NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, just what everyone wants, another Intellectual Property proposal. But here it is, this time dealing with copyrights. This will most likely not be submitted until Public Domain is repealed, but it could be before, if the mods rule it is legal. (IF ANY MODS SEE THIS, COULD YOU RULE ON THE LEGALITY OF THE DUPLICATION OF SOME PARTS OF "PUBLIC DOMAIN"?)

So, here's the draft:
The United Nations,

NOTING that the value in intellectual property is the creative or investigative work used to create it, not the medium on which it is demonstrated or displayed,

AFFIRMING the belief that creators of intellectual property should be able to have control over the distribution and display of their work,

NOTING that many nations already have copyright laws in place,

CONSIDERING that such laws can vary immensely and do not apply to other nations,

CONCLUDING that an international convention on copyrights would guarantee copyright owners control over their work,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "intellectual property" as any work of mainly creative value that is of original authorship and is fixed in a tangible expressive medium;
b. "copyright law" as law which grants exclusive property rights to the creator of a a particular form of intellectual property and provides appropriate protection to those rights;
c. "fair use" as a use or reproduction of intellectual property for educational purposes, for private use, for use in critical articles or reviews, for parodies, or for any use that does not excessively infringe on the rights and profits of the copyright holder, as decided by individual nations;

2. DECLARES that the copyright law of each nation shall apply to the distribution, demostration, expression, and use of intellectual property in that nation, regardless of where the work was originally published or the citizenship of the author;

3. MANDATES that national copyright law must provide at least as much protection as the following conditions:
a. No person/corporation may print, display, demonstrate, reproduce, or store in an electronic system any intellectual property without the consent of the creator for a period extending until thirty years after the death of the author, or, in the case of a corporation holding the copyright, 95 years after the work was published, except under exceptions for fair use;
b. National copyright law must not discriminate between works produced domestically and works produced abroad;
c. Application of copyrights must take place automatically, with no statutory formalities required for protection;

4. DECLARES that copyright holders may, if they wish, license use of intellectual property to any or all people under any terms they desire, but that all people reserve the rights to use the work under the pertinent national copyright law;

5. DECLARES that copyright holders may, if they wish, put work into the public domain, at which time it is free for anyone to use for any purpose, with or without attribution, and that all work on which the copyright has expired passes into the public domain;

6. DECLARES that copyrights may be held by any person or corporation, and may be transfered or sold, but that the original author of the work must always have rights to use his work.

Co-authored by Ausserland.

a. No person/corporation may print, display, demonstrate, reproduce, or store in an electronic system any intellectual property without the consent of the creator for a period extending until thirty years after the death of the author, or, in the case of a corporation holding the copyright, 95 years after the work was published, except under exceptions for fair use;


I beleive these dates are a bit excessive. For Publishing, how about forty or so years after publishing before copyright expires, witht he option to renew? and as for after the publishers death, what about five years? I mean, the persons DEAD What do they care? Other than that though, I think this is a really solid proposal.

We don't believe the copyright durations are excessive. The idea behind having copyright last beyond the author's death is that a copyright is property, and the author should be able to leave it to his or her heirs and have it still possess substantial value.

We looked at some readily accessible copyright law in the mythical land of RL. The EU countries, US, and Australia all grant protection for life + 70 years. Canada, Japan, Jordan, and the Philippines all grant it for life + 50 years. Many countries have exceptions for certain types of material.

The idea of the 95-year rule for corporate-owned copyrights is to "level the playing field." It's based on the idea that an author might live, on the average, 25 years after the copyright comes into existence. (Just sort of a rough guess.) Add 70 to that, and you get 95.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

(IF ANY MODS SEE THIS, COULD YOU RULE ON THE LEGALITY OF THE DUPLICATION OF SOME PARTS OF "PUBLIC DOMAIN"?)Maybe later? I figure it'll go through some revision anyway...

If you really want a legality review before much else happens, feel free c/p a copy of Public Domain in this thread. It'll... um... make it easier if they're both here... yeah... >_>

Maybe later? I figure it'll go through some revision anyway...

If you really want a legality review before much else happens, feel free c/p a copy of Public Domain in this thread. It'll... um... make it easier if they're both here... yeah... >_>

OOC: Hack, this has already gone through a lot of hammering on Reclamation, so I think it's near final. Could be some changes in response to comments here, of course, but I don't foresee anything that would affect legality.

Resolution #60:

Public Domain
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Our own laziness

Description: UN nations resolve to establish a public domain. If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the exclusive rights that apply to a copyrighted work.

Works pass into the public domain when:
(1) the term of copyright for the work has expired
(2) the author failed to satisfy statutory formalities to perfect the copyright
3) it is a work of a UN Government
4) it is deemed "freeware" or "shareware"

Votes For: 8,694
Votes Against: 6,706

Implemented: Mon May 31 2004

The new draft proposal:

The United Nations,

NOTING that the value in intellectual property is the creative or investigative work used to create it, not the medium on which it is demonstrated or displayed,

AFFIRMING the belief that creators of intellectual property should be able to have control over the distribution and display of their work,

NOTING that many nations already have copyright laws in place,

CONSIDERING that such laws can vary immensely and do not apply to other nations,

CONCLUDING that an international convention on copyrights would guarantee copyright owners control over their work,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "intellectual property" as any work of mainly creative value that is of original authorship and is fixed in a tangible expressive medium;
b. "copyright law" as law which grants exclusive property rights to the creator of a a particular form of intellectual property and provides appropriate protection to those rights;
c. "fair use" as a use or reproduction of intellectual property for educational purposes, for private use, for use in critical articles or reviews, for parodies, or for any use that does not excessively infringe on the rights and profits of the copyright holder, as decided by individual nations;

2. DECLARES that the copyright law of each nation shall apply to the distribution, demostration, expression, and use of intellectual property in that nation, regardless of where the work was originally published or the citizenship of the author;

3. MANDATES that national copyright law must provide at least as much protection as the following conditions:
a. No person/corporation may print, display, demonstrate, reproduce, or store in an electronic system any intellectual property without the consent of the creator for a period extending until thirty years after the death of the author, or, in the case of a corporation holding the copyright, 95 years after the work was published, except under exceptions for fair use;
b. National copyright law must not discriminate between works produced domestically and works produced abroad;
c. Application of copyrights must take place automatically, with no statutory formalities required for protection;

4. DECLARES that copyright holders may, if they wish, license use of intellectual property to any or all people under any terms they desire, but that all people reserve the rights to use the work under the pertinent national copyright law;

5. DECLARES that copyright holders may, if they wish, put work into the public domain, at which time it is free for anyone to use for any purpose, with or without attribution, and that all work on which the copyright has expired passes into the public domain;

6. DECLARES that copyrights may be held by any person or corporation, and may be transfered or sold, but that the original author of the work must always have rights to use his work.

Co-authored by Ausserland.

Thanks.

Okay, thank you.

From my read of it, Duplication is not going to cause any problems. Public Domain deals with issues for after Copyright has lapsed. The only possible objection I'm seeing right now (barring category -- what category is this, anyway?) would be that this could be spun as an Amendment to Public Domain, as it is expanding on a definition contained within Public Domain (specifically: "(1) the term of copyright for the work has expired").

This draft defines what exactly the term of copyright are, when they expire, what they protect, etc. etc. etc. However, that seems to be reaching to me. This Proposal creates protections as well as lays out definitions. The amendment concern is niggling at the back of my mind, but I don't feel that it's enough of a concern to label this as illegal. Call it "too subtle", if you want.

Okay, thank you.

From my read of it, Duplication is not going to cause any problems. Public Domain deals with issues for after Copyright has lapsed. The only possible objection I'm seeing right now (barring category -- what category is this, anyway?) would be that this could be spun as an Amendment to Public Domain, as it is expanding on a definition contained within Public Domain (specifically: "(1) the term of copyright for the work has expired").

This draft defines what exactly the term of copyright are, when they expire, what they protect, etc. etc. etc. However, that seems to be reaching to me. This Proposal creates protections as well as lays out definitions. The amendment concern is niggling at the back of my mind, but I don't feel that it's enough of a concern to label this as illegal. Call it "too subtle", if you want.
Suppose clause 1 read:
1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "intellectual property" as any work of mainly creative value that is of original authorship and is fixed in a tangible expressive medium;
b. "copyright law" as law which grants exclusive property rights to the creator of a a particular form of intellectual property and provides appropriate protection to those rights;
c. "fair use" as a use or reproduction of intellectual property for educational purposes, for private use, for use in critical articles or reviews, for parodies, or for any use that does not excessively infringe on the rights and profits of the copyright holder, as decided by individual nations;
d. "public domain" as the status of having no copyright and being free for anyone to use for any purpose;
Then public domain would be defined for the purpose of this resolution, and no amendment charge would fly, because they're two different things.

Yeah, it's Free Trade:Strong.

Suppose clause 1 read:

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "intellectual property" as any work of mainly creative value that is of original authorship and is fixed in a tangible expressive medium;
b. "copyright law" as law which grants exclusive property rights to the creator of a a particular form of intellectual property and provides appropriate protection to those rights;
c. "fair use" as a use or reproduction of intellectual property for educational purposes, for private use, for use in critical articles or reviews, for parodies, or for any use that does not excessively infringe on the rights and profits of the copyright holder, as decided by individual nations;
d. "public domain" as the status of having no copyright and being free for anyone to use for any purpose;

Then public domain would be defined for the purpose of this resolution, and no amendment charge would fly, because they're two different things.

Yeah, it's Free Trade:Strong.

We don't agree with the suggested change. There is no need to define the public domain, and doing so would just leave the proposal open to a charge of duplication, rather than avoiding it. Further, defining "public domain" solely in terms of copyright fails to consider the possible application of other types of intellectual property law.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We don't agree with the suggested change. There is no need to define the public domain, and doing so would just leave the proposal open to a charge of duplication, rather than avoiding it. Further, defining "public domain" solely in terms of copyright fails to consider the possible application of other types of intellectual property law.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
I was thinking it might avoid the "amendment" charge, because it would define it only for the purpose of the resolution. But yes, you're right that it would be better without it.

The d) clause is unnecessary as the UN has already defined Public Domain. And like I said, I wouldn't consider this illegal, just... gray... ish.

The definition of "fair use" as [apparently] covering all "educational purposes" would seem to provide a rather wide loophole...

All OOC:

Frre Trade: Strong? How does this strongly increase economic freedoms?

3 a)

The protection offered to corporations is a real problem for me. This arises, I think, from the 1800's US legal system granting corporations the right to be treated as a person. Such a right does not exist in Ecopoeia and, as such, we don't acknowledge that a corporation can hold a copyright. I suppose we could compromise, but only if you change the terminology - rather than 'coproration', use a more general term acknowledging that the copyright is held by a non-person. That way, non-profit groups are protected as well.

3 b)

No discrimination? So we have to institute the UN copyright system in Ecopoeia? Otherwise we discriminate against Ecopoeians who don't currently have any protection. We don't have a national copyright system, though most communities acknowledge creative commons and other such 'copyleft' mechanisms.

All OOC:

Frre Trade: Strong? How does this strongly increase economic freedoms?
Yeah, I realized that. It's been knocked down to significant.

Other questions were answered on Reclamation.
The d) clause is unnecessary as the UN has already defined Public Domain. And like I said, I wouldn't consider this illegal, just... gray... ish.
It has? I was under the impression that each definition was only for the purpose of each resolution...?
The definition of "fair use" as [apparently] covering all "educational purposes" would seem to provide a rather wide loophole...
Hmm. Oh, that was fixed in an earlier draft. I'll post a new version later today.

The definition of "fair use" as [apparently] covering all "educational purposes" would seem to provide a rather wide loophole...

Indeed. If one were to write a textbook, there would be no way to ensure that folks wouldn't simply copy it willy-nilly for use in schools, rather than actually purchasing the books.

Yeah, I realized that. It's been knocked down to significant.

Other questions were answered on Reclamation.
Indeed, and they've persuaded me this is even more dangerous than I originally supposed.

For reference:

Copyrights are property, and can be inherited. Also, Mickey Mouse [for example] was created by Walt Disney, but the Walt Disney Corporation wants to have a copyright on him past his death.
We don't have inheritance. Property is not a right. We don't acknowledge corporate rights.

Yes, basically. Otherwise, you're exploiting the work from other nations. (And you're letting other people exploit work from within your nation.)
Christ. It's not exploitation when your cultural ethos is founded on the principle that innovation and knowledge are a treasury for all to enjoy. It's a gift economy.

Never mind Dankism's trade proposal, if this passes then Eco will be out of the UN in a shot. Please, please soften this. A lot.

OOC (Since Eco's was): ;)

All OOC:

Frre Trade: Strong? How does this strongly increase economic freedoms?

3 a)

The protection offered to corporations is a real problem for me. This arises, I think, from the 1800's US legal system granting corporations the right to be treated as a person. Such a right does not exist in Ecopoeia and, as such, we don't acknowledge that a corporation can hold a copyright. I suppose we could compromise, but only if you change the terminology - rather than 'coproration', use a more general term acknowledging that the copyright is held by a non-person. That way, non-profit groups are protected as well.


It's not exactly that a corporation is treated as a person. It's based on the principle that, by incorporating, a group of people become a collective legal entity, with specific abilities and responsibilities under applicable laws. Works suitable for copyright are often created by corporations and deserve protection so that the corporation may get a fair return on its investment. I'll see if I can find an alternative terminology.

3 b)

No discrimination? So we have to institute the UN copyright system in Ecopoeia? Otherwise we discriminate against Ecopoeians who don't currently have any protection. We don't have a national copyright system, though most communities acknowledge creative commons and other such 'copyleft' mechanisms.

This is a problem area. Do I understand that, now, Ecopoeians are able to just blissfully plagiarize the work of their own countrymen and people of other lands without any limits? As for Creative Commons, CopyLeft, etc.... These are not alternatives to copyright law. They're licensing schemes and rely on an underlying copyright law for the authority of the author to grant the license. With no copyright law, the licenses would be unenforceable. I'm confused.

Christ. It's not exploitation when your cultural ethos is founded on the principle that innovation and knowledge are a treasury for all to enjoy. It's a gift economy.

If your culture relies purely on internal sources for its material, yes, but if you're taking material from other cultures without what they would consider due recompense (whether in actual payments or by making public other such material [originated by your own people] that they would like to use) then it's a "parasite economy" instead...

Originally Posted by St Edmund
The definition of "fair use" as [apparently] covering all "educational purposes" would seem to provide a rather wide loophole...

Indeed. If one were to write a textbook, there would be no way to ensure that folks wouldn't simply copy it willy-nilly for use in schools, rather than actually purchasing the books.

The representative of Cluichstan seems not to have considered the last part of that clause: "for any use that does not excessively infringe on the rights and profits of the copyright holder, as decided by individual nations." The example given would clearly infringe on the rights of the copyright holder. I think maybe a slight change in wording might be in order, though, to make sure this is clear.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Originally Posted by Ecopoeia
Christ. It's not exploitation when your cultural ethos is founded on the principle that innovation and knowledge are a treasury for all to enjoy. It's a gift economy.

If your culture relies purely on internal sources for its material, yes, but if you're taking material from other cultures without what they would consider due recompense (whether in actual payments or by making public other such material [originated by your own people] that they would like to use) then it's a "parasite economy" instead...

We agree wholeheartedly with the honorable representative of St Edmund. If Ecopoeians freely plagiarize the hard work of people of other nations, we couldn't see it as a "gift economy." "Theft economy" would be more appropriate. We would certainly not quarrel with the wishes of Ecopoeians to freely share the results of their own intellectual labors. But to refuse to recognize the rights of citizens of other nations to profit from their labors is, to us, unacceptable.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

It's not exactly that a corporation is treated as a person. It's based on the principle that, by incorporating, a group of people become a collective legal entity, with specific abilities and responsibilities under applicable laws. Works suitable for copyright are often created by corporations and deserve protection so that the corporation may get a fair return on its investment. I'll see if I can find an alternative terminology.
Good. This clause isn't really a huge a problem provided that it makes no changes to domestic systems and accords non-business entities similar rights.

We won't like having to acknowledge corporate rights, but we'll do so. Grudgingly.

This is a problem area. Do I understand that, now, Ecopoeians are able to just blissfully plagiarize the work of their own countrymen and people of other lands without any limits? As for Creative Commons, CopyLeft, etc.... These are not alternatives to copyright law. They're licensing schemes and rely on an underlying copyright law for the authority of the author to grant the license. With no copyright law, the licenses would be unenforceable. I'm confused.
Please note that my concerns here relate only to domestic policy, not to copyright or the absence of it elsewhere.

I freely admit I'm no expert when it comes to these systems but others have talked about them and I remember thinking 'yeah, that's OK, Ecopoeia will have something like that'. I should probably say that those examples aren't specifically used in Ecopoeia, but the essential principle is the same. I think.

Actual policy varies - there is no national system, as Ecopoeia isn't really a nation. It's a label used to refer to a bunch of communities occupying a few islands. Creators are acknowledged/known (if they wish) and remain so in perpetuity (if they wish). Plagiarism isn't (usually) an offence; rather, it's subject to social scorn. Kudos is a powerful agent in Ecopoeian culture.

If your culture relies purely on internal sources for its material, yes, but if you're taking material from other cultures without what they would consider due recompense (whether in actual payments or by making public other such material [originated by your own people] that they would like to use) then it's a "parasite economy" instead...
Ecopoeia has no problem acknowledging external copyrights. The problem is that this resolution forces us to adopt conventional copyright systems domestically, otherwise we are discriminating against ("exploiting", to quote Ceorana) our own people (the vast majority of whom seem to support being "exploited", incidentally).

To clarify: Ecopoeia acknowledges other nations' copyrights. This proposal won't change that.

The representative of Cluichstan seems not to have considered the last part of that clause: "for any use that does not excessively infringe on the rights and profits of the copyright holder, as decided by individual nations." The example given would clearly infringe on the rights of the copyright holder. I think maybe a slight change in wording might be in order, though, to make sure this is clear.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Not so. We understand perfectly. If I were to write a physics textbook, and the schools in the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny wanted to use it -- assuming that Kennyites could actually read, of course, and that they could understand physics -- all the government of the Federal Republic would have to do is simply decide on its own that such use would "not excessively infringe on the rights and profits of the copyright holder."

The protection offered to corporations is a real problem for me. This arises, I think, from the 1800's US legal system granting corporations the right to be treated as a person.

OOC: With earlier precedents in the UK going back into at least the early 1600s, or maybe even the late 1500s (groups such as the Muscovy Company, Levant Company, Hudson's Bay Company, Honourable East India Company), which were based in turn on the Medieval principle that 'corporations' such as Cities' councils and Church dioceses could be counted as equivalent to "persons" for legal purposes such as the ownership of property...

OOC: With earlier precedents in the UK going back into at least the early 1600s, or maybe even the late 1500s (groups such as the Muscovy Company, Levant Company, Hudson's Bay Company, Honourable East India Company), which were based in turn on the Medieval principle that 'corporations' such as Cities' councils and Church dioceses could be counted as equivalent to "persons" for legal purposes such as the ownership of property...
OOC: Yeah, I believe the first mention of corporations is 12th-13th century. But I think Eco was talking about corporate personhood, which I don't think medieval law ever acknowledged.

OOC: Yeah, I believe the first mention of corporations is 12th-13th century. But I think Eco was talking about corporate personhood, which I don't think medieval law ever acknowledged.

OOC: Well, at least some of those earlier ones were recognised as
distinct legal entities (and owned property as such) even if the term "person" might not actually have been applied to them in those days...

We are opposed to this on principle. We have already uploaded the non- copyrighted contents of the UN library to our Final Encyclopedia project. We would like to make periodic uploads for free without paying extra money for it. The problem we have with this is we are trying to get at all human knowledge available for free in machine format. Copyrights limit our access.

We are opposed to this on principle. We have already uploaded the non- copyrighted contents of the UN library to our Final Encyclopedia project. We would like to make periodic uploads for free without paying extra money for it. The problem we have with this is we are trying to get at all human knowledge available for free in machine format. Copyrights limit our access.
So this makes this harder for you to steal other people's work. Yes, that is a major flaw of this resolution.

Not so. We understand perfectly. If I were to write a physics textbook, and the schools in the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny wanted to use it -- assuming that Kennyites could actually read, of course, and that they could understand physics -- all the government of the Federal Republic would have to do is simply decide on its own that such use would "not excessively infringe on the rights and profits of the copyright holder."
Do I have to create Another Useless Committee to make those decisions?
... (the vast majority of whom seem to support being "exploited", incidentally).
In that case, they may freely license their work to the public domain, where it can be used by anyone, or license it under any other license they choose.

In that case, they may freely license their work to the public domain, where it can be used by anyone, or license it under any other license they choose.
Why should they need to bother?

Hmm. OK, I need to read up on this before I comment further! Thanks for your responses so far.

Smurfs and their indirect descendants have to be removed from any temptation to steal copywritten work.

(My first post - go easy)

Why should they need to bother?
It's not that hard. They just have to put a little C with a circle around it and then a slash through it.

Do I have to create Another Useless Committee to make those decisions?

No, just strictly define "fair use."

It's not that hard. They just have to put a little C with a circle around it and then a slash through it.
Is this defined in the proposal?

Not so. We understand perfectly. If I were to write a physics textbook, and the schools in the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny wanted to use it -- assuming that Kennyites could actually read, of course, and that they could understand physics -- all the government of the Federal Republic would have to do is simply decide on its own that such use would "not excessively infringe on the rights and profits of the copyright holder."

We were rather amazed to see this argument advanced by one of this Assembly's most ardent supporters of national sovereignty. The honorable representative is perfectly willing to allow nations to have control of nuclear weapons, make law concerning abortion, and decide other such grave matters. Yet he's unwilling to trust their judiciaries to make reasonable and equitable decisions on fair use? The logic escapes us.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We were rather amazed to see this argument advanced by one of this Assembly's most ardent supporters of national sovereignty. The honorable representative is perfectly willing to allow nations to have control of nuclear weapons, make law concerning abortion, and decide other such grave matters. Yet he's unwilling to trust their judiciaries to make reasonable and equitable decisions on fair use? The logic escapes us.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

What's the point of a Cluichstani author copyrighting his work at all if someone in the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny could simply reproduce it at will (assuming those illiterates would have any reason to do so) so long as the Kennyite government deemed it fair use?

Indeed, Sheikh. Nevertheless, the underlying principle remains the same, as I see it. I think this shows that one should be careful about claiming (and, from another perspective, assigning) the 'national sovereignty' label. Ecopoeians are national sovereigntists when it suits us, after all.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Indeed, Sheikh. Nevertheless, the underlying principle remains the same, as I see it. I think this shows that one should be careful about claiming (and, from another perspective, assigning) the 'national sovereignty' label. Ecopoeians are national sovereigntists when it suits us, after all.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I only apply the natsov argument when it should be applied: to issues that do not directly affect anyone outside an individual nation. This is not one of them.

I only apply the natsov argument when it should be applied: to issues that do not directly affect anyone outside an individual nation. This is not one of them.
Environment?

Environment?

Certain environmental issues as well, yes, transcend national sovereignty.

Certain environmental issues as well, yes, transcend national sovereignty.
*framed in the Ecopoeian UN office*

*framed in the Ecopoeian UN office*

OOC: I'm surprised you didn't stick it in your sig. :p

OOC: I'm surprised you didn't stick it in your sig. :p
Nah. That would just be silly.

Nah. That would just be silly.

Right, and we can't have that now, can we? ;)

Indeed, and they've persuaded me this is even more dangerous than I originally supposed.

For reference:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceorana
Copyrights are property, and can be inherited. Also, Mickey Mouse [for example] was created by Walt Disney, but the Walt Disney Corporation wants to have a copyright on him past his death.

We don't have inheritance. Property is not a right. We don't acknowledge corporate rights.


Just to make sure everyone os clear what's up for debate here, the Disney Corporation want the copyright extended on the works (i.e. mainly films) featuring Mickey Mouse and other characters. The Mickey Mouse character itself is protected by trademark and that lasts for as long as it is used.

If the copyright on the cartoons lapses then they fall into the public domain and can be copied, but the characters themselves cannot be used for new creations as that would be a trademark infringement.

Disney may have built an empire by plundering the public domain tales of fairytale writers of old but they're doing their best to prevent anyone doing the same with their characters. I tend to think that eventually all works of fiction should become part of the public domain, the characters included, so that they may become part of the common treasury and adapted to suit future generations. Future artists can then benefit from Disney in the same Disney benefitted from Hans Christian Anderson, and Disney themselves can innovate if they want to remain top dog.

No, just strictly define "fair use."
Uhhh...how?

Is this defined in the proposal?
The proposal says that authors can declare that their work is in the public domain. A C with a circle & slash seems to be a pretty obvious declaration to me.

This concept of copyright you are suggesting is designed to encourage art? It seems like all it does is attempt to exploit and control it. Aren't there better ways to encourage art in your culture then to apply these harsh controls?

This concept of copyright you are suggesting is designed to encourage art? It seems like all it does is attempt to exploit and control it. Aren't there better ways to encourage art in your culture then to apply these harsh controls?
Copyrights encourage art by giving people incentive to create it by guaranteeing them control over what they make.

Copyright protects the creator and promotes innovation.


BUT abusive copyright stifles creative improvement and threatens advancement.


75 years after the death of the innovator is more than enough to protect all interests.


Everything needs it's limits. If this went to floor, I would vote AGAINST.

(Even though I voted FOR queue...that's a whole different story.)

I'm finding this all a bit far-reaching, same as with the Patent Law. This is a very narrow vision of copyright being imposed on a very wide array of nations, as we can already see.

Further to that, copyright isn't the only way to encourage art. And in any case you could argue that people who only become artists to make money don't have genuine motivations and the artistic merit of their stuff would be to some extent debased. "I painted this to explore the colours of the forest" versus "I heard forest landscape paintings sell for quite a bit these days".

Personally, I do believe that a person should have the right to control their own creations. It's a way for them to make a living. What I do not agree with, however, is when a company prosecutes and sues people to protect a profit margin. Art should be free - in the sense of accessibility. In my opinion, that does a lot more for the development of all forms of art than strictly policed copyrights.

In any case, I think there's reason enough not to pass this. There are very basic philosophical and political issues of the existence of property rights themselves, let alone intellectual property rights, and to have so specific and restrictive regime imposed on all UN members is surely too far. If at all, this should be a bare minimum plus a clause inviting members to enact stricter laws domestically if they see fit.

This is parenthetical, but ICly the Kelssek copyright law goes like this:

Individuals have copyright for life plus 25 years, corporations hold copyright for 15 years.

Copyrights are not transferable and are only enforceable by the original holder. They can be licenced out, but the licencee never has control over the copyright and the holder can withdraw the licence at any time. Contracts over a copyright which contravene this are deemed null and void.

Damages for copyright suits are capped when an individual is the defendant, and no punitive damages can be imposed on any defendant. The only damages that can be claimed from a suit are the actual gain in money from the infringement that the person/entity got.

Translate this into real-world terms, in Kelssek a band can sue file-swappers for the value of the songs (say 10 tracks of a 20-track album costing $20 were "stolen", the damages is $10), the record company cannot sue at all. Since no costs are awarded, this ensures that only large-scale cases reach the courts since it isn't worth the legal costs to sue people torrenting movies or swapping MP3s (unless it's a large-scale moneymaking piracy operation).

The problem would be if nation X set their copywrite laws at 50 years, if they tried exporting it to somewhere like Enn, Enn would only recognise the copywrite for the 25 years.
It's easier to set a very high level, then saying a nation can decrease it if they so wish. Setting a maximum as it were.

...How'd I get singled out?

Regardless, I agree with Randomea on this point.

This is parenthetical, but ICly the Kelssek copyright law goes like this:

Individuals have copyright for life plus 25 years, corporations hold copyright for 15 years.

Copyrights are not transferable and are only enforceable by the original holder. They can be licenced out, but the licencee never has control over the copyright and the holder can withdraw the licence at any time. Contracts over a copyright which contravene this are deemed null and void.

So if they're not transferable who holds and can enforce them during the 25 years after the original individual's death? Why can't corporation-owned copyrights be traded like any other corporation-owned assets, and what happens to them if the corporation goes bankrupt or collapses for other reasons? (For example, what if the corporation was a partnership and the partners split up: Shouldn't they be able to include any copyrights that it held amongst the assets that are available for them to share out?)

So if they're not transferable who holds and can enforce them during the 25 years after the original individual's death? Why can't corporation-owned copyrights be traded like any other corporation-owned assets, and what happens to them if the corporation goes bankrupt or collapses for other reasons? (For example, what if the corporation was a partnership and the partners split up: Shouldn't they be able to include any copyrights that it held amongst the assets that are available for them to share out?)

You know, I didn't think of that. Well, it is transferable by will to another individual, that person would have stewardship over it, though they would not be considered the "owner" they would have the same rights as if they were - except it goes public domain in 25 years. The copyright becomes public domain if the company holding it ceases to exist.

The copyright becomes public domain if the company holding it ceases to exist.

So if a company ceases to exist due to bankruptcy its creditors can't use any copyrights that it was holding to help offset their financial losses? Bad idea...

OOC: I'm not sure exactly how you'd want to word a definition of "fair use," or even how many characters you'd be able to use, but these two sections from Title 17 of the U.S. Code might help you cobble something together:

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

§ 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if —

(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;

(2) the collections of the library or archives are (i) open to the public, or (ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and

(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section.

(b) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to three copies or phonorecords of an unpublished work duplicated solely for purposes of preservation and security or for deposit for research use in another library or archives of the type described by clause (2) of subsection (a), if —

(1) the copy or phonorecord reproduced is currently in the collections of the library or archives; and

(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not otherwise distributed in that format and is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives.

(c) The right of reproduction under this section applies to three copies or phonorecords of a published work duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsolete, if —

(1) the library or archives has, after a reasonable effort, determined that an unused replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price; and

(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of such copy.

For purposes of this subsection, a format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or device necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

(d) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to a copy, made from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, of no more than one article or other contribution to a copyrighted collection or periodical issue, or to a copy or phonorecord of a small part of any other copyrighted work, if —

(1) the copy or phonorecord becomes the property of the user, and the library or archives has had no notice that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research; and

(2) the library or archives displays prominently, at the place where orders are accepted, and includes on its order form, a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

(e) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to the entire work, or to a substantial part of it, made from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, if the library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that a copy or phonorecord of the copyrighted work cannot be obtained at a fair price, if —

(1) the copy or phonorecord becomes the property of the user, and the library or archives has had no notice that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research; and

(2) the library or archives displays prominently, at the place where orders are accepted, and includes on its order form, a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

(f) Nothing in this section —

(1) shall be construed to impose liability for copyright infringement upon a library or archives or its employees for the unsupervised use of reproducing equipment located on its premises: Provided, That such equipment displays a notice that the making of a copy may be subject to the copyright law;

(2) excuses a person who uses such reproducing equipment or who requests a copy or phonorecord under subsection (d) from liability for copyright infringement for any such act, or for any later use of such copy or phonorecord, if it exceeds fair use as provided by section 107;

(3) shall be construed to limit the reproduction and distribution by lending of a limited number of copies and excerpts by a library or archives of an audiovisual news program, subject to clauses (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a); or

(4) in any way affects the right of fair use as provided by section 107, or any contractual obligations assumed at any time by the library or archives when it obtained a copy or phonorecord of a work in its collections.

(g) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section extend to the isolated and unrelated reproduction or distribution of a single copy or phonorecord of the same material on separate occasions, but do not extend to cases where the library or archives, or its employee —

(1) is aware or has substantial reason to believe that it is engaging in the related or concerted reproduction or distribution of multiple copies or phonorecords of the same material, whether made on one occasion or over a period of time, and whether intended for aggregate use by one or more individuals or for separate use by the individual members of a group; or

(2) engages in the systematic reproduction or distribution of single or multiple copies or phonorecords of material described in subsection (d): Provided, That nothing in this clause prevents a library or archives from participating in interlibrary arrangements that do not have, as their purpose or effect, that the library or archives receiving such copies or phonorecords for distribution does so in such aggregate quantities as to substitute for a subscription to or purchase of such work.

(h)(1) For purposes of this section, during the last 20 years of any term of copyright of a published work, a library or archives, including a nonprofit educational institution that functions as such, may reproduce, distribute, display, or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or phonorecord of such work, or portions thereof, for purposes of preservation, scholarship, or research, if such library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that none of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) apply.

(2) No reproduction, distribution, display, or performance is authorized under this subsection if —

(A) the work is subject to normal commercial exploitation;

(B) a copy or phonorecord of the work can be obtained at a reasonable price; or

(C) the copyright owner or its agent provides notice pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Register of Copyrights that either of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) applies.

(3) The exemption provided in this subsection does not apply to any subsequent uses by users other than such library or archives.

(i) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section do not apply to a musical work, a pictorial, graphic or sculptural work, or a motion picture or other audiovisual work other than an audiovisual work dealing with news, except that no such limitation shall apply with respect to rights granted by subsections (b) and (c), or with respect to pictorial or graphic works published as illustrations, diagrams, or similar adjuncts to works of which copies are reproduced or distributed in accordance with subsections (d) and (e).


Heh-heh..."phonorecords." :cool:

If the real world, with its ability to create a plethora of thousand page laws, cannot get copyright and even fair use down to something that can't be argued ad nauseum by opposing lawyers, then how in the world are you going to get it down so that it can be epxressed in a NS resolution?

The answer is, you can't, so as a result you either have to give up or live with it. I think I prefer the latter. Let's define fair use like the Supreme Court defines pornography, "I know it when I see it."

In real life I am a secretary for a chapter of the Barbershop Harmony Society. Don't even get me started on copyrights in the real world. There are provisions in this resolution which many industries would fight tooth and nail if it were ever brought up in the real world. Like the ability to put things in the "public domain." Record labels have sued performers for puting their recordings on the public domain for free downloads on the grounds that selling their work for free promotes piracy. Many people have purchased the copyright for a number of movies with the express intent of keeping those films from ever seeing the light of day! Back before Disney discovered the video recorder, they used to have a policy of only releasing their films on a exceptionaly infrequent basis. (See "Snow White" because if you don't see it this month you won't see it again for another ten years!)

Sometimes one can be very happy that RW <> NS! I really feel that this resolution, while not perfect (can anything be) is still an exceptional resolution that should be supported, encouraged, and even given a hug. :fluffle:

OOC: I'm not sure exactly how you'd want to word a definition of "fair use," or even how many characters you'd be able to use, but these two sections from Title 17 of the U.S. Code might help you cobble something together:




Heh-heh..."phonorecords." :cool:

OOC:

Thanks for providing the text. I bookmarked Title 17 a few days ago. I think this section on fair use (all 9,588 characters of it) clearly demonstrates the impossibility of including microscopic detail on legal issues in NSUN proposals. I have no intention of trying.

I'm going to recommend to Ceorana that we change the definition of "fair use" to read:

c. "fair use" as a use or reproduction of intellectual property for educational purposes, for private use, for use in critical articles or reviews, or for parodies, provided that such use does not excessively infringe on the rights and profits of the copyright holder, as decided by individual nations; [New text bolded]

I think that's as detailed and definitive as it needs to be.

Copyrights encourage art by giving people incentive to create it by guaranteeing them control over what they make.

"Copyright Law" also stifles art, by preventing new art from using the material. A lot of the best art created by Discordians would violate your proposed "Copyright Law." Our culture greatly enjoys riffing on your various sacred cows. There is a particularly popular video going around composed entirely out of segments of a highly rated reality tv show. We have entire genres of music featuring songs constructed out of segments of other songs! To distribute these works under your "Copyright Law" we would need to pay thousands of different groups large amounts of money. The artists who constructed these works have no hope of ammassing such sums. This only serves to increase the costs associated with art.

Frankly, the artists in our society live wonderful lives without any need to enact totalitarian laws such as these. Can't you find a better way to promote art in your culture then trying to limit art in ours?

Nay I say Nay!

Let's not get tto hung up on the notion that copyright is there to protect artistic endeavour. Copyright is there to protect commericial exploitation.


Even if I can copy the Monal Lisa it won't make my copy the most revered painting in history. Artists have a right to make a living, and clever ones won't lose out due to copyright expiration, but there comes a time when creations should be free for all to use. Would anyone seriously support the notion that Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid or Pinocchio should be owned by a single entity? That's what the movie companies want for their creations, even if they want to exploit the creations of others.

So if a company ceases to exist due to bankruptcy its creditors can't use any copyrights that it was holding to help offset their financial losses? Bad idea...

Before it ceases to exist, it is in a state of "bankruptcy protection" - like what many U.S. airlines are in right now. The company still functions, they still hold the copyright and the creditors have a chance of getting the money back. But in any case, it's mostly in the entertainment or design industry that copyrights make money, and that's only a small part of our IC economy.

This is kind of parenthetical though, if you'd like to help me work out what my IC copyright law is you can telegram me. Assuming this doesn't come to pass, of course.

3a. No person/corporation may print, display, demonstrate, reproduce, or store in an electronic system any intellectual property without the consent of the creator for a period extending until thirty years after the death of the author, or, in the case of a corporation holding the copyright, 95 years after the work was published, except under exceptions for fair use;

Love and esterel would like to commend the work of the authors, and we be grateful if they want to discuss the following points with us in order for us to support this proposal:

-I'm not sure about how this proposal deal with me in RL when I record some TV program on my computer hard drive and then watch it the following day with some friends or person of my family

Maybe, the proposal may say "outside of family area" somewhere

-On another point, I'm not sure about it also, but, what about saying "any intellectual property or a significant part of it" or something more appropriate (for example: a cover or remix of a music pretty similar to the original)

-Is it possible to write "No person/corporation/organization"

I will also join the members who expressed their feeling that the numbers of years may be too much in both case.

Also, I really think you cannot convict someone downloading a music or movie on a P2P network, when this music or movie is not available legally by download or streaming on the internet, while being available in retail.

We'dlike to thank the representative of Love and esterel for stating his concerns so we can respond. One thing that we quickly realized is that the latest (and, we hope, final) draft of this proposal hasn't been posted here. We'll do that now, then respond to the representative's comments in a separate post.

International Copyright Convention

Category:Free Trade
Strength:Significant
Proposed by:Ceorana

Description: The United Nations,

NOTING that the greatest value in intellectual property is the creative or investigative work used to create it, not the medium on which it is demonstrated or displayed,

BELIEVING that creators of intellectual property should be able to have control over the distribution and display of their work,

NOTING that many nations already have copyright laws in place, but these laws can vary immensely and do not apply to other nations,

AFFIRMING that an international convention on copyrights would guarantee copyright owners control over their work, and thus

CONCLUDING that an international convention on copyrights would give authors an incentive to market their work both internationally and nationally, improving economies through increased trade,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "intellectual property" as any work of mainly creative value that is of original authorship and is fixed in a tangible expressive medium;
b. "copyright law" as law which grants exclusive property rights to the creator of a particular form of intellectual property and provides protection to those rights;
c. "fair use" as a use or reproduction of intellectual property in educational institutions for educational purposes, for private use, for use in critical articles or reviews, or for parodies, provided that such use does not excessively infringe on the rights and profits of the copyright holder, as decided by individual nations;
d. “legal entity” as a sentient being or corporation;

2. DECLARES that the copyright law of each nation shall apply to the distribution, demonstration, expression, and use of intellectual property in that nation, regardless of where the work was originally published or created or the citizenship of the author;

3. MANDATES that national copyright law must provide at least as much protection as the following:
a. No legal entity or government may print, display, demonstrate, reproduce, or store in an electronic system any intellectual property without the consent of the copyright holder for a period extending until at least thirty years after the death of the author, or, in the case of a corporation originating the copyright, at least sixty-five years after the work was placed in tangible form, except under the exceptions for fair use;
b. National copyright law must not discriminate in favor of domestic works;
c. Except as provided in this clause, application of copyrights must take place automatically at the time that the work was first placed in tangible form, with no statutory formalities required for protection. Nations may impose additional requirements for securing copyright, but these may apply only to works created within that nation by its own citizens;

4. DECLARES that copyright holders may license use of intellectual property to any or all legal entities under any terms they desire, but that all people reserve the rights to use the work under the pertinent national copyright law;

5. DECLARES that copyright holders may, if they wish, put their work into the public domain, at which time it is free for anyone to use for any purpose, with or without attribution;

6. DECLARES that copyrights may be held by any person or legal entity, and may be transfered or sold, but that the original author of the work must always have rights to use his work.

Co-authored by Ausserland.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Love and esterel would like to commend the work of the authors, and we be grateful if they want to discuss the following points with us in order for us to support this proposal:

3a. No person/corporation may print, display, demonstrate, reproduce, or store in an electronic system any intellectual property without the consent of the creator for a period extending until thirty years after the death of the author, or, in the case of a corporation holding the copyright, 95 years after the work was published, except under exceptions for fair use;



We're more than happy to respond to the representative's comments. There's an old principle of marketing.... If you're trying to sell something and the prospect has specific objections, that's great. It shows interest. If you can get past those specific issues, you've got a sale. ;)

-I'm not sure about how this proposal deal with me in RL when I record some TV program on my computer hard drive and then watch it the following day with some friends or person of my family

Maybe, the proposal may say "outside of family area" somewhere

Please take another look at the definition of "fair use" in section 1c. It allows reproduction, etc. for private use "provided that such use does not excessively infringe on the rights and profits of the copyright holder." We think this covers the situation you described completely.

-On another point, I'm not sure about it also, but, what about saying "any intellectual property or a significant part of it" or something more appropriate (for example: a cover or remix of a music pretty similar to the original)

Again, we have to go back to fair use. One of the factors in deciding fair use cases is how much of the material was used and how exact was the reproduction. We didn't go into detail on all of the factors involved in fair use determinations because it would have taken about three proposals to deal with them properly. (Wish we could have. ;) )

-Is it possible to write "No person/corporation/organization"

Section 3a has been changed to read "No legal entity or government...." We think this handles the situation. If the organization was incorporated, it would be a corporation and fall under the definition of "legal entity." If it wasn't incorporated, you couldn't hold it responsible under the law. It would be the individual or collection of individuals who did the infringing that you'd have to look at.

I will also join the members who expressed their feeling that the numbers of years may be too much in both case.


You'll be pleased to note that the duration of copyright has been significantly reduced in the latest draft.

Also, I really think you cannot convict someone downloading a music or movie on a P2P network, when this music or movie is not available legally by download or streaming on the internet, while being available in retail.

We're really not sure we understand this, but we'll try to respond. The means of getting a copy of a copyrighted work isn't an issue. If you copy someone's work and your copying doesn't qualify as fair use, you're stealing, and that's against the law required by this proposal.

We hope this answers your concerns and you'll be able to support the proposal. We'll be happy to respond further if we've managed to confuse things.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Please take another look at the definition of "fair use" in section 1c. It allows reproduction, etc. for private use "provided that such use does not excessively infringe on the rights and profits of the copyright holder." We think this covers the situation you described completely.

Again, we have to go back to fair use. One of the factors in deciding fair use cases is how much of the material was used and how exact was the reproduction. We didn't go into detail on all of the factors involved in fair use determinations because it would have taken about three proposals to deal with them properly. (Wish we could have. ;) )


We're really not sure we understand this, but we'll try to respond. The means of getting a copy of a copyrighted work isn't an issue. If you copy someone's work and your copying doesn't qualify as fair use, you're stealing, and that's against the law required by this proposal.

Thanks for your answer, sorry, I should have read your text more carefully.

If I understand correctly: TV program recording on a computer, download on a P2P network or sending a mp3 to a friend via "Msn or Yahoo Messenger" for private use, is to be considered as "fair use"; but "private use" is also to be "decided by individual nations", it's why I'am a little lost, but that seems ok for me

Section 3a has been changed to read "No legal entity or government...." We think this handles the situation. If the organization was incorporated, it would be a corporation and fall under the definition of "legal entity." If it wasn't incorporated, you couldn't hold it responsible under the law. It would be the individual or collection of individuals who did the infringing that you'd have to look at.

You'll be pleased to note that the duration of copyright has been significantly reduced in the latest draft.

OK, thanks for the update.

Thanks for your answer, sorry, I should have read your text more carefully.

If I understand correctly: TV program recording on a computer, download on a P2P network or sending a mp3 to a friend via "Msn or Yahoo Messenger" for private use, is to be considered as "fair use"; but "private use" is also to be "decided by individual nations", it's why I'am a little lost, but that seems ok for me
The sending of music over the internet (on servers in UN nations, of course) to others is not allowed, because it significantly infringes on the profits of the copyright holders, and is not for private use (your friends use is not your own private use.

However, to clarify this, I have an idea for an edit to clause 1b:

c. "fair use" as a use or reproduction of intellectual property in educational institutions for educational purposes, for private use, for use in critical articles or reviews, or for parodies, provided that such use does not excessively infringe on the rights and profits of the copyright holder, and at least one copy has been purchased by the end user of the work;

Ausserland & others, is this OK?

Ceorana,

I would like to agree with some earlier comments made by Ecopoeia. While our nation certain would love to see an international copyright convention dealing with works sent beyond the borders of a single nation, we have an economic system which believes that art and culture belong collectively to all our people. It's our belief that this gives our artists the opportunity to focus on quality and expression, rather than profit. We have no interest in plaigirism or theft, and we, unlike Ecopoeia, have laws preventing that sort of thing. We want our own domestic artists to continue to be free of copyright laws. Would you at all consider making this resolution deal exclusively with international trade and not domestic law? Otherwise, we feel compelled to vote against this proposal.

Thank you,

-Tarmsden

Ceorana,

I would like to agree with some earlier comments made by Ecopoeia. While our nation certain would love to see an international copyright convention dealing with works sent beyond the borders of a single nation, we have an economic system which believes that art and culture belong collectively to all our people. It's our belief that this gives our artists the opportunity to focus on quality and expression, rather than profit. We have no interest in plaigirism or theft, and we, unlike Ecopoeia, have laws preventing that sort of thing. We want our own domestic artists to continue to be free of copyright laws. Would you at all consider making this resolution deal exclusively with international trade and not domestic law? Otherwise, we feel compelled to vote against this proposal.

Thank you,

-Tarmsden
If your citizens really want that, they can just not apply for copyrights, if you wish to excercise your option in clause 3c, or put their work in the public domain. However, I don't want to alter this proposal so that your nation "takes" the rights of the artist from the artist against their will. Why would an author want to be "free of copyright law" unless he wanted to plagiarize something?

Good point; an artist could choose not to apply for a copyright. However, my nation should still be able to make art and culture collective efforts free of capitalism and cash. I can't support this if it fundamentally alters our legislation on copyrights and intellectual "property", especially as we have very little respect for property rights when compared to egalitarianism and equal access to materials that improve one's quality of life.

Good point; an artist could choose not to apply for a copyright. However, my nation should still be able to make art and culture collective efforts free of capitalism and cash.
Huh? I don't understand your point here. Copyrights don't necessarily entail cash, they just make sure no one can copy work without permission, which may require cash. But if people in your nation don't want to use cash, that's fine.
I can't support this if it fundamentally alters our legislation on copyrights and intellectual "property", especially as we have very little respect for property rights when compared to egalitarianism and equal access to materials that improve one's quality of life.
If your people truly support your government's policy, this should not be a problem. Otherwise, you might want to rethink that policy.

Sorry for the confusion; I guess that's not the way I meant to word it. We want to continue our practices of freewaring and sharewaring domestically-produced art, literature, software, movies, etc. It's a way for our people to come together. We are a democratic nation, and the vast majority of our people support this system. We respect the differences that other nations have with this system, but we believe that our majority has supported what we have, and that our artists and cultural figures produce works for expression and for a comfortable standard of living, not for exclusive rigths. Although there are surely some artists that disagree, our system of universal access to culture means that they have to respect our laws. We would truly appreciate it if you would as well. We will respect your ways if you will respect ours.

Sorry for the confusion; I guess that's not the way I meant to word it. We want to continue our practices of freewaring and sharewaring domestically-produced art, literature, software, movies, etc. It's a way for our people to come together. We are a democratic nation, and the vast majority of our people support this system. We respect the differences that other nations have with this system, but we believe that our majority has supported what we have, and that our artists and cultural figures produce works for expression and for a comfortable standard of living, not for exclusive rigths. Although there are surely some artists that disagree, our system of universal access to culture means that they have to respect our laws. We would truly appreciate it if you would as well. We will respect your ways if you will respect ours.
So if you have a vast majority that supports it, I don't see why you'd object to this proposal, because it would essentially leave you alone.

You haven't actually said: do you support this as it stands?

The sending of music over the internet (on servers in UN nations, of course) to others is not allowed, because it significantly infringes on the profits of the copyright holders, and is not for private use (your friends use is not your own private use.

However, to clarify this, I have an idea for an edit to clause 1b:

c. "fair use" as a use or reproduction of intellectual property in educational institutions for educational purposes, for private use, for use in critical articles or reviews, or for parodies, provided that such use does not excessively infringe on the rights and profits of the copyright holder, and at least one copy has been purchased by the end user of the work;

Ausserland & others, is this OK?

Nope. It's not OK with us. We see no need for it. Private entertainment of friends without charge is certainly private use. And there has never been any requirement in any fair use doctrine we're aware of that someone purchase a copy of something. This would mean we'd have to purchase a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica before we could quote it.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Sorry for the confusion; I guess that's not the way I meant to word it. We want to continue our practices of freewaring and sharewaring domestically-produced art, literature, software, movies, etc. It's a way for our people to come together. We are a democratic nation, and the vast majority of our people support this system. We respect the differences that other nations have with this system, but we believe that our majority has supported what we have, and that our artists and cultural figures produce works for expression and for a comfortable standard of living, not for exclusive rigths. Although there are surely some artists that disagree, our system of universal access to culture means that they have to respect our laws. We would truly appreciate it if you would as well. We will respect your ways if you will respect ours.

We're pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the honorable representative's comments. First, we need to be completely clear that copyright in no way hampers anyone's ability to release material as freeware or shareware. In the mythical land of RL, much freeware software and most shareware software is copyrighted. These are licensing options, something quite different than copyright itself. Also, please note the provisions of clauses 4 and 6. The citizens of Tarmsden are perfectly free to allow anyone to copy, use, or do anything else they like with their works. We even changed the requirement for automatic copyright so nations would not have to apply it to domestic works.

Now to the international aspect. The representative says that his nation will respect our ways if we respect theirs. Fair enough. We will certainly respect the will of the people of Tarmsden to make their work available free of any charge or constraint. In return, we would expect the people of Tarmsden to respect the wishes of our authors to make a fair return on their work. That is what this proposal attempts to accomplish -- to ensure that creative works receive protection outside the borders of their nation of creation. If a citizen of Tarmsden writes a book, he can simply place it in the public domain. But if a citizen of Tarmsden wants to print and sell a book written and copyrighted in Ausserland without permission, we expect the nation to have laws prohibiting that.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Nope. It's not OK with us. We see no need for it. Private entertainment of friends without charge is certainly private use. And there has never been any requirement in any fair use doctrine we're aware of that someone purchase a copy of something. This would mean we'd have to purchase a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica before we could quote it.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations
Oh. Yeah. Good point. Never mind. The last draft is still the official one.

R. Bobson

We hold a similar position on copyrights as Tarmsden. Since this proposal seems to only affect those applying for copyrights, we have no problem supporting this resolution and believe it will benefit those applying for copyrights unless someone gives substancial evidence to the contrary.

Azazel Diener
Leader of the Dominion of Teufelanbetung
Join the Region of Logic and Cooperation today! (http://www.nationstates.net/56576/page=display_region)

"You haven't actually said: do you support this as it stands?"

I suppose I do. I have quite a few resolutions about this, and I'm not sure if I will seek it out for approval. I'd like to keep my thumb on the pulse of this debate and see what happens, but I believe I will support it when it hits the general floor. I may even approve of it at some point or another.

We have no intention of allowing any other nation to dictate how we handle art within our borders. If you wish to privatize art within your borders and absorb art into your corporate states, we will not stop you. We are certainly not harming anyone outside our borders when we enjoy, distribute, reproduce and in general do whatever we want with art, within our borders. This notion of "owning" digital content is very strange to us, but we will not adopt the concept within our borders.

We are trying to understand why this could seem like a good idea, the idea is quite foreign. However from our limited understanding of the proposal, we can simply declare all uses of art to be fair (which seems self evident, how can one unfairly engaging in artistic pursuits?) and then this law will not affect us?

We have no intention of allowing any other nation to dictate how we handle art within our borders. If you wish to privatize art within your borders and absorb art into your corporate states, we will not stop you. We are certainly not harming anyone outside our borders when we enjoy, distribute, reproduce and in general do whatever we want with art, within our borders. This notion of "owning" digital content is very strange to us, but we will not adopt the concept within our borders.
If you use other people's art (in this case, that of people from other nations) except under the fair use provision without their permission, you are stealing it. Yes, stealing. They made something, and you are taking it from them.
We are trying to understand why this could seem like a good idea, the idea is quite foreign.
This is a good idea because if we let authors have control over their art, they will have a greater incentive to produce it. Think about it: would you be more likely to cook a hamburger if you knew someone could come in and eat a piece of it, or if you knew it was yours and you could do what you want with it (including give a piece to someone if you so desired)? Obviously, the second option. The same thing goes for artwork.
However from our limited understanding of the proposal, we can simply declare all uses of art to be fair (which seems self evident, how can one unfairly engaging in artistic pursuits?) and then this law will not affect us?
No, you can only declare it as fair if it falls under the definition of "fair use" in clause 1.

Personally, I'd rather people who are only motivated to express themselves because of monetary gain not create art at all. That would probably rid us of the worst of pop music.

The hamburger analogy is wrong, though. The implication is that by taking a piece, there is less for everybody when this isn't the case. If I look at the Mona Lisa that doesn't take away from anyone else's ability to look at it. My having illegal mp3s won't mean someone else can't have an mp3 also.

We object to this on principle because copyright protection frequently is more about commercial gain that the rights of artists. In many cases artists would rather give their stuff out for free but are constrained because of their publisher's copyright. I know several rock bands who have come into conflict with their record companies over this issue.

Copyright by itself is fine inasmuch as it allows artists control over their work, but as it stands we cannot support this resolution at all, since it seems to be profit it's more worried about, as seen in the definition of fair use.

However, a Mona Lisa by Grendel is not the same as a Mona Lisa by...Da Vinci is it not in common tongue? Perhaps there needs to be a differenciation between Authorship rights and Ownership rights.
Copy rights in a Randomean interpretation is purely an ownership issue. Anyone can own the Mona Lisa, Da Vinci sold his rights to it soon after embroidering it. However, no-one doubts the authorship right - no-one but he can claim they made it.

Personally, I'd rather people who are only motivated to express themselves because of monetary gain not create art at all. That would probably rid us of the worst of pop music.
Well, it's a little sad, but artists need to eat too. And in order to do that, they need, guess what, money! So it's not just about making huge profits, but about making a living.
The hamburger analogy is wrong, though. The implication is that by taking a piece, there is less for everybody when this isn't the case. If I look at the Mona Lisa that doesn't take away from anyone else's ability to look at it. My having illegal mp3s won't mean someone else can't have an mp3 also.
But there is: less profit for the artist. And many artists don't make much money (some musicians being an exception) so they need every penny they can get.

We object to this on principle because copyright protection frequently is more about commercial gain that the rights of artists. In many cases artists would rather give their stuff out for free but are constrained because of their publisher's copyright. I know several rock bands who have come into conflict with their record companies over this issue.
Well, they didn't have to sell their copyright to the record company. And this resolution protects their right to do so, actually: it says the artist always has rights to use it.
Copyright by itself is fine inasmuch as it allows artists control over their work, but as it stands we cannot support this resolution at all, since it seems to be profit it's more worried about, as seen in the definition of fair use.
Artists do have control over their work: they start out with the copyright! If they want to they can sell it, but who are we to deny them choice?

If you use other people's art (in this case, that of people from other nations) except under the fair use provision without their permission, you are stealing it. Yes, stealing. They made something, and you are taking it from them.

Oh no! You misunderstand! We would never take any form of property, just public goods. You know, anything that can be converted to 1s and 0s. How can you own a series of 1s and 0s?


This is a good idea because if we let authors have control over their art, they will have a greater incentive to produce it. Think about it: would you be more likely to cook a hamburger if you knew someone could come in and eat a piece of it, or if you knew it was yours and you could do what you want with it (including give a piece to someone if you so desired)? Obviously, the second option. The same thing goes for artwork.

No, you can only declare it as fair if it falls under the definition of "fair use" in clause 1.

That sounds like a fine system for hamburgers. However we find that since the work of one artists can reach infinite people, (unlike a hamburger which is hard to share) it makes no sense to consider art property. We have found that reputation alone is sufficient motivation to create world class art. Consider how sought after our artists are worldwide we aren't likely to change our arts program any time soon :)

We really feel that everything that can be coded as 1's and 0's would have to fall under fair use.

However, a Mona Lisa by Grendel is not the same as a Mona Lisa by...Da Vinci is it not in common tongue? Perhaps there needs to be a differenciation between Authorship rights and Ownership rights.
Copy rights in a Randomean interpretation is purely an ownership issue. Anyone can own the Mona Lisa, Da Vinci sold his rights to it soon after embroidering it. However, no-one doubts the authorship right - no-one but he can claim they made it.

That's a very good point. Artists depend on their reputation, building reputation is the primary way an artist can increase his value. False claims of authorship are a serious offense.

Well, it's a little sad, but artists need to eat too. And in order to do that, they need, guess what, money! So it's not just about making huge profits, but about making a living.

But there is: less profit for the artist. And many artists don't make much money (some musicians being an exception) so they need every penny they can get.

We have found that since all art builds on other art, artists are better able to make a living if they are not required to pay other artists to use their material. Credit must still go to the original author though, as appropriate. I believe you use a similar system when constructing a research paper? Every idea in a research paper can be referenced, but must be cited. You can't own an idea, but it is proper etiquite to reference a source.

Well, they didn't have to sell their copyright to the record company. And this resolution protects their right to do so, actually: it says the artist always has rights to use it.

Artists do have control over their work: they start out with the copyright! If they want to they can sell it, but who are we to deny them choice?

I still don't understand, how can you sell digital art? I understand how you could enter into a contract promising to deliver digital art, but how could you ever possibly prevent the digital transfer of art?

I not only consider this legislation misguided, I consider it impossible to enforce. It would require dismantling our shared computer matrices, and I doubt anyone intends to do that.

I think we should keep the UN from attempting the impossible.

We have found that since all art builds on other art, artists are better able to make a living if they are not required to pay other artists to use their material. Credit must still go to the original author though, as appropriate. I believe you use a similar system when constructing a research paper? Every idea in a research paper can be referenced, but must be cited. You can't own an idea, but it is proper etiquite to reference a source.
If there are no copyrights, you can't make any money from art. If people can just copy your art, how do you make money off of it, except though contracts to make art and the like, which not all artists seek to do.

And you can own an idea, if it's for a product, read resolution #156: UN Patent Law :p .

I still don't understand, how can you sell digital art? I understand how you could enter into a contract promising to deliver digital art, but how could you ever possibly prevent the digital transfer of art?
You don't sell the art, you sell the rights to republish, copy or display it.
I not only consider this legislation misguided, I consider it impossible to enforce. It would require dismantling our shared computer matrices, and I doubt anyone intends to do that.
If the author chooses to publish said art on said computer matrices, knowing all of the terms of publishing it there, you will have no problems with this proposal.

I think we should keep the UN from attempting the impossible.
How is this impossible? It's been done in almost all RL nations.

If there are no copyrights, you can't make any money from art. If people can just copy your art, how do you make money off of it, except though contracts to make art and the like, which not all artists seek to do.

Selling the rights to publish isn't the only way to make money, or to eat. Musicians can make money from concerts, and most art (as in paintings, drawings) really isn't worth the effort to copy. After all, most museums I've been to charge maybe US$10 for entry or are free - the British Museum, Tate Modern, and National Gallery in London being the best examples, though in the US I had to pay something like US$20 for MoMA in New York, but it was worth the money.

Just because there's no copyright (and that's not what we're advocating) doesn't mean the artist will not get any money for their work. Governments give out art grants all the time and people do in fact still buy CDs even though they could download the album free. The drop in profit the recording industry blames on filesharing is in fact due to filesharing, but because it has allowed people to discover new bands - hence the growth in independent music. More people are buying CDs which don't add to the profit margin of the big record companies pushing their mainstream fluff. Unfortunately, that also means Snoop Dogg is reduced to travelling first class rather than in a private jet (or "Pimpin' Air Express"). Too bad, I guess.

As a matter of fact you do have to licence (or whatever the technical term is) your copyright to a publisher if you want a book or CD or whatever done, but the publisher then can claim copyright over the medium. Suddenly it's out of the creator's control. They may want to give out their album tracks free, but the record company will stop them. This has happened in real life, though the specific example escapes me for now.

Copyrights themselves aren't bad, but the extent to which it has become a device for commercial profit is itself damaging to art, since now even art must be marketable and profitable. Anyway, what's the problem for your artists if we don't protect their copyright as much? Surely they can generate enough income from the domestic copyright-happy market to sustain themselves?

Selling the rights to publish isn't the only way to make money, or to eat. Musicians can make money from concerts, and most art (as in paintings, drawings) really isn't worth the effort to copy. After all, most museums I've been to charge maybe US$10 for entry or are free - the British Museum, Tate Modern, and National Gallery in London being the best examples, though in the US I had to pay something like US$20 for MoMA in New York, but it was worth the money.

Just because there's no copyright (and that's not what we're advocating) doesn't mean the artist will not get any money for their work. Governments give out art grants all the time
Oh, so now artists have to rely on the government?
and people do in fact still buy CDs even though they could download the album free.
Probably because it's illegal, which this proposal would make it. The drop in profit the recording industry blames on filesharing is in fact due to filesharing, but because it has allowed people to discover new bands - hence the growth in independent music. More people are buying CDs which don't add to the profit margin of the big record companies pushing their mainstream fluff. Unfortunately, that also means Snoop Dogg is reduced to travelling first class rather than in a private jet (or "Pimpin' Air Express"). Too bad, I guess.
I fail to see how you can claim that taking something without giving someone else money can't have an impact on the profits of that person.

As a matter of fact you do have to licence (or whatever the technical term is) your copyright to a publisher if you want a book or CD or whatever done, but the publisher then can claim copyright over the medium. Suddenly it's out of the creator's control. They may want to give out their album tracks free, but the record company will stop them. This has happened in real life, though the specific example escapes me for now.
This proposal makes no mention of that. The artists should go to a record company that doesn't take the copyright.

Copyrights themselves aren't bad, but the extent to which it has become a device for commercial profit is itself damaging to art, since now even art must be marketable and profitable. Anyway, what's the problem for your artists if we don't protect their copyright as much? Surely they can generate enough income from the domestic copyright-happy market to sustain themselves?
But the whole world benefits. If copyright holders didn't have international copyright protection, they'll have no incentive to market their work internationally, meaning that people in other nations can't access it. Sure, someone could rip it off them and market it - but isn't it fair that they get a profit for everyone that likes what they made?

Oh, so now artists have to rely on the government?

Probably because it's illegal, which this proposal would make it.
I fail to see how you can claim that taking something without giving someone else money can't have an impact on the profits of that person.


What taking? Copying art does not destroy art, it does not remove art from anyone's possesion, or prevent anyone else from enjoying the art one bit.

Oh, so now artists have to rely on the government?

I would say rather our Government relies on our artists :) When an artists produces anything, they gain recognition. From that recognition, everything else rises in value. Often these artists are hired by businesses within our land to provide art for a larger endeavor. We have some amazing ad campaigns.


But the whole world benefits. If copyright holders didn't have international copyright protection, they'll have no incentive to market their work internationally, meaning that people in other nations can't access it. Sure, someone could rip it off them and market it - but isn't it fair that they get a profit for everyone that likes what they made?

I think your problem is you have not visited our land, or anywhere that artists have not attempted to prevent people from distributing and improving on their work. You see this as the only way to promote art. We find that art is self perpetuating, and that attempts to control it merely stifle it. Let art be art!

It seems the youth of our planet are freely trading the contents of their music collection. Music has become a non rival good. It can be replicated without reducing the enjoyment of each user.

1s and 0s can be copied, without harming the original 1s and 0s. That makes the unit cost of a particular copy of a song 0. Nothing. Less then the smallest unit of currency conceived. It is natural then for the price of any particular copy of a song to fall to zero. I can see why your current large music business might want to exploit whatever song they are currently selling, but we will not let their greed prevent us from creating the next generation of music.

Oh, so now artists have to rely on the government?

Seeing as you quoted an entire paragraph right before that about how you don't necessarily need copyright for artists to make money I don't know how on earth you came to that conclusion from my post.

Probably because it's illegal, which this proposal would make it.

ICly, that doesn't mean we will enforce it.

I fail to see how you can claim that taking something without giving someone else money can't have an impact on the profits of that person.

I'm not claiming that at all. Just saying that it's not necessarily a bad thing.

This proposal makes no mention of that. The artists should go to a record company that doesn't take the copyright.

Under copyright law (in Canada, that's the one I'm familiar with, but it is similar to most countries) record companies have copyright on the recording. It's different from the actual song itself. The artist does not have copyright "taken away" from them. In fact they don't have copyright at all.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-42/230491.html

18. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the maker of a sound recording has a copyright in the sound recording, consisting of the sole right to do the following in relation to the sound recording or any substantial part thereof:

(a) to publish it for the first time,

(b) to reproduce it in any material form, and

(c) to rent it out,

and to authorize any such acts.

If copyright holders didn't have international copyright protection, they'll have no incentive to market their work internationally, meaning that people in other nations can't access it. Sure, someone could rip it off them and market it - but isn't it fair that they get a profit for everyone that likes what they made?

Why does it have to be about profit? Is it so crazy that artists would be satisfied with exposure, and being known than with being rich? The reason so many bands are in favour of filesharing and want their mp3s to be shared around is because it makes them more well-known and potentially find more fans.

On one hand you seem to be arguing that artists would give up their copyright if they wanted to and it's all about choice, and then you go arguing that they wouldn't have any incentive to create if there's no copyright - meaning they'd never give up their copyright. So which is it?

I'm starting to wonder if copyright supporters have seriously consider any alternatives to copyright?

I'm starting to wonder if copyright supporters have seriously consider any alternatives to copyright?

We'd be very interested in learning what alternatives the representative of Discoraversalism is talking about. They would certainly be worth discussing.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Seeing as you quoted an entire paragraph right before that about how you don't necessarily need copyright for artists to make money I don't know how on earth you came to that conclusion from my post.
Well, I don't really see why people would go to a concert when they could just get the music free, which is the other way you suggested they'd get money.
ICly, that doesn't mean we will enforce it.
Perhaps we need another clause then: MANDATES that all nations must enforce this resolution through appropriate and effective legislation?
I'm not claiming that at all. Just saying that it's not necessarily a bad thing.
I don't see how it can be a bad thing to give hard workers and very helpful members of society a reduction in the amount of money they get.

Under copyright law (in Canada, that's the one I'm familiar with, but it is similar to most countries) record companies have copyright on the recording.
If you don't want to have that in your national copyright laws under this resolution, don't. The resolution makes no mention of it.
It's different from the actual song itself. The artist does not have copyright "taken away" from them. In fact they don't have copyright at all.
Well, they do have copyright under this resolution.

Why does it have to be about profit? Is it so crazy that artists would be satisfied with exposure, and being known than with being rich? The reason so many bands are in favour of filesharing and want their mp3s to be shared around is because it makes them more well-known and potentially find more fans.
If the artists don't want to copyright, all they have to do is release their work into the public domain. This proposal gives artists the choice.

On one hand you seem to be arguing that artists would give up their copyright if they wanted to and it's all about choice, and then you go arguing that they wouldn't have any incentive to create if there's no copyright - meaning they'd never give up their copyright. So which is it?
Well, some would want to give up their copyright if they had enough extra money. But many wouldn't be able to get enough money to survive without copyright. It depends on their individual circumstances.

The nation of Airatum agrees with the Ambassador from Ecopoeia and others that this resolution infringes on our right to hold all works in the public domain created within our borders.

We are more than happy to support a resolution stating that all UN nations must abide by copyright laws in force where the intellectual property originated. While the people of Airatum hold intellectual property to be a product of a divine gift placed in a artist for the benefit of all, we recognize that other nations and cultures do not hold to such views, and respect their right to restrict access to their intellectual property.

It seems to us that the resolution could easily be worded to protect private intellectual property on the international level when such property was protected in its country of origin. We do not, however, agree that the United Nations should mandate other cultures' concepts of personal intellectual property rights be enforced for our own citizens and residents.

Should this resolution pass in its current form, we would be forced to define the creating artist for any work as the original Artist, who originally formed every mortal artist with His very word, and thus every artwork as merely a derivative of His original creation.

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the United Nations

We think the honorable Ambassador from Airatum may be reacting to the initial draft posted at the start of this thread. We would ask that he please read over the latest draft, posted here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11000165&postcount=62

The representative will note that section 3c has been changed to permit nations wide latitude in establishing copyright law which would apply to works created within their boundaries. This section would now permit Airatum to continue its current policy.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Well, I don't really see why people would go to a concert when they could just get the music free, which is the other way you suggested they'd get money.

:confused: Because it's live? Spontaneous? Stuff like that. I can turn on public radio and hear classical music more or less for free. (Yes I actually am a member so be quiet.) But I'll rush at the chance to go to City Opera in Manhatten, (and walk slowly at the chance for the Met next door only because the prices are much higher) or to go to a classical concert to hear something I may have already heard as a recording. Because it's live and right in front of me!

Speaking of music, if you will allow me to put on my barbershop harmony society local chapter secretary's hat for a moment, there's a big difference between a concert and a recording, at least in the US. The former requires an ASCAP (http://www.ascap.com/index.html) licence. The later requires a mechanical license.

We thank the gentle representative from Ausserland for the link to the current proposal, and apologize for the misunderstanding.

Currently, section 3c reads to us as allowing a nation to make more restrictive copyright laws than the proposal establishes, but doesn't seem to allow for a more liberal use of copyright laws. Section 3c seems to apply to the process of securing copyrights, and doesn't appear to allow exception to 3a for works created within a nation's borders.

All of this seems to be in contradiction to section 2.

We submit that the direct opposite of 2 would protect copyrights for creators located in countries that maintain private ownership of intellectual property. We envision something like the following:

2. DECLARES that the copyright law of each nation shall apply to the distribution, demonstration, expression, and use of intellectual property in created in that nation, regardless of the copyright laws of the nation in which it is distributed.

Sincerely,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the United Nations

Well, I don't really see why people would go to a concert when they could just get the music free, which is the other way you suggested they'd get money..

Dear God. You obviously aren't a music fan. Music is best heard live. That's why people pay $80 to hear songs they can buy for $20 (or get free through the Intarweb).

Artistic creations aren't just another product to buy or sell. They don't work like that. You are assuming they are.

Perhaps we need another clause then: MANDATES that all nations must enforce this resolution through appropriate and effective legislation?

Why, of course our legislation is effective and appropriate. It's effective and appopriate for our needs. Not yours.

I don't see how it can be a bad thing to give hard workers and very helpful members of society a reduction in the amount of money they get.

Freudian slip? :P

Well, they do have copyright under this resolution.

Actually, I don't think they do. If your copyright law makes that distinction, this also enhances the rights of the maker of the sound recording, i.e. the record company.

If the artists don't want to copyright, all they have to do is release their work into the public domain. This proposal gives artists the choice.

Yes. We're not saying there shouldn't be a choice. But this imposes overly restrictive standards on everyone.

Well, some would want to give up their copyright if they had enough extra money. But many wouldn't be able to get enough money to survive without copyright. It depends on their individual circumstances.

Firstly, copyright would only be a big deal for their income if the creation in question was easily copied, music for instance. If they can't get enough money to survive selling CDs and playing gigs maybe they need a day job? It's not like all musicians start out professional and have no other source of income. I'm sure you could find celebrity rags to tell you what many Hollywood actors did for a living before they made it in the acting world, and if you're good enough to begin doing it professionally right from the get-go, chances are copyright infringment won't be a significant dent in your income anyway.

Dear God. You obviously aren't a music fan.
Guilty as charged. :D
Music is best heard live. That's why people pay $80 to hear songs they can buy for $20 (or get free through the Intarweb).

Artistic creations aren't just another product to buy or sell. They don't work like that. You are assuming they are.
You've got a point, but I'm not convinced that they don't need the extra money from royalties and such.

Why, of course our legislation is effective and appropriate. It's effective and appopriate for our needs. Not yours.
And not artists in other nations who need the money from royalties and copyright-requiring sources of income.


Actually, I don't think they do. If your copyright law makes that distinction, this also enhances the rights of the maker of the sound recording, i.e. the record company.
How do they not have the copyright on the music? They are the author, therefore this draft says they have copyright on what they create.

Yes. We're not saying there shouldn't be a choice. But this imposes overly restrictive standards on everyone.
It imposes the least standards as possible while still preserving choice for the artist/author. I don't see how it could be less restrictive without compromising the choice of rights for the artist/author.

Firstly, copyright would only be a big deal for their income if the creation in question was easily copied, music for instance. If they can't get enough money to survive selling CDs and playing gigs maybe they need a day job? It's not like all musicians start out professional and have no other source of income. I'm sure you could find celebrity rags to tell you what many Hollywood actors did for a living before they made it in the acting world, and if you're good enough to begin doing it professionally right from the get-go, chances are copyright infringment won't be a significant dent in your income anyway.
What about print media/books? Those are very easily copied and there is no additional value for getting the authorized edition than the ripped edition. News media would suffer without copyright, because then they would copy from each other, lowering the scope of news, as well as be ripped, posted on the internet, and then the companies would go out of business. And I don't see how journalists and publishers are able to get day jobs.

You've got a point, but I'm not convinced that they don't need the extra money from royalties and such.

And not artists in other nations who need the money from royalties and copyright-requiring sources of income.

I might be willing to support, or at least not violently oppose, something requring recogniton of foreign copyrights, as long as it doesn't involve my 15-year olds getting sued for thousands for mp3 piracy - allowing the defendant's home nation jurisdiction, or something along those lines. Either that or a more general one applying only to authorship (that is, not to publishers), such as all artists have the right to control their work, its distribution, and to take action against plagarism/infringement, etc. which doesn't dictate enforcement to nations. But I am not willing to support this as it stands.

Royalty income usually isn't that great anyway. Yes, for books that's most of the income the author will get, but as explained below books aren't that easy to copy. In the music business pop stars get most of their money endorsing products, making appearances, and from concerts. It's because they have these income sources besides their copyright that successful pop stars can build a backyard theme park and get lots of plastic surgery while bestselling authors can maintain a comfortable, but not very extravagant existence.

How do they not have the copyright on the music? They are the author, therefore this draft says they have copyright on what they create.

The publisher has copyright of the medium. There are seperate copyrights in play here. Britney Spears's CDs are done by Sony (I think). The copyright of the song itself belongs to Britney, the copyright of the recording belongs to Sony because Sony produces it; you could say they are the author of the CD. That's why the record companies, and not the artists, file the lawsuits in the filesharing cases.

What about print media/books? Those are very easily copied and there is no additional value for getting the authorized edition than the ripped edition. News media would suffer without copyright, because then they would copy from each other, lowering the scope of news, as well as be ripped, posted on the internet, and then the companies would go out of business. And I don't see how journalists and publishers are able to get day jobs.

Libraries, however, have so far failed to cause mass author starvation. Also, books are in fact much harder to copy. It's standing in front of a photocopier with a paperback, turning the pages and pressing the green button a few hundred times, then binding it properly versus putting a CD into the computer, opening up a program and pressing the "Rip" button.

News media get most of their income from advertising, not from people buying the newspaper. Hence in fact most newspapers encourage readers to share the copy around (one free newspaper I've seen in Singapore even prints it right on the front page "SHARE YOUR FREE COPY") because it gives them better readership numbers and a better sales pitch to advertisers.

And they do in fact copy from each other - much of the newspaper content, especially for world news stories, is purchased by the newspaper from news agencies like AFP, AP, or Reuters, or from big-name newspapers like the New York Times. Opinion sections generally are from their own writers but they might include syndicated columns and the like. Comic strips are all syndicated. It's not as easy to copy a newspaper on the internet as well, since you have to type it all out, and the only real loss is if their online edition is pay-subscription. But when it goes out over the internet to a very large extent there isn't any loss to them because most of the people reading it would probably not be able to buy the newspaper anyway since they don't live where it is distributed. The extent to which news media rely on copyright for income is very small.

And in fact, in general terms, to a very great extent money made from copyright is overwhelmingly going to corporations and not the artists themselves. That's why our opposition, and why left-wing groups are generally against harsh copyright law - because it advances corporate rights much more than it does individual rights of the artists. They (record companies especially) like to advance the argument that it hurts the artists, but that's basically a disingenuous, bogus argument because their motive isn't to protect artist royalty income, which isn't very large as I've already said, it's to protect their profit margin.

Dear God. You obviously aren't a music fan. Music is best heard live.

I would make a minor quibble. Music is better heard live. Music is best when performed live! There is nothing more enjoyable than busting a few chords and singing a few songs with some friends. Singing is life! The rest is just details!

This is my only minor quibble with copyright law. Artists deserve their fair share, that's a fact and something I agree with totally. But copyright should never be used to choke and strangle the inalienable right to express yourself in song. In real life I'm fed up with the "Happy Birthday Police" - the plethora of lawyers that will literally sue major resturant chains because their wait staff sang "Happy Birthday" with the exceptionally copyright enforced lyrics. (The melody holder has allowed some exceptions, but not the lyric holder, which is why you won't find "Happy Birthday" as a barbershop arrangement on the Barbershop Harmony Society's catelogue, but you will find "Have a Happy Day" on the catelogue which uses the exact same melody.)

I do want to point out that I actually support this resolution, my beef is with the real world. Once upon a time everyone sang. It didn't make the world a better place, or perhaps it did.

I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony...

*gag*

We'd be very interested in learning what alternatives the representative of Discoraversalism is talking about. They would certainly be worth discussing.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
Others have already answered this better, but I'll weigh in anyway.

For music, live performances are the standard way to make money. Freely distributing an artists art gives that artist more fame, reputation etc. They can then command greater sums for their time, however it is spent. We have found that once an artist becomes truly successful, people flock to everything they do, and will also take notice of anything else the artists recommends.

For visual arts, my expectation is the artist would be hired by someone else engaging in a larger artistic endeavor.

People will gladly pay a small amount of money for art if it is delivered to them in a convenient fashion, even if they could obtain the art for free, but in a more difficult fashion.

Art should always be taking advantage of the economy of scale provided by new technology. Copyright impedes this, preventing the massive distribution of art that would otherwise be occurring.

Very rarely do acts do more than a short tours/few gigs. More often they will tack on to a bigger act to launch a career, then a single, an album and then perhaps they do a performance at one of these big festivals. Learning, Blastronby, Isle of Wrong, that sort of thing.

Also, books are in fact much harder to copy. It's standing in front of a photocopier with a paperback, turning the pages and pressing the green button a few hundred times, then binding it properly


If we're only talking about individuals making their own copies, yes. However there's presumably also the possibility, in some nations, of goverment-owned publishing works producing "local" editions of books that originated abroad in order to reduce the need for imports...

And of course people in some countries have access to scanners which can be used to upload the contents of books into computers, so that although the original page-by-page data-storage process is admittedly quite slow multiple copies of that text can then be quickly & easily shared online...

And of course people in some countries have access to scanners which can be used to upload the contents of books into computers, so that although the original page-by-page data-storage process is admittedly quite slow multiple copies of that text can then be quickly & easily shared online...
Is a goal of this resolution to prevent any country from engaging in this valued service, and increasing the distribution of art?

Is a goal of this resolution to prevent any country from engaging in this valued service, and increasing the distribution of art?
Yes. Because many artists don't wish to have their work copied. This work will respect their wishes.

Yes. Because many artists don't wish to have their work copied. This work will respect their wishes.

And many who do (especially lithographic artists) only wish to have a fixed number of copies made after which the plates are secured or in some cases actually broken to prevent more copies being made.

And this proposal would protect authors' rights in works other than 'Art', such as text-books, too...

Yes. Because many artists don't wish to have their work copied. This work will respect their wishes.

This respects the author's of your countries art's desire to control art. It infringes on the rights of our countries citizens to enjoy, use, participate and create art.

This is not protecting rights. No one has a right to control art. This proposition removes rights from individuals and gives them to corporate interests.

Many individual artists in our country would be put out of business. We have a whole style of music called Electronica that consists of sampling other songs. That art form would be decimated.

Could someone just come out and admit they oppose this because they believe they have the right to plagiarise and steal? It'd make this debate a whole lot less fucking tedious.

This respects the author's of your countries art's desire to control art. It infringes on the rights of our countries citizens to enjoy, use, participate and create art.
No. It respects the authors of my country's right to control the art that they produce, the art that they wouldn't even have made in the first place if they knew that people could just steal it, because they need to make a living.

Same with textbooks for education. There's a lot of production cost that goes into them, and they're expensive. If schools could just copy them wholesale without credit or payment, we wouldn't have any textbooks.

This is not protecting rights. No one has a right to control art. This proposition removes rights from individuals and gives them to corporate interests.
Oh, so now this is greedy corporations v. the hard-working, underpaid populace. Well, guess what: a lot of the "art" produced by corporations is instrumental to the functioning of society. Like the textbook example.

I'd also like to clarify that this will not infringe on your right to sing, that is provided for by the fair use clause.
Many individual artists in our country would be put out of business. We have a whole style of music called Electronica that consists of sampling other songs. That art form would be decimated.
If we passed a law banning burglary, many of our individual workers would be put out of business. We have a whole style of making a living called Stealing that consists of sampling large amounts of food at no cost from other restaurants. That living form would be decimated. :rolleyes:

Seriously, you could still coninue that, as long as you got the permission of the original authors.

No. It respects the authors of my country's right to control the art that they produce, the art that they wouldn't even have made in the first place if they knew that people could just steal it, because they need to make a living.

And here I thought you were actually reading what I was posting.

Same with textbooks for education. There's a lot of production cost that goes into them, and they're expensive. If schools could just copy them wholesale without credit or payment, we wouldn't have any textbooks.

If your schools have to do that you aren't spending enough on education.

Could someone just come out and admit they oppose this because they believe they have the right to plagiarise and steal? It'd make this debate a whole lot less fucking tedious.

Nowhere have I ever said plagarism is fine. It's bad and artistically dishonest. But I wholeheartedly support destroying the profit of the corporations who bring us the blight that is "pop music", so yeah, sure. Go steal from them. But it's a matter of being made to impose laws we don't believe in, laws which benefit corporate rights rather than human rights as all these copyright-promoting campaigns claim.

Nowhere have I ever said plagarism is fine. It's bad and artistically dishonest. But I wholeheartedly support destroying the profit of the corporations who bring us the blight that is "pop music", so yeah, sure. Go steal from them. But it's a matter of being made to impose laws we don't believe in, laws which benefit corporate rights rather than human rights as all these copyright-promoting campaigns claim.
OOC: Meh, deride pop music all you want. Revolver remains the greatest album ever made - I'm listening to a pop album from 2006 that I consider just fantastic. If you're against crap music...ban crap music. Or promote non-crap music. If you're against corporations, ban them. I'm not aware of any UN legislation that makes it such that nations have to allow the existence of corporations. I wish people would stop fogging the issue with tangents. Are some record labels fuckers? Yeah. But we're discussing whether there should be an international copyright law. The argument "but I don't like Warner Brothers!" may fly with Prince; it won't with me, though. I'd prefer an actual argument, rather than hysterical whining.

I wish people would stop fogging the issue with tangents. Are some record labels fuckers? Yeah. But we're discussing whether there should be an international copyright law. The argument "but I don't like Warner Brothers!" may fly with Prince; it won't with me, though. I'd prefer an actual argument, rather than hysterical whining.

OOC: No, when I say pop music I don't mean like The Beatles. I mean talentless acts put together and promoted for marketing to people who just like whatever they are told is popular. Like Ashlee Simpson, or bands like Maroon 5 and Busted.

But that's not my main point here, and I'm not going tangential when one of the main arguments put forward is "it benefits artists" and I'm saying that up to 90% of the money goes to publishers, so the argument is disingenuous because the record companies are the ones most prominent in putting it forward. Their motive is self-evident.

I've also proposed an alternative to this - international recognition of external copyright without dictating extensively to nations what form the copyright should be as it is in this proposal. If there must be an international copyright law that's what I would agree with.

OOC: But that's not my main point here, and I'm not going tangential when one of the main arguments put forward is "it benefits artists" and I'm saying that up to 90% of the money goes to publishers, so the argument is disingenuous because the record companies are the ones most prominent in putting it forward. Their motive is self-evident.
OOC: Right. So propose something to change that. Or, given it's probably a national issue, enact laws to change that in Kelssek. But the fact that 90% of money goes to publishers is not something that would be created by this proposal - it's something that generally exists anyway.

Also happy birthday.

Well, ICly we do already have laws which restrict rights of the publisher in favour of the artist (see earlier pages). With the definition of intellectual property in this proposal we wouldn't be able to do that because the creation of a recording falls under the definiton of "any work of mainly creative value that is of original authorship and is fixed in a tangible expressive medium". Though I guess we could have our courts interpret it to exclude that or whatever. It's not really the proposal itself I'm fighting, but the arguments for it.

Also, thanks. Is that in my profile or something?

It's not really the proposal itself I'm fighting, but the arguments for it.
Oh, ok. Then...I don't think I'll continue. It's the proposal I'm interested in.

Also, thanks. Is that in my profile or something?
No, I saw it on the CDQ boards.

This will be submitted as soon as I get a mod ruling on whether it's freetrade or e&c:artistic. It will most likely have a good chance of quorum, given the number of telegrams I'm going to send out.

Because we want to own all human knowledge, we don't like this act. We want every bit of knowledge in existence for the Final Encyclopedia we will do anything to get it, steal it, plagiarize it, copy it. Without this thing if aliens invade earth, there will be no way to preserve all knowledge.

Could someone just come out and admit they oppose this because they believe they have the right to plagiarise and steal? It'd make this debate a whole lot less fucking tedious.

We oppose this because we believe we have the right to plagiarise and steal.

Well, not really, but somebody had to say it. ;)

Could someone just come out and admit they oppose this because they believe they have the right to plagiarise and steal? It'd make this debate a whole lot less fucking tedious.
We are firmly against both pagiarism and theft. Our artists our quite studious about giving credit where credit is due. Claiming someone else's work as your own will quickly destroy an artists reputation.

We are also against removing property from anyone. However duplication is in no way, shape, or form, similar to theft.

No. It respects the authors of my country's right to control the art that they produce, the art that they wouldn't even have made in the first place if they knew that people could just steal it, because they need to make a living.

Same with textbooks for education. There's a lot of production cost that goes into them, and they're expensive. If schools could just copy them wholesale without credit or payment, we wouldn't have any textbooks.


Our textbooks are produced as a collobarative process online. We use an invention called a wiki.


Oh, so now this is greedy corporations v. the hard-working, underpaid populace. Well, guess what: a lot of the "art" produced by corporations is instrumental to the functioning of society. Like the textbook example.

I'd also like to clarify that this will not infringe on your right to sing, that is provided for by the fair use clause.

If we passed a law banning burglary, many of our individual workers would be put out of business. We have a whole style of making a living called Stealing that consists of sampling large amounts of food at no cost from other restaurants. That living form would be decimated. :rolleyes:

Seriously, you could still coninue that, as long as you got the permission of the original authors.

You appear to be saying artists have a right to control their art after they produce it. We instead feel people have a right to do whatever they want with art. If an artists abuses this privilege (perhaps by not giving credit where credit is due) they will quickly pay the price in repuation.

There is no need for the law to step in and try to control art, and it is the responsibility of any true artist to resist any such effort.

We are firmly against both pagiarism and theft. Our artists our quite studious about giving credit where credit is due. Claiming someone else's work as your own will quickly destroy an artists reputation.

We are also against removing property from anyone. However duplication is in no way, shape, or form, similar to theft.

An artist in Ceorana spends months creating a series of wonderful woodcuts. A publisher then offers a contract, whereby the artist will be compensated for his time, effort, and creativity by receiving royalties from the books sold. The publisher then invests considerable money producing a quality volume of the work. He expects to be compensated and make a decent profit from selling copies.

One copy reaches the fair land of Discoreversalism. It is then scanned and uploaded to a public server. And three pirate presses print up hundreds of knock-off copies and sell them. The happy folk of Discoreversalism get to enjoy the art. The publisher receives zip in return for his investment. The artist gets zip in royalties. The citizens of Discoreversalism get a free lunch and don't give a damn about where it came from. And the pirate press operators get to reap their profits without having invested a dime in royalties, book design, or layout work.

Theft? Maybe not. But if you honestly think that's fair and just, then we see no hope in arguing the point further.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

An artist in Ceorana spends months creating a series of wonderful woodcuts. A publisher then offers a contract, whereby the artist will be compensated for his time, effort, and creativity by receiving royalties from the books sold. The publisher then invests considerable money producing a quality volume of the work. He expects to be compensated and make a decent profit from selling copies.

One copy reaches the fair land of Discoreversalism. It is then scanned and uploaded to a public server. And three pirate presses print up hundreds of knock-off copies and sell them. The happy folk of Discoreversalism get to enjoy the art. The publisher receives zip in return for his investment. The artist gets zip in royalties.

Meanwhile the artists reputation soars in Discoraversalism,(assuming their art is any good, and people would actually have bothered copying their art here). We flock to the artists website, and gladly pay a reasonable price for anything they are selling. If the price is too high, we go to our local file sharer and use that instead. Either way, the art continues to propagate, and the artist rises in value (ie repuation)

The citizens of Discoreversalism get a free lunch and don't give a damn about where it came from. And the pirate press operators get to reap their profits without having invested a dime in royalties, book design, or layout work.

If the pirate press operators are better capitalists then the publishers in your region, we see no reason for government to intervene on behalf of your publishers over ours.

Theft? Maybe not. But if you honestly think that's fair and just, then we see no hope in arguing the point further.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We not only see it as fair and just, we see it as unstoppable. Welcome to the technological age. If this age is too frightening for you, then you need not participate in debates on electronic forums ;)

Best wishes,
Random Discordian Citizen on a Forum

Meanwhile the artists reputation soars in Discoraversalism,(assuming their art is any good, and people would actually have bothered copying their art here). We flock to the artists website, and gladly pay a reasonable price for anything they are selling. If the price is too high, we go to our local file sharer and use that instead. Either way, the art continues to propagate, and the artist rises in value (ie repuation)
That's a moronic argument. If people can get something for free, why would they pay any amount for it? Furthermore, the artist's reputation matters squat if he has no money. That means he can no longer afford to produce art - because he has to find a job that pays, because he can't afford materials to write or research. Stop trying to pretend you're somehow protecting or venerating art: you're destroying it.

That's a moronic argument. If people can get something for free, why would they pay any amount for it?


Well people can get music for free in our land, but they pay anyway because those selling music realize they are competing with free music. They offer cheap, convenient music. It's bothersome to get free music from the intraweb, but it's cheap and easy to download from Idiscoraversalism.com. Artists may make less money per song this way, but it also allows new artists to quickly makes sales without selling their soles to a megacorp.

People also listen to free music that is supported by advertising dollars. Some of our more popular artists design advertising jingles that sound like regular music at the first hear. They greatly prefer doing such work to giving up an ounce of artistic freedom.

Furthermore, the artist's reputation matters squat if he has no money.


You have it backwards! The ability to sell the rights to an artist's music matters squat if he has no reputation, because no one will buy it.

That means he can no longer afford to produce art - because he has to find a job that pays, because he can't afford materials to write or research. Stop trying to pretend you're somehow protecting or venerating art: you're destroying it.

Many of our artists would be unable to afford to produce many of their creations under your system. Their art consists of sampling 5 seconds from other popular songs. It would be impossible to purchase permission to sample the 20 songs that make up one of their works.

Stop trying to pretend you are somehow protecting or venerating art, you are trying to protect large corporate interests. Those large corporate interests exist as well in The Free Land of Discoraversalism, they just have to take advantage of artists using a different method then copyright.

Did you know that art predates copyright? It did fine then, and continues to do fine in regions that ignore copyright.

Art did fine? Perhaps, but not the artists. And this resolution is about the artists, not the art. Even after copyright most artists were often poor and destitute.

Art did fine? Perhaps, but not the artists. And this resolution is about the artists, not the art. Even after copyright most artists were often poor and destitute.
Ok so you admit that with copyright most artsits are often poor and destitute?

In that case I think we definitely need something else.

Meanwhile the artists reputation soars in Discoraversalism,(assuming their art is any good, and people would actually have bothered copying their art here). We flock to the artists website, and gladly pay a reasonable price for anything they are selling. If the price is too high, we go to our local file sharer and use that instead. Either way, the art continues to propagate, and the artist rises in value (ie repuation)

Oh, please! This lame argument has been used by pirates of all sorts of creative works for ages and hasn't the remotest connection to reality. You honestly believe people are going to pay for something they can get for free -- and legally, under your system? The artists' reputation soars, and meanwhile they get jobs as carwashers because people like you won't let them get paid the royalties they deserve.

If the pirate press operators are better capitalists then the publishers in your region, we see no reason for government to intervene on behalf of your publishers over ours.

They're not better capitalists. They're simply avoiding paying the artist for his work and stealing the results of the effort of the publisher.

We not only see it as fair and just, we see it as unstoppable. Welcome to the technological age. If this age is too frightening for you, then you need not participate in debates on electronic forums ;)


Despite your snide comment, the technological age doesn't frighten us a bit. We simply think there's room for fairness, justice and equity in it. You obviously don't. Technology has made denying others fair compensation for their work easy, so it's right? Where's the justice in that?

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

I've opened up a submitted thread that you may want to use instead: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=486102

Ok so you admit that with copyright most artsits are often poor and destitute?

In that case I think we definitely need something else.
Well, many artists will be poor and destitute regardless, but they'll be a lot less poor and destitute with this.

Oh, please! This lame argument has been used by pirates of all sorts of creative works for ages and hasn't the remotest connection to reality. You honestly believe people are going to pay for something they can get for free -- and legally, under your system? The artists' reputation soars, and meanwhile they get jobs as carwashers because people like you won't let them get paid the royalties they deserve.

I don't believe ever in the history of man has an artist with a soaring reputation been unable to make a living.

People do currently pay for music rather then go out of their way to download free music. You may deny it as often as you like, but it is already occurring.

They're not better capitalists. They're simply avoiding paying the artist for his work and stealing the results of the effort of the publisher.


Please cease to misuse the word theft. Duplication is not theft.


Despite your snide comment, the technological age doesn't frighten us a bit. We simply think there's room for fairness, justice and equity in it. You obviously don't. Technology has made denying others fair compensation for their work easy, so it's right? Where's the justice in that?

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

You have strange idieas of farines, justice and equity. Please do not attempt to force your version on the artists of our country.

You cannot own an image! You cannot own a sequence of 1's and 0s. They are not physical things that can be owned. You cannot prevent people from duplicating them, nor should you. I have been trying to demonstrate that it is unnecessary.

The thing is, copyright isn't just unneccesary to enforce now, it's impossible. I'm willing to wager that in your country a great many of your citizens are downloading copies of images and music right now, ignoring whatever copyright law you may have enacted. I submit that any attempt to stop them will fail.

In earlier days, it was much harder to copy art. It took large mechanical contraptions, or a lot of man hours. Therefore people didn't mind so much when people sneaked in copyright legislation, and they didn't notice that the cost of art was gradually rising, without a corresponding increase in the income of the average artist.

However now it's a lot more obvious, because art now has zero unit cost. It is a non rival good. You can copy a song one million times, without it losing any value, and without incurring any costs.

I understand that you are having trouble adapting to that fact. We have. Please stop trying to hold back our artistic progress. Good artists are amongst the most respected and wealthy individuals in our society. We do not need your interference to protect the wealth of our artists.

If your artists have failed to adapt to the modern era we will gladly show them how :)

Addressing all IP resolutions...

The arguments for copyright/patent laws on these pages seem to take little account of the economic effects of such laws. The incentive for further creation must always be weighed against the monopoly costs of strong IPR. The holder of the monopoly privelege will sell good(s) to earn monopolistic profits. However, this results in suboptimal incentives to commit adequate resources to investment, since monopoly profits are less than the overall benifit to society. A monopolist will only invest insofar as they continue to earn a monoploy profit and the maiximal benifit is lost to society as would be achieved in a competitive market. The loss to the consumer comes because monopolists restrict output to boost price.

Monopolistic and oligopolistic forms of market structure induce static allocative inefficiencies arising from a lack of price competition.

Further, there is the ethical issue of how an individual can "own" an idea. It can only occur through a forcible government intrusion into the marketplace. I reject the concept of the ownership of ideas, since if taken to reductio ad absurdum, would lead one to the result that we should all be slaves of the descendants of the small number of people who made some fundamental discoveries and inventions a few thousand years ago. Should engineers be forced to pay the ancestors of Newton every time they calculate an integral?

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/zombies.jpg