NationStates Jolt Archive

RECOGNISING that copyright and patent law are fundamentally different methods of protecting intellectual property;

NOTING WITH REGRET that this resolution makes no distinction between the two;

REALIZING that there are profound differences in the way nations view the value and ownership of intellectual property;

BELIEVING that copyright law and patent law are such inherently complex concepts that no single resolution can formally and effectively create a universal system of UN law in this regard;

DEEPLY CONCERNED at the cost of constructing and maintaining over 30,000 separate chapter offices in member capitals, and further sub-agencies.

My head hurts!

Quickest redraft ever? Ta to Ausserland. Still looking to add/subtract somewhat though, particularly the more verbose clauses.

*Bump*

It looks very good so far. It has my support.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I would like to see a replacement first; I think that world wide patent laws especially are very important

Like the UN member from Cobdenia said, if there is no replacement of a worldwide patent law it will not have my support.

If a new replacement is arraigned I will support the repeal of UCPL.

I'd vote for it...

I would argue that having absolutely no patent laws would be preferable to having UCPL.

VY

Well, the way Cobdenia see's it, our scientists have spent ages inventing the steam powered mangle, and we don't want some foriegn multinational stealing it...

Foreign multinationals are not going to steal Cobdenia's steam-powered mangles when they can have Tekania's FTL drives.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Why would they want FTL drives to press their trousers?

Why would they want FTL drives to press their trousers?

They wouldn't. But in most cases FTL drives are a tad more useful than having one's trousers pressed properly.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I would argue that having absolutely no patent laws would be preferable to having UCPL.

VY
I agree, just repeal it.

They wouldn't. But in most cases FTL drives are a tad more useful than having one's trousers pressed properly.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Cobdenia has a slight problem with space time which basically means that all modern technology brought into Cobdenia will turn into an equivalent in our time period (so a computer will turn into a typewriter, a dishwasher turns into an woman with a sponge, etc). It also works the other way. So, if you try an sell FTL drives into Cobdenia, they will turn into steam powered mangles. And vice versa.

It all rather complicated...

Cobdenia has a slight problem with space time which basically means that all modern technology brought into Cobdenia will turn into an equivalent in our time period (so a computer will turn into a typewriter, a dishwasher turns into an woman with a sponge, etc). It also works the other way. So, if you try an sell FTL drives into Cobdenia, they will turn into steam powered mangles. And vice versa.

It all rather complicated...


Good grief!

Why would they want FTL drives to press their trousers?
Oh, but they get the creases so sharp.

Good grief!

Funnily enough, that's what tourist say when there Boeing 747 turns into Handley Pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_42) and the kids t shirts, baggy trousers and trainers are replaced with flannel shorts, long socks, uncomfortable shoes, a blazer, tie and cap as soon as there 'plane enters Cobdenian Airspace

Right, thanks for the comments. Personally, I'd rather get this polished up before thinking up a replacement: after all, we'll still need to repeal "Public Domain" before we can make anything sensible. I'm all for a replacement, but it would have to preserve the right of nations to decide copyright law: I just don't think one standard law can please those who copyright their kids' DNA, the beastly industrialists, and the 'we don't believe in private property' communists. Here's where we are now: further comments/changes/questions?

RECOGNISING that copyright and patent law are fundamentally different methods of protecting intellectual property;

NOTING WITH REGRET that this resolution makes no distinction between the two;

REALISING that there are profound differences in the way nations view the value and ownership of intellectual property;

BELIEVING that copyright law and patent law are such inherently complex concepts that no single resolution can formally and effectively create a universal system of UN law in this regard;

DEEPLY CONSCIOUS that the mechanism for sharing copyright described in UCPL would be impossible;

ALARMED at the cost of constructing and maintaining over 30,000 separate chapter offices in member capitals and further sub-agencies.

RECOGNISING that copyright and patent law are fundamentally different methods of protecting intellectual property;

NOTING WITH REGRET that this resolution makes no distinction between the two;

REALISING that there are profound differences in the way nations view the value and ownership of intellectual property;

BELIEVING that copyright law and patent law are such inherently complex concepts that no single resolution can formally and effectively create a universal system of UN law in this regard;

DEEPLY CONSCIOUS that the mechanism for sharing copyright described in UCPL would be impossible;

ALARMED at the cost of constructing and maintaining over 30,000 separate chapter offices in member capitals and further sub-agencies.

Though Compadria is somewhat sceptical of the idea behind 'there can be no uniform standard' and are somewhat worried about a precedent this might set regarding future regulation, we codone this and will support it.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Though Compadria is somewhat sceptical of the idea behind 'there can be no uniform standard' and are somewhat worried about a precedent this might set regarding future regulation, we codone this and will support it.

My point is that some nations simply do not wish to recognise copyright. They live communaly, and share credit for all creations. It is pointless to try to enforce on them ideas about copyright. Similarly, there are some nations where pharmaceutical companies depend heavily on the ability to market unique drugs that cannot be copied by competitors because of patent laws. To cripple these nations economy for the sake of a system they do not understand is equally silly.

That said, of course, there must be some degree of international regulation: but UCPL attempted to standardise all copyright and patent law between all nations. Just can't be done.

The way I would phrase a replacement would be along the lines of "If something is patended in one country, it becomes patented in all other countries" and not give a stuff about copywrite

The way I would phrase a replacement would be along the lines of "If something is patended in one country, it becomes patented in all other countries" and not give a stuff about copywrite

I think there's also something to be said for an international centre (not 30,000) for sharing information. Additionally, I'd like to see a standard 'fair use' policy. But as I say, we need to can "Public Domain" too.

two things i would point out:
1) if you are going to repeal this on your argument of definition, have a replacement in progress too. i prefer my artists, authors and inventers had something to safeguard them from thieft of intellectual property
2) do not use the argument of cost. there are quite a few other resolutions that incur a cost in setting up and running agencies, ie IRCO, so unless you want to repeal those too to get a bit of money back, i would suggest dropping that line of argument

1) if you are going to repeal this on your argument of definition, have a replacement in progress too. i prefer my artists, authors and inventers had something to safeguard them from thieft of intellectual property

You already do: it's called copyright law. Abolishing UCPL doesn't remove your national copyright law; it removes your obligation to conform to a UN standard on that. And, once again, until we repeal "Public Domain", introducing a new, comprehensive resolution on copyright is hard. I don't want to shuffle in a temporary replacement, repeal PD, repeal the replacement, and finally get around to a finished version. That's a waste of the UN's time. Be patient.

2) do not use the argument of cost. there are quite a few other resolutions that incur a cost in setting up and running agencies, ie IRCO, so unless you want to repeal those too to get a bit of money back, i would suggest dropping that line of argument

IRCO incurs no cost: it is run on donations and grants. No funding mechanism is outlined for UCPL; thus it is assumed the UN must bear the brunt. And, fine, if you want, I'll repeal every resolution that has a cost: right now, I'm doing this one. Ok?

I would make it clear that there will be a replacement in the text

whilst it may be still covered by national laws, it is only covered in that nation. the way it stands at the moment, it is easier to register a CW/Patent with one organisation and be covered in the UN rather than going around and CW/Patenting material in each individual country. the cost inccured by the individual would mean the item wouldnt see the light of day

whilst it may be still covered by national laws, it is only covered in that nation. the way it stands at the moment, it is easier to register a CW/Patent with one organisation and be covered in the UN rather than going around and CW/Patenting material in each individual country. the cost inccured by the individual would mean the item wouldnt see the light of day

Firstly: copywriting is to do with advertising. We're talking about copyrighting.

You still use a copyright registration system? Most countries, RL or NS, use a born copyright system. But also: UCPL is a fundamentally shit piece of legislation. It needs to be repealed. We can't amend or replace: we have to repeal first. If your objection is that your artists would suddenly get raped, then all you have to do is support the replacement.

I would make it clear that there will be a replacement in the text
I disagree. Such a statement would have no impact on the chances of the repeal's success and may leave us in a position where we make a promise we are unable to keep.

VY

I disagree. Such a statement would have no impact on the chances of the repeal's success and may leave us in a position where we make a promise we are unable to keep.

VY

Agreed. People are welcome to express their concerns, but I consider a repeal argument strong enough in its own right.

This link is to an article which may resolve some of the issues in this debate:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/07/opinion/edsmiers.php

One of the authors, Joost Smiers, has also written a book called "Arts Under Pressure: Promoting Cultural Diversity in the Age of Globalisation". Submitters on this topic may find both these sources to be of interest.