NationStates Jolt Archive

Free flow of information is the only true safeguard against tyranny. I propose we pass an act illegalising copyright laws in their current form. Under this act...

1. Information may not be sold for profit under any circumstances.

2. Information mediums may be sold (a compact disc with music on it) however once in the hands of a consumer, they may copy the data and pass it on to others for free.

3. Copied information must be unedited and its artist acknowledged. Claiming ownership of work that you haven't done is therefore still illegal.

4. If sampling or referencing to previous data. The previous data and its creator must still be acknowledged.


"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master"


This is a proposal I wish to put forward. I would like to start an open forum and discuss it before I officially put forward the proposal. Put basically its the abolishment of copywright for the purpose of profit and instead keeping it only to credit authors and creators of information sources.

Free flow of information is the only true safeguard against tyranny. I propose we pass an act illegalising copyright laws in their current form. Under this act...

Freedom of information also tends to lead to nations being destroyed.

1. Information may not be sold for profit under any circumstances.

Um, technically everything is information. But I understand what you mean. And it destroys part of an economy in the process.

2. Information mediums may be sold (a compact disc with music on it) however once in the hands of a consumer, they may copy the data and pass it on to others for free.

Which, in turns, violates copyrights and leads to hundreds of problems. If I sell my art, I would like to get paid for all copies of it.

3. Copied information must be unedited and its artist acknowledged. Claiming ownership of work that you haven't done is therefore still illegal.

I'll go to the middle on this one.

4. If sampling or referencing to previous data. The previous data and its creator must still be acknowledged.

Not always necessary. Depends on the reference.

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master"


This is a proposal I wish to put forward. I would like to start an open forum and discuss it before I officially put forward the proposal. Put basically its the abolishment of copywright for the purpose of profit and instead keeping it only to credit authors and creators of information sources.

It also ruins the livelihood of many people who live off the proceeds of their creations. I wouldn't vote for it.

Another proposal that would ruin my nation's economy. We are a nation of artisans, and this would send our economy into a bottomless abyss.

Under no circumstances could we approve this proposal.

I cannot agree with this proposal because it would financially destroy artists that are respected professionals in my nation.

I wouldn't destroy economies merely make them adapt. One could quite reasonably argue that with free flow of information all companies would be on equal footing thereby bringing about greater competition and efficiency. I beleive this would encourage entrepeneurialism rather than hinder it.

Though I cannot say that I give a damn about artists, I must say that people have the rights to their own ideas, and being afirm capitalist I must also disagree with this resolution. Just another chance for the weak to gain at the expense of the strong.

Not to jump up and down on this proposal, but has anyone else noticed this :-


UCPL


A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
bProposed by: Anward

Description: UCPL- Universal Copyright/Patent Law

In it's current state, copyright law varies from country to country. It makes free trade more difficult, as the laws differ from nation to nation.

As a representative of the Dominion of Anward, I realize my nation needs foreign trade to boost our economy. If we made a copyright/patent law that would apply to all countries there would be no 'gray area' and this would hopefully stimulate interest for countries to be more willing to trade between the nations of the United Nations.

My proposal asks the following to be implemented:

1. Copyright/Patent Law be the same between all UN members.

2. Copyright/Patent organizations be modified to accommodate the number of requests for copyright. This should be done by establishing a new International Copyright Organization, with chapters in every capital. This agency would receive other chapters' copyrights, and send copyrights established in that country to all other chapters. With the Internet Age, this is a simple process.

3. With many different languages, a sub-agency should be established to correctly translate the copyright/patents, into each chapters native language.

4. An additional sub-agency be created to be informed of, and monitor all copyright/patent infringements. Reducing the need for the government to take the time to investigate the actions. A recommended course of action will then be reported, and a court of the nation of the offender make the ruling.

Votes For: 11198

Votes Against: 8149

Implemented: Mon Jan 26 2004


Since this proposal aims to make copyright law illegal, it can not be passed until this resolution is repealed.

I just thought I would mention that.

Well that's a bloody stupid resolution also. Creating agencies and buildings and hiring linguists? In the name of free trade? Seems like somewhat oxymoronic if I do say so myself. But oh well it was passed.

how about a proposal that limits copyrights to no longer than the life of the person who claimed the copyright?

I would advise limiting it to three times their lifespan, at least.

three times their lifespan? that's what? life plus 150 years about?

once a person dies, they receive no benefit to having a copyright on their works. therefore, post-death copyright does not encourage innovation, and having those things as part of the public domain after their authors die would encourage new innovation.

Actually, their families can benefit from the copyrights.

Oh, it depends on the species as to lifespan. For humans, you're looking at about 210-240 years total (assuming they publish it at the exact moment of birth). Basically, one they die, you multiple their lifespan in years by two, and make it protected that long. Of course, with some species this could be thousands of years and with others less than a decade.

It doesn't matter the benefit should extend to someone else. For instance I believe that the copyright on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Lost World" should have extened to stop Michael Chrichton from naimg his the same thing. I agree with a three times their lifespan or something of that nature. If it was just their lifespan, people would stampede the initial owner's grave to get another copyright. This isn't the most respectful way to do business.

you're looking at a system where nothing would enter the public domain basically ever.

i'd be fine with the estate of the author being able to extend a copyright up to 25 years after death, via a renewal process every 5 years up to that long - and only if they actually renew it. after that, there's no reason for it not to enter the public domain

It doesn't matter the benefit should extend to someone else. For instance I believe that the copyright on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Lost World" should have extened to stop Michael Chrichton from naimg his the same thing. I agree with a three times their lifespan or something of that nature. If it was just their lifespan, people would stampede the initial owner's grave to get another copyright. This isn't the most respectful way to do business.

there has never been any copyright on the titles of books. if i want to name my book something, do you really think i should have to check every book written in the last 200 years to see if there has ever been another book called that?

Are you aware of English law written at least 100 years ago?

Although Nargopia is a socialist nation, we still honor and hold sacred the ideas of individual thought. Therefore, we will in no way approve a proposal that limits personal and national growth and creativity.

how about one that enhances it nargopia...

copyright law is a balancing test...

if it's too short, it provides no incentive for people to innovate

if it's too long, it doesn't provide them with the tools to innovate with

i don't think many people understand here that it can be too long.

Are you aware of English law written at least 100 years ago?

not in particular, but i am quite familiar with US law on the matter, as a law student, specializing in intellectual property.

you're looking at a system where nothing would enter the public domain basically ever.

i'd be fine with the estate of the author being able to extend a copyright up to 25 years after death, via a renewal process every 5 years up to that long - and only if they actually renew it. after that, there's no reason for it not to enter the public domain

Actually, plenty of items would be entering public domain. It just prevents ripoff artists from stealing the idea after a short amount of time, changing the title and maybe a couple of names, and selling it as their own work.

how about one that enhances it nargopia...

copyright law is a balancing test...

if it's too short, it provides no incentive for people to innovate

if it's too long, it doesn't provide them with the tools to innovate with

i don't think many people understand here that it can be too long.

When I wrote that earlier post, it was in response to the proposal that copyright law should be banned. Of course we understand that copyrights are a delicate and controversial issue and are essential to progress.

Perhaps the length of the copyright should be a fixed number and not based on the lifespan of the individual. This would take care of the differing species issue. I figure that 100 years is a nice round number and seems to be a compromise between what has been suggested so far.

Actually, plenty of items would be entering public domain. It just prevents ripoff artists from stealing the idea after a short amount of time, changing the title and maybe a couple of names, and selling it as their own work.

under your proposal, things would now be entering the public domain that were written around the time of the US Civil War - everything since then would be protected still.

that's overprotection by a longshot if what you're worried about is people coming by and stealing a work and selling it as their own

When I wrote that earlier post, it was in response to the proposal that copyright law should be banned. Of course we understand that copyrights are a delicate and controversial issue and are essential to progress.

Perhaps the length of the copyright should be a fixed number and not based on the lifespan of the individual. This would take care of the differing species issue. I figure that 100 years is a nice round number and seems to be a compromise between what has been suggested so far.

drop it down to 50 and i could support that.

studies have shown that less than one quarter of one percent of the economic value of a work accrues after the work has been out for 50 years. I don't think there's a need to protect that one quarter of one percent.

how about one that enhances it nargopia...

copyright law is a balancing test...

if it's too short, it provides no incentive for people to innovate

if it's too long, it doesn't provide them with the tools to innovate with

i don't think many people understand here that it can be too long.

The Nations here understand it quite well; and, being a balance so critical to my nation's economy, I should rather have my Royal Economics Ministry to find this delicate balance (given our own specific national circumstances), rather than some distant, removed, disinterested and (oft-times) ill-advised UN oragn.

that's overprotection by a longshot if what you're worried about is people coming by and stealing a work and selling it as their own

I agree. Especially since technology is growing faster than ever; copyrights should really be shorter now than they were several decades ago (I assume we are talking about patents as well, not just copyrights of recorded information).

Nargopia would support a copyright length of 50 years.

The Nations here understand it quite well; and, being a balance so critical to my nation's economy, I should rather have my Royal Economics Ministry to find this delicate balance (given our own specific national circumstances), rather than some distant, removed, disinterested and ill-advised UN agency.

So how does that apply to international trade? Are all nations now obliged to respect your copyright law? Or do you plan on keeping the ideas in your own country?

So how does that apply to international trade? Are all nations now obliged to respect your copyright law? Or do you plan on keeping the ideas in your own country?

I plan on negotiationg with other nations through the traditional treaty making functions as it may suit my nation's needs. And I suggest to you that it is in your nation's best interests to do the same.

I plan on negotiationg with other nations through the traditional treaty making functions as it may suit my nation's needs. And I suggest to you that it is in your nation's best interests to do the same.

The NationStates universe is huge. Unless you plan on severely limiting your trade partners, your plan to negotiate a copyright treaty (a long and arduent process) would be impossible. In addition, artists and innovators would certainly not be happy about having to research every possible trading partner's treaty to decide whether they wish to contribute their work. No, Nargopia feels that standardization is the key to a well-populated trading network. Thanks for the suggestion though.

The NationStates universe is huge. Unless you plan on severely limiting your trade partners, your plan to negotiate a copyright treaty (a long and arduent process) would be impossible. In addition, artists and innovators would certainly not be happy about having to research every possible trading partner's treaty to decide whether they wish to contribute their work. No, Nargopia feels that standardization is the key to a well-populated trading network. Thanks for the suggestion though.

Nargopia must realize that, even if this proposal passes, the range of trading partners drawn in by this proposal is only the total set of UN nations -- so what about non-UN members?

Have we explored the issue concerning the effect of tying UN members' hands while allowing other non-UN nations to manage their own networks?

For my nation shall surely resign from the UN before it shall see its economy wrecked. There have been several proposals, of which this is only one, which threaten our economic stability. This is an alarming trend.

No on this proposal.

I would also like the esteemed represenative from Nargopia to note that the Cascadian government is currently satisfied with the status of its trade agreements, aned does not need UN interference. To the extent that nations have problems trading, they should work to create their own trade agreements based on their own specific circumstances.

Cascadia, I understand your concerns about possible economic downfall. However, Nargopia, as a socialist society, is very interested in the well-being and development of the UN as a whole. By risking a small amount of national profit, we are opening the doors to a much stronger global economy, and thus a much stronger Nargopian economy. I still maintain, however, that standardization will in no way cause economic devastation for any nation.

I would also like the esteemed represenative from Nargopia to note that the Cascadian government is currently satisfied with the status of its trade agreements, aned does not need UN interference.

So noted. However, I am interested in what copyright laws you have established in your varied treaties with these trading partners. Perhaps by seeing what Cascadia has used to its advantage, we can create a more balanced copyright standard. Please provide some examples of these agreements.

I still maintain, however, that standardization will in no way cause economic devastation for any nation.

Thank you for your understanding. Our point is simply that, given all the circumstances (the state our economy, other laws & proposals, and etc), this proposal could very well spell economic collapse for us, and other nations similarly situated.

Like the people of Nargopia, Cascadian people believe in sacrificing for the common good, but we are not willing to become destitute in pursuit of other people's opulent lifestyles. We would very much dislike being forced to leave this honorable institution, but we would be forced to do it if it would force suicidal economic policies upon us.

So noted. However, I am interested in what copyright laws you have established in your varied treaties with these trading partners. Perhaps by seeing what Cascadia has used to its advantage, we can create a more balanced copyright standard. Please provide some examples of these agreements.

Some of these are classified -- and, in any event, I am leery of airing the royal laundry in public in the absence of the King's explicit permission. Suffice it to say that different nation's economies require different numbers of trading partners and different types of agreements with those partners, and Cascadia currently has a satisfactory trade arrangements, generally speaking.

Personally, on behalf of his Emminence the Esteemed Pope Gargathrond of the Most Holy Empire f the Gelgameks, I do not care much for the global-economy, and if aiding the global economy by giving out secrets and compromising my sovereign copyright laws is the price for raising the global market, then I shall vote against any such resolution that calls upon his Grace to pay such a price.

I am just talking to myself here?

There is a resolution in the UN that says


UCPL

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
bProposed by: Anward

Description: UCPL- Universal Copyright/Patent Law

In it's current state, copyright law varies from country to country. It makes free trade more difficult, as the laws differ from nation to nation.

As a representative of the Dominion of Anward, I realize my nation needs foreign trade to boost our economy. If we made a copyright/patent law that would apply to all countries there would be no 'gray area' and this would hopefully stimulate interest for countries to be more willing to trade between the nations of the United Nations.

My proposal asks the following to be implemented:

1. Copyright/Patent Law be the same between all UN members.

2. Copyright/Patent organizations be modified to accommodate the number of requests for copyright. This should be done by establishing a new International Copyright Organization, with chapters in every capital. This agency would receive other chapters' copyrights, and send copyrights established in that country to all other chapters. With the Internet Age, this is a simple process.

3. With many different languages, a sub-agency should be established to correctly translate the copyright/patents, into each chapters native language.

4. An additional sub-agency be created to be informed of, and monitor all copyright/patent infringements. Reducing the need for the government to take the time to investigate the actions. A recommended course of action will then be reported, and a court of the nation of the offender make the ruling.

Votes For: 11198

Votes Against: 8149

Implemented: Mon Jan 26 2004


Does anyone have an explanation as to how the current proposal doesn't violate the above resolution?

I, leader of Qazmopolitan am the creator of the act. I haven't submitted the act only put it up for discussion.

I beleive strongly that a free flow of information act would bring about a great boom economically across the planet as it would improve information effeciency hugely.

I, leader of Qazmopolitan am the creator of the act. I haven't submitted the act only put it up for discussion.

I beleive strongly that a free flow of information act would bring about a great boom economically across the planet as it would improve information effeciency hugely.

That's nice, but that wasn't what I asked :}

To remove previous resolutions, you have to repeal them. Until the UCPL resolution is repealed, I would suggest that your proposal is illegal.

Sounds like someone's been playing a little too much Alpha Centauri. Think before you leap.