NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=ucpl

Description: UN Resolution #45: UCPL (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: 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;

REPEALS "UCPL".

Original discussion thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=452958

As always, questions and concerned are welcome: I will do my best to answer them.

Good luck.

VY

Send me a telegram when yopu submit this.

Send me a telegram when yopu submit this.

Putting 'SUBMITTED' in block caps in the title and linking to the proposal doesn't give you a clue that I might possibly already have done so?

40 approvals. Thanks to all those who have supported thus far.

Over 80 now, but only a day to go. Doubt it will make it. If there are any delegates who I haven't TGed, and who happen to see this, please do approve it.

I'm really sorry you didn't make it... I'm not sure on the legality, so let me know if this is against the rules, but is there any chance you could submit another repeal attempt? Maybe the new one could feature different arguements against the resolution or something. If you can re-attempt a repeal, I'd be more than happy to help you send out telegrams to rally people to the cause! :D

I'm really sorry you didn't make it... I'm not sure on the legality, so let me know if this is against the rules, but is there any chance you could submit another repeal attempt? Maybe the new one could feature different arguements against the resolution or something. If you can re-attempt a repeal, I'd be more than happy to help you send out telegrams to rally people to the cause! :D

I will resubmit at some stage. Are there any new ideas you'd want me to include?

don't feel bad Gruenberg. 40 approvals is good for a first round submittal.

my repeal won't make it either this round but i can be patient.

i feel that you would need to tackle this with two proposals if a repeal is sucessful. you've said yourself that this is a complex issue and i'll help you as much as i can with it.

patent and copyright laws are important and i feel that an author or an inventors rights should be protected outside their own country.

I'm not sure exactly how one would go about mentioning this (or if it even could be mentioned in a repeal), but it seems to me that creating one universal set of rules in regard to copyrights and patents is something of overkill. A better idea would be to simply have a law in place requiring UN member nations to recognize the copyright/patent law(s) of another UN member nation when dealing with a copyrighted/patented item from said nation. Kind of like how, in the USA, each state has to recognize marriage laws (just one example) from another state when a person or couple moves from the state in which they were married to a state in which the marriage laws may be different. I'm not sure what you call that... I'd have to look it up, and I don't have a copy of the USA Constitution and its Amendments on me...

No, that's a good idea. But it's something for a repeal: for me, it's too substantive for a repeal, and I don't think it'd be allowed. It will go in the replacement, though.

Maybe you could mention something about the near impossibility of getting 31,000 nations to agree on a single, all-encompassing law. Or, you could be more specific about the areas in which UCPL is vague. For example, you could list things like the fact that although it calls for a single definition of a copyright or patent, it provides no indication of what that definition should be. Earlier today, I was student-teaching in a communication skills class, and the topic I covered was the need for specific wording when referencing a prior event or conversation. Kind of a funny coincidence (pardon my spelling, I'm not sure it's correct) considering that may be exactly where the repeal fell short, isn't it? :cool: