NationStates Jolt Archive

The ridiculous (50 years post death in RL) length of copyright validity stifles creativity and makes education, etc. very expensive in poor countries, which keeps them poor. It makes large-scale literacy campaigns extremely difficult in those countries, once again keeping them poor.

How would people feel about a (Social Justice) resolution limiting extent of IP/copyright ownership

I would suggest not - copyright law is extremely complex by its very nature, and as such is not easily amenable to UN resolution.

Well, the author does have the capacity to do this, actually... Though I am unsure of his intentions.

Copywrite Law was passed into NSUN juridiction via NSUN Resolution #45 (The UCPL)... And further PD (Public Domain) via NSUN Resolution #60.

He would simply need to write a resolution which imposes guidelines upon the Commission as set forth in the UCPL limiting IP ownership terms.

However, under the Public Domain, anything produced by a public entity (government) is already automatically Public Domain property.

I don't think the resolution could adequately solve the problems it is trying to address though. Since the accusation is against individual IP, it removes it from the realm of most educational material (which are cleared through firms, as opposed to independent authors), thus addressing "death of owner" doesn ot solve the proble, since "firms" do not in themselves die. It would only adress private IP (which has no bearing on materials used for educational purposes, which is what this resolution would intend).

The further problem with this arises in areas of living authors. You would need to impose limits on ownership within the original authors lifetime for it to be effective. This would have the effect of authors producing their IP to drive the cost of the initial work up, to satisfy their need in support of its production. Some people want to view "IP" as something different from tangible property. In reality, it is not... Both require "work" from a person, and compensation needs to be made for that work. Since IP can be duplicated, this is unlike tangible property, which must be re-embursed in lump sum at sale. So producers of IP spread the cost of its development over time... That is, each purchase of the IP itself, does not match the actual production cost for the original work; but rather, the lump accumulation of cost is re-embursed over the subsequent sales of multiple copies of the work over time.

If limit is imposed upon the time frame, then there is reduced re-embursement possible under from its original production, requiring the author to either increase the per-copy cost of his IP, in order to re-emburse his development time; or the author must switch profession, decreasing the overall produced IP available; creating a smaller supply, with the same demand, also driving the cost up.

Since IP is a product of, and used in, all forms of industry, this has catestrophic global economic impact on all industries... Including education, driving costs up everywhere, in order to keep pace with advancement in those industries.

Careful ground must be covered in this issue. And I do not think it is applicable to be solved at an "international level" as this would attempt to do.

This is far more better territory to be covered by an independent firm, composed of nations to assist smaller nations, then applying direct impact upon an industry in the name of "social justice".

Ah, the UCPL. Now there is a candidate for repeal.