3) Just because a UN Government work cannot be copyrighted doesn't mean it cannot be classified by said government, depending on the governments laws/constitution. This only pertains to works PUBLISHED by the government otherwise the public wouldn't even see them.
4) If your gonna offer something as freeware or shareware you might as well give it away, or turn it into crippleware or donationware.

This proposal was created to establish the terms of the public domain because as of yet none had been made. My proposal is still heavily supported so if my opponents really don't want it to pass I suggest they get to campaigning instead of griping about it in the forums, nobody really reads these things anyway.

1) If you believe this to be an oversight, I suggest you make a resolution that addresses it, as this resolution does not. Otherwise, it is merely redundant.
2) By the terms of the resolution, an author would also required to undertake statutory formalities to effect the copyright in the first place. Many nations, including Errenya, allow automatic copyright and no renewal beyond the statutory term.
3) Then you are in error. Public domain works cannot be classified; they are literally the public's domain. The resolution says nothing of publishing a work.
4) Then you agree with me when I say that the resolution "dictates that any holder of software copyright guard all their rights at all times." Saying that freeware "might as well be given away [to the public domain]" is saying "you must guard all your rights or none at all". It tells the copyright holder they cannot permit redistribution for no commercial gain (the very definition of freeware), or they forfeit their copyright.

And it must be asked: where would you have us campaign if not here, in the United Nations forum?

Fears of "people making money from your work" are moot... Publishers and bookstores make money from the author's work. I believe that copyright is meant to prevent plagarism, not profit.

My neighbor is a twice published author, and does, in fact, get a small amount of money per sale. Copyrighting something is meant to prevent plagarism, but also to allow profit to come to those who have done the work.

You can still copywrite work and just don't let it wear off and u'll be fine.

Under this resolution, there's nothing that allows you to renew a copywrite. You're screwed after the first one's done.

This resolution also protects the rights of writers, the works will not pass into "public domain" intill the copyright has expired.
I fail to see how this protects writers. If anything, it allows people to make and sell cheaper versions of their art after the copyright expires. For example, some music groups stay together for several decades, so shouldn't they be the only groups allowed to profit from songs they have written?

Any real artist would perfer it this way, as their work would reach more people.
As a classical music composer, I would prefer that copyrights ensure my offspring can make money off of any music that becomes especially popular.

I urge the to vote "yes" on this resolution. It will be a step forward for all artists, and enhance freedom of speech as well."
I've already explained that it doesn't help artists in anyway.

As for freedom of speech, I'm a very strong supporter of the freedom of speech, but this has nothing to do with freedom of speech (one must wonder why a communist is quoting the American Constitution as an arguement in a debate). This is talking about copyrights. Get your facts strait next time.

Laziness,

So, check me on this: if Fairly Tolerant Dudes sets a copyright period of, say, two hundred years, would this effectively negate your proposal? If so, why shouldn't Fairly Tolerant Dudes (and other nations) use this method to render your proposal transparent to them? And, if THIS is all true, what's the point of your proposal?

Please accept my renewed assurances of the highest consideration,

The Honorable Stanley Bombast
Fairly Tolerant Dudes Ambassador to the United Nations

We will take the economic benefits of passage.
There are no economic benifits of it's passage. It takes away people's right to earn money from their work after a short time. This will HURT your economy.


Then we will interpret the resolution consistent with USB law. We feel this is appropriate, since not even the author can explain the resolution clearly.
You're new, so you probably didn't realize that you can't interpret how you'd like. And this isn't RL. Unlike Iraq, you're not allowed to ever be in violation of UN law, especially not on 17 occasions.

Part 3 -- USB government documents are not copyrighted, so they are already in the public domain. However, the Government has certain rights to classify national security information, to keep it out of the public domain. We do not believe this resolution gives other nations any rights to our classified information whatsoever.

Another nation could easily enough send someone to your nation and have them pick up the info from the public domain and bring it back. It's not rocket science.
Part 4 -- This provision makes no sense, so we will continue to follow our own laws. If a USB citizen chooses not to copyright software, he/she has no complaint if someone copies it.

I'm of the opinion that the entire thing makes no sense, not in this form at least.

But once again, you must follow the letter of the UN resolution, and can't ignore it. You agreed to this when you joined the UN.

the resolution is a cynical attempt to get something for nothing.


And we finally agree.

I have drafted a UN Copyright Law. If you pass it there will be a universal copyright law. If you don't like it, I suggest writing your own proposal. I like taking advantage of my UN member status, my proposals may be stupid but at least I make them.

I'd like to say that I'd rather have no proposal than a stupid proposal.

Regarding the resolution at hand, this is truly a product of laziness, pun intended. What's with the ability to allow anyone to do anything they want to "shareware" programs? Basically, this COMPLETELY LEGITIMIZES SOFTWARE PIRACY. It's a very common thing for the warez community to hack a shareware program in order to figure out the algorithm used for legitimate serial keys, allowing them illegitimate access to the full product. Realistically, how will a small company compete against a large corporation's program? And how will a large corporation be able to show consumers how a new product of theirs works?

I urge you all to vote against this mockery of a resolution. Evidently, "Our Own Laziness" didn't put much thought into it.

Everlight

to those who say that Public Domain would be a good idea:
you're right!

but this isn't the way it should be done.

It's a short and vauge resolution, that shouldn't be passed.

Most of us speaking out against this resolution aren't against public domain, we're against this resolution.

I feel we should work together, everyone from Salvarus to Laziness to me should work together on a new resolution, here in the UN forum with everyone's input, to create a better, and more clearly defined public domain resolution.

However, that requires that this one is first voted down.

It doesn't apear that it will be voted down, as it's aprox 6,000 for and aprox 3,000 against.

Greetings all.

I'm preparing a last ditch Telegramming campaign to delegates, who'll listen. Since it's more likely to catch those near the end of the delegate list so I'm starting at (TG'ing delegates with more than 2 endorsements),

Bator and moving upwards to Juice Bag

I'm also going to try to contact the delegates for the feeders.

Hopefully my somewhat half-assed slapped together message will have some effect.

Sample:

Subject: Resolution at Vote Public Domain

To the honourable UN delegate of [Nation],

As spokesperson for the future peoples of the Jovian Worlds and delegate to the Democratic Underground,

I strongly urge you and your constituents to reconsider your position on the resolution and vote AGAINST.

Issues:
I) Lack of Definition --
A) Not enough specificity on what may be 'placed' in the 'public domain.' We must assume that

this resolution refers to intellectual property. However, there the resolution at no time refers to

this.
B) Definition of 'freeware' and 'shareware'. We have no indication of what article 4 actually

does!
II) Potentially destructive to a nation's security.
A) "it is a work of the UN Government"
1) While the people of the Jovian Worlds adamantly support an accountable government.

We do accept that there are times when *IMMEDIATE* disclosure of certain secrets could prove to be

destructive to a society.
III) The resolution effectively does nothing other than make it difficult to make use of one's own

ideas.
A) I don't recall that the NS UN has any codified legal doctrine on copyright laws.
B) Due to Article 2 "the author failed to satisfy the statutory formalities to perfect the

copyright," this appears to increase the hurdles necessary for protecting and marketing one's ideas. I

reason this because there is no stipulation of when "something" is NOT in the public domain. As a

result, it seems that *everything* as a result would fall into the public domain. This could create

some potential progress-stifling incentives that would be best to avoid and would reduce overall trade

rather than promote free trade.

The people of the Jovian Worlds *DO* see a reason to promote free trade of information (again assuming

that is what was intended by this resolution) through the use of a 'public domain', but this resolution

is most emphatically NOT the way to do this. We will support a resolution that narrows the definitions

of what goes into the public domain and helps promote individual intellectual property rights and does

not stifle innovation and risk dangerous unintended consequences.

For more information go to NS UN Forums
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=148428&start=40

Thank you for your time!

g.e.
Spokesperson for the Future People of the Jovian Worlds
UN Delegate for the Democratic Underground

3) Just because a UN Government work cannot be copyrighted doesn't mean it cannot be classified by said government, depending on the governments laws/constitution. This only pertains to works PUBLISHED by the government otherwise the public wouldn't even see them.

Now, even though the Republic of Tekania is a staunch capitalist freemarket country... I must say there is a flaw in this point still on that... It would drastically hurt the economies of socialist countries where the government actually owns published material... in effect the, the government owned publishing company would be destroyed and massive wreck the governemnts income, which would cause an increase in funds needed from other revenues.... and simply cause more economic hardships on the peoples of that country. Obviously the point has no effect on we capatalists, but there are many socialist countries in the UN.

We have voted against this silly resolution. We agree that a public domain is needed but this resolution, as previously mentioned, greatly endangers national security (the third point) and software manufacturing (the fourth point). It also prevents government-controlled media from copywriting their works which could be potentially devastating for national culture, as any program they create is technically created by the government and thus would be immediately considered "public domain".

This resolution cannot be allowed to pass.

Here is my defense to all the articles of my proposal so Bamada can shut up:

1) There is no UN Copyright law (the UCPL never actually states the term of a copyright) so the expiration date is up to the individual government. After expiration the work will enter the Public Domain.
2) Statutory formalities pertains to copyright renewal, if a copyright is not renewed the work will enter Public Domain.
3) Just because a UN Government work cannot be copyrighted doesn't mean it cannot be classified by said government, depending on the governments laws/constitution. This only pertains to works PUBLISHED by the government otherwise the public wouldn't even see them.
4) If your gonna offer something as freeware or shareware you might as well give it away, or turn it into crippleware or donationware.

This proposal was created to establish the terms of the public domain because as of yet none had been made. My proposal is still heavily supported so if my opponents really don't want it to pass I suggest they get to campaigning instead of griping about it in the forums, nobody really reads these things anyway.

Going point by point:

1. I didn't realize it before, but this fact makes the first proposed condition for entry into the public domain meaningless. Since Mygrathea's copyright laws (for example) can only be enforced against citizens of Mygrathea, there is nothing to stop a citizen of another nation from stealing currently copyrighted Mygrathean works and reselling them in other countries.

2. I am happy to take you at your word that that was how you intended it to work, but the actual wording of the resolution allows for the international theft of currently copyrighted work. Not that it matters, since international copyright theft is still possible under the current international copyright regime (or lack thereof).

3. Again, this may be how you intended it to work, but the wording is open to abusive interpretations. And these abuses aren't already possible under the current state of affairs.

4. The shareware/freeware provision is the most tragic part of this whole resolution. You say your motive in creating this proposal was to make life better for the little guy at the expense of big business. However, your shareware provisions may have the opposite effect. Currently, the creator of a shareware program can set conditions for the use, distribution, and modification of his or her software. For example, a shareware creator can declare that the software and any derivative works created from it must be distributed either free of charge or at cost (i.e., just enough of a charge to cover the cost of production). However, under your proposed resolution, a large corporation could modify a piece of shareware produced by "the little guy" and charge exorbitantly for the resulting product with impunity.

As for your final paragraph, I must reiterate that establishing the terms of the international public domain makes no sense without establishing international conventions of copyright recognition. I would suggest that such a convention take the form of a simple declaration that all UN members will recognize copyrights originating in any UN member state, rather than the kind of micromanaging intrusion on sovereignty that seems to be rather common in the UN.

I messaged many regions with more than 100 delegates. All the major feeders, and the list previously posted. Anyone else want to try contacting delegates--start with the ones who voted FOR this proposal, and list off a section...

Juice Bag to Bator completed

Pick a group. If you decide to take on more delegates. Before you begin, post HERE those you will telegram. Pick a group near the *bottom* of the delegate votes list (since these people may actually be online to receive the TG at the time!), then pick another chunk. TG immediately after posting. Assuming anyone is motivated enough to telegram delegates, this process should minimize overlap--and keep the spam to an absolute minimum.

I not only put out a call to UN nations to vote against this worthless proposal, which I am about to induct to my "UN Hall of Shame" (off-site), but also to the NS Moderators.

Hello? Moderators? Yes, it's me again!

After the chaos of my "Amendments to the UNEC" proposal, to be renamed "Clarification of the UNEC" when re-submitted, I looked over the UN rules again.

To tell you the truth, I agree. This proposal was created to throw the NationStates world into utter chaos, which is the only way I think it can exist.


Not Worthy of the UN's Consideration
3. Joke Proposals
Every now and then someone decides that making a pun about something (usually "The Right to Arm Bears" or "The Right to Bare Arms") would be clever. Beyond the fact that these jokes have appeared at least 25 times each in the proposal queue, the fact that they're not serious proposals will have them deleted.


This is obviously not a serious proposal! Laziness has admitted it himself! So, instead of wasting the UN's time on it, which is why this rule was created, I ask you to go in and delete "Public Domain" from the NS server. If you read the past 6 pages, you should see why. In addition to the lack of proper copyright terms, the author has also failed to mention patents and trademarks (did not see this pointed out), failed to specify copyrights, and has several grammar problems! After my original UNEC resolution, I have become much more picky over this. Here is the (useless) proposal again:


UN nations resolve to establish a public domain. If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the exclusive rights that apply to a copyrighted work.

Works pass into the public domain when:
(1) the term of copyright for the work has expired
(2) the author failed to satisfy statutory formalities to perfect the copyright
3) it is a work of a UN Government
4) it is deemed "freeware" or "shareware"

This has been color-coded, not for looks, but ease of reference.

RED - Shouldn't that be "nations shall resolve"? I mean, they haven't yet...
BLUE - No quotes, and there should probably be a "considered" in front of that.
GREEN - CAPITALIZATION!!! You should capitalize the first word in every new line, whether it is in a list or not.
PURPLE - Contiuity Error! You went from (#) to #) - It should be consistent in all formal documents.
ORANGE - Where is that last quote in the original?

I know most of those are reason to vote against it, mods, not to remove it, but please, do not go against your own rules. I will send in a request at the getting help page as well, in addition to the copy of this post which will go in the Mod forum. Thank you for your time, and please, if this is not removed, VOTE AGAINST!!!

Sincerely,
The United Federation of Hersfold
UN Member, Part123
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hersfold.jpg

By the way, Jovian, I will participate in your TG campaign. Currently Telegramming Delegates Foukon upward to Daclandale. Hope that's a help.

Huzzah! You guys are actually doing something! I see that there are some UN members that are willing to take full advantage of their place in the UN. I am glad to see that my proposal has sparked a call to action. I applaud your efforts but you'd better hurry, time is running out and my proposal is still leading by a majority :D God I love democracy! If my proposal does pass I suggest you guys try and make some proposals of your own.

Salud,
Our Own Laziness

With any luck, this will be his third UN warning and we won't have to deal with this again.

Anyway... I completed my section of Delegates, and also added Weenervobs, UGLYS, Bohola, and Supreme Fabulocity, since they voted while I was working.

In all, 90 Delegates TG'ed, 1 of which a Forum Moderator (Tactical Grace).
Total of 390 votes.

This will be my final post on this subject. Some of you liked my proposal, many of you did not. I will be glad when it passes because I believe in it wholeheartedly. I am pleased to see that Hersfold has taken action in a cause that he believes in, but am saddened that he wishes ill will towards me:
With any luck, this will be his third UN warning and we won't have to deal with this again.
since I have done nothing against him.
If my proposal has done one thing, it has brought new nations into talking about issues in the UN. So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Salud,
Our Own Laziness

4) If your gonna offer something as freeware or shareware you might as well give it away, or turn it into crippleware or donationware.
WTF are you talking about? You have yet to state why the UN should take away the authorship rights of those who seek to distribute their work this way.

The fourth article is a preventative measure. Here are a few reasons why:

FEAR OF DAMAGING SYSTEMS – Regular users do not download shareware because it has a reputation for carrying viruses, Trojans, spyware,adware, and files that will damage their computers.

POOR QUALITY – Professionals do not download shareware because they
view shareware as inferior, unreliable, not as advertised, annoying
when it's crippled or time-limited, and generally not worth the hassle
of downloading and registering.

The other growing reason for not downloading shareware is fear of
legal repercussions. Some of this is due to misunderstanding of what
shareware is. Some people seem to think that downloading shareware is
equivalent to downloading music from a P2P service. Wrong as that may
be, the fear is real and it effects their decisions to download.

And, of course there are those people who believe everything on the
internet should be free.

Some times true, not always. Shareware and freeware are wonderful ways for small software development companies to get their software to the people, without spending the millions of dollars they don't have. I agree that some software needs to be regulated to stop Trojans, viruses, spyware, etc. but that is no reason to put all shareware and freeware into public domain.

I'll gladly join the TG campaign to stop this proposal dead in its tracks.

I'm going to TG Drowning Puppies up to Weenervobs.

than U.S. copyright law as it stands now. Of course this is a rather broad reading, but the spirit is the same. Of course that doesn't make it right, not by a long shot.

If a person takes the time to create something, whether it be a work of literature, a painting, a piece of music, I don't think it's the right of an outside entity to decide when the work in question is no longer considered to be the work of the creator.

Position: AGAINST!

I've TGed Weenervobs down to Kryzalia. That's a total of 132 votes, plus hopefully they'll tell their regional members to vote against it. This is the telegram I sent out. You may use it if you want.

30 May 2004

To my fellow regional delegate of [NATION NAME]:

This telegram has been written to ask you to re-think your vote in favor of the current UN resolution at vote, "Public Domain." On behalf of artists, writers, composers, programmers, and creators everywhere, I ask you to vote AGAINST this proposal. Think of the effects of the following articles in this resolution.

"3)it is a work of a UN government"
If this resolution passes, this article will severely endanger your country and your armed forces, as well as those of your entire region! If this resolution passes, none of your defense blueprints will belong to you anymore. They will be in the public domain. Aircraft designs, weapon designs, armor designs, encryption methods, secretive documents, detailed reports of troop movements, espionage-related documents and much more will no longer belong to the government, and thus can and most probably will be distributed freely by third parties.

"4)it is deemed 'freeware' or 'shareware'"
In this article, it seems that the author doesn't even know what freeware and shareware are. If this resolution were to pass, it would destroy thousands of small software companies, who rely on shareware to sell their products. This article in particular would severely cripple the software manufacturing industry, and it would allow large companies to steal freeware and sell it as their own with no legal penalties whatsoever.

Not only are these 2 articles not very well thought out, neither is the entire resolution. It is full of capitalization and grammar mistakes. Further more, the author has made it clear that he created this resolution as a joke. The nation of Our Own Laziness, the creator of this resolution, said this in the forum:

"To tell you the truth, I agree. This proposal was created to throw the NationStates world into utter chaos, which is the only way I think it can exist."

So, on behalf of your economy, on behalf of artists and creators our the world, and on behalf of keeping some order and dignity in the UN, I urge you and every nation you are allied with or know, to vote AGAINST this resolution.

-Premier Cyrus
People's Republic of Cyrucia
Regional Delegate of Tarsonis

this paper would never make it to the floor in WIPO. The US and EU would strike it down. Papers on this site should have to go through a stricter process before it is voted upon. How about a working paper? Let member nations voice their objections and suggest stipulations and changes BEFORE voting. This way we can clean up the structure and grammar, as well as clarify vague or ambiguous terms. I'm sure many of the people who voted in favor of this resolution didn't really know what they were voting for. You're basically putting up a big sign that says, "rape me."

i have yet to join the UN, as I am fairly new, I just had a look at this and it sounds like a completely stupid idea to put it bluntly. Do you honestly find it THAT difficult to do something yourself you have to steal it yourself, but you won't ask if you can use information, you have to make it official and make it so that nations have NO choice in the matter after the votes.

This idea has put me off applying to join the UN, all this says to me is people are too lazy to get up off their backsides and put in some work for something THEY want to achieve, no one else wants it achieved for them, THEY do, its them that benefit, so why cant THEY do the work?

I am completely against this idea, and this is the reason I am with-holding my joining of the UN for the time being.

CAMPAIGN SUMMARY

So far I've had an overwhelmingly encouraging response from response telegrams. So it seems to be having an effect. To really have an effect, I think we need to encourage Regional delegates to telegram their constituents, and if they have a very large region, then to work with their most active members to support this voter mobilization against the Public Domain resolution.

Thanks to Hersfold and Cyrucia for assisting in the telegraming campaign!!

Looks like we've overlapped a lot though. Whether this is due to a lack of uniformity in how the delegate list is posted or whether my initial bad start on organizing this, I'm not sure. I did TG a whole bunch of delegates from regions w/ more than 100 members on the old 'largest regions' list.

List of Regional Delegates contacted:

COMPLETED
Drowning Puppies to weenervobs

Feeders
The East Pacific (posted on forums)


Delegates TG'd--Might be a good idea to post to the regional boards!
The West Pacific, The North Pacific, The South Pacific, The Pacific, The Rejected Realms.


NEXT STEPS
Start working with a chunk of names from the top of the FOR list (I'll try to do more tonight). If you have time, select a chunk of delegates to spam, I mean Telegram, and post here. If you don't mind, please post with the above COMPLETED, so that the next person who decides to TG more delegates will see the cummulative list and we'll minimize overlap (always best not to piss off the delegates you want to sway to your side).

i have yet to join the UN, as I am fairly new, I just had a look at this and it sounds like a completely stupid idea to put it bluntly. Do you honestly find it THAT difficult to do something yourself you have to steal it yourself, but you won't ask if you can use information, you have to make it official and make it so that nations have NO choice in the matter after the votes.

This idea has put me off applying to join the UN, all this says to me is people are too lazy to get up off their backsides and put in some work for something THEY want to achieve, no one else wants it achieved for them, THEY do, its them that benefit, so why cant THEY do the work?

I am completely against this idea, and this is the reason I am with-holding my joining of the UN for the time being.

Tweezer, you should join, and vote against it. If it passes, you can resign later. If you join right now, then you will be able to make a difference.

The Kingdom of New Cheshire (regional delegate for the Followers of Shinobu) will vote AGAINST the motion.

The two reasons for this are:
1) National security. The millitary and official secrets must be exempt from the 'Work of a Government'.
2) (The biggest reason) It redefines 'Shareware' and 'Freeware'. This motion would destroy both of them and allow big business to profit as a result from our Shareware author's hard work.

This is an extremely badly worded motion, and should not be allowed to pass.

To pass this motion is complete idiocy. Anyone in support of such a thing surely enjoys handing away their hard work for free. As delegate of the Northern Tides region, the Disputed Territories of the Wesperosphere has decided to vote against this motion, and encourages others to do the same, or at least think about what they are doing to themselves and their neighbors before voting.

It may appear to be a good idea in some areas, but I smell a rat.

-Secondary Minister James Allen Pope, DTW

I vote for this resolution. I like it.

I vote for this resolution. I like it.

List of Regional Delegates contacted:

COMPLETED
Drowning Puppies to weenervobs

Feeders
The East Pacific (posted on forums)


Delegates TG'd--Might be a good idea to post to the regional boards!
The West Pacific, The North Pacific, The South Pacific, The Pacific, The Rejected Realms.


NEW
All delegates with more than 2 endorsements.
The Lines to Kittyinajar

isn't 'public domain' the default condition of anything that isn't coppyrighted?

now if you're talking about some kind of open licence, copy left of extending the deffinician of fair use, all of those make sense as options. while potentialy controversial this would be at least worthy of perusal and consideration.

if there isn't an existing international law being modified by this proposal what is the point of it?

if there is, would it not be more reasonable to quote the existing aggreement(s) and deliniate the proposed modifications in and to the text of them?

=^^=
.../\...

It sounds to me like this resolution will make ANY government funded project part of the public domain. This is absurd. After putting hundreds of millions of dollars into a project, the final product is left free for everyone to benefit from with no due compensation to those who invested and worked so hard to produce.
This type of system rewards the lazy! Unproductive countries are handed everything they will ever need for free, while other countries economies go down the drain all for nothing. Absolutely Rediculous.

How can you expect people to vote for such a vague resolution. I am voting it down for the simple fact that I will not allow the hard work of my people to be a waste so that the malingering nations of the UN can benefit, and at the same time destroy me. If this passes I wil not sit idlely by and watch my economy collapse. I will withdraw myself from the UN should this pass. Any nation who feels as such would be smart to do the same.

This TG campaign seems to be going well. It seems as if we're catching up. But we need everyone's help if we're gonna beat this resolution. TG all the UN members and delegates you know, and make sure that by the end of today, they have voted against this resolution!