NationStates Jolt Archive

I've submitted a new proposal to the U.N. and I'm hoping to garner enough support for it to allow it to become a resolution. Please take a look at it and let me know what you think. Also, if you happen to be a delegate and you like it, please vote your approval. Thanks.


Free Sharing of Music Online

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Euphorita

Description: This resolution would establish the right of individuals to upload and download music over the internet, free from persecution or prosecution by any person or corporation. This resolution does not include movies or other works in video format.

A no-download list will be established. Artists/Bands not wishing for their music to be traded freely over the internet may add their name to this list, thus making it illegal to download that specific bands music. There can be no mass group band list. Each artist/band must submit an application detailing the reasons why they wish their music to be excluded from upload and download.

Interferance and coersion by a respesctive artist/bands recording, management, distribution, and/or advertising company is strictly prohibited. In the event that a artist/bands decision to be present on the exclusion list is found to be unduly influenced by said companies, those comapany(s) will be fined the equivelant of $50,000 for every day the artist/band remains on the list. The decision to be on the list MUST be made by the artist/band alone, for their own reasons.

Approvals: 6 (Pojonia, WZ Forums, Kryozerkia, EL CID THE HERO, Gaiah, Life Flame)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 140 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Feb 6 2005

Well, I think I agree with it.

Just one thing though. You say you are going to fine companies $50,000 dollars for everyday a band is on the exclusion list for company reasons, and not band reasons. Surely, this sounds a little bit on the harsh side. That would cost a company $350,000 grand a week! Fines of this scale could push smaller companies out of business.

I like to download MP3's myself. I'm not sure about the real-life situation with regard to MP3 music on the internet. I know MP3's are legal, but that there have been disputes within the music industry over them.

Violates copyright laws in UN nations, which are upheld by a UN resolution. Illegal.

No.

Afraid i cannot lend my support...

No.

Since when has this been decided as an international issue? Since when does the UN have to but their nose into national affairs? Since when do we need more than 25% of our current passed resolutions?

Je suis désolé, but I do not think I can agree to this proposal.

Since when has this been decided as an international issue? Since when does the UN have to but their nose into national affairs? Since when do we need more than 25% of our current passed resolutions?

1. Since this person felt it might be interesting.

2. Since it was established to do just that.

3. Since the UN said so.

1. Rhetorical

2. Semi-rhetorical, with a bit of inquiry as to when the useless proposals started to come into being

3. Mostly rhetorical with a bit of serious tint.

1. Rhetorical

You'll also note I called this one illegal and am opposed to it.

2. Semi-rhetorical, with a bit of inquiry as to when the useless proposals started to come into being

Back in early 2003. Some of the passed resolutions you don't see, such as Hippos Are Large, were deleted by the mods. Check NSWiki's UN timeline to read them.

3. Mostly rhetorical with a bit of serious tint.

The fact I have to repeat it so often makes it a case of it becomming rhetorical.

I would support this if it was worded so that the bands instead of having to say that they want their music excluded, they had to say that they wanted to to be traded online.

On the other hand it's illegal so it wouldn't get past the mods anyway.

Nope. Can't agree.

Although I enjoy downloading music online, I still think that artists deserve to earn money if they make a CD I enjoy.

(unfortunatly, it seems that albums have only one or two songs people like and the rest are garbage ~ which causes people to just download the music instead of wasting twenty bucks)

You FORCE bands to be available on a download list. There is no way for a band to make that much money if music is downloaded - why would anyone bother listening to someone who would make them pay?

Music would take a spiral downwards, and we'd be left with traveling family bands. The Brady Bunch would rule the world, with their psycho spread love music ~ and I for one, cannot let that happen.

Music is already downloaded online for free anyway. Studies have shown that this does not impact CD sales in the way the record companies would lead you to believe. It would probably have even less of an impact if the quality of the newer music improved and albums did not cost $18-$20. I personally don't like to buy CD's because I don't want my money to go to promote the newer no-talent fluff that is being crammed down everyone's throats. Furthermore, the lawsuits the record companies have decided to fight this with are in effect, punishing their own customers. Plus, it is not reducing the number of people downloading, it is simply making them more careful. The record company refuses to evolve. You're also not factoring in sales of artist/band merchandise or concert ticket sales to the profits a record company makes off of a artist/band.

No dice, sorry.. next please.

Music is already downloaded online for free anyway. Studies have shown that this does not impact CD sales in the way the record companies would lead you to believe. It would probably have even less of an impact if the quality of the newer music improved and albums did not cost $18-$20. I personally don't like to buy CD's because I don't want my money to go to promote the newer no-talent fluff that is being crammed down everyone's throats. Furthermore, the lawsuits the record companies have decided to fight this with are in effect, punishing their own customers. Plus, it is not reducing the number of people downloading, it is simply making them more careful. The record company refuses to evolve. You're also not factoring in sales of artist/band merchandise or concert ticket sales to the profits a record company makes off of a artist/band.

That is all besides the point. The point is there is a resolution, already in force, that protects and upholds copyright law across the UN. So your proposal, while maybe having some merit in real life, is illegal within the UN because it violates this resolution.