NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: A set of universal conventions regarding the use of Intellectual Property law among the United Nations.

The term INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY refers to inventions, artistic works, discoveries, or designs.

The term DEVELOPING NATIONS refers to any nation in a period of temporary economic need, with causes including but not limited to significant domestic conflict, natural disasters, or significant economic recession.

The term FAIR USE refers to uses of Intellectual Property that exempt the user from existing punishments laid out by the nation.

RECOGNIZING the current lack of provisions regarding the use and intention of Intellectual Property law,

RESPECTING the diverse approaches to Intellectual Property among member nations,

ADDRESSING the need for continued innovation in all disciplines to ensure economic development, scientific advancement and progress in education.

ASSERTING that excessive Intellectual Property measures damage the aforementioned innovation, damage that is increased with regards to Developing Nations.

RECOGNIZING the necessity of temporary provisions for developing nations.

ALL NATIONS may provide protections of Intellectual Property of their choosing, provided that:
1) The term be no longer than the lifetime of the creator or creators of the Intellectual Property in question,
2) Clear terms be established for Fair Use of Intellectual Property, with an absolute minimum of an exemption granted for educational purposes and including but not limited to optional provisions for parody, quotation or citation.
3) That use of Intellectual Property necessary to the continued development of a Developing Nation be considered Fair Use for the duration of the status of Developing Nation.

IN THE EVENT that a UN member nation does not fit these criteria, that member nation will be granted a period of no more than 2 years to reform laws to conform to them, with the possibility of appeal in extenuating circumstances.

The term INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY refers to inventions, artistic works, discoveries, or designs.
This is very vague and broad. A case that software is not covered could easily be made; equally, one could argue Columbus could 'patent' America. He discovered it, after all. If I find a spare sock, do I get to apply conditions of fair use to that? Further, we repealed one resolution because it failed to distinguish between patents and copyrights. Why do you think, if this were passed, I would take a different approach?

The term DEVELOPING NATIONS refers to any nation in a period of temporary economic need, with causes including but not limited to significant domestic conflict, natural disasters, or significant economic recession.
That's actually quite a pretty good definition. But 'recession' has a specific meaning: two quarters of negative growth. 'Economic crisis' might be better.

The term FAIR USE refers to uses of Intellectual Property that exempt the user from existing punishments laid out by the nation.
Hmm...not sure 'existing punishments' is a good way to phrase it. Effectively, 'fair use' is legal plagiarism. I would phrase this in terms of an exemption from normal procedures on copyright legislation.

RECOGNIZING the current lack of provisions regarding the use and intention of Intellectual Property law,
There is one: Public Domain. You can pretty much ignore it, but you should be aware of it. Further, you need to demonstrate why this lack of provisions is a bad thing. There's a lack of provisions endorsing the use of spatulas; should we write a Spatula Use proposal?

RESPECTING the diverse approaches to Intellectual Property among member nations,
No, you're not.

ADDRESSING the need for continued innovation in all disciplines to ensure economic development, scientific advancement and progress in education.

ASSERTING that excessive Intellectual Property measures damage the aforementioned innovation, damage that is increased with regards to Developing Nations.
'Excessive' is an inherently pejorative word, so this is a big no shit, Sherlock. The point is what counts as 'excessive', and what not.

RECOGNIZING the necessity of temporary provisions for developing nations.
Why? Why not build a permanent legal framework, instead of 'temporary provisions' - for which read 'quick fix'.

1) The term be no longer than the lifetime of the creator or creators of the Intellectual Property in question,
No, I don't like this. Creators have families; should their lives be caught short, why should their estate be deprived of income in this manner?

2) Clear terms be established for Fair Use of Intellectual Property, with an absolute minimum of an exemption granted for educational purposes and including but not limited to optional provisions for parody, quotation or citation.
Again, woefully underdefined. The UN has defined all sorts as 'educational purposes', and I simply don't trust that such a provision would restrict nations to the US understanding of 'fair use'.

3) That use of Intellectual Property necessary to the continued development of a Developing Nation be considered Fair Use for the duration of the status of Developing Nation.
Woooah. No, sorry. Absolute dealbreaker. You're saying a nation which happens to be poor should be able to suspend all our IP laws, for as long as it wants, until it's rich? You're not just legalising, you're mandating global piracy.

IN THE EVENT that a UN member nation does not fit these criteria, that member nation will be granted a period of no more than 2 years to reform laws to conform to them, with the possibility of appeal in extenuating circumstances.
And then what? This clause is possibly illegal, as it smells of MetaGaming, but in any case, it doesn't seem to do much. If my appeal fails and the 2 years time out, what's going to happen?

I have interest on UN legislation in this matter; I could not support anything like this, though.

We agree with all of the points made by the Gruenberger representative, and we, too, would like to see the UN address this issue -- just not with this proposal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The term DEVELOPING NATIONS refers to any nation in a period of temporary economic need, with causes including but not limited to significant domestic conflict, natural disasters, or significant economic recession.

RECOGNIZING the necessity of temporary provisions for developing nations.

ALL NATIONS may provide protections of Intellectual Property of their choosing, provided that:
1) The term be no longer than the lifetime of the creator or creators of the Intellectual Property in question,
2) Clear terms be established for Fair Use of Intellectual Property, with an absolute minimum of an exemption granted for educational purposes and including but not limited to optional provisions for parody, quotation or citation.
3) That use of Intellectual Property necessary to the continued development of a Developing Nation be considered Fair Use for the duration of the status of Developing Nation.

Who defines "temporary economic need"? That definition of 'Developing Countries' could easily stretch to cover nations whose economies are in trouble simply due to bad government: Why should regimes that have already wrecked their own countries' economies be entitled to steal ideas from, and thuis possibly harm the economies of, more successful societies?

'AGAINST'

This is very vague and broad. A case that software is not covered could easily be made; equally, one could argue Columbus could 'patent' America. He discovered it, after all. If I find a spare sock, do I get to apply conditions of fair use to that? Further, we repealed one resolution because it failed to distinguish between patents and copyrights. Why do you think, if this were passed, I would take a different approach?


That's actually quite a pretty good definition. But 'recession' has a specific meaning: two quarters of negative growth. 'Economic crisis' might be better.


Hmm...not sure 'existing punishments' is a good way to phrase it. Effectively, 'fair use' is legal plagiarism. I would phrase this in terms of an exemption from normal procedures on copyright legislation.


There is one: Public Domain. You can pretty much ignore it, but you should be aware of it. Further, you need to demonstrate why this lack of provisions is a bad thing. There's a lack of provisions endorsing the use of spatulas; should we write a Spatula Use proposal?


No, you're not.


'Excessive' is an inherently pejorative word, so this is a big no shit, Sherlock. The point is what counts as 'excessive', and what not.


Why? Why not build a permanent legal framework, instead of 'temporary provisions' - for which read 'quick fix'.


No, I don't like this. Creators have families; should their lives be caught short, why should their estate be deprived of income in this manner?


Again, woefully underdefined. The UN has defined all sorts as 'educational purposes', and I simply don't trust that such a provision would restrict nations to the US understanding of 'fair use'.


Woooah. No, sorry. Absolute dealbreaker. You're saying a nation which happens to be poor should be able to suspend all our IP laws, for as long as it wants, until it's rich? You're not just legalising, you're mandating global piracy.


And then what? This clause is possibly illegal, as it smells of MetaGaming, but in any case, it doesn't seem to do much. If my appeal fails and the 2 years time out, what's going to happen?

I have interest on UN legislation in this matter; I could not support anything like this, though.

Thank you, your criticisms have been helpful. Do you think there's any way to tone down the Developing Nations sections while still supporting the spirit of the law (in this case keeping developing nations in the race as far as innovation is concerned)? Or should I just concentrate on clarified fair use provisions?

Thank you, your criticisms have been helpful. Do you think there's any way to tone down the Developing Nations sections while still supporting the spirit of the law? Or should I just concentrate on clarified fair use provisions?
I would support an international fair use protocol. So if you removed the developing nations section, and concentrated on defining what fair use was (obviously, you'd still need to allow for reasonable national discretion), I think that would improve the proposal in my eyes. It's good to see the UN returning to this subject.