NationStates Jolt Archive

Good day, fellow nationstates,

Lately we have been considering ways to improve upon the UN 'acquis' that we have needed to enact in our state after applying for membership.

Many resolutions, it seems to us, are based upon good intent, but are poorly drafted, not really necessary, and contain stupid typos or spelling errors. (re- Resolution #8: It's Rogue States. Rogue! Rouge is French for red!)

Resolution #5 is a perfect example of this:
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #5

DVD region removal
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Mild Proposed by: Mercia

Description: The removal of regions in DVD's that prevent a user from one region watching the DVD's form another. One region is all wek need.

The typo aside, many cheap DVD players now on the market can play all regions, so the partition of the globe in regions did not restrict free trade and commerce for long. The same goes for other standards in the digital age, such as GSM/CDMA, interoperability will be achieved at an increasing pace through technological solutions, even where standard-bearers or national governments try to obstruct it. (Off the record: has anyone claimed this yet? Is is a law?) Legislation banning the use of multiple technological standards, unlike in less contingent sectors such as measurement units, do practically nothing to improve competition. Aside of that, we generally consider that UN Resolutions should not focus on a single product type.

We invite you to come up with other reasons for/against repealing this resolution. The debate will be used for drafting a resolution (or as a reason not to draft it).

Good day, fellow nationstates,

Lately we have been considering ways to improve upon the UN 'acquis' that we have needed to enact in our state after applying for membership.

Many resolutions, it seems to us, are based upon good intent, but are poorly drafted, not really necessary, and contain stupid typos or spelling errors. (re- Resolution #8: It's Rogue States. Rogue! Rouge is French for red!)

Resolution #5 is a perfect example of this:

The typo aside, many cheap DVD players now on the market can play all regions, so the partition of the globe in regions did not restrict free trade and commerce for long. The same goes for other standards in the digital age, such as GSM/CDMA, interoperability will be achieved at an increasing pace through technological solutions, even where standard-bearers or national governments try to obstruct it. (Off the record: has anyone claimed this yet? Is is a law?) Legislation banning the use of multiple technological standards, unlike in less contingent sectors such as measurement units, do practically nothing to improve competition. Aside of that, we generally consider that UN Resolutions should not focus on a single product type.

We invite you to come up with other reasons for/against repealing this resolution. The debate will be used for drafting a resolution (or as a reason not to draft it).

Hmmm, I agree that the resolution is not one of the better ones, but I actually wonder if it might be one of the easiest to comprehend (which is a good thing).

DVD region restrictions are a barrier to Free Trade, right? But the UN has adopted a resolution that forces member nations to enact laws to remove barriers that might be set up by countries or might be adopted by companies themselves. I've assumed that the net effect was an increase in international economic freedoms.

Perhaps your repeal should expand upon what you've presented, namely that the market has responded by creating cheap and affordable players that can read any DVD. It has that use the market to fight the market element, which I think many other capitalizt socities like mine might appreciate.

Also please as a favor - don't post topic titles that refer to resolutions by number. Do it by name. The number is irrelevant, except in a link.

Frisbeeteria - We see your point, apologise, and will from hereon follow your advice. We assume that it's impossible to alter the thread title.

Mikitivity - Regarding your sentence

DVD region restrictions are a barrier to Free Trade, right? But the UN has adopted a resolution that forces member nations to enact laws to remove barriers that might be set up by countries or might be adopted by companies themselves. I've assumed that the net effect was an increase in international economic freedoms.

The increase in freedoms is only real in the disk market, not in the device market. It is in effect an increase in freedoms, but an insignificant one. And it is a regulation itself.

We thank you for your suggestion as to the strategy that should be taken, and intend to follow it.

Given that there have been no DVD region barriers in the NS world, why would anyone have bothered to develop a multi-region DVD player? You're assuming that progress has been the same as in reality, even though we've passed a resolution which removes the motive for that progress.

There is a lose, and somewhat weak, arguement to be made that removing the region codes on DVDs is a move in support of free speach.

Region 1 conatins ten countries - all of them are dictatorships. GeminiLand is one of the dictatorships.

Region 2 contains five countries - all of whom are democracies. TilEnca is one of the democracies.

GeminiLand invades one of TilEnca's neighbours and occupies it, based on an arguement they are trading heroin in violation of international law. However a reporter from TilEnca finds this story, and maes it in to a film. It is released under the Region 2 licence. However to be released under the Region 1 licence it has to be edited to remove all the substantive facts, and makes the reporter look like a raving maniac.

If the DVD codes are removed, then everyone in Region 1 can get the unedited versions and the truth can prevail.

If you put restrictions back on to the DVDs - put the codes back on - then you run the risk of limiting freedom of speach, which is not a good thing :}

(I said it was a pretty lose and weak arguement!)

However a reporter from TilEnca finds this story, and maes it in to a film. It is released under the Region 2 licence. However to be released under the Region 1 licence it has to be edited to remove all the substantive facts, and makes the reporter look like a raving maniac.

It could still be produced regionless. Most pornographic movies are released with no region, for instance. Also, sitting on my bookshelf are region-free Korean editions of the three Indiana Jones movies. I even saved the price tags (10,000 won).

In reality, this proposal just made it so people can import DVDs. While I missed this vote, I rather liked it. Personally, I never liked DVD regions, as they're nothing more than a way to restrict sales, kinda like VHS vs PAL.

It could still be produced regionless. Most pornographic movies are released with no region, for instance. Also, sitting on my bookshelf are region-free Korean editions of the three Indiana Jones movies. I even saved the price tags (10,000 won).

In reality, this proposal just made it so people can import DVDs. While I missed this vote, I rather liked it. Personally, I never liked DVD regions, as they're nothing more than a way to restrict sales, kinda like VHS vs PAL.

VHS and Pal are two different things, and generally not in conflict. It would be VHS vs BETA or PAL vs NTSC.

And I admit I do not know a lot about regionless DVDs. Would it be possible for the region 1 nations to make DVD players that do not play regionless DVDs?

PAL vs NTSC.

Bah. That's what I was thinking of.

And I admit I do not know a lot about regionless DVDs. Would it be possible for the region 1 nations to make DVD players that do not play regionless DVDs?

I don't believe so. I'm not sure how it works, but I don't think you can block regionaless discs. My guess is that regions work by the player searching for a certain "region code" on the disc. If that's the case, a regionless disc would probably have all the codes on it, thus making it more of an "all region" disc, as opposed to regionless.

Either that, or it's the opposite method: the player looks to see that it's code is missing, in which case regionless discs really would be.

I don't believe so. I'm not sure how it works, but I don't think you can block regionaless discs. My guess is that regions work by the player searching for a certain "region code" on the disc. If that's the case, a regionless disc would probably have all the codes on it, thus making it more of an "all region" disc, as opposed to regionless.

Either that, or it's the opposite method: the player looks to see that it's code is missing, in which case regionless discs really would be.

Well - pending further study or more information from other nations, I might have lost my only reason to oppose the resolution removing region codes on DVDs. I know it sounds like a small and insignficant thing, but the right for people to see the original versions of films that have not been sanitized, censored or otherwise screwed with by the government is a pretty important thing in my nation, and I believed that the lack of region codes was one of the things preventing this. If that is not the case - if the truth can still be seen without government inteference, then I would pretty much abandon all objection to the repeal of the resolution.

But only iif I get more evidence of course :}

guess[/i] is that regions work by the player searching for a certain "region code" on the disc. If that's the case, a regionless disc would probably have all the codes on it, thus making it more of an "all region" disc, as opposed to regionless.

Either that, or it's the opposite method: the player looks to see that it's code is missing, in which case regionless discs really would be.
Not nescessarily, the player probably could be programmed to block playback of any disc that has either no region code or multiple region codes.

Originally posted by Myopia:
Given that there have been no DVD region barriers in the NS world, why would anyone have bothered to develop a multi-region DVD player? You're assuming that progress has been the same as in reality, even though we've passed a resolution which removes the motive for that progress.
You have a point. However, that progress would have been made in the NS world, as it has in the real world. Barriers between technologies, especially artificial (agreed upon) ones, are becoming more and more like Maginot Lines: expensive and ineffective. That means that it doesn't really affect the (savvy) consumer, only the stock holder of big businesses and possibly the tax payer.

We say: let the market overcome these barriers, instead of using regulation to do away with them.

Necessity is the mother of invention - why would the market in NS have wasted time and thus money developing a system to overcome a barrier which isn't there, because we removed it before such a system had been developed?

Originally posted by Myopia:
Necessity is the mother of invention - why would the market in NS have wasted time and thus money developing a system to overcome a barrier which isn't there, because we removed it before such a system had been developed?
The point you are replying to is more general, covering the hypothetical scenario that such barriers would have been raised, as well as other barriers between technologies that do exist.

(There is, coincidentally, a DVD standard battle looming IRL, unrelated to these regions, between Toshiba and Sony over new & improved DVDs)

It could be said that regionless DVD players would still have been created as nonUN nations might still be using regions on their DVDs. Thus, if UN nations wanted to watch a DVD from, say, my nation, might need a regionless/all region player.

I think the beauty of this resolution is that it allows all nations in the NS world to freely distribute DVD media without the "normal" region sects we're used to in the real world. This resolution prevents those regions from being even more diverse within the world here as we know it.

It could be said that regionless DVD players would still have been created as nonUN nations might still be using regions on their DVDs. Thus, if UN nations wanted to watch a DVD from, say, my nation, might need a regionless/all region player.

Hmmm. Didn't think of that. But aren't regions etc. decided by a central global association of DVD producers? So if the UN ordered them to get rid of regions, that association might well have done it for all regions, not just the UN ones.

New Quintana - oh ok.

We fail to see the point of this repeal. We will not be supporting this.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

Originally posted by The Black New World:
We fail to see the point of this repeal. We will not be supporting this.
The point of the repeal would be that the Resolution is unnecessary. We have been looking for ways to clean up the record of Resolutions that we have to abide by. But perhaps a Resolution needs to be more than just an unnecessary piece of regulation in order to be repealed. We perceive some indifference to our proposal. Still, we will try and draft a good proposal for the repeal, and see where it goes from there.

Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to first devote efforts to repealing resolutions which are actually negative, rather than those which are neutral?

Frisbeeteria - We see your point, apologise, and will from hereon follow your advice. We assume that it's impossible to alter the thread title.It is, but to keep things clean, I've gone ahead and changed it.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to first devote efforts to repealing resolutions which are actually negative, rather than those which are neutral?

The problem is that many nations feel passionately about some of the other topics ... this repeal kinda sounds like more of a technical matter, given that not only are more DVD players capable of reading beyond region encoding (IIRC), but yesterday my office forwarded me a report of new disposable DVDs.

If anybody is interested I'll copy what I can steal from the local SacBee. But basically the disposable DVDs work by adding a chemical coating that when exposed to air begins to "paint" the outside of the disk. It made me think of the old Mission Impossible.

Peaonusahl's Ministry of Waste Management has its hands full mantaining its near-capacity landfills, recycling plants, and waste to energy incinerators. We encourage re-usable products and are opposed to items that may create more waste (i.e. disposable DVD's).

We do, however, support universal encoding. It makes practical sense.

Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to first devote efforts to repealing resolutions which are actually negative, rather than those which are neutral?

Agreed. How's about someone seeing about nuking that Law of the Sea Resolution, which should have been deleted in the first place?

Agreed. How's about someone seeing about nuking that Law of the Sea Resolution, which should have been deleted in the first place?

Deleted based on categorization or on content?

I happened to like the content of the resolution. That does remind me I need to start working on archiving the Free Trade resolutions.


To change the subject a bit, I remember months ago when repeals were first announced that a few nations were very afraid that they would change the dynamic of this body. Do you feel that has happened?

Deleted based on categorization or on content?I'd have to re-read it, but I believe it contained a content violation, and wasn't exactly doing anything to help "free trade".

To change the subject a bit, I remember months ago when repeals were first announced that a few nations were very afraid that they would change the dynamic of this body. Do you feel that has happened?Well, I never said such a thing, and I don't think there's been any noticable change, especially since only one resolution has been repealed. Further discussion of this should probably be in a new topic, however.

I'd have to re-read it, but I believe it contained a content violation, and wasn't exactly doing anything to help "free trade".

Well, I never said such a thing, and I don't think there's been any noticable change, especially since only one resolution has been repealed. Further discussion of this should probably be in a new topic, however.

RE: Content violations.

I would argue that in the cases of resolutions that passed *before* certain rules were adopted, that a more appropriate mechanism than encouraging repeals would be a strikethrough on the lines that are in violation.

Examples: Tracking Near Earth Objects references a real world report and a real world conference. Strike those two preambulatory clauses, and the resolution is fine again. I'm not talking delete, but a strike through on just those two lines. You could leave the resolution up for repeal.

In this particular case, I've not yet made the updates on the UNA Archive for International Security Resolutions:

http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/IntlSec.pdf

But I have already included working text to this effect on the NSWiki entry for the Tracking Near Earth Objects resolution.

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Tracking_Near_Earth_Objects

I think the entry on the NSWiki shows how the moderators can easily clean things up, keeping in mind that plenty of Furtherment of Democracy resolutions have been deleted because of game mechanics violations.


As for the changes to the UN, my apologies, I was not trying to imply that you had said anything ... but a few nations have. I just thought it applied here since we are talking about the "priority" of repeals and since this thread is a repeal. I think it won't hurt anything for the nations interested in this repeal to continue.

Tusday Hights Is Right, We Have So Many Reagions In Nationstates That It Wuld Be Silly To Make 1000000 Plus Different Types Of Dvd So Each Reagion Can Have Their Own Media Control. Even If They Are A Oppressave Dictarorship And Want To Ban All Types Of Media From The Public Eyes. If A Dictator Wants To Ban Certin Dvd's From A Certin Reagion That That Is Theri Busyness.