NationStates Jolt Archive

This is my next attempt at writing a proposal. Comments are encouraged, especially constructive criticism. I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes by drafting a replacement for part of the repealed "UCPL", which I know the author wanted to draft a replacement of.
Please approve this or ask your delegate to approve it, especially if you agree with it. ;)
Link: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=copyright

UN Copyright Protocol
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
----
DEFINING "intellectual property" as any work that is of value purely for the designing process, and not by any material value of it;

DEFINING that for the purposes of this resolution, "intellectual property" shall only refer to direct ideas in works such as literature and art, and not to intellectual property where the idea rather than the direct work is the part of value;

RECOGNIZING that since the investment in creating intellectual property is not the raw material needed but the time invested to conceive and create the work;

DEFINING "copyright law" as any law that restricts the redistribution of intellectual property;

NOTING that a majority of nations have some sort of copyright law already in place;

SADDENED that these laws can be incompatable and could lead to unfair redistribution in a case where a nation with no copyright law makes many copies of a work made in a nation that does have copyright law to resell in that nation;

DEFINING "nation of production" as the nation in which the work exactly as it appears in it's completion was first put into a tangible form.

DEFINING "tangible form" as any form in which the full creative value can be seen, whether it be on paper, on an electronic storage device or electronic device-readable storage device, in it's final form, or otherwise.


MANDATES that all works distributed internationally stay under the same copyright law as existed in their nation of production;

PRESERVES the right or non-right of the creator (depending on their nation's copyright law) to make exceptions to any copyright that their work is distributed under;

PRESERVES the right of nations and national copyright holders to restrict the nations in which their work is distributed in, especially for the purpose of prohibiting their work from going to non-UN nations for the purpose of being copied and redistributed;

PRESERVES the copyright of any work within UN nations, even if it has since passed through a non-UN nation where it has been treated as public domain.


Hmmm...I think it needs work. I would be glad to defer to other nations who have higher priority than I do for drafting this resolution.

Hmmmm. This is indeed needed, and I believe your general approach is the correct one. So, I will be happy to help with this.

First, I don't like your definition of intelectual property. Surely there must be some more precise way to do it.

Second, there is a problem with the "nation of production." I can imagine authors relocating to countries with stricter laws, as this entitles them to protection all over the UN. I am not sure how this can be solved, but some degree of uniformity would attenuate the problem.

Noted; don't have time to write a full response now. Bear in mind you can't contradict "Public Domain".

First, I don't like your definition of intelectual property. Surely there must be some more precise way to do it.

Yes, I have a really general definition that is true, but not very descriptive. Perhaps adding another clause saying that intellectual property includes but is not limited to literature, visual art, motion art, written work, etc.?

Second, there is a problem with the "nation of production." I can imagine authors relocating to countries with stricter laws, as this entitles them to protection all over the UN. I am not sure how this can be solved, but some degree of uniformity would attenuate the problem.
That could just be left in, so authors would relocate to nations with stricter laws, thereby encouraging nations to protect intellectual property?

Or else it could be the author's nation of citizenship?

Thanks for your comments.

EDIT in response to Gruenberg's comment:

Thanks for the alert, I don't think it contradicts right now, but I'll have to be careful.

We agree with the honorable representative of Ceorana that there is much work to be done on this draft before it would be a proposal we could support. But it is a good start, and we commend him for getting a discussion going on the issue. And we don't think he need worry about stepping on toes. Discussion of any thoughtfully written draft should be useful, no matter who finally ends up submitting a proposal for approval.

We do believe that an effort should be made to repeal the "Public Domain" resolution before attempting a copyright resolution. That resolution richly deserves to be stricken from the books, and its repeal would clear the way for a good copyright resolution.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

It's a good start, I agree, but your current definition could arguably be taken as excluding musical scores on the grounds that their value is as "designs for products" rather than as works of art in themselves...

We do believe that an effort should be made to repeal the "Public Domain" resolution before attempting a copyright resolution. That resolution richly deserves to be stricken from the books, and its repeal would clear the way for a good copyright resolution.

I find that "Public Domain" doesn't really cause any problems with this resolution, as is only applies to government works and times when copyright expires, which this proposal doesn't really touch.
It's a good start, I agree, but your current definition could arguably be taken as excluding musical scores on the grounds that their value is as "designs for products" rather than as works of art in themselves...
Yes, I'll make that more clear. It doesn't really apply, though, because a musical score is valuable because of it's specific design. That clause was added because the orignial UCPL was repealed for not making a distinction between copyright and patent.

I find that "Public Domain" doesn't really cause any problems with this resolution, as is only applies to government works and times when copyright expires, which this proposal doesn't really touch.

However, it also covers 'freeware' and 'shareware', for no reason. One can still hold a copyright on freeware IRL.

One can still hold a copyright on freeware IRL.
Not anymore.
a work passes into the public domain when ... it is deemed "freeware" or "shareware"
So I guess in NationStates, freeware and shareware are equivalent to public domain. It should be repealed, but not for this proposal to work. You can just use different words, like "free-ware" or something. ;)

It's perfect, so copyright it now! Claim royalties on everything, start a t-shirt line and propose it.

It's perfect, so copyright it now! Claim royalties on everything, start a t-shirt line and propose it.
Judging by the number of people, including me, who have previously posted otherwise, I think it still needs to be discussed and hashed over more.

Ok. So it isn't perfect to everyone. But it's good enough for optischer. We'll wait for the final presentation of the proposal, then start canvassing, bribing, blackmailing and copyrighting for this extremely needed proposal.

this proposal is a good start and looks like its sovereignty friendly to boot.

Thanks for all past and future comments. I am wondering about two things:

I. Fonzoland has the idea of making "nation of production" stricter. I suggested it could be left as is, or it could be changed to "nation of citizenship". What does the community think about this point?

II. This proposal makes all works copyrighted under the native country's law. Is this acceptable, or should we draw up a new UN copyright law? I'm inclined to the former for natsov reasons.


I am thinking of drafting a repeal of Public Domain as a sister proposal.

Thanks for all past and future comments. I am wondering about two things:

I. Fonzoland has the idea of making "nation of production" stricter. I suggested it could be left as is, or it could be changed to "nation of citizenship". What does the community think about this point?

II. This proposal makes all works copyrighted under the native country's law. Is this acceptable, or should we draw up a new UN copyright law? I'm inclined to the former for natsov reasons.


I am thinking of drafting a repeal of Public Domain as a sister proposal.

In most RL copyright law today, a copyright comes into being as soon as the material is put into tangible form. It seems most logical to us that the applicable law should be the law of the nation in which that happens.

We;d hate to think of trying to write up a complete NSUN copyright law. If you look at RL copyright laws, they go on forever and are getting even more complicated as the electronic media balloon. What we'd like to see is a resolution that requires NSUN nations to recognize copyrights which lawfully exist in other NSUN nations.

In most RL copyright law today, a copyright comes into being as soon as the material is put into tangible form. It seems most logical to us that the applicable law should be the law of the nation in which that happens.

We;d hate to think of trying to write up a complete NSUN copyright law. If you look at RL copyright laws, they go on forever and are getting even more complicated as the electronic media balloon. What we'd like to see is a resolution that requires NSUN nations to recognize copyrights which lawfully exist in other NSUN nations.

OK, that's the resolution that's currently in place.

In most RL copyright law today, a copyright comes into being as soon as the material is put into tangible form. It seems most logical to us that the applicable law should be the law of the nation in which that happens.

I write a book. At home, in my computer. I can put (c) Fonzoland 2005 or (c) Ausserland 2005 in the end. As long as I travel to Ausserland at some time this year, I can freely tell people the book was written there. This seems like too much flexibility, don't you think?

We;d hate to think of trying to write up a complete NSUN copyright law. If you look at RL copyright laws, they go on forever and are getting even more complicated as the electronic media balloon. What we'd like to see is a resolution that requires NSUN nations to recognize copyrights which lawfully exist in other NSUN nations.

I agree. There are also different modes of copyright in RL, so legislation should be flexible about what copyright is (the present one does so rather well).

I write a book. At home, in my computer. I can put (c) Fonzoland 2005 or (c) Ausserland 2005 in the end. As long as I travel to Ausserland at some time this year, I can freely tell people the book was written there. This seems like too much flexibility, don't you think?
It would be the country that the book was printed in, not the one where the author thought it and wrote it. So if you printed it off of your computer in Fonzoland, you'd have to put (c) Fonzoland 2005 on it.

International Copyright Protocol
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
----
DEFINING "intellectual property" as any work that is of value purely for the designing process, and not by any material value of it;

DEFINING that for the purposes of this resolution, "intellectual property" shall only refer to direct ideas in works such as literature and art, and not to intellectual property where the idea rather than the direct work is the part of value;

RECOGNIZING that since the investment in creating intellectual property is not the raw material needed but the time invested to conceive and create the work;

DEFINING "copyright law" as any law that restricts the redistribution of intellectual property;

NOTING that a majority of nations have some sort of copyright law already in place;

SADDENED that these laws can be incompatable and could lead to unfair redistribution in a case where a nation with no copyright law makes many copies of a work made in a nation that does have copyright law to resell in that nation;

DEFINING "nation of production" as the nation in which the work exactly as it appears in it's completion was first put into a tangible form.

DEFINING "tangible form" as any form in which the full creative value can be seen, whether it be on paper, on an electronic storage device or electronic device-readable storage device, in it's final form, or otherwise.


MANDATES that all works distributed internationally stay under the same copyright law as existed in their nation of production;

PRESERVES the right or non-right of the creator (depending on their nation's copyright law) to make exceptions to any copyright that their work is distributed under;

PRESERVES the right of nations and national copyright holders to restrict the nations in which their work is distributed in, especially for the purpose of prohibiting their work from going to non-UN nations for the purpose of being copied and redistributed;

PRESERVES the copyright of any work within UN nations, even if it has since passed through a non-UN nation where it has been treated as public domain.

I plugged a couple of loopholes, and made it clear that "nation of production" meant the nation where it was physically made.

Comments? Does it need more?

It would be the country that the book was printed in, not the one where the author thought it and wrote it. So if you printed it off of your computer in Fonzoland, you'd have to put (c) Fonzoland 2005 on it.

So what if the publishers have it printed & released simultaneously in two or more separate jurisdictions?

So what if the publishers have it printed & released simultaneously in two or more separate jurisdictions?
I guess each edition would be subject to copyright laws in the nation in which it was printed.

I guess each edition would be subject to copyright laws in the nation in which it was printed.

The copyright would apply as soon as the manuscript or substantial portions of it were completed -- put into "tangible form". Where it was actually printed wouldn't make a difference, unless printers in different countries used different covers, translated it, etc.

OOC: RL example. Two former colleagues and I recently had a book published by a publisher located in the US and UK. I'm pretty sure it was printed by their printers in both countries. Since we wrote the thing in the US, it's copyrighted under US law.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

The copyright would apply as soon as the manuscript or substantial portions of it were completed -- put into "tangible form". Where it was actually printed wouldn't make a difference, unless printers in different countries used different covers, translated it, etc.

OOC: RL example. Two former colleagues and I recently had a book published by a publisher located in the US and UK. I'm pretty sure it was printed by their printers in both countries. Since we wrote the thing in the US, it's copyrighted under US law.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations
Thanks for this point. It's been worked into the resolution.

Benjamin Qiro
Director of Global Affairs

It would be the country that the book was printed in, not the one where the author thought it and wrote it. So if you printed it off of your computer in Fonzoland, you'd have to put (c) Fonzoland 2005 on it.

So, do you mean I can just e-mail it to a friend, and have it printed in the country of my choice? Or if I just keep a pdf in my computer, it is not protected by copyright? I am sorry for being so picky, but I am still confused about the whole issue of heterogeneous copyright legislation.

So, do you mean I can just e-mail it to a friend, and have it printed in the country of my choice? Or if I just keep a pdf in my computer, it is not protected by copyright? I am sorry for being so picky, but I am still confused about the whole issue of heterogeneous copyright legislation.

I'm sorry I haven't really clarified this, I'll try to explain it:

You can indeed send it to your friend in a country of your choice. However, that was intended, because it gives nations an incentive to have good copyright laws. (What "good" means is up to the author.)

If you keep it as a PDF on your computer, you can copyright it as it is, under your country's copyright laws if they allow you to copyright PDFs on your computer. Since your computer is located in one country, it is copyrighted under your country's laws.

If you email it to a friend, this act kicks in even if she lives in another country, because it first appeared in tangible form (on disk) in your country, so it can be copyrighted by your nation's laws only. If you let her print it out, it's still copyrighted under your nation's laws, because the exact version appeared in tangible form in your nation first.

If she changes it, so it is not exactly the same anymore, she is probably in violation of the copyright law of your country.

If this doesn't make sense, or is not what the draft says, by all means tell me and I'll fix it.

I'm going to submit this, but I still encourage comments with any problems for future submittals if necessary. I feel that I've addressed the problems posed, although if the solutions are not satisfactory please post.

With some time and pacience, here are some more careful comments.

DEFINING "intellectual property" as any work that is of value purely for the designing process, and not by any material value of it;

Hmmm. OK, "value for the designing process" sounds extremely odd. I frankly don't understand it. Also, what you are defining here does not require ownership, so you shouldn't call it property.

My take on this: "Intelectual property" is a right over an idea. Specifically, I would define it as (complete or parcial) ownership/control over an intangible concept (idea), and any representations of that idea. For sure this would include patents, brands, etc, as it should, since those are other forms of intelectual property.

DEFINING that for the purposes of this resolution, "intellectual property" shall only refer to direct ideas in works such as literature and art, and not to intellectual property where the idea rather than the direct work is the part of value;

There is no need to separate what can be copyright protected; everything can. It is much more complicated to separate what can/cannot be patent protected.

Example: You invent a car; you design some blueprints. Those blueprints are automatically copyrighted (if you so wish). This means that nobody has the right to copy or distribute those blueprints without your approval. If you want, you can try to patent it: this means that nobody can use those blueprints to build a car.

---

A few problems from here onwards. I will just rewrite and only comment if you don't agree:

---

RECOGNIZING that the bulk of the costs of creating intellectual property relate to the conception of the idea, rather than its representation on any support;

DEFINING "copyright law" as any law that assigns the right to distribute intellectual property;

NOTING that a majority of UN member nations have copyright laws already in place;

SADDENED that these laws can be mutually incompatible, and can fail to protect copyright owners, namely if nations without copyright laws do not respect and enforce the copyright laws of other nations;
[Original was confusing, and probably too specific]

DEFINING "nation of production" as the nation in which the finalised idea was first represented in tangible form.

DEFINING "tangible form" as any virtual or physical support in which the idea is represented in full detail, including, but not limited to, paper and electronic storage devices.

MANDATES that all works distributed internationally are protected by the copyright law of the corresponding nation of production;
[Here I would go even further, by changing the statement from protecting work to protecting rights of owners]

PRESERVES the right of the copyright owner, if allowed by national copyright law, to make exceptions to any copyright that their work is distributed under;

PRESERVES the rights of nations and copyright holders to restrict the nations in which their work is distributed, especially to prevent it from being copied and redistributed in non-UN nations;

---

PRESERVES the copyright of any work within UN nations, even if it has since passed through a non-UN nation where it has been treated as public domain.

I don't find this clear at all. What does the clause do?

My take on this: "Intelectual property" is a right over an idea. Specifically, I would define it as (complete or parcial) ownership/control over an intangible concept (idea), and any representations of that idea. For sure this would include patents, brands, etc, as it should, since those are other forms of intelectual property.
I'm trying to separate patents because that was one of the main arguments for Repeal "UCPL".

RECOGNIZING that the bulk of the costs of creating intellectual property relate to the conception of the idea, rather than its representation on any support;
Not really. The bulk of the costs are for creating it intellectually, not conceiving the idea. Remember, copyrights only cover exact works, not ideas like patents.

I don't find this clear at all. What does the clause do?
That clause protects from the following scenario:

John Doe of Ceorana designs a book. He sells it to another man, Joe Schmoe, who lives in NatSovTopia, a non-UN nation. NatSovTopia's copyright laws make all work there public domain. Joe Schmoe copies the book a million times and sells them all in bookstores around NatSovTopia. However, this clause stops him from selling back in Ceorana with no copyright.

Thanks for the suggestions. Everything I haven't quoted I agree with.

I'm trying to separate patents because that was one of the main arguments for Repeal "UCPL".

Sure, but the point where you can and should differenciate is when you define copyright/patent law. Copyright regulates copy and distribution of the idea, patent regulates the economic use of the idea, trade mark regulates the use of words which are associated with a specific economic product, etc. The concept of "intellectual property" encompasses all these. An you can put a copyright on every non-trivial piece of intellectual property, so no need to restrict there.


Not really. The bulk of the costs are for creating it intellectually, not conceiving the idea. Remember, copyrights only cover exact works, not ideas like patents.

Any dictionary will tell you that "conceiving" means "creating intellectually," so I fail to see the distinction. And I was using the word "idea" the same way you used "work," not as "the idea for a book," but as the book itself. I think our differences here are purely semantic.

John Doe of Ceorana designs a book. He sells it to another man, Joe Schmoe, who lives in NatSovTopia, a non-UN nation. NatSovTopia's copyright laws make all work there public domain. Joe Schmoe copies the book a million times and sells them all in bookstores around NatSovTopia. However, this clause stops him from selling back in Ceorana with no copyright.

OK. I see your point, and will think about it. The clause is not very clear.

Thanks for the suggestions. Everything I haven't quoted I agree with.

You are welcome. It is a refreshing pleasure to deal with people who take constructive criticism without blowing up. [If you don't understand it, it probably wasn't directed at you ;)]

Draft #3:

UN Copyright Protocol
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
----
DEFINING "intellectual property" as any work in which the physical materials used to make it make up a minimal part of the value, and which most of the value is intellectual;

RECOGNIZING that since the investment in creating intellectual property is not the raw material needed but the time invested to conceive and create the work;

DEFINING "copyright law" as any law that restricts the redistribution of intellectual property;

NOTING that many nations have some sort of copyright law already in place;

SADDENED that these laws can be incompatable and could lead to unfair redistribution in a case where a nation with no copyright law makes many copies of a work made in a nation that does have copyright law to resell in that nation;

DEFINING "nation of production" as the nation in which the work exactly as it appears in its completion was first put into a tangible form.

DEFINING "tangible form" as any form in which the work appears in its complete form, with all creative value visible, whether this be on paper, in an electronic storage system, in its final form, or otherwise.


MANDATES that all works distributed internationally stay under the same copyright law as existed in their nation of production;

PRESERVES the any rights given to the creator by the nation's copyright law to make exceptions to any copyright that their work is distributed under;

PRESERVES the right of nations and national copyright holders to restrict the nations in which their work is distributed in, especially for the purpose of prohibiting their work from going to non-UN nations for the purpose of being copied and redistributed;

PRESERVES the copyright of any work within UN nations, even if it has since passed through a non-UN nation where it has been treated as public domain.

Co-authored by Fonzoland.

NOTING that a majority of nations have some sort of copyright law already in place;

I suspect that it is a majority of nations, but haven't done all of the work necessary for checking this detail: If you haven't actually checked it either then saying "many nations" instead might be slightly more advisable...

DEFINING "nation of production" as the nation in which the work exactly as it appears in it's completion was first put into a tangible form.

"in its completion"


******************************

Otherwise no problems, as far as the government of St Edmund is concerned.

I suspect that it is a majority of nations, but haven't done all of the work necessary for checking this detail: If you haven't actually checked it either then saying "many nations" instead might be slightly more advisable...



"in its completion"


******************************

Otherwise no problems, as far as the government of St Edmund is concerned.
Fixed.

OK, let me have another go at this.

DEFINING "intellectual property" as any work in which the physical materials used to make it make up a minimal part of the value, and which most of the value is intellectual;

I agree with all but the word "property." Anything by Mozart satisfies this restriction, and yet is not intelectual property, because the copyright expired long ago (or never existed, doesn't matter). What you are describing is intelectual work as a whole, not necessarily belonging to anyone.

RECOGNIZING that since the investment in creating intellectual property is not the raw material needed but the time invested to conceive and create the work;

Raw material is quite restrictive, or can be interpreted as such. I would mention the support on which the work is stored.
On the other hand, some intelectual work has significant costs other than time. The best example would be scientific research, which can involve lab costs as well as intelectual work. And surely research can be copyrighted.

DEFINING "copyright law" as any law that restricts the redistribution of intellectual property;

I am puzzled by the use of "redistribution" instead of just "distribution." Doesn't the first imply that the work has been distributed before, thereby opening an enourmous loophole?

SADDENED that these laws can be incompatable and could lead to unfair redistribution in a case where a nation with no copyright law makes many copies of a work made in a nation that does have copyright law to resell in that nation;

I have previously suggested a rewrite of this. As it stands, it is confusing, has a typo, and needs commas. I would definitely change the description.

DEFINING "tangible form" as any form in which the work appears in its complete form, with all creative value visible, whether this be on paper, in an electronic storage system, in its final form, or otherwise.

Too many forms! ;) you can use
DEFINING "tangible form" as any support in which...
I don't understand "final form" as an example of a support.

PRESERVES the any rights given to the creator by the nation's copyright law to make exceptions to any copyright that their work is distributed under;

Under most (all?) laws, copyright is transferrable. So you should protect the copyright owner, rather than just the creator. Remove the first "the."

Draft number four, addressing all (I hope I didn't miss any) of Fonzoland's concerns:

UN Copyright Protocol
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
----
DEFINING "intellectual work" as any work in which the physical materials used to make it make up a minimal part of the value, and which most of the value is intellectual;

RECOGNIZING that since the investment in creating intellectual property is not the support needed to display it but the time or materials invested to conceive and create the work;

DEFINING "copyright law" as any law that restricts the distribution of intellectual work;

NOTING that many nations have some sort of copyright law already in place;

SADDENED that these laws can be mutually incompatible, and can fail to protect copyright owners, namely if nations without copyright laws do not respect and enforce the copyright laws of other nations;

DEFINING "nation of production" as the nation in which the work exactly as it appears in its completion was first put into a tangible form.

DEFINING "tangible form" as any support in which the work appears in its complete form, with all creative value visible.


MANDATES that all works distributed internationally stay under the same copyright law as existed in their nation of production;

PRESERVES any rights given to the copyright holder by the nation's copyright law to make exceptions to any copyright that their work is distributed under;

PRESERVES the right of nations and national copyright holders to restrict the nations in which their work is distributed in, especially for the purpose of prohibiting their work from going to non-UN nations for the purpose of being copied and redistributed;

PRESERVES the copyright of any work within UN nations, even if it has since passed through a non-UN nation where it has been treated as public domain.

Co-authored by Fonzoland.

OK, mainly cosmetic changes and proof-reading.
Some of the changes were because:
- You don't need to define stuff for the preamble, just for the operative part.
- After you define "intellectual work," you should not use just work, as that word alone is undefined.

Let me know what you think. If I were you, I wouldn't push this until it got significant feedback. It is a messy issue, and people active in the UCPL repeal might still have good suggestions.

----
The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that the main investment in the creation of intellectual work is not the support needed to display it, but the time or materials spent in conceiving and creating the work;

NOTING that many nations have some sort of copyright law already in place;

SADDENED that these laws can be mutually incompatible, and can fail to protect copyright owners, namely if nations without copyright laws do not respect and enforce the copyright laws of other nations:

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution,

a) "intellectual work" as a work in which the physical materials used to represent it make up a minimal part of its value, and in which most of the value is intellectual;

b) "copyright law" as a law that restricts the distribution of intellectual work;

c) "nation of production" as the nation in which an intellectual work, exactly as it appears in its completion, was first put into tangible form;

d) "tangible form" as a support in which the intellectual work appears in its complete form, with all creative value visible;

2. MANDATES that all intellectual works distributed internationally are protected by the copyright law of their nation of production;

3. PRESERVES any rights, given to the copyright holder by national copyright law, to make exceptions to any copyright that their intellectual work is distributed under;

4. PRESERVES the right of UN member nations and copyright holders to restrict the nations in which their intellectual work is distributed in, namely for the purpose of preventing their work from being copied and redistributed in non-UN nations;

5. PRESERVES the copyright of any intellectual work created in a UN member nation, even if it has since passed through a non-UN nation where it has been treated as public domain.

Thanks for the suggestions. In retrospect, I agree that submitting it was a bad idea at the time... ;) :headbang:

Taking your suggestions and making a few cosmetic changes of my own gives us:

RECOGNIZING that the main investment in the creation of intellectual work is not the support needed to display it, but the time or materials spent in conceiving and creating the work;

NOTING that many nations have some sort of copyright law already in place;

SADDENED that these laws can be mutually incompatible, and can fail to protect copyright owners, especially if nations without copyright laws do not respect and enforce the copyright laws of other nations:

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution,

a) "intellectual work" as a work in which the physical materials used to represent it make up a minimal part of its value, and in which most of the value is intellectual;

b) "copyright law" as a law that restricts the distribution of intellectual work;

c) "nation of production" as the nation in which an intellectual work, exactly as it appears in its completion, was first put into tangible form;

d) "tangible form" as a support in which the intellectual work appears in its complete form, with all creative value visible;

2. PRESERVES any and all copyrights applicable in the nation of production of any work in all UN nations, regardless of where it has been distributed;

3. PRESERVES any and all rights given to the copyright holder by national copyright law;

4. EMPOWERS copyright holders to restrict the nations in which their international work is distributed, especially for the purpose of protecting work from citizens in non-UN nations who are not required to abide by this resolution.

I combined some redundant clauses.

On second thought, did I miss anything by combining the "copyrights remain valid in UN nations" and the "regardless of other nations"? Does that make it less clear, and make people think there's a loophole.

On second thought, did I miss anything by combining the "copyrights remain valid in UN nations" and the "regardless of other nations"? Does that make it less clear, and make people think there's a loophole.

I haven't read it very carefully (being xmas and all), but I think you need to specify that the rights are preserved throughout the UN, not just within the nation. I will read it more carefully some other time.

I'm going to submit this soon. Any last comments from those too busy with the holidays?