NationStates Jolt Archive


[Passed]Repeal "UCPL" [Official Topic]

Gruenberg
27-11-2005, 02:38
Repeal "UCPL"

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;

REAFFIRMING the importance of global cooperation in copyright issues;

EXPRESSING ITS HOPE that nations will continue to work together in this respect;

BELIEVING that a more effective replacement for "UCPL" can be achieved:

REPEALS "UCPL".

For reference:
Drafting debate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=452958)
Submission (unsuccessful) debate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453988)
Resubmission (successful) debate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=455195)
UCPL Resolution (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=44)
A debate on UCPL (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=307160)


I'm starting this now, as it's extremely unlikely I'll be brightness and joy come the update when the repeal moves to vote. Please do comment: I'll do my best to answer all concerns.
Venerable libertarians
27-11-2005, 02:41
For reference:
Drafting debate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=452958)
Submission (unsuccessful) debate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453988)
Resubmission (successful) debate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=455195)
UCPL Resolution (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=44)
A debate on UCPL (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=307160)


I'm starting this now, as it's extremely unlikely I'll be brightness and joy come the update when the repeal moves to vote. Please do comment: I'll do my best to answer all concerns.
Im all for it. You Rock! (Well just a little) :D
Ausserland
27-11-2005, 02:55
Ausserland supports this repeal 100%. The "UCPL" is a well-intentioned but completely unrealistic piece of legislation.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Krioval
27-11-2005, 03:35
This repeal finds favor with the government of Krioval, the people of Krioval, and the Light of Heaven himself. We congratulate the nation of Gruenberg for its steadfast devotion pragmatism with regard to the policies of the United Nations.

高原由
フリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval
Omigodtheykilledkenny
27-11-2005, 03:37
The Federal Republic stands in favor of this repeal. We like goats.

Jack Riley
UN Ambassador
Yelda
27-11-2005, 03:52
Fuck yeah!
Fonzoland
27-11-2005, 04:10
Fonzoland will support this repeal, and lobby for it regionally. I also like goats, especially with red wine and mushrooms.

Sincerely,
The Wise Ruler of The Most Serene Republic of Fonzoland
Northern Sushi
27-11-2005, 04:50
The People's Democratic Republic of Northern Sushi stands against this repeal. The repeal is a bad idea, at a bad time.
Krioval
27-11-2005, 07:01
The People's Democratic Republic of Northern Sushi stands against this repeal. The repeal is a bad idea, at a bad time.

Would the delegate from the People's Democratic Republic of Northern Sushi care to explain their nation's position on this matter a bit more fully?

~ 高原 (Takahara)
Flibbleites
27-11-2005, 07:30
The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites gladly casts their vote in favor of repealing this bureaucratic nightmare.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Kirisubo
27-11-2005, 12:00
the Empire of Kirisubo votes for the repeal and pledges our aid to make sure its successfull.
Heaven Knigths
27-11-2005, 13:37
Well, firstly i wouldn't state that the resolution UCPL is very good written one but i would rather state that we should firstly try to implement new resolution and have it at leaset pending for voting then to repeal certain resolution without having something to change it.

We should firslty consider what solution is better either to abolish the UCPL resolution or firstly to have someone written the oficial proposal for the new resolution to come in place of the UCPL and then to repeal it. If someone makes oficial proposal which is better then this one I would be happy to see UCPL repealled.

High Knight
Bailion:headbang:
3am_darkening
27-11-2005, 13:59
Good stuff, with copyrighting comes bullshit, ie: Digital Rights Management,

DRM : takes your rights away.

Especially if your hard/software wont play DRM media :mad:

The free land of 3am_darkening much approves of this notion.
Gruenberg
27-11-2005, 14:03
Well, firstly i wouldn't state that the resolution UCPL is very good written one but i would rather state that we should firstly try to implement new resolution and have it at leaset pending for voting then to repeal certain resolution without having something to change it.

We should firslty consider what solution is better either to abolish the UCPL resolution or firstly to have someone written the oficial proposal for the new resolution to come in place of the UCPL and then to repeal it. If someone makes oficial proposal which is better then this one I would be happy to see UCPL repealled.

High Knight
Bailion:headbang:

The problem with that is that we can't pass anything effective until UCPL is repealed, and also that Resolution #60, 'Public Domain', presents certain problems. However, we are drafting a replacement, for possible submission: if you have any ideas for that, I'd be interested in hearing them.
The Eternal Kawaii
27-11-2005, 15:09
For the benefit of lazy delegations like Ours, here's the UCPL text:

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.

While We are generally in favor of repealing any NSUN resolution that calls for yet another international organization to monitor nations' activities, can someone point out the specific areas where this resolution fails?
Compadria
27-11-2005, 15:14
I am delighted by the introduction of this repeal and will happily vote for it should it come to the floor. I hope that, once repealed, we can see the return of the 'DRM' or 'World Media Act', with an expanded mandate to cover the vagueries that were (technically speaking) covered by the UPCL.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.
Gruenberg
27-11-2005, 15:37
While We are generally in favor of repealing any NSUN resolution that calls for yet another international organization to monitor nations' activities, can someone point out the specific areas where this resolution fails?

Here are my thoughts on the subject:

1. The resolution is not in fact aimed at helping those who need copyrights to protect their work. It's not aimed at increasing international cooperation with regard to intellectual property. Its aim is to facilitate trade. Fine, on one level: but that means that it never really engages with protecting artists: it just deals with making it easier to sell things.

2. There is no distinction between copyright and patent law. Some have said this doesn't matter. But it does. Copyright recognises authorship of an original idea, and is automatic. Patent is a registration process for an original, novel, non-obvious invention.

3. The resolution provides no definition for how the law will change. How, then, are we to interpret this? Do I have the right to say that all countries must abide by Gruenberger copyright laws? Probably not. But, then, what are we abiding by? The resolution is unclear, at best; at worst, it is lazy.

4. The mechanism for copyright registration described is incongruous with the principle of born copyright that many nations employed. Once someone has written something, they obtain the copyright by virtue of that act. Registration of copyright is a legal formality because, in many cases, it can be hard to prove authenticity of authorship.

5. The establishment of chapter agencies will be very expensive. Furthermore, no allowance is made for the existence of copyright agencies beforehand: we are to build 30,000 new offices. That is unnecessary bureaucracy, for something they may not be able to do effectively in any case.

6. Some nations simply do not believe in copyright. Despite the comments of some UN members that this resolution is good because it annoys 'commies', I disagree. Gruenberg is a capitalist, free-market economy. But if some countries do not wish to register copyrights at all, or wish to employ ideas such as creative commons, then we don't believe it is the business of the UN to be telling them not to do this, anymore than it is the business of the UN to interfere with our copyright laws.

7. Many ideas are omitted, including the implications for copyrighting DNA, including the use of generic drugs, including open-source software projects, and other ideas.
Optischer
27-11-2005, 16:04
As long as you keep on the straight and narrow of this resolution, I find this fine. Our people have started celebrating this repeal and we hope you're succesful.
Optischer
Gruenberg
27-11-2005, 16:06
As long as you keep on the straight and narrow of this resolution, I find this fine. Our people have started celebrating this repeal and we hope you're succesful.

What do you mean by 'on the straight and narrow of this resolution'?
Christolf
27-11-2005, 16:07
The Allied States of Christolf is for this repeal, and will stand by it until it is sturdy that is shall stand by itself.

However, I do express that even though our great country is for the repeal, my leader wishes to express that with so many different countries and areas, such a law might be thought of as foolish because of the states that wish not to see the law fit and therfore will not apply the law to their system.

Thank You.
Venerable libertarians
27-11-2005, 16:12
The Delegacy of the Realm of Hibernia has voted for the repeal and we wish the Author the very best of luck reaching quorum.

VL.
The Eternal Kawaii
27-11-2005, 16:45
HOCEK teachings are generally silent on the subject of business and commerce, since the issue of wealth is considered irrelevant in the eyes of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp). As a result, Our nation has what the NSUN has generally called a "hands-off" approach to trade.

We understand the concept of property rights as the responsibility of stewardship handed down by the Cute One to both laity and clergy. However, Our representatives here must confess their ignorance to some of the more sophisticated aspects of "copyright", "patent", and "intellectual property" being tossed about here. Perhaps a more simple, concrete explanation can be given?
Ausserland
27-11-2005, 17:02
HOCEK teachings are generally silent on the subject of business and commerce, since the issue of wealth is considered irrelevant in the eyes of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp). As a result, Our nation has what the NSUN has generally called a "hands-off" approach to trade.

We understand the concept of property rights as the responsibility of stewardship handed down by the Cute One to both laity and clergy. However, Our representatives here must confess their ignorance to some of the more sophisticated aspects of "copyright", "patent", and "intellectual property" being tossed about here. Perhaps a more simple, concrete explanation can be given?

We're going to try to give a simpler, more concrete explanation of one of the problems with the resolution.

The resolution requires that "Copyright/Patent Law be the same between all UN members." That's fine. But what does that "same" law look like? Does it look like Ausserland's law? Gruenberg's? The Eternal Kawaii's? Let's say that my copyright law gives protection for the life of the author plus 70 years. Gruenberg's gives protection forever. Your copyright just lasts for 10 years. Now we make the laws all "the same". How long does copyright last?

Just saying "everybody's going to have the same law" is meaningless.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
Gruenberg
27-11-2005, 17:03
HOCEK teachings are generally silent on the subject of business and commerce, since the issue of wealth is considered irrelevant in the eyes of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp). As a result, Our nation has what the NSUN has generally called a "hands-off" approach to trade.

We understand the concept of property rights as the responsibility of stewardship handed down by the Cute One to both laity and clergy. However, Our representatives here must confess their ignorance to some of the more sophisticated aspects of "copyright", "patent", and "intellectual property" being tossed about here. Perhaps a more simple, concrete explanation can be given?

Ok. Here's the way I would distiguish between copyright and patent. But, firstly, they are both enormously complex, legally, something this resolution does not account for.

Copyright is a protection on the actual manifestation. One cannot copyright an idea, or a style, or a method. One copyrights the product. So copyright covers "Watership Down"; it does not cover 'books about rabbits'.

Patent is a protection on the idea of an invention itself. Furthermore, patent is usually subject to some public disclosure: you have to show people how your clock works before you can claim a patent on it. Also, patent is usually considered subject to three criteria: originality, novelty, and inventiveness. You can write a cliched book, and still have copyright on it. If you make an invention that's just a clock with a different name, you cannot claim patent. An idea needs to be new, and demonstrably an invention, rather than simply welded crap, to obtain patent status.

Does that explain it? A way of thinking about it might be that copyrights allow someone to reproduce their work. Patents do not do this: they only prohibit others from using that work.
Gravemalkin
27-11-2005, 17:08
[QUOTE=
However, Our representatives here must confess their ignorance to some of the more sophisticated aspects of "copyright", "patent", and "intellectual property" being tossed about here. Perhaps a more simple, concrete explanation can be given?[/QUOTE]

Another delegate explained somewhat of the difference between copyright and patent. However I'll give it another shot, because I'm just crazy like that.

Copyright - this covers things like novels, poems, songs, anything that is different but is like other things. So, if you wrote a novel about a boy going down a river with his slave, then that would be copyrighted, because it's a 'new' story, but it's a book none the less.

Patent- this is for something new, some new device, such as computers, or the telephone would seek out patents. They may provide similar services to currently existing ones, i.e. the telephone versus the telegraph, but they are revolutionary in the methods they provide said service. Or, they are just entirely new concepts.

Intellectual property- this is the idea that blankets the two above ideas. That ideas can be owned. Some nations are against IP, others are very much for it and all along the spectrum. Basically it's the idea that something you come up with is owned by you, and not say the state, or by anyone who comes along and picks it up.


That's how I understand the terms anyway.


The Federation of Gravemalkin has voted for this repeal. We feel the original resolution may have been in fact too restrictive towards membernations that do not have the concepts of copyright, patents, and IP. Though we would welcome a resolution that made a provision for said nations and still offered protection to nations that do value these ideals.

Perhaps something along the lines of

Recognizes that not all nations have copyright agencies.

Mandating counties with copyright policies to accept the materials from said nations as 'open source'

Mandating that nations without copyright policy respect the policies connected to materials from other nations. While not enforcing this upon the nations own products.


or something along those lines, so that nations with copyright laws accept the products of nations without copyright laws, and vice versa but with no harm done to the pro-copyright nation. Note this would not be the full proposal, merely a part of the proposal since it's still got to define copyright, patent, etc.
Knootoss
27-11-2005, 17:44
A vote for this repeal is voting for communism. The Dutch Democratic Republic stands for the defence of Intellectual Property Rights and copyrights.

We know for a fact that there are nations out there waiting to steal our intellectual property and freely redistribute it. Repealing this resolution could cost you - all of you - trillions of dollars, or whatever currency it is you have.

A vote for this repeal is a vote for communism and against your own interests.
~Aram Koopman
Northern Sushi
27-11-2005, 17:51
Would the delegate from the People's Democratic Republic of Northern Sushi care to explain their nation's position on this matter a bit more fully?

~ 高原 (Takahara)
The reason is we agree with the current resolution!
Glutopia
27-11-2005, 17:58
The ambassador of Glutopia urges all to vote for this repeal.

Intellectual copyright is a complex affair that requires further understanding and debate. It has been known in the past, for instance, for corporate businesses to claim 'intellectual copyright' on tiny variations of seeds that developing nations have used for millennia, forcing these nations to buy back their own seeds from corporate crooks. Many claims to intellectual authorship are false, often the results of theft or industrial intrigue, and the notion itself aids corporate monopolies.

Such abuses are numerous, and until further refinement of the concept of intellectual copyright, no international law should be passed.

Barter Knot
Ambassador of Glutopia
Gruenberg
27-11-2005, 17:59
The reason is we agree with the current resolution!

However, it would be at least interesting for your fellow representatives to hear your reasons for the support of UCPL.
Northern Sushi
27-11-2005, 18:07
The reason is we agree with the current resolution!
We agree because although it may be costly, it is a system that makes sure copyrights are obeyed.
Gruenberg
27-11-2005, 18:09
We agree because although it may be costly, it is a system that makes sure copyrights are obeyed.

But it doesn't. If someone writes a book, they own the copyright for that without having to register it with any authority. So just what information are the ICO offices actually distributing?
Fonzoland
27-11-2005, 18:13
We agree because although it may be costly, it is a system that makes sure copyrights are obeyed.

You should notice that the authors of the proposal are willing to submit a more effective replacement to the UCPL. If your main objection is that "a system should exist," I respectfully sugest you repeal the current unrealistic resolution, and participate in the subsequent debate.

Sincerely,
The Wise Ruler of The Most Serene Republic of Fonzoland
The Lynx Alliance
27-11-2005, 23:27
FOR
good luck guys, hope this beurocratic mess gets repealed successufully
St Toph
28-11-2005, 04:09
The Rogue Nation of St Toph, new to the U.N. agrees with the repealment of the UCPL.UCPL has good intent but kinda sucks
Waterana
28-11-2005, 05:19
I've voted for this repeal, but won't support any replacement. Lets just kill the original resolution and leave it dead.
Greater Boblandia
28-11-2005, 07:31
Greater Boblandia recognizes that that UCPL is inexplicably vague and unredeemably flawed. We are in favor of this repeal.
Barvinia
28-11-2005, 09:45
I voted in favor of the repeal. This to me, is an issue of minor importance in comparison to many others. But I'm in favor nonetheless! Over and out!
The Lynx Alliance
28-11-2005, 09:48
at time of post:

Votes For: 2,620

Votes Against: 1,076
Ecopoeia
28-11-2005, 13:04
I've voted for this repeal, but won't support any replacement. Lets just kill the original resolution and leave it dead.
I concur and, furthermore, encourage delegates to pay little heed to Mr. Koopman's alarmist hyperbole.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN
Knootoss
28-11-2005, 15:03
Ecopoeia defending this resolution only underlines that a vote for this repeal is voting for communism.

Think about it people - no longer will the UN defend intellectual property or patent. We all know that there are states out there with no regard whatsoever for these things. All that you have in precious secrets, or cool music tunes, all that will be stolen and openly redistributed across the world by these irresponsible nations! And dont pretend that there arent plenty who do not recognise property. The economic damage to your nations would be devastating.

~Aram Koopman
Groot Gouda
28-11-2005, 15:28
Think about it people - no longer will the UN defend intellectual property or patent.

It isn't now either, and if repealing the UCPL means better legislation can be proposed I see no reason not to repeal it. So my government is voting FOR the repeal.
Gruenberg
28-11-2005, 15:31
In response to the comments from the Knootian Ambassador regarding the motives of the repeal author, Moltan Bausch (still recovered in hospital), Deputy Ambassador Nuck Chorris had this to say:

"Moltan Bausch is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star."

When asked to comment on the fact that his 'joke' had in fact been a cheap rip from the popular TV series, The Simpsons, and the irony of his committing mild copyright fraud in the midst of a debate to abolish an international copyright agreement, Mr Chorris roundhouse-kicked the reporter in the face.
Tzorsland
28-11-2005, 15:39
:headbang: This repeal makes no sense. Has anyone even bothered to read the resolution? The purpose of the resolution is to uniformity of Copyright and Patent Law among all UN members and makes provisions to take multi-language problems into consideration.

That is all it does. It doesn't make Copyright law Patent law or vce versa. It only says that they both should be uniform across member nations.

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.

Now if anyone can give a good reason why member nations need non uniform copyright and pattent laws I will consider voting for this repeal. Otherwise my vote is NAY.
Gruenberg
28-11-2005, 15:44
Now if anyone can give a good reason why member nations need non uniform copyright and pattent laws I will consider voting for this repeal. Otherwise my vote is NAY.

As has been argued by both supporters and opponents of the repeal, some nations do not choose to recognise individual ownership of (intellectual) property. It is their right to do so. I agree that they must also respect nations who do recognise this - hence the need for the replacement - but I see no need for the UN to enforce such a system on unwilling nations. The shallow fallacy of their socialist logic will crumble in time, with no need for extra help from the UN. I don't see that member nations not requiring identical copyright laws is an argument for, or against: it's just common sense.
Knootoss
28-11-2005, 16:00
I am not implying that the author of this resolution is communist. I am implying that communists are the only ones who will hugely benefit from this resolution. They have already announced their intention to block future copyright legislation, and repealing this now creates a ready gap for abuse without any certainty of restoring decency.

It is NOT the right of communist nations to steal and redistribute Knootian inventions. It is theft. Pure and simple. This repeal mandates anticapitalist industrial espionage and revoking this legislation will not leave them with ANY incentive to respect our intellectual property. In fact, there are nations in the anticapitalist alliance who were actively running computer systems designed to pirate every piece of information on the web and redistribute it “freely”, thus cheating us of what is ours. This resolution is the only thing preventing them from restarting that theft-machine.

This is no mere point of principle. Trillions of euros are potentially at stake.

-Aram Koopman
Omigodtheykilledkenny
28-11-2005, 16:07
Now if anyone can give a good reason why member nations need non uniform copyright and pattent laws I will consider voting for this repeal. Otherwise my vote is NAY.Oh, I don't know. Maybe because it assumes all nations have telepathic powers and will automatically all pass laws in perfect concert with each other with regard to the first provision in the legislation? It only says "Copyright/Patent Law shall be the same in all nations." It sets no universal standards for either, so, you know, nations will know specifically what laws to pass to come into international compliance, rather than having to guess which laws should stay the same and which should be changed.

Not to mention the author's excellent point that patent law and copyright law are not the same thing; they are remarkably different creatures, and both are way too complex to declare, simply, "All laws should be the same."

I'm glad you were able to read the resolution, but concerned that you were not similarly able to read the repeal text, because everything I've just said is right there, in the text, for your perusal. It contains no headbanging smilies, but I'm certain such an anomaly creates a language barrier even you can get around.
Ecopoeia
28-11-2005, 16:54
Now if anyone can give a good reason why member nations need non uniform copyright and pattent laws I will consider voting for this repeal. Otherwise my vote is NAY.
In Ecopoeia we regard our creations and inventions as treasures for the benefit of everyone, not just the inventor. There is an element of kudos attached to being recognised as having had the inspiration, certainly, but little more.

That said, we do acknowledge other nations' copyright laws. Mr. Koopman's fulminations should not be heeded: Knootian copyright would be fully acknowledged in Ecopoeia were our nations to have any trade relations. Diversity in copyright law is no calamity. National governments ought to have the maturity to settle matters of complexity on bilateral terms, after all.

If we are to have a universal law imposed on UN member states, then we should at least make sure it makes sense, is workable in practice and doesn't impinge too greatly on a nation's ability to effect legislation that is tailored to its own culture.

And finally, Mr. Koopman, Ecopoeia is not a communist nation, as you well know. Flattering though it is to be cited as a standard bearer for a political movement, I would be grateful if you would maintain a sense of balance and perspective in your dealings with us. It's been some time since Ecopoeia was delegate for the Anticapitalist Alliance, after all.

VY
Csillanland
28-11-2005, 18:52
The Armed Republic of Csillanland votes AGAINST this repeal.

Our particular reasons, is because we find security in the current system, it is also streamlined over the anarchist approach that the time between repeal and a new proposal would have. I will completely support a new proposal if/when this repeal is passed, but until that time, I think we need to maintain the system...
Flibbleites
28-11-2005, 19:49
Mr. Koopman, I find your insinuations that those of us who support repealing this, and especially those of us who do not want to see it replaced, are communists to be repugnant. I am not, never have been, and never will be a communist.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Squabbling Chickens
28-11-2005, 21:08
We, the <cluck> Squabbling Chickens <cluck> vote in <cluck> favor <cluck> of the <cluck> resolution <cluck>.
The Lynx Alliance
28-11-2005, 23:06
currently it is:

very slow.....
ahhh, now loaded

Votes For: 3,970

Votes Against: 1,461

with 3 days to go
Waterana
28-11-2005, 23:15
In Ecopoeia we regard our creations and inventions as treasures for the benefit of everyone, not just the inventor. There is an element of kudos attached to being recognised as having had the inspiration, certainly, but little more.

That said, we do acknowledge other nations' copyright laws. Mr. Koopman's fulminations should not be heeded: Knootian copyright would be fully acknowledged in Ecopoeia were our nations to have any trade relations. Diversity in copyright law is no calamity. National governments ought to have the maturity to settle matters of complexity on bilateral terms, after all.

If we are to have a universal law imposed on UN member states, then we should at least make sure it makes sense, is workable in practice and doesn't impinge too greatly on a nation's ability to effect legislation that is tailored to its own culture.


Thats pretty much our stance on this subject as well. Thanks for wording it better than I ever could Eco :).
Balsack
29-11-2005, 00:49
The Most Serene Republic of Balsack wishes to offer it's support for this repeal, IF the promise of a replacement proposal is something that can be counted on.
Intellectual property rights are something that are becoming more valuable each day. We must have an international standard for the protection of the owners of this type of property.
We will stand by this repeal and continue to prod for the replacement proposal.
Cobdenia
29-11-2005, 01:32
You can rest assured that the Gruenberg delegate and I are planning to work together on a replacement.
Gravemalkin
29-11-2005, 03:35
We would like to point out that even with the repeal of this resolution member nations, and nonmember nations, are free to set up copyright and patent laws of their own.

In fact the resolution stands in your way of making your own laws, because they currently need to be universally accepted.
Darryls Backyard
29-11-2005, 03:51
The Free Land of Darryls Backyard votes in favour of this resolution.

If UCLP is allowed to continue then what other laws will be deemed colective. It is a nations choice how they want to run their country. If the system of "universal law" is allowed to flourish it will inevitaly be corruped. A strong nation could be able to use UCPL and other resolutions like it to promote it's own ideas and become a rule-all superpower.

Sincrerially
Darryl J. Featherstone, Ellected Representitive of Darryls Backyard
Mikitivity
29-11-2005, 04:26
The Confederated City States of Mikitivity has voted in favour of this repeal. Unfortunate we can not regularly attend all NS UN debates, but we've always found that the ambassador from Gruenberg has submitted logical ideas and will cast our vote accordingly.

Howie T. Katzman
Maniacalia
29-11-2005, 05:44
Maniacalian High Department for International Affairs - Official Information Release

The Maniacalian High Department for International Affairs has reached the following position regarding the proposed repeal of UN Resolution #45:

A) While we cannot support the following assumption with significant statistical data, our intelligence indicates that not all member nations of the United Nations have or are even concerned with intellectual property controls such as copyright and patent laws. From this assumption it follows that a resolution as to whether such laws should be "made the same between all UN members" is meaningless, as there would be some nations without any laws for Resolution #45 to affect and "make the same," whatever "make the same" may mean, the vagueness of which phrase is another strike against Resolution #45 in our opinion.

B) Quoting UN Resolution #45: "In it's (sic) current state, copyright law varies from country to country." The MHDIA's considered opinion is that this is how it should be, as the intellectual properties of any particular country's citizens are rooted in part in years, decades, and in some cases millennia, of cultural evolution, and that any attempt at international legislation regarding a particular nation's attitudes regarding its citizens' intellectual properties would be a form of violation of such properties of similar significance to the types of violations (of copyright and of patent) that UN Resolution #45 seeks to address.

The Kingdom of Maniacalia supports the repeal of UN Resolution #45.

King Vorgore I, Prolocutor
The Maniacalian High Department for International Affairs

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Maniacalia
The Lynx Alliance
29-11-2005, 08:30
current tally

Votes For: 4,709

Votes Against: 1,623

man, looks like res #45 is a gonna
Ariddia
29-11-2005, 10:23
After due consideration, and while we have some concern as to what a replacement might entail, the PDSRA have decided to vote in favour of this repeal.

The scare-mongering tactics of the honourable Ambassador Koopman are well known to this Assembly and will, I trust, carry little weight.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA
Fronkenmuth
29-11-2005, 23:55
The People's Democratic Republic of Northern Sushi stands against this repeal. The repeal is a bad idea, at a bad time.

The Royal Duchy of Fromknemuth, along with the entire support of its region (The Wooden Nickle), fully disagrees with this propostition to repeal, and voted to not repeal it.
Intellect and the Arts
30-11-2005, 00:17
Madame President gives her vote FOR this repeal and celebrates its quickly coming passage!
Gruenberg
30-11-2005, 00:21
Madame President gives her vote FOR this repeal and celebrates its quickly coming passage!

Many thanks, and I'd like to add my thanks for your comments during the first submission, which I feel lent life to the repeal attempt, and have helped it on its passage thus far. However, in Gruenberg, we have a saying: "don't ritually slaughter your chickens until the eggs are hatched".
Intellect and the Arts
30-11-2005, 00:26
Many thanks, and I'd like to add my thanks for your comments during the first submission, which I feel lent life to the repeal attempt, and have helped it on its passage thus far. However, in Gruenberg, we have a saying: "don't ritually slaughter your chickens until the eggs are hatched".
Yes, well, considering the current tally is 5,978 FOR and 1,829 AGAINST, methinks the baby chicks have at least cracked their shells a good bit. ;)
Kollathopia
30-11-2005, 01:28
I and my region are fully against the repeal. :sniper:
Knootoss
30-11-2005, 03:52
For the last and final time I have never said that the supporters of this resolution are communists. In fact, the repeal seems to be getting pretty much universal support, so please don't put words in my mouth.

However, I *do* know of certain Aperinian nations that run computer systems designed to hack the world and steal information to redistribute. This is not scaremongering: it is an unpleasant fact of life. There are plenty of nations that do not respect intellectual property and patents of other nations at all. Ecopoeia may recognise them, but there is no guarantee whatsoever that other nations will.

The Dutch Democratic Republic respects the arguments of the resolution authors, but we are frankly scared that repealing UCPL will mean a return to widespread data hacking by ideologues bent on destroying the market system of protecting creativity - and stealing Knootian ideas solely for their own benefit. We would be in favour of amending the resolution, but unfortunately this is not possible.

It is obviously pointless in arguing this, however, seeing as the left-wing nations of this world are already crowing for this repeal and a return to the TRIPS-free age. Frankly, the noble sentiment of Gruenberg is being abused. As we would say back home, if you give anticapitalists a finger and they will take the entire hand.

~Aram Koopman

The article below is from Trouw, a centrist Knootian newspaper. Posted in my newsthread, but reposted here for your convenience:

Gov't prepares for Anticapitalist Internet Block, other restrictions

THE HAGUE – the Staten-Generaal will be meeting in an emergency session this afternoon as Education & Science Minister Hoogland (KGP) submitted an emergency act to prevent or limit copyright and patent infringement as a result of the upcoming repeal of the UCPL resolution. The government has proposed a package of measures designed to limit the spread of Knootian intellectual property to nations likely to abuse it. The package bill introduces a host of measures including travel restrictions for scientists and a complete block of all internet access for servers located in nations refusing to recognise Knootian patents and intellectual property and posing a serious threat of 'active redistribution'.

"Radical changes require a radical response", Hoogland argued before the press, "nations that agree to respect Knootoss’ intellectual property rights will naturally be exempt from the communications block. This is primarily intended to prevent so-called anti-capitalist ‘hacker nations’ from stealing and redistributing our copyright because of their warped ideology. These nations are often in the United Nations, and the resolution that is now being repealed protected us from them." The minister suspects that the bill will only apply to nations that are already being shunned, seeing as the majority of U.N. nations is likely to recognise foreign intellectual property and patents in some way.

The bill being debated this afternoon also calls for a Bureau of International Intellectual Property (BIIE in Dutch) with powers to combat anti-capitalist infringements online and abroad. Whilst not specifying anything at the moment, it has been suggested that this bureau could be tasked with designing and spreading viruses that seek out and destroy unauthorised content online. Hoogland refused to admit that such a programme was even on the table. "We would never stoop to such tactics", she told the press, "We do not hack."

Across the board, parties have voiced a complete lack of understanding that other free market states support this repeal. "Thanks a lot, Gruenberg", an RCPK spokeswoman sarcastically told this paper. "I really cannot understand why a right-thinking nation would want want to strike such a big blow for the anticapitalist cause. It is just unbelievably stupid. The UCPL resolution was fairly broad, but at least it set clear guidelines to prevent abuse.” The liberal SLP was likewise concerned: "I have no idea why other nations are not worried – they should be", their international trade MP told Trouw, "at least we will not risk losing our competitive advantage to these people if the UN chooses to be naïve again." No party has expressly indicated that they support the bill, given possible implications with regards to sentient rights.
Ecopoeia
30-11-2005, 13:30
OOC shudder at mention of 'TRIPS'. Ugh. Nice article though, Knoot.
Love and esterel
30-11-2005, 13:46
The Dutch Democratic Republic respects the arguments of the resolution authors, but we are frankly scared that repealing UCPL will mean a return to widespread data hacking by ideologues bent on destroying the market system of protecting creativity - and stealing Knootian ideas solely for their own benefit. We would be in favour of amending the resolution, but unfortunately this is not possible.

It is obviously pointless in arguing this, however, seeing as the left-wing nations of this world are already crowing for this repeal and a return to the TRIPS-free age. Frankly, the noble sentiment of Gruenberg is being abused. As we would say back home, if you give anticapitalists a finger and they will take the entire hand.

LAE abstain about this repeal. We are not very found of the original resolution, but we fully agree with Aram Koopman:
- UCPL is better than nothing
- Inventors and creators cannot be left without protection
- We’d rather prefer amending it, but we know it's impossible
- We would have approved the repeal if a new draft was ready

About the new draft, here are some LAE positions on this matter:
- it’s important to have an international patent and copyrights system, to protect innovation and creativity
- patents should be supervised closely in the medicine area, and that drugs companies should be informed that drug’s patent could be modified (or deleted) in order to stop world health crisis, when that happens [drugs companies will then be able if they want to subscribe private insurance, if they wish)
- no patents on human or other life genome, we think it’s humanity (universal) heritage
- no patents on software, because we think it’s an area where everything is highly interconnected and everything move very fast
Gruenberg
30-11-2005, 14:03
Right, firstly, I still remember the Transgender Equality Act. Gruenberg returned to the UN after that failed. It did so at the last minute, on account of the vote of one delegate. There is a sizeable margin in favour of the repeal, and one Feeder delegate has supported it, but I am not for one second assuming it will pass yet, and I urge delegates to continue voting in favour.

However, many comments have been made on the promised replacement, and some delegates have suggested they will only support it when they see evidence of the replacement. So, I am going to mention it now. I feel it is important to separate patent and copyright law; this concerns patent law only.

Some points:
whether nations have patent laws or not is, I feel, up to them
they must absolutely respect other nations' patent laws
to do so, some basis for international facilitation is required

How that translates into draft format, I'm not fully sure, and am very keen to take advice on, such that all views are represented.
Ecopoeia
30-11-2005, 14:09
Right, firstly, I still remember the Transgender Equality Act. Gruenberg returned to the UN after that failed. It did so at the last minute, on account of the vote of one delegate. There is a sizeable margin in favour of the repeal, and one Feeder delegate has supported it, but I am not for one second assuming it will pass yet, and I urge delegates to continue voting in favour.

However, many comments have been made on the promised replacement, and some delegates have suggested they will only support it when they see evidence of the replacement. So, I am going to mention it now. I feel it is important to separate patent and copyright law; this concerns patent law only.

Some points:
whether nations have patent laws or not is, I feel, up to them
they must absolutely respect other nations' patent laws
to do so, some basis for international facilitation is required

How that translates into draft format, I'm not fully sure, and am very keen to take advice on, such that all views are represented.
That seems reasonable. Obviously nations should be able to negotiate waivers on a bilateral basis if necessary or desired.
Tzorsland
30-11-2005, 15:21
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because it assumes all nations have telepathic powers and will automatically all pass laws in perfect concert with each other with regard to the first provision in the legislation? It only says "Copyright/Patent Law shall be the same in all nations." It sets no universal standards for either, so, you know, nations will know specifically what laws to pass to come into international compliance, rather than having to guess which laws should stay the same and which should be changed.

Not to mention the author's excellent point that patent law and copyright law are not the same thing; they are remarkably different creatures, and both are way too complex to declare, simply, "All laws should be the same."

I'm glad you were able to read the resolution, but concerned that you were not similarly able to read the repeal text, because everything I've just said is right there, in the text, for your perusal. It contains no headbanging smilies, but I'm certain such an anomaly creates a language barrier even you can get around.

I did read the appeal. I disagree with it and in some cases I worry about it. I think it undermines the very deus ex machina method that is required to make any NSUN resolution. I think it makes assumptions about the resolution that simply are not true.

But I will go over the resolution point by point as well, if you like.

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;

Yea, so what? The UCPL is a uniformity law. It merely states that all laws (type A and type B) must be uniform across all member nations. Let's give a different example. Suppose one were to create a transportation uniformity standard, requiring car and truck stadnards to be the same across all member nations. But, you argue a car is not a truck. True. But a car standard in nation A should be the same as a car standard in nation B, and a different truck standard in nation A should be the same as a different truck standard in nation B. A resolution doesn't need to point out that car and truck standards must be different in order to require them to be uniform across member nations.

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

"Intellectual property" exists on many levels. Who owns what isn't much of my concern as long as someone has a right to own something, whether that is an individual or a nation state. The intellectual property of Tzorsland (whether it is the government or the individual) should not be exploted by other nation states. The ability for any advaned nation state to gain import revenue from its intellectual property is a signifcant issue to developed nation states and not something that an individual nation state shoud be able to avoid because they decide to think differently.

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;

I can't see how issues like copyright law and patent law are "complex." There are far more complicated matters that teh NSUN has to deal with other than who should qualify for a what and how long. It's lawyers who have made the law complex because that's how they justify their existance.

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;

OK, now I'm worried. The fundamental deus ex machina method of resolution enforcement, the mythical army of instantly generating breucrats who somehow use none of the resources of any member nation is being called into question. Since this is the only way by Nation States requirements such resolutions can be written, this logic can effectively cause over half of the resolutions to be rejected on the spot.

REAFFIRMING the importance of global cooperation in copyright issues;

EXPRESSING ITS HOPE that nations will continue to work together in this respect;

BELIEVING that a more effective replacement for "UCPL" can be achieved:

I don't think a more effective replacement for UCPL can be achieved. There is no way you can write any significant copyright or patent resolution in the current NSUN reslolution structure. The only thing you can do is make it uniform across nations. That is what the resolution does. You really can't get any better than that. You either want uniformity across the nations, or you don't.

There was an old classic way for nation states to enforce intellectual property rights. It's called war. Either way, deadbeat nations who refuse to pay for the intellectual property they steal should have to pay.

It looks like this repeal will indeed pass. Such is life. I am confident that the deligates have become so much yes men (and women and whatever) that they won't remember the arguments of this repeal and use them in future repeals. So I will continue to voice my lone objection because, well just because.
Fonzoland
30-11-2005, 15:33
Some points:
whether nations have patent laws or not is, I feel, up to them
they must absolutely respect other nations' patent laws
to do so, some basis for international facilitation is required

How that translates into draft format, I'm not fully sure, and am very keen to take advice on, such that all views are represented.

While I agree with your points and intentions, some things worry me. Suppose there are different patent laws in different UN countries. A pharmaceutical company would naturally relocate to the country with the strictest law, as others would be forced to abide by it.
My suggestion is to force countries to obey other patent laws, but to take any sort of economic activity on a foreign country as an indication of acceptance of its patent law. The patent would then be protected by the national laws of each country where the company operates, and the company could freely choose not to operate in unprotected countries.
Love and esterel
30-11-2005, 15:49
While I agree with your points and intentions, some things worry me. Suppose there are different patent laws in different UN countries. A pharmaceutical company would naturally relocate to the country with the strictest law, as others would be forced to abide by it.
My suggestion is to force countries to obey other patent laws, but to take any sort of economic activity on a foreign country as an indication of acceptance of its patent law. The patent would then be protected by the national laws of each country where the company operates, and the company could freely choose not to operate in unprotected countries.

Excatly
it's why if we have:

they must absolutely respect other nations' patent laws

that's means that we recognize some patent's as "international", and then we cannot have:

whether nations have patent laws or not is, I feel, up to them


it seems to me there are 2 options:
-"international" patents are mandatory; or
-it's up to the nation to adopt the new patent organisation
Fonzoland
30-11-2005, 15:56
Excatly
it's why if we have:



that's means that we recognize some patent's as "international", and then we cannot have:




it seems to me there are 2 options:
-"international" patents are mandatory; or
-it's up to the nation to adopt the new patent organisation

Intriguing. While you initially seem to agree with me, you then dismiss without argument my suggestion (a third option), which seems to be much closer to Gruenberg's original intention.
Love and esterel
30-11-2005, 16:11
Intriguing. While you initially seem to agree with me, you then dismiss without argument my suggestion (a third option), which seems to be much closer to Gruenberg's original intention.

ok sorry, i think i didn't get your point,

What i say is, as UCPL will be repealed tommorow:
tomorrow every nation will have its own laws (or no laws at all)

so if we want to do something about it, in my views, we have to create a new agency which will declare "international patents", based on the rules established in the new proposition, and this agency can be:
-mandated for every UN members to join; or
-urged

But maybe there are others options, and please forgive me, i may have i misanderstand you
Fonzoland
30-11-2005, 16:22
But maybe there are others options, and please forgive me, i may have i misanderstand you

That's ok, I just didn't understand whether you were disagreeing or if it was me not being clear. I will try to explain with an example how we can do without an international patent institute (other than forcing countries to respect other's patents).

Country A: 30y protection
Country B: 20y protection
Country C: no protection

Company (reasonably) locates in A. If they operate in A alone, nobody in any country can use it for 30 years.

If they operate in A and B, they are waiving their 30y protection in B, and accepting that after 20y people can copy their idea and use it, but only in country B (meaning producing in B and not exporting to any country where the patent is still being enforced). Since the company does not operate in C, the 30y limit still holds there.

Hope that clarifies the suggestion.
Gruenberg
30-11-2005, 16:22
L&E, relativist that I am, I acknowledge that patience is not a universal virtue. I would ask that you at least try, though.
Dorksonia
30-11-2005, 16:24
I GLADLY voted for this repeal.........many more to come, I'm sure.
Love and esterel
30-11-2005, 16:39
That's ok, I just didn't understand whether you were disagreeing or if it was me not being clear. I will try to explain with an example how we can do without an international patent institute (other than forcing countries to respect other's patents).

Country A: 30y protection
Country B: 20y protection
Country C: no protection

Company (reasonably) locates in A. If they operate in A alone, nobody in any country can use it for 30 years.

If they operate in A and B, they are waiving their 30y protection in B, and accepting that after 20y people can copy their idea and use it, but only in country B (meaning producing in B and not exporting to any country where the patent is still being enforced). Since the company does not operate in C, the 30y limit still holds there.

Hope that clarifies the suggestion.


Ok, thanks for helping me, sorry i may be not fast today
if you have more time for me:


1.sorry i didn't understand what hapen in nation C, is the patent protected for 30 years if the compagny doesn't come?

2.Do you mean that every patent reconized in 1 nation is recognized in all others countries?and then nation will grant them the "time" defined in national laws?
or
Do you mean the creation of an international agency, which will certify "international patents"? and then nation will grant them the "time" defined in national laws?

do not feel the obligation to answer me, i'm just trying to understand, but no pb:)
Fonzoland
30-11-2005, 17:30
1.sorry i didn't understand what hapen in nation C, is the patent protected for 30 years if the compagny doesn't come?

If the company does not go into country C, it has a 30y protection. If the company goes into country C, it is forced to accept the law of country C, thus allowing others within C to copy the idea.

2.Do you mean that every patent reconized in 1 nation is recognized in all others countries?and then nation will grant them the "time" defined in national laws?
or
Do you mean the creation of an international agency, which will certify "international patents"? and then nation will grant them the "time" defined in national laws?

I think that it is implied on Gruenberg's initial post that there is no need for international patents, since filing a patent within one nation automatically entitles you to protection, under that nation's laws, in all other UN members.

The issue of whether something should be awarded a patent or not, treatement of duplicate patents, etc. seems more complicated. I haven't thought about it.
Reaz
30-11-2005, 18:25
The People's Republic of Reaz stands for this repeal. These international copyrights sound more like a method to protect multinational businesses from the people rather than protecting the rights of the people.
Yelda
30-11-2005, 20:04
"nations that agree to respect Knootoss’ intellectual property rights will naturally be exempt from the communications block
Yelda will, of course, continue to honor Knootian intellectual property rights, it's copyrights and patents. And we sincerely hope that other members of this assembly will not take the repeal of UCPL as an invitation to engage in acts of piracy.
Fronkenmuth
30-11-2005, 20:49
I GLADLY voted for this repeal.........many more to come, I'm sure.

why, do u want a crappy economy?
Fonzoland
30-11-2005, 20:56
why, do u want a crappy economy?

We congratulate Fronkenmuth on the deep and sophisticated argument, and announce our desire to reconsider our position.
Ecopoeia
30-11-2005, 21:12
Yelda will, of course, continue to honor Knootian intellectual property rights, it's copyrights and patents. And we sincerely hope that other members of this assembly will not take the repeal of UCPL as an invitation to engage in acts of piracy.
Not that the resolution in question was watertight.
Mikitivity
30-11-2005, 23:30
Not that the resolution in question was watertight.

"Agreed. Furthermore, UN resolutions never have been able to impact non-UN members, which suggests that a UN resolution encouraging nations to recognize intellectual property rights of other nations translates to being a resolution that requests UN members recognize the intellectual property rights of other UN members. Nations that aren't in the UN have never had their intellectual property rights protected by any sort of unilateral legislation precisely because they've CHOOSEN to remain outside of the international community. Repeal of this resolution won't significantly impact UN members relations with non-UN members on this particular issue.

That said, it is my government's recommendation that even though this point is implied in all UN resolutions, that any replacement resolution adopt language to remind non-UM members that their copyrights and patents can never be protected by the UN. Perhaps this will encourage them to join our organization, though I seriously suspect that a few of these governments do not join the UN precisely so they can steal industrial processes without any unilateral recourse.

-Katzman
The Lynx Alliance
30-11-2005, 23:49
nations that agree to respect Knootoss’ intellectual property rights will naturally be exempt from the communications block
well, that could end up making you one very lonely nation. on a serious note, dont you think you are over-reacting more than a little bit? a communications block? first of all, what if a country comes around? it cant tell you directly then. also, to me, this is scare mongering tactics. i do not like these tactics in a debate, because it is usually used to unfairly imbalence the support to one side. of course the IP rights would be respected, as it would take a stupid nation not to respect the IP rights of other nations. people say about having to establish patent offices etc. well, just move in when the UN moves out. and also, through this resolution, there should be the framework in place already for you to build on for your own country. and another thing, especially for you scare mongers, the UN only covers between one quarter to one third of the total NS nations, thus this resolution only really covers 1/4 to 1/3 of NS Nations. chances are millions of patents have been stolen and copied, and millions of copyrights have been violated between the time the resolution was passed, and now at its repeal.
Mikitivity
01-12-2005, 00:36
well, that could end up making you one very lonely nation. on a serious note, dont you think you are over-reacting more than a little bit? a communications block? first of all, what if a country comes around? it cant tell you directly then. also, to me, this is scare mongering tactics. i do not like these tactics in a debate, because it is usually used to unfairly imbalence the support to one side. of course the IP rights would be respected, as it would take a stupid nation not to respect the IP rights of other nations. people say about having to establish patent offices etc. well, just move in when the UN moves out. and also, through this resolution, there should be the framework in place already for you to build on for your own country. and another thing, especially for you scare mongers, the UN only covers between one quarter to one third of the total NS nations, thus this resolution only really covers 1/4 to 1/3 of NS Nations. chances are millions of patents have been stolen and copied, and millions of copyrights have been violated between the time the resolution was passed, and now at its repeal.

Howie Katzman sits back and smiles after listening to the comments from the representative of the Lynx Alliance. He then turns to his deputy Cassandra Thonberger and whispers, "<That is a pretty defensible argument ... I'll bet you a spice tremens that this body will largely ingore this point and prattle on about some make-believe communist plot or some such. I need to head off to some neogitations, so I'll leave you in charge here.>"

"<Ha, it is a fool's bet! But sure, I might even jump in.>"
Knootian East Indies
01-12-2005, 01:00
Good Sir, a letter from foreign governments would surely arrive. I have no worries about that whatsoever.

You tell me that it would take a stupid nation not to respect the Intellectual Property rights of other nations. We agree, and hope therefore that we will only have to take measures against very few, very stupid nations. We already know a nation however in the Anticapitalist Alliance which runs a computer system with the malicious intent of pirating all available data and redistributing it to the world. Our efforts will have to be renewed if this resolution is repealed, and directed against any other communists and other scum who think that this is a good way for their opressive black hole economies to profit off of Knootian ingenuity.

The fact of the matter is that these nations have always had a particular tendency of being in the United Nations for their own ideological reasons, and hence they are rather more affected by this resolution.

We are not scaremongering or taking expensive measures to protect our citizens, or for the sake of this debate. My government couldn't give a rats ass about the impression that it makes on you when it has a duty to protect its citizens from abuse. I can only hope that you, too, take all possible steps to prevent abuse.

~Aram Koopman
Love and esterel
01-12-2005, 01:24
If the company does not go into country C, it has a 30y protection. If the company goes into country C, it is forced to accept the law of country C, thus allowing others within C to copy the idea.



I think that it is implied on Gruenberg's initial post that there is no need for international patents, since filing a patent within one nation automatically entitles you to protection, under that nation's laws, in all other UN members.

The issue of whether something should be awarded a patent or not, treatement of duplicate patents, etc. seems more complicated. I haven't thought about it.

thanks for your answer, i donno what to think, because i don't manage to understand what your proposition is about, i will try to think harder about it

i don't understand how any nation will recognize patents from any others nations; and
i think in case of C, if the companies doesn't come in the Nation C, it should not be protected in C (it seems to me that will stop innovation), but it's my opinion and i'm even not sure to have fully understand what you mean (not because of you, but because my thoughts are confuse;))
Mikitivity
01-12-2005, 01:55
thanks for your answer, i donno what to think, because i don't manage to understand what your proposition is about, i will try to think harder about it

i don't understand how any nation will recognize patents from any others nations; and
i think in case of C, if the companies doesn't come in the Nation C, it should not be protected in C (it seems to me that will stop innovation), but it's my opinion and i'm even not sure to have fully understand what you mean (not because of you, but because my thoughts are confuse;))

Representative Cassandra Thonberger wakes up hearing a real debate spark up again and then jumps into the fray. "Its about time we started having a real discussion on patents. This McCarthyism crap bores me to tears.

Anyways, my people certainly have an interest in preventing a company headquartered in Mikitivity from simply stealing information. One of the larger cold weather engineering firms in the International Democratic Union is Mikitivity's Gletscher Engineering (they have a great legal department that I've worked with before).

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Gletscher_Engineering

Environmental consulting is a booming international business, and so dozens of international corporations like Gletscher Eng. invent new ways of dealing with problems in one part of the world that could be adapted to other parts. Gletscher has been actively involved in projects like fish ladder construction, and thus always hopes to resell a slight modification to some of their designs to other nations. Anyways, Gletscher and Mikitivity alike want to protect this sort of information, and the best hope we have of doing this would be promising other nations that there is some sort of legal recourse available to them as well should Gletscher steal designs of say an industrial filtration system from one of their companies.

Think of it as a sort of honor system.
Fonzoland
01-12-2005, 02:34
Representative Cassandra Thornberger wakes up hearing a real debate spark up again and then jumps into the fray.

Although I have myself been drawn by the excitement of the debate, I interpret Gruenberg's silence as an understandable attempt to separate the waters. We should be concentrating on the pressing need for a repeal, and worry about the details of the replacement later, provided the repeal is successful.

Fonzoland reaffirms its strong support for the current repeal.
Cheneysland
01-12-2005, 03:11
Fellow Member Nations . . . After careful deliberation within our Senate the Commonwealth of Cheneysland has come to the decision that, though costly to our fledgling nation to conform with the "UCPL" due to maintenance costs etc., the "UCPL" is a resolution with a need that is both real and valid. Peoples rights to the fruits of their labor, whether physical or intelectual, do not end at the arbitrary lines drawn up by nations on a map. Therefore, we shall not endorse proposals to repeal the "UCPL", but look forward to amendments to it that shall streamline its processes and reduce costs to member nations.
Waterana
01-12-2005, 03:14
Fellow Member Nations . . . After careful deliberation within our Senate the Commonwealth of Cheneysland has come to the decision that, though costly to our fledgling nation to conform with the "UCPL" due to maintenance costs etc., the "UCPL" is a resolution with a need that is both real and valid. Peoples rights to the fruits of their labor, whether physical or intelectual, do not end at the arbitrary lines drawn up by nations on a map. Therefore, we shall not endorse proposals to repeal the "UCPL", but look forward to amendments to it that shall streamline its processes and reduce costs to member nations.

Ammendments are illegal under the proposal rules. The only way to change a resolution is to repeal it, and then pass a rewritten replacement.
Ecopoeia
01-12-2005, 13:59
We already know a nation however in the Anticapitalist Alliance which runs a computer system with the malicious intent of pirating all available data and redistributing it to the world.
I am aware of no such nation in the Alliance. Would you care to name names, Ambassador Koopman?
Cronion
01-12-2005, 17:07
The Confederacy Of Cronion,after a long debate in its government,has decided to fully back the proposal to repeal UCPL
Cronion
01-12-2005, 17:09
I am aware of no such nation in the Alliance. Would you care to name names, Ambassador Koopman?
I agree.I am also intrigued into what nation this is.
Outer Nirvana
01-12-2005, 17:20
I cast my countries vote to repeal. The UCPL is too broad in its scope and places too much financial burden on the member countries by adding a large and redundant bureaucracy that will do nothing but slow down technological advances, that especially harm developing nations.

Ambassador Zoe Dahlia
Grand Prophet of Outer Nirvana
Mikitivity
01-12-2005, 18:06
I am aware of no such nation in the Alliance. Would you care to name names, Ambassador Koopman?

After hearing this, Rep. Thonberger scribbles something on a note, and then summons a page. "Please deliver this note to the ambassador from Ecopoeia." She then waves towards the the Ecopoeian delegation, in an attempt to call their attention to a note coming from a page.
St Edmund
01-12-2005, 19:24
The government of St Edmund has voted FOR this repeal.

If this proposal carries then the government of St Edmund is willing to enter into bilateral or multilateral talks with other nations about IP rights.
Gruenberg
01-12-2005, 20:05
The repeal passed (9,077 to 2,832). I'd quickly like to thank all those who supported the repeal, and in particular the UN Old Guard, especially Ausserland and Ecopoeia, and Intellect and the Arts.

Now, I'd encourage all representatives (regardless of their position on the repeal) to support attempts to establish a centralised UN patent agency, and to support a repeal of resolution #60, Public Domain, the UN having clearly stated that it will no longer abide sloppy copyright legislation.
Love and esterel
01-12-2005, 20:12
The repeal passed (9,077 to 2,832). I'd quickly like to thank all those who supported the repeal, and in particular the UN Old Guard, especially Ausserland and Ecopoeia, and Intellect and the Arts.

Now, I'd encourage all representatives (regardless of their position on the repeal) to support attempts to establish a centralised UN patent agency, and to support a repeal of resolution #60, Public Domain, the UN having clearly stated that it will no longer abide sloppy copyright legislation.

Congrats
Ausserland
01-12-2005, 21:16
Congratulations to the distinguished representative of Gruenberg on the passage of this repeal. We look forward to supporting his efforts to repeal the equally unfortunate Resolution #60. If that effort is successful, the way will be cleared for developing some reasonable and effective legislation on protection of intellectual property.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Gruenberg
01-12-2005, 22:54
Wikified (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Repeal_%22UCPL%22)

Incidentally, there are still many resolutions with NSwiki pages, but no real comment on them. As such, they're pointless: we can simply link to NS. It'd be good if we could get summaries of the debates, proposal histories, etc., up onto NSwiki. If you know of a resolution whose article you could contribute to, please do add content. (However, in the case of old resolutions, without a wiki page, don't start one.) If you need any help getting accustomed to wiki style, I'll be glad to offer advice.
Mikitivity
01-12-2005, 23:16
Wikified (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Repeal_%22UCPL%22)

Incidentally, there are still many resolutions with NSwiki pages, but no real comment on them. As such, they're pointless: we can simply link to NS. It'd be good if we could get summaries of the debates, proposal histories, etc., up onto NSwiki. If you know of a resolution whose article you could contribute to, please do add content. (However, in the case of old resolutions, without a wiki page, don't start one.) If you need any help getting accustomed to wiki style, I'll be glad to offer advice.

Realistically I'm not going to have time til the week between Christmas and New Years to back fill material on wiki (it is amazing how much free time comes up in the office that week).

Something I would like to encourage in Wiki Resolution articles ... if players tried to "roleplay", mention their ambassador by name and try to take a quote if you feel is summarized the position of *multiple* nations and was a major issue in the debate. In general, try and treat the article as part historical account and part short newspaper article.

But as Goober and Fris like to say "be bold". Just give things a crack or even post "provisional" stuff here.
Omigodtheykilledkenny
01-12-2005, 23:17
Our heartiest congratulations to the Gruenberger rep on this repeal's passage. Nice wiki contribution as well.
Gruenberg
01-12-2005, 23:21
Something I would like to encourage in Wiki Resolution articles ... if players tried to "roleplay", mention their ambassador by name and try to take a quote if you feel is summarized the position of *multiple* nations and was a major issue in the debate. In general, try and treat the article as part historical account and part short newspaper article.

Agreed. However, I'd rather people contributed what they can for the moment. At some point, consensus may have to be sought over whether resolutions should be IC or OOC.
Knootian East Indies
01-12-2005, 23:28
I congratulate the author on the passing of the resolution. The Dutch Democratic Republic intends to work with Gruenberg towards the passage of a new resolution with the intent of establishing a centralised UN patent agency as quickly and effectively as possible.

I'll have a UN Staffer from our delegation availiable for questions related to Knootian United Nations policy at some point in the future, and you can always find me in the bar. Thank you.

(Aram walks out of the General Assembly hall at a brisk pace, looking straight ahead with a stiff upper lip as the exit doors swing open before him.)
Mikitivity
01-12-2005, 23:32
Agreed. However, I'd rather people contributed what they can for the moment. At some point, consensus may have to be sought over whether resolutions should be IC or OOC.

My opinion:
*Debates* should focus on both, while the gameplay impacts would be better serving as informational. Look at some of the July 2005 resolutions that I archived on Wiki. Mitigation of Large Reservoirs would be a starting point (generally I like to clean my house before cleaning other people's messes). ;)
Love and esterel
01-12-2005, 23:40
Realistically I'm not going to have time til the week between Christmas and New Years to back fill material on wiki (it is amazing how much free time comes up in the office that week).

Something I would like to encourage in Wiki Resolution articles ... if players tried to "roleplay", mention their ambassador by name and try to take a quote if you feel is summarized the position of *multiple* nations and was a major issue in the debate. In general, try and treat the article as part historical account and part short newspaper article.

But as Goober and Fris like to say "be bold". Just give things a crack or even post "provisional" stuff here.

Fully agree, and will try to work it that way, thanks

But there is a technical aspect about the forum, is it only on my computers that the "Search this Thread" function doesn't work?
also, is it possible to bypass the 3minutes of disabled search function, after a previous search?
maybe i should post in the technical forum?
Gruenberg
01-12-2005, 23:50
Fully agree, and will try to work it that way, thanks

But there is a technical aspect about the forum, is it only on my computers that the "Search this Thread" function doesn't work?
also, is it possible to bypass the 3minutes of disabled search function, after a previous search?
maybe i should post in the technical forum?

The thread tools have been iffy since the upgrade. And I don't know of a way round the 3 min search limit. You can ask in the Tech forum, but I suspect they'd tell you it's a Jolt, and not an NS problem.
Love and esterel
01-12-2005, 23:57
The thread tools have been iffy since the upgrade. And I don't know of a way round the 3 min search limit. You can ask in the Tech forum, but I suspect they'd tell you it's a Jolt, and not an NS problem.

ok thanks
Ecopoeia
02-12-2005, 02:30
The repeal passed (9,077 to 2,832). I'd quickly like to thank all those who supported the repeal, and in particular the UN Old Guard, especially Ausserland and Ecopoeia, and Intellect and the Arts.
OOC: Very kind of you, though I'm not sure what I contributed other than ranting!
St Edmund
03-12-2005, 17:29
The thread tools have been iffy since the upgrade. And I don't know of a way round the 3 min search limit. You can ask in the Tech forum, but I suspect they'd tell you it's a Jolt, and not an NS problem.

If you've got multiple nations registered as able to use the forums then presumably you could try switching to another one of them in between search requests...
The Lynx Alliance
03-12-2005, 23:44
First of all, congratulations to the representative from Gruenberg. We also agree that Resolution #60 needs to be repealed. We hope you can design a good framework for the replacement. Stuff like this needs strong resolution to protect it, not a handfull of ineffectual ones

Secondly, to the representiative from Knootian East Indies. We are hoping that the reference to The Anticapitalist Alliance was not a dig at us. Our esteemed regional deligate, The Rogue Nation of Flibblites, had already pointed out, you have already accused nations who went against your views as being communist. You subsiquently denied it, yet you make this remark, which makes me think that our regional deligate was right. For the record, we are not anti-capitalism, we are just against ineffective resolutions and scaremongering in debates.

Yours Sincerly

Lynx Raven Raide
President of The Mythically Futuristic Nation of The Lynx Alliance
Gruenberg
04-12-2005, 00:07
The deate is over. The vote is over. For better or worse, UCPL has been repealed. I really don't see the need for any continued sniping; I'd rather we left what's been said, and instead worked together on getting a good patent proposal drafted. That seems to me to be a far more productive use of our collective time and energies, and also a much more constructve way of moving past old differences. I'll post a first draft after the weekend.
The Lynx Alliance
04-12-2005, 00:11
The deate is over. The vote is over. For better or worse, UCPL has been repealed. I really don't see the need for any continued sniping; I'd rather we left what's been said, and instead worked together on getting a good patent proposal drafted. That seems to me to be a far more productive use of our collective time and energies, and also a much more constructve way of moving past old differences. I'll post a first draft after the weekend.
yes, i agree. i just didnt have the time to defend my position. good luck with the draft.