NationStates Jolt Archive

Step right up! Get yer approval link! And click on the little approve button!
~APPROVAL LINK! (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=copyright)~
Previous discussion: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481266

UN Copyright Convention

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


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/personal 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;
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.

I could swear this passed last time. Not much to say but that I like this proposal and, although not thinking it important on the grand scale of things, hope it passes.

I could swear this passed last time. Not much to say but that I like this proposal and, although not thinking it important on the grand scale of things, hope it passes.

You're probably thinking of the recently passed "UN Patent Law". This hasn't been submitted before. Thanks for the good wishes.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Best of luck, approved. :)

I was about to question the same thing. But alas. Patent Law. Right.

Norderia's chalking up its approval.

Tommo the Stout
and all the rest.

Existing discussion here - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481266

Copyright has no place in the modern era. Our nation is against it, for the reasons stated in the prior thread.

Please cease attempting to control the actions of our artists, or the progress of our art.

[response mainly to comments in other thread]

What many opposers of this proposal fail to realize is that reputations are not always spread quickly and some types of intellectual property are made for a profit. There is no reason to pay someone for something that is legally available for free if it's something like that. If you want morality to act as a deterrent go ahead: but if it's immoral, why don't you make it illegal?

Please cease attempting to control the actions of our artists
This doesn't control their actions. They're free to do what they will with their art: they can copyright it, they can choose to release it into the public domain, they can use alternate licensing systems. If anything, this proposal expands their choices by removing the possibility of governmental control of their actions.

[response mainly to comments in other thread]

What many opposers of this proposal fail to realize is that reputations are not always spread quickly and some types of intellectual property are made for a profit. There is no reason to pay someone for something that is legally available for free if it's something like that. If you want morality to act as a deterrent go ahead: but if it's immoral, why don't you make it illegal?

People will pay a reasonable price for art supplied in a convenient fashion rather then go out of their way to obtain a free version.

We do not believe copying art is immoral, would you care to explain how such could be so?

This doesn't control their actions. They're free to do what they will with their art: they can copyright it, they can choose to release it into the public domain, they can use alternate licensing systems. If anything, this proposal expands their choices by removing the possibility of governmental control of their actions.

This proposal makes one of our primary forms of art (the electronic resampling of other artists music) practically impossible. Our Electronica industry will not kindly submit to your legislation attempting to shut it down.

People will pay a reasonable price for art supplied in a convenient fashion rather then go out of their way to obtain a free version.

We do not believe copying art is immoral, would you care to explain how such could be so?
And suppose someone supplies it for free in a convenient manner? Perhaps a wiki-supporter publishing it easily on the internet. Or a competitor handing out CDs?

And suppose someone supplies it for free in a convenient manner? Perhaps a wiki-supporter publishing it easily on the internet. Or a competitor handing out CDs?

Then they are spreading the work of the artist, and thereby increasing the artists reputation. We don't feel an artist has a right to create a single work and then rest on their laurels. All this free publicity should help the artist greatly in profitting from their next work.

The fact of the matter is supply and demand would naturally be reducing the price of most art to a relatively low per unit price. Copyright is an artificial attempt to interfere with that process. Modern technology has made it practicaly impossible for Copyright to be enforced, but it's supporters refuse to admit it.

I admit, the process of large corporations exploiting artists is easier with copyright law, but we have found large corporations can exploit artitsts just fine without it.

Then they are spreading the work of the artist, and thereby increasing the artists reputation. We don't feel an artist has a right to create a single work and then rest on their laurels. All this free publicity should help the artist greatly in profitting from their next work.
I think most artists would rather have food on the table than a good reputation, if they had to choose. The publicity is great, but it doesn't give them any money

The fact of the matter is supply and demand would naturally be reducing the price of most art to a relatively low per unit price. Copyright is an artificial attempt to interfere with that process. Modern technology has made it practicaly impossible for Copyright to be enforced, but it's supporters refuse to admit it.
It's called a lawsuit. Copyright owners sees work being published illegally, takes legal action. Simple.

I admit, the process of large corporations exploiting artists is easier with copyright law, but we have found large corporations can exploit artitsts just fine without it.
If anything, this would make it harder for corporations to exploit artists, because artists have control over their work.

This proposal makes one of our primary forms of art (the electronic resampling of other artists music) practically impossible. Our Electronica industry will not kindly submit to your legislation attempting to shut it down.
All the Electronica industry has to do is get the artists' permission.

Before this debate bogs down in a tedious rehash of the "piracy of art is good for the artists" exchange, we'd just like to remind our colleagues that copyright is a means of helping creators of intellectual property and the publishers who bring it within our reach get a fair return on their investments of time, money, effort, and creativity.

Copyright does not deal with "art" alone. It also covers reference works, computer software, non-fiction writing, journalistic writing, journalistic photography, and a host of other creative works. It gives the people who create and publish these materials a means of taking action to recoup lost revenue if their work is used without permission or compensation.

As for copyright not being enforceable in the electronic age.... That notion simply reveals a lack of understanding of how copyright has been traditionally enforced: reactively, through litigation, not pro-actively, through prevention.

If you believe that the people who bring us creative works of all kinds deserve to be properly compensated for what they do, we respectfully suggest an approval of this proposal would be appropriate.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

All the Electronica industry has to do is get the artists' permission.

That is an unneccesary and unreasonable restriction to be placed on an artist.


The fact of the matter is they don't have to do any such thing, we have noticed a great of Electronica has been composed illegally in countries with copyright legislation. How do you propose to prevent these artists from practicing their art?

Before this debate bogs down in a tedious rehash of the "piracy of art is good for the artists" exchange, we'd just like to remind our colleagues that copyright is a means of helping creators of intellectual property and the publishers who bring it within our reach get a fair return on their investments of time, money, effort, and creativity.


There are other, better, means of achieving the same goals.


Copyright does not deal with "art" alone. It also covers reference works, computer software, non-fiction writing, journalistic writing, journalistic photography, and a host of other creative works. It gives the people who create and publish these materials a means of taking action to recoup lost revenue if their work is used without permission or compensation.

As for copyright not being enforceable in the electronic age.... That notion simply reveals a lack of understanding of how copyright has been traditionally enforced: reactively, through litigation, not pro-actively, through prevention.


It's very hard to sue a computer network :) We have seen the futile efforts of other countries trying to prevent file sharing.


If you believe that the people who bring us creative works of all kinds deserve to be properly compensated for what they do, we respectfully suggest an approval of this proposal would be appropriate.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Artists do not need this legislation to make a living. There are some artists whose livelihoods would be damaged by it.

I think most artists would rather have food on the table than a good reputation, if they had to choose. The publicity is great, but it doesn't give them any money
[/QUOTE

The number of ways to convert fame to money are too numerous to mention. Some artists may prefer wealth to fame, but that doesn't change the fact that fame is the best route to wealth, for artists.

[QUOTE=Ceorana]
It's called a lawsuit. Copyright owners sees work being published illegally, takes legal action. Simple.

If anything, this would make it harder for corporations to exploit artists, because artists have control over their work.

Unfortuately the technology of electronic distribution will not be shut down by any number of lawsuits. What does prevent people from bothering trying to illegally duplicate a work of art is that art being conveniently, legally, available at a reasonable price.

We deny the need for copyright, and it's enforcability in the modern era.

Greetings,

This is a good amendment as international protection gives one the necessary protection to expand the market for their work. I will vote for this resolution, but also propose you amend this resolution to allow parody.

Emperor Brandon I

Greetings,

This is a good amendment as international protection gives one the necessary protection to expand the market for their work. I will vote for this resolution, but also propose you amend this resolution to allow parody.

Emperor Brandon I

We thank His Imperial Majesty for his support. We would call his attention to section 1c of the proposal, which specifically includes parody as one of the acceptable instances of fair use.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Just to throw an ooc thing in, it's related and shows what would be likely to happen if a nation w/o regards to copyright tried to flout the proposal, or even another nation's copywrite laws as the current status quo.

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/living/14730908.htm

There are other, better, means of achieving the same goals.

Such as?

How do you propose to prevent these artists from practicing their art?

Conquering your nation might do it...
Oops! Is this microphone on?

Conquering your nation might do it...
Oops! Is this microphone on?

OOC: Click here (http://radio.about.com/library/reagan_bomb.mp3). :D

Conquering your nation might do it...
Oops! Is this microphone on?

We've been conqured many times :) However we find that said "conquerers" get assmiliated very quickly when they realize we are just enjoying life more. It does sometimes take a generation.

Besides, our underground markets, press, and networking is virtually impossible to wipe out.

Such as?

You want to encourage art? Teach it to your children. Meanwhile teach them the many ways to make money from it without copyright. Advertising for example. Live performances. Talk shows. Tours. Celebrity Reality Television.

Just make sure to keep your prices near your unit costs, or someone else will give away your content for a lower price.

Which is as it should be. Isn't one of the purposes of the market to keep prices down to acceptable levels while still allowing profit?

Just to throw an ooc thing in, it's related and shows what would be likely to happen if a nation w/o regards to copyright tried to flout the proposal, or even another nation's copywrite laws as the current status quo.

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/living/14730908.htm

Pefect example. A company called A, located in global leader R is selling music much closer to it's unit price at a particu. Another global leader U would rather charge 10x that price, but can't because it's not competitive. People across the world use A, even in violation of their own countries laws.

Through legal action, A may get shut down, or be pressured to shut down when R caves in to the demands of U.

But even if they do, 10 more will pop up in it's place. (Truth be told there are already free alternatives to A, but people are willing to pay a small price to get music conveniently from A.)

I appreciate the example :)

Pefect example.
Surely, then, this proposal doesn't matter? You're saying piracy will exist anyway...ok, well in that case, you don't need to worry about this proposal.

Surely, then, this proposal doesn't matter? You're saying piracy will exist anyway...ok, well in that case, you don't need to worry about this proposal.

I think it is a mistake for governments to enact legislation that forces legitimate business underground. Most countries don't want a thriving subculture that flaunts the law.

Each time a government oversteps it's bounds it reduces the citizenry's respect for the rule of law.

You want to encourage art? Teach it to your children. Meanwhile teach them the many ways to make money from it without copyright. Advertising for example. Live performances. Talk shows. Tours. Celebrity Reality Television.

Just make sure to keep your prices near your unit costs, or someone else will give away your content for a lower price.

Which is as it should be. Isn't one of the purposes of the market to keep prices down to acceptable levels while still allowing profit?

You fail at economics and understanding markets.

You fail at economics and understanding markets. Please educate my country then! We are always more then willing to listen to someone with insight on an issue. Do you have something to contribute?

You want to encourage art? Teach it to your children. Meanwhile teach them the many ways to make money from it without copyright. Advertising for example. Live performances. Talk shows. Tours. Celebrity Reality Television.

Just make sure to keep your prices near your unit costs, or someone else will give away your content for a lower price.

Which is as it should be. Isn't one of the purposes of the market to keep prices down to acceptable levels while still allowing profit?

Let's see.... An artist in Ausserland spends several months creating a set of fine woodcuts. He receives a contract from a publisher. He's to be paid 12% of the net proceeds from each book sold. The publisher then invests money hiring a designer to create a cover. He pays his in-house staff to produce the layout of the book and prepare the printing materials. He publishes the book. One copy is bought by the owner of the Blackbeard Pirate Press in Discoreversalism. He has the volume scanned and electronically printed and sells loads of them at a price about 1/2 of the original.

Keep you price near your unit cost? Both do. But the Blackbeard Pirate Press pays no royalties to the artist and has no investment in preparation of the volume for printing. He has simply misappropriated the creative work of the artist and the up-front investment of the publisher. And that's perfectly legal in Discoreversalism because they think it's just fine to copy all the art you want without a thought to giving fair compensation to those who made it available to you.

If you think this is fair, just, and honest, please vote against this proposal. If, on the other hand, you agree with us that this is seamy, sordid and should be prohibited, please approve and vote for this proposal and give creators of intellectual property a means of getting fair returns for their work in the international market.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The people of Airatum continue to oppose this proposal. We believe it does not allow for nations that do not have private property.

The people of Airatum are more than willing to comply with copyright on works created outside of Airatum. We are concerned, however, that section 3c does not create an exception to allow for our communal society within our borders. Section 3c only allows for "additional requirements for securing copyright", which seems to allow for stricter, but not more liberal copyright options. It also only applies to works created within our borders "by our citizens". We find it unprecedented that an alien artist working in a nation would not be subject to that nations laws.

We would appreciate any comments if we are in error concerning the functioning of section 3c and the legislation in general.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Surely clause 5 is of pertinence. In a communal society, the artists would simply choose to enter their work into the public domain.

Surely clause 5 is of pertinence. In a communal society, the artists would simply choose to enter their work into the public domain.

Honored Ambassador from Gruenberg,

Alas, unfortunately this isn't necessarily the case. While the majority of our people are fiercely patriotic, and love our theocratic, communal society, there are, in every society, people who choose to rebel. Leaving these things up to each individual undermines society's ability to choose a form of government and economy for itself, and see it consistently applied.

Also, as stated earlier, we have concern over the fact that aliens, whether visitors or residents within our borders, will be not be subject to our laws regarding communal property while in our country.

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Let's see.... An artist in Ausserland spends several months creating a set of fine woodcuts. He receives a contract from a publisher. He's to be paid 12% of the net proceeds from each book sold. The publisher then invests money hiring a designer to create a cover. He pays his in-house staff to produce the layout of the book and prepare the printing materials. He publishes the book. One copy is bought by the owner of the Blackbeard Pirate Press in Discoreversalism. He has the volume scanned and electronically printed and sells loads of them at a price about 1/2 of the original.

Keep you price near your unit cost? Both do. But the Blackbeard Pirate Press pays no royalties to the artist and has no investment in preparation of the volume for printing. He has simply misappropriated the creative work of the artist and the up-front investment of the publisher. And that's perfectly legal in Discoreversalism because they think it's just fine to copy all the art you want without a thought to giving fair compensation to those who made it available to you.

If you think this is fair, just, and honest, please vote against this proposal. If, on the other hand, you agree with us that this is seamy, sordid and should be prohibited, please approve and vote for this proposal and give creators of intellectual property a means of getting fair returns for their work in the international market.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Well there you go. The company in Ausserland, lets call it AusseIntervention, is failing because it has to pay excessive royalties to the artist, because of the copyright law in Ausserland. AusseIntervention's unit cost should be the same as the cost for Blackbeard Pirate Press. AusseIntervention is handicapped by Ausserland artificially raising the unit costs beyond acceptable levels.

I don't think it is fair that companies in Ausserland are handicapping themselves in this way, but I don't see how you can expect the rest of the world to handicap themselves too.

Without the interference, AusseIntervention should be able to outcompete Blackbeard Pirate Press. They enter the market first, their reputation should be higher. Their relationship with the artist could insure future sequels use the same artists style.

The market just doesn't work as well when you intervene in the fashion your are proposing in this legislation.

If Blackbeard Pirate Press does not acknowledge the source of it's art (by properly citing the original author, publisher, etc.) then it's reputation would plummet in Discoreversalism. We understand that an artists livelihood depends on their reputation, and we do not react well to someone making a false claim of authorship.

Alas, unfortunately this isn't necessarily the case. While the majority of our people are fiercely patriotic, and love our theocratic, communal society, there are, in every society, people who choose to rebel. Leaving these things up to each individual undermines society's ability to choose a form of government and economy for itself, and see it consistently applied.
I feel much the same way. Gruenberg is a country of morals...yet there are people who insist on trying to be gay. We try to stop them, with fire, but we just can't seem to stamp their plague of moral unhygiene out. The same goes for many so-called "rights".

I suggest you wait for a response from the representatives of Ceorana and Ausserland; they would be more qualified to explain the justification for the terms of this proposal than I.

I feel much the same way. Gruenberg is a country of morals...yet there are people who insist on trying to be gay. We try to stop them, with fire, but we just can't seem to stamp their plague of moral unhygiene out. The same goes for many so-called "rights".

I suggest you wait for a response from the representatives of Ceorana and Ausserland; they would be more qualified to explain the justification for the terms of this proposal than I.

We assume this is sarcasm on the part of the Ambassador from Gruenberg, though we believe it to be unwarranted. We agree that there are rights which should be protected. The people of Airatum, do not, however, believe that ownership of private property is a right.

Every law has a minority of persons (at least) who will want to ignore it. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a need for the law. One hundred percent voluntary compliance would remove the need for legislation.

In Airatum, we don't burn people who claim private intellectual property. We simply don't enforce it.

Thank you again for your response. We await responses from the authors of the legislation, as you have suggested.

In Gratitude,
Yoash Uriel,
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

We assume this is sarcasm on the part of the Ambassador from Gruenberg, though we believe it to be unwarranted. We agree that there are rights which should be protected. The people of Airatum, do not, however, believe that ownership of private property is a right.
It was not sarcasm. I do advocate the burning of moral deviants. I do admit, though, I was using my views to demonstrate that there are times when people rule that individual rights do come before societal cohesion.

Besides, focus less on private property, and more on simply incentive. If authors are sure their work will be reworded and not stolen, they will produce more of it. They will be able to live off their earnings, and write/paint/whatever professionally, thereby producing more art, which is better for us all. If they cannot make money from their art, they won't be able to pursue it.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"

The people of Airatum continue to oppose this proposal. We believe it does not allow for nations that do not have private property.

You know, for the life of me, I have never understood that argument. Property must be assigned to someone/something so those nations that do not have "private" property must in effect have "corporate" property, either in the church or state. (More than likely the later.) In that case the corporate property rights of Nation A should be proected as surely in the private property rights of Nation A. Nation B stealing either the corporate or private property rights of Nation A should get Nation A rightly pissed.

There is the question of whether or not a nation can force a person to transfer copyright to the state. (Thus there is no problems with national corporate property rights whatsoever.) Or if not, nations without private property tend to have 100% tax rates so whatever royalty would go to the individual would wind up in the state's coffers anyway. It just seems to me a non issue.

Edit: Looking at the resolution, "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," it seems clear that nations without private property rights could simply write a law that requires all nationals to transfer copyright to the state. They still get the right to "use" their own work, annoying, but I'm sure that there has to be a way to get around that ... or else ... what a fascinating loophole we have here.

Well there you go. The company in Ausserland, lets call it AusseIntervention, is failing because it has to pay excessive royalties to the artist, because of the copyright law in Ausserland. AusseIntervention's unit cost should be the same as the cost for Blackbeard Pirate Press. AusseIntervention is handicapped by Ausserland artificially raising the unit costs beyond acceptable levels.

I don't think it is fair that companies in Ausserland are handicapping themselves in this way, but I don't see how you can expect the rest of the world to handicap themselves too.

Without the interference, AusseIntervention should be able to outcompete Blackbeard Pirate Press. They enter the market first, their reputation should be higher. Their relationship with the artist could insure future sequels use the same artists style.

The market just doesn't work as well when you intervene in the fashion your are proposing in this legislation.

If Blackbeard Pirate Press does not acknowledge the source of it's art (by properly citing the original author, publisher, etc.) then it's reputation would plummet in Discoreversalism. We understand that an artists livelihood depends on their reputation, and we do not react well to someone making a false claim of authorship.

I have to say you do not understand the economy the market life or have any sort of realisim in your life. All I can do is :headbang: because people like you are so stupid.

When a computor game is made it is a very expensive thing to create right. But it is very cheap to sell the CD's. So why would you spend millions of dollers to get back almost no money because anybody can make the same thing. It is a waste. The same thing goes for:
-Music
-All software
-newspappers and almost any other source of information
-books
-most art
-movies
-new inventions and any type of research
-and many many more

Learn about the economy and before you do never talk on anything here again.

I have to say you do not understand the economy the market life or have any sort of realisim in your life. All I can do is :headbang: because people like you are so stupid.

When a computor game is made it is a very expensive thing to create right. But it is very cheap to sell the CD's. So why would you spend millions of dollers to get back almost no money because anybody can make the same thing. It is a waste. The same thing goes for:
-Music
-All software
-newspappers and almost any other source of information
-books
-most art
-movies
-new inventions and any type of research
-and many many more

Learn about the economy and before you do never talk on anything here again.

I can understand that you have always operated within copyright, and have grown dependent on the concept.

Here is how each of these things get created without copyright.

Music, free copies of music are easily available online. However it takes work to get ahold of them, they aren't formatted very well, etc. People are willing to pay a small amount of money to easily obtain all the music they seek. If anyone tries to chrage too much they get quickly undercut.

But most of the money is made by live performances by the artists.

Software:
The open source software movement is alive and strong. If a corporation needs software to be created to solve a specific need they pay someone to do it. Our engineers have access to gigantic code banks, greatly increasing how quickly they can solve any problem.

Newspapers:
These all make their money by advertising.

Books/Art/Movies:
An artist without reputation is usualy hired to produce a specific piece of art for a specific purpose. Often the first chapter or portion of a book is free. When a particular artists develops a reputation fans and patrons pay them to continue their work. Meawnhile millions of fans make their own stories within the millieu begun by the author.

Invention:
That falls outside the scope of this discussion, that would relate better to a discussion on patent law.

Research:
As I understand most countries with copyright law don't apply it to research. Scientists understand that scientific advance comes from the sharing of ideas. They are careful to cite sources, and they understand the importance of reputation.

Do you have any more questions? We are eagerly awaiting lessons from one who knows more then us about the production of art :)

Music, free copies of music are easily available online. However it takes work to get ahold of them, they aren't formatted very well, etc. People are willing to pay a small amount of money to easily obtain all the music they seek. If anyone tries to chrage too much they get quickly undercut.
It doesn't take work to get ahold of them, not any more than that which they would pay for. It's no harder to click the "download" button on a computer than go out and buy a CD.

But most of the money is made by live performances by the artists.
I don't know if that's true. Do you have a source?

Software:
The open source software movement is alive and strong. If a corporation needs software to be created to solve a specific need they pay someone to do it. Our engineers have access to gigantic code banks, greatly increasing how quickly they can solve any problem.
Open source software still needs copyright law. It releases many of the rights, but requires attribution and relicensing. Without the ability to impose those restrictions, it wouldn't work.

Newspapers:
These all make their money by advertising.
But they still want to beat competitors for higher circulation and therefore more advertising revenue. If competitors could copy, that would lower their circulation, and it's not always easy to inform consumers that a paper is copying. Additionally, things like the RL Associated Press wouldn't work, because papers could take their work for free.

Books/Art/Movies:
An artist without reputation is usualy hired to produce a specific piece of art for a specific purpose. Often the first chapter or portion of a book is free. When a particular artists develops a reputation fans and patrons pay them to continue their work. Meawnhile millions of fans make their own stories within the millieu begun by the author.
Excuse me? You don't contract someone to write a book, especially fiction. The author writes it buy him or herself and then tries to publish and sell it. Same for many/most movies and art.

Invention:
That falls outside the scope of this discussion, that would relate better to a discussion on patent law.
What about the blueprints to an invention? Or an instruction booklet.

Research:
As I understand most countries with copyright law don't apply it to research. Scientists understand that scientific advance comes from the sharing of ideas. They are careful to cite sources, and they understand the importance of reputation.
But copyright still needs to apply, so they can't be copied by an unscrupulous competitor. Reputation isn't always easy to spread and isn't all-consuming. Legal force is a lot stronger.

Software:
The open source software movement is alive and strong. If a corporation needs software to be created to solve a specific need they pay someone to do it. Our engineers have access to gigantic code banks, greatly increasing how quickly they can solve any problem.

Yes I have tried get this software online many times actualy. Ever gone to freeware sites before? You find a load of crap software. Can you imagine somebody going out and making AOE for free or adobe photoshop. NO IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN. Actualy they attempt to make similar thing to adobe photoshop all the time for free but it never works they are all infinatly worse. Most Freeware that runs well is based off a few things ad's that couldn't another person make the same thing without ads and people who work for free. The people who work for free just won't have that time. If you belive in in open source stuff so much i suggest you go out and get linux. Then go out and replace word with open office. It will be some fun to see you try to survive:).


Newspapers:
These all make their money by advertising.

Ya so then why dosen't someone take out the advertising then sell it which would you rather the one with advertising ot the one without? Also that is alot of there revenue but not all.

Books/Art/Movies:
An artist without reputation is usualy hired to produce a specific piece of art for a specific purpose. Often the first chapter or portion of a book is free. When a particular artists develops a reputation fans and patrons pay them to continue their work. Meawnhile millions of fans make their own stories within the millieu begun by the author.

Yes artists without reputations commonly try to sell things for low prices but in the end if you are not that great you have no chance of ever getting food on the table. FOr those who gain big reputations people don't care normaly who they are buying things from. Just compare the amount of stuff people get on limewire like equvilents and on 1$ a song things. If two cd's are on the shelf one the money goes to the author it is 20$ the other costs 50 cents which are you going to get?

It doesn't take work to get ahold of them, not any more than that which they would pay for. It's no harder to click the "download" button on a computer than go out and buy a CD.


I don't know if that's true. Do you have a source?


Open source software still needs copyright law. It releases many of the rights, but requires attribution and relicensing. Without the ability to impose those restrictions, it wouldn't work.


Attribution is very important. However the government doesn't have to step in to enforce attribution. Reputation is crucial to artists, newspapers etc. If they fail to attribute and get caught up in attribution scandals, they're reputation suffers, and their profitability drops.


But they still want to beat competitors for higher circulation and therefore more advertising revenue. If competitors could copy, that would lower their circulation, and it's not always easy to inform consumers that a paper is copying. Additionally, things like the RL Associated Press wouldn't work, because papers could take their work for free.


Again, reputation is important. If a competitor copies work, doesn't attribute, and get's caught, their reuptaiton plumets. If they do attribute then that raises the reputation of the original, increasing it's profitability.


Excuse me? You don't contract someone to write a book, especially fiction. The author writes it buy him or herself and then tries to publish and sell it. Same for many/most movies and art.


Perhaps you do not. We do, as do many other's.


What about the blueprints to an invention? Or an instruction booklet.


But copyright still needs to apply, so they can't be copied by an unscrupulous competitor. Reputation isn't always easy to spread and isn't all-consuming. Legal force is a lot stronger.

Copying is not unscrupulous! Duplication is not theft!

Legal force is stronger, when it is used judiciously. When governments attempt to impose the rule of law where it is not needed, is not helpful, and does not belong, people lose respect for the rule of law.

Software:
The open source software movement is alive and strong. If a corporation needs software to be created to solve a specific need they pay someone to do it. Our engineers have access to gigantic code banks, greatly increasing how quickly they can solve any problem.

Yes I have tried get this software online many times actualy. Ever gone to freeware sites before? You find a load of crap software. Can you imagine somebody going out and making AOE for free or adobe photoshop. NO IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN. Actualy they attempt to make similar thing to adobe photoshop all the time for free but it never works they are all infinatly worse. Most Freeware that runs well is based off a few things ad's that couldn't another person make the same thing without ads and people who work for free. The people who work for free just won't have that time. If you belive in in open source stuff so much i suggest you go out and get linux. Then go out and replace word with open office. It will be some fun to see you try to survive:).


I have an open source IDE open right now that I use to make a living.

Many of my favorite games have been open source mods of previous games.

There is a reason smart makers of first person shooters open source their older code.


Newspapers:
These all make their money by advertising.

Ya so then why dosen't someone take out the advertising then sell it which would you rather the one with advertising ot the one without?


I fail to see your point. If you prefer a version of anything without advertisement an open market will gladly offer you a version that costs more but has less advertising. I'm not the one attempted to add government intervention into an open market :)



Also that is alot of there revenue but not all.

Books/Art/Movies:
An artist without reputation is usualy hired to produce a specific piece of art for a specific purpose. Often the first chapter or portion of a book is free. When a particular artists develops a reputation fans and patrons pay them to continue their work. Meawnhile millions of fans make their own stories within the millieu begun by the author.

Yes artists without reputations commonly try to sell things for low prices but in the end if you are not that great you have no chance of ever getting food on the table. FOr those who gain big reputations people don't care normaly who they are buying things from. Just compare the amount of stuff people get on limewire like equvilents and on 1$ a song things. If two cd's are on the shelf one the money goes to the author it is 20$ the other costs 50 cents which are you going to get?

One of the main problems with copryight is it artificially raises costs. You will hardly convince me that copyright is good by demonstrating that people will pay $20 for something when they have no choice, but would rather pay 10 cents, (or spend 5 minutes trying to get a free copy instead).

It doesn't take work to get ahold of them, not any more than that which they would pay for. It's no harder to click the "download" button on a computer than go out and buy a CD.


Have you ever tried to download free music? It's an annoying process, filenames get mangled, sound quality is often low, it's not in a standardized format, etc.

There exist plenty of places that will let you download vast amounts of music, in a consistant format, for a small fee. They will also recommend to you similar music, help you stay in touch with new artists, etc.

Have you ever tried to download free music? It's an annoying process, filenames get mangled, sound quality is often low, it's not in a standardized format, etc.
I can explain that very easily. The reason it his bad quality is because it is illegal. People who are more educated and/or know what they are doing are also generally the ones with good moral principles (including dicipline, which is how they got educated), which means they follow the law. So the people who can give you good music will follow the law.

There is a grave inconsistancy in your past few posts. First you say there is nothing wrong with plagiarism. Then you say reputations will suffer if you do it, meaning that it is wrong. Which one?

I can explain that very easily. The reason it his bad quality is because it is illegal. People who are more educated and/or know what they are doing are also generally the ones with good moral principles (including dicipline, which is how they got educated), which means they follow the law. So the people who can give you good music will follow the law.

There is a grave inconsistancy in your past few posts. First you say there is nothing wrong with plagiarism. Then you say reputations will suffer if you do it, meaning that it is wrong. Which one?

Blindly following an unjust law does not show a high level of moral principles. Failing to question the law, or the moral principles themselves, does not show a high level of moral principles.

I never claimed there is nothing wrong with plagiarism. There is nothing wrong with duplication, but it is important to give artistic credit where it is due.

Most free music is of low quality because there is little profit or reputation motive behind it. I'm currently listening to a free music service that has a high quality because it has a profit motive. The idea is if I like a song a I listen to I will follow the convenient links provided to purchase the song. I don't tend to, because the site is operating legally in a country that does have draconian copyright law. If that wasn't the case, and the prices were more reasonable, I would purchase the songs. Instead I content myself to listening to random songs for free.

The service also suggests to me new songs that are similar to songs I like. I have grown to love songs I would never have heard of otherwise.

OOC: I don't have any idea how you're still going at this, Ceorana. Gotta admire your ability to argue with the ignorant. I haven't the patience myself and would've aborted this debate a long time ago.

OOC: I don't have any idea how you're still going at this, Ceorana. Gotta admire your ability to argue with the ignorant. I haven't the patience myself and would've aborted this debate a long time ago.
Oh, this is nothing compared to some arguments I've done. I got sucked into arguing upwards of 20 pages on the genital mutilation thing. That was a mistake. :p

Oh, this is nothing compared to some arguments I've done. I got sucked into arguing upwards of 20 pages on the genital mutilation thing. That was a mistake. :p

OOC: You couldn't have paid me to get into that clusterfuck. :D

We must say we (rather grudgingly) admire the tenacity of the honorable representative of Discoreversalism in his stalwart opposition to this proposal. Unfortunately, this tenacity seems to be accompanied by complete ignorance of marketing and the publishing world.

Well there you go. The company in Ausserland, lets call it AusseIntervention, is failing because it has to pay excessive royalties to the artist, because of the copyright law in Ausserland. AusseIntervention's unit cost should be the same as the cost for Blackbeard Pirate Press. AusseIntervention is handicapped by Ausserland artificially raising the unit costs beyond acceptable levels.

I don't think it is fair that companies in Ausserland are handicapping themselves in this way, but I don't see how you can expect the rest of the world to handicap themselves too.

12% is a rather generous royalty rate, but not "exorbitant" in the case of an established author and a work with expected low-volume sales.

The statement that "AusseIntervention's unit cost should be the same as the cost for Blackbeard Pirate Press" is patently absurd. Our publisher pays royalties to the author and pays for preparation of the work for publication. Yours doesn't. He simply rips off the work of others and reaps his profits. Of course his unit costs are lower. A jewel thief's unit costs are lower than a jeweler's, too.

Without the interference, AusseIntervention should be able to outcompete Blackbeard Pirate Press. They enter the market first, their reputation should be higher. Their relationship with the artist could insure future sequels use the same artists style.

The market just doesn't work as well when you intervene in the fashion your are proposing in this legislation.

If Blackbeard Pirate Press does not acknowledge the source of it's art (by properly citing the original author, publisher, etc.) then it's reputation would plummet in Discoreversalism. We understand that an artists livelihood depends on their reputation, and we do not react well to someone making a false claim of authorship.

Reputation is wonderful. Reputation is important. But reputation doesn't put food on the table or profits in the corporate annual report. Revenues from sales, licensing and rentals do. And that's exactly what your pirate publishers are denying to those entitled to it. Ensure future sequels? Why should an author create sequels when he finds that your copyright-free pirate economy keeps him from getting his expected royalties on the original work?

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I would like to use a little math principle, the "zero property" to illustrate a point.

The honorable representative from Discoversalism is claiming that increased reputation with little or no sales will increase his profits.

But anything times zero is zero. If you have a great reputation, that's great, and it means more people will buy your work, but if no one has to pay any money for it, because someone sharked it, you don't get any profit. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

We must say we (rather grudgingly) admire the tenacity of the honorable representative of Discoreversalism in his stalwart opposition to this proposal. Unfortunately, this tenacity seems to be accompanied by complete ignorance of marketing and the publishing world.


I admit, I am no expert on marketing and the publishing in Ausserland. However I fear our Minister from Ausserland is unfamiliar with forms of profit that do not involve copyright law.


12% is a rather generous royalty rate, but not "exorbitant" in the case of an established author and a work with expected low-volume sales.

The statement that "AusseIntervention's unit cost should be the same as the cost for Blackbeard Pirate Press" is patently absurd. Our publisher pays royalties to the author and pays for preparation of the work for publication. Yours doesn't. He simply rips off the work of others and reaps his profits. Of course his unit costs are lower. A jewel thief's unit costs are lower than a jeweler's, too.


I will again ask you to cease making these false analogies. Duplication is not theft! One deprives the other of property. After something is stolen the original owner no longer has it!

Duplication, on the other hand, is a constructive process. A good thing.



Reputation is wonderful. Reputation is important. But reputation doesn't put food on the table or profits in the corporate annual report. Revenues from sales, licensing and rentals do. And that's exactly what your pirate publishers are denying to those entitled to it. Ensure future sequels? Why should an author create sequels when he finds that your copyright-free pirate economy keeps him from getting his expected royalties on the original work?

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

If I was proposing removing copryight from your society, your objection would make sense. If that was done those people dependent on the corrupt system would lose their jobs. Without copyright you don't need people to work rental stores, etc.

Their jobs would be obsolete.

However this proposal isn't about protecting copyright law within your country. You are trying to impose your insane laws into ours!

I would like to use a little math principle, the "zero property" to illustrate a point.

The honorable representative from Discoversalism is claiming that increased reputation with little or no sales will increase his profits.

But anything times zero is zero. If you have a great reputation, that's great, and it means more people will buy your work, but if no one has to pay any money for it, because someone sharked it, you don't get any profit. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

But you can't get anything for free in the real world :) Technology has reduced the unit cost of each song in a music collection to a cost that is probably smaller then your smallest unit of currency. However the actions of sorting your music into categories, labeling, syching it with album covers, providing associated information, etc. still incur cost.

Believe me, artists will still produce art! Meanwhile, all the art in the world will start flooding into your door step. It's a big world, that is a lot of art.

Stop for a moment to consider the price the average consumer is paying for copyright. Your average student should be able to buy a $20 desktop and download all the education content ever produced. However because of copyright law, that sort of education would be very costly.

Imagine students freely downloading the lecture to every class they may ever want to take.

You appear to be blind to other methods of promoting art, as well as blind to the costs of your legislation.

We will not let you interfere in our artistic process. If we thought the UN was going to start interfering in the practice of harmless art in our country, (not to mention our education, technology, etc.) we would given more thought to the alternatives.

Reputation is wonderful. Reputation is important. But reputation doesn't put food on the table or profits in the corporate annual report. Revenues from sales, licensing and rentals do. And that's exactly what your pirate publishers are denying to those entitled to it. Ensure future sequels? Why should an author create sequels when he finds that your copyright-free pirate economy keeps him from getting his expected royalties on the original work?

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I have repeatedly demonstrated ways reputation can be converted to cash. Do you deny that reputation can be turned into cash without copyright?

Meanwhile the current copyright law results in large corporations getting the credit for our artistic endeavors, rather then the atists themselves. Many actions your nations appear to find acceptable (companies not naming the programmers working on a video game for example) are anathema in our land. Such corporations do not profit well here.

...snip...
He simply rips off the work of others and reaps his profits.
...snip...
Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Tell you what, explain what you mean by rip off? Are referring to the free rider proplem, us Discoraversalists bypassing your economic rent?

I will again ask you to cease making these false analogies. Duplication is not theft!

I see, then if you will allow me to make an audio/visual presentation ... roll the film clip of "The spy who photocopied me."

(The scene, an apparently secret bunker somewere. Secret agent 008 (Tzorsland can't afford 007's acting fees) is placing a photocopy of some large paper. As the photocopier lights pass over the document, a man in a black suit barges into the room.)

Black Suit Man: So, Mr. Blonde, I have caught you stealing Tzorsland's nuclear technology. What have you to say for that?

008: I'm not stealing, I'm duplicating. And according to Discoraversalism, "Duplication is not theft!"

Black Suit Man: Why you are right, how silly of me.

(Black Suit Man then points a weapon at 008 and the sound of a zap can be heard. Then Blck Suit Man picks of a mineature copy of 008 and takes the blueprints from the copy machine.)

Black Suit Man: Then again, I've never respected Discoraversalism's argument.

(Cue closing music and credits.)


Thank you for watching this wonderful audio video presenation. I never realized how well my minister could act. It's a shame he had to kill the actor who was playing 008, but these things happen in special effects.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/circles.gif

As the representative of Cluichstan has pointed out with his card, our continued exchange with the representative of Discoreversalism is going nowhere. He believes that copyright will trample the supposed right of his people to free enjoyment of art without compensation of the providers. We believe that copyright is a worthwhile means of allowing those who bring us all sorts of creative works to be fairly compensated for their efforts. He's made his points over and over and over. We've responded more than we should. We think its time to let the members of this Assembly weigh the arguments and make their decision. We hope the proposal will gain enough approvals that it can be brought to a vote and the majority can rule.

Approval Link (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=copyright)

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The proposal is close to reaching quorum but doesn't have much time left in the queue. Please take the time to give your nod of approval here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=copyright).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

As the representative of Cluichstan has pointed out with his card, our continued exchange with the representative of Discoreversalism is going nowhere. He believes that copyright will trample the supposed right of his people to free enjoyment of art without compensation of the providers. We believe that copyright is a worthwhile means of allowing those who bring us all sorts of creative works to be fairly compensated for their efforts. He's made his points over and over and over. We've responded more than we should. We think its time to let the members of this Assembly weigh the arguments and make their decision. We hope the proposal will gain enough approvals that it can be brought to a vote and the majority can rule.

Approval Link (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=copyright)

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I'm afraid I have to agree. I have asked many questions, without receiving a response. Instead those supporting this legislation have repeated their talking points.

The burden of proof shouldn't lie on us, to prove that your cumbersome legislation is a bad thing. We are not talking about tearing down any of your institutions.

This infringes on our sovereignity and we will not quietly allow that to happen.

You know, I was apathetic towards this proposal, until I read the insane ramblings of Discoreversalism. Now that I know that they apparently don't respect copyrights in Discoreversalism, I realize that this resolution is badly needed to protect the creators of creative works from having their work stolen.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You know, I was apathetic towards this proposal, until I read the insane ramblings of Discoreversalism. Now that I know that they apparently don't respect copyrights in Discoreversalism, I realize that this resolution is badly needed to protect the creators of creative works from having their work stolen.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Alright class, we wil now define stealing, or theft for you:
"
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
"

Duplication is not theft! :headbang:

I am betting that the proponents of this legislation all live in states with copyright, and believe copyright was given to them by god on stone tablets. If you do not wish to consider alternatives please do not participate in discussions on this forum!

Copyright is one way to promote art. The problem is, it completely changes the business of art in a country.

This measure seeks to impose your laws on our nation. And not in some compromise measure. Our eductional institutions would be unusuable under your copyright law.

This legislation has very little affect upon your countries that have copyright. The reputations of your artists will plummet when it is learned by our citizens that they allowed this legislation to go through. We will cease buying your products. We will continue to listen to your radios, but trade between us will plummet. Like minded nations will follow suite.

But it's a big trading world, so I think your nations will survive it.

Copyright isn't the worst thing in the world, for nations that have already adapated to it. It does reduce your productivity, but you seem fine with it. We aren't about to propose legislation that makes copyright illegal. There exists a fair number of nations in the UN that support copyright, and we wouldn't want to tread on their sovereignity.

It would put us in the unfortunate positions of either allowing our economy to crumble, leaving the UN, or moving large sectors of our economy, (and our educational system) to the black market.

Let's see if any of the following posts are responsive :)

Alright class, we wil now define stealing, or theft for you:
"
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
"

Duplication is not theft! :headbang:

*snip*

You fail at understanding concept of intellectual property.

Copyright isn't the worst thing in the world, for nations that have already adapated to it. It does reduce your productivity, but you seem fine with it. We aren't about to propose legislation that makes copyright illegal. There exists a fair number of nations in the UN that support copyright, and we wouldn't want to tread on their sovereignity.

Don't try to bust out a NatSov argument on this. It's not applicable.

It would put us in the unfortunate positions of either allowing our economy to crumble, leaving the UN, or moving large sectors of our economy, (and our educational system) to the black market.

Again, you fail at economics. But by all means, please leave, if that's what you so choose.

Let's see if any of the following posts are responsive :)

There. I responded.

You fail at understanding concept of intellectual property.



Don't try to bust out a NatSov argument on this. It's not applicable.



Care to explain why not?



Again, you fail at economics. But by all means, please leave, if that's what you so choose.

There. I responded.

You did submit a reply, but it was not responsive. Simple denial and claims that we don't understand do not qualify your reply as responsive.

It is true that our leading economists have a different outlook then yours, (ours would caution us to avoid the backwards step of copyright) but at least ours have studied your economic model. I myself spent significant time doing so.

You fail at understanding concept of intellectual property.

Has anyone else who reads these threads considered alternatives to intellectual property? How can one even pretend to understand the concept unless you have considered the alternatives?

I am reasonably sure I have spent more time studying intelectual property then 90% of the people participating in this discussion. If you would care to demonstrate what aspect of it I fail to understand please, elaborate?

I will refer the uneducated reader here for a refresher course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#Critique

ooc: *cough* Lawyer hat on.
and/or? Jeez, all parts have to be satisfied.

This is the definition under uk law.
Theft: the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive.

AR:
Property - does not include intellectual property.
Appropriation - touching is enough.
Belonging to another - either owned by or in the possession of. You can thieve your own property.

MR:
Dishonest - standard dictionary definition.
Intention to permanently deprive. A cinema projectionist copied the reels of film. He did not permanently deprive.

So technically it's not criminal theft.
But copywrite laws are their own laws which aren't strictly criminal but something else entirely.

There is the question of whether or not a nation can force a person to transfer copyright to the state. (Thus there is no problems with national corporate property rights whatsoever.) Or if not, nations without private property tend to have 100% tax rates so whatever royalty would go to the individual would wind up in the state's coffers anyway. It just seems to me a non issue.

Edit: Looking at the resolution, "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," it seems clear that nations without private property rights could simply write a law that requires all nationals to transfer copyright to the state. They still get the right to "use" their own work, annoying, but I'm sure that there has to be a way to get around that ... or else ... what a fascinating loophole we have here.

We thank the Ambassador from Tzorsland for this response. Our reading of the proposed legislation seemed to indicate ownership of copyright by the individual creating the work, though it could be transferable to a corporation or state. Perhaps our reading was in error.

We still believe this would be a stronger resolution if it protected copyright law of the nation in which the work was created, rather than trying to apply a minimum copyright law internationally, and applying the copyright to the location of the material. As the resolution itself declares that the value of a work comes from the work, not the medium on which it is carried, yet for some reason applies copyright to the physical location of the work, rather than its nation of origin.

As there seem to be precious few opponents of this legislation, we expect to see it pass, at which point we will have to enact the minimum law required, and use the loopholes, along similar lines to the ones you expressed, to protect communal intellectual property within our borders. We will have to make obtaining a work permit to create artistic expression within our borders contingent upon declaring all such works in the public domain.

The people of Airatum would like to thank each Ambassador who has taken time to respond to our questions and criticisms of this resolution.

In Gratitude,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

We apologize to the honorable representative of Airatum for not responding to his comments sooner. We were unfortunately distracted.

We thank the Ambassador from Tzorsland for this response. Our reading of the proposed legislation seemed to indicate ownership of copyright by the individual creating the work, though it could be transferable to a corporation or state. Perhaps our reading was in error.

The representative's reading is correct. Under the proposal, the initial owner of a copyright is the legal entity (person or corporation) creating the work. That legal entity may then transfer the copyright or license the use of the material any way it wishes.

We still believe this would be a stronger resolution if it protected copyright law of the nation in which the work was created, rather than trying to apply a minimum copyright law internationally, and applying the copyright to the location of the material. As the resolution itself declares that the value of a work comes from the work, not the medium on which it is carried, yet for some reason applies copyright to the physical location of the work, rather than its nation of origin.


The reason for requiring the law of the nation in which the work exists to apply is a very practical one. A person in Ausserland has a copy of a work created and copyrighted in Airatum and wants to use it somehow. He must obey the copyright law of Ausserland. Why? Because there may be works in Ausserland which were created in a thousand different nations. We couldn't expect people wanting to use them to be familiar with a thousand different copyright laws. This is an application of the legal principle called "jurisdiction of place," which says that actions in a particular legal jurisdiction are governed by the law of that jurisdiction.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Alright class, we wil now define stealing, or theft for you:
"
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
"

Duplication is not theft! :headbang: Unauthorized duplication with the intend to sell the duplicates would be considered theft I do believe.

I am betting that the proponents of this legislation all live in states with copyright, and believe copyright was given to them by god on stone tablets. If you do not wish to consider alternatives please do not participate in discussions on this forum!And I could say that if you do not wish to consider the possibility that copyrights are actually good for a nation then you shouldn't be participating in discussions on this forum.

Copyright isn't the worst thing in the world, for nations that have already adapated to it. It does reduce your productivity, but you seem fine with it. We aren't about to propose legislation that makes copyright illegal. There exists a fair number of nations in the UN that support copyright, and we wouldn't want to tread on their sovereignity.Don't even try to pull a NatSov arguement on this, I am one of the leaders of the National Sovereignty Organization, the most effective NatSov group formed, when copyrights violations can cross national boundries that makes it an issue that the UN should be dealing with.

It would put us in the unfortunate positions of either allowing our economy to crumble, leaving the UN, or moving large sectors of our economy, (and our educational system) to the black market.Somehow I doubt that the effects on your economy will be as devistating as you think. (especially since this resolution is categorized as "Free Trade" which means that it will improve nation's economies)

Let's see if any of the following posts are responsive :)
I responded, and I even managed to remain civil.
which is not easy to do when you're argueing with an idiot.
Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Unauthorized duplication with the intend to sell the duplicates would be considered theft I do believe.


There is no deprivation of property, therefore it is not theft. I do not know how your laws are composed, so I do not intend to discuss whether it is legally synomous with theft in your country.


And I could say that if you do not wish to consider the possibility that copyrights are actually good for a nation then you shouldn't be participating in discussions on this forum.


Copyright does provide a specific vehicle by which artists can extract royalties from art. I do not deny this. Countries with copyright still produce art. However they do so at significantly higher costs then we do. We believe these costs are too high for many our artists to bear. I'm sure your countries corporations would be glad to swoop in and "help" the artist afford the costs associated with copyright, but we consider that exploitation.


Don't even try to pull a NatSov arguement on this, I am one of the leaders of the National Sovereignty Organization, the most effective NatSov group formed, when copyrights violations can cross national boundries that makes it an issue that the UN should be dealing with.

Somehow I doubt that the effects on your economy will be as devistating as you think. (especially since this resolution is categorized as "Free Trade" which means that it will improve nation's economies)


If you wish I will stop using the phrase "Nation Soverignity" and replace it with "Undue Burden"

I don't think you have the slightest understanding of our economy. Meanwhile we have studied your concept of copyright at great length.


I responded, and I even managed to remain civil.
which is not easy to do when you're argueing with an idiot.
Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You think you are having a hard time? Imagine our position?

If the goal of this legislation was to standardize copyright amongst the nations that used the concept I would be all for it. It is the imposition of copyright law on nations opposed to it that is unbearable.

ooc: *cough* Lawyer hat on.
and/or? Jeez, all parts have to be satisfied.

This is the definition under uk law.
Theft: the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive.

AR:
Property - does not include intellectual property.
Appropriation - touching is enough.
Belonging to another - either owned by or in the possession of. You can thieve your own property.

MR:
Dishonest - standard dictionary definition.
Intention to permanently deprive. A cinema projectionist copied the reels of film. He did not permanently deprive.

So technically it's not criminal theft.
But copywrite laws are their own laws which aren't strictly criminal but something else entirely.

Terms are important. We could characterize copyright law as fascist interference in the free market designed to exploit artists work so as to increase the corporate strangehold over the culture.

However we realize that fascist is a loaded word, and it's not entirely accurate in describing the situation. So we don't accuse supporters of this legislation of fascism, we simply object everytime they misuse the words steal, theft, etc.

There is no deprivation of property, therefore it is not theft. I do not know how your laws are composed, so I do not intend to discuss whether it is legally synomous with theft in your country.
There is depravation of property: the property gained from use of the work.

Copyright does provide a specific vehicle by which artists can extract royalties from art. I do not deny this. Countries with copyright still produce art. However they do so at significantly higher costs then we do. We believe these costs are too high for many our artists to bear. I'm sure your countries corporations would be glad to swoop in and "help" the artist afford the costs associated with copyright, but we consider that exploitation.
Wait. You're saying that copyrights hurt artists? Copyrights help artists by allowing them control over their work. Unless their artists who want to take other people's work without their permission.

I don't think you have the slightest understanding of our economy.
I don't think your economy is understandable.

There is depravation of property: the property gained from use of the work.


Wait. You're saying that copyrights hurt artists? Copyrights help artists by allowing them control over their work. Unless their artists who want to take other people's work without their permission.


Artists, that work in a vacuum, never themselves purchasing any art, and that never have art purchased for them, aren't much hurt by copyright.

However they are in the extreme minority. Most artists are themselves art fans. They enjoy art, and they enjoy referencing and using the art around them.

Many Discoraversalist artists will be unable to practice their craft. Some have composed works of art by taking 5 second samples from 30 songs, and creating a new piece. They explicitly cite each song they are using, so the credit is shared properly.

Under your proposed legislation it would be illegal for them to sell 10 cent cds featuring the songs they created over the course of their lives.

There is a reason there are whole genres of art that exist in the nations without copyright that only exist in black market subcultures of the nations that support copyright.

Not to mention how copyright reduces distribution, and causes the prices of art to skyrocket. Essentially it as an attempt to give an artist a monopoly. Monopoly is bad


I don't think your economy is understandable.

If you have any questions about our economy we would be glad to answer them.

You did make an important point, this is about control. The countries that support copyright want to control the artistic expression of those that don't.

Please, feel free not to purchase any of our art if you don't like how we created it. Just don't try to prevent us from selling it domestically.

This does not "Free Trade" it would make certain types of trade illegal.

There is depravation of property: the property gained from use of the work.


Could you elaborate on this?

Artists, that work in a vacuum, never themselves purchasing any art, and that never have art purchased for them, aren't much hurt by copyright.

However they are in the extreme minority. Most artists are themselves art fans. They enjoy art, and they enjoy referencing and using the art around them.
Most artists do love art, but in many cases, they can't sell their art without copyright, especially those who work in certain fields. Writers of technical journals may actually not be art fans, as they are not in "artistic" fields, but more fans of science. Additionally, if artists could sell their work for a profit, which many of them can't do without copyright, they would be able to afford other art.

Many Discoraversalist artists will be unable to practice their craft. Some have composed works of art by taking 5 second samples from 30 songs, and creating a new piece. They explicitly cite each song they are using, so the credit is shared properly.
But what if the artist of a song doesn't want you to use it? They don't want you to use it! How is not disrespectful and worthy of being illegal to abuse their hard work against their wishes?!? I have no problem with your form of art, as long as everyone involved agrees. Copyright does not force artists to

Under your proposed legislation it would be illegal for them to sell 10 cent cds featuring the songs they created over the course of their lives.
They'd just have to get permission of the people who they took the songs from.

There is a reason there are whole genres of art that exist in the nations without copyright that only exist in black market subcultures of the nations that support copyright.
Probably because those genres disrespect artists?

Not to mention how copyright reduces distribution, and causes the prices of art to skyrocket. Essentially it as an attempt to give an artist a monopoly. Monopoly is bad
No! Artists do not have a monopoly with copyright. They have a market. They are still competing with each other.
<snip> This does not "Free Trade" it would make certain types of trade illegal.
This will increase trade and reduce barriers; the barriers being the threat of ripping off artwork. Think about it, if you are an artist in a copyright-using country, are you going to want to market your work in countries that don't have copyright, especially if your main income is royalties? No way.

Could you elaborate on this?
Artists get money from their work. If you don't have or respect copyrights, they don't get money. Therefore, rippers are stealing money from artists.

Most artists do love art, but in many cases, they can't sell their art without copyright, especially those who work in certain fields.


Give me a single example of an artist who could not make a living without copyright?


Writers of technical journals may actually not be art fans, as they are not in "artistic" fields, but more fans of science. Additionally, if artists could sell their work for a profit, which many of them can't do without copyright, they would be able to afford other art.


You are hardly encouraging art by saying you must be succesfull to be able to afford artistic training.


But what if the artist of a song doesn't want you to use it? They don't want you to use it! How is not disrespectful and worthy of being illegal to abuse their hard work against their wishes?!? I have no problem with your form of art, as long as everyone involved agrees. Copyright does not force artists to


They'd just have to get permission of the people who they took the songs from.


Probably because those genres disrespect artists?


I do think it is a problem that some artists don't want their art to be used. I don't propose to try and force artists to agree with us about the proper usage of art. Rather it is the makers of this legislation that are attempting to enforce their view of art on our country.


No! Artists do not have a monopoly with copyright. They have a market. They are still competing with each other.

This will increase trade and reduce barriers; the barriers being the threat of ripping off artwork. Think about it, if you are an artist in a copyright-using country, are you going to want to market your work in countries that don't have copyright, especially if your main income is royalties? No way.

How is it not a monopoly?

The art market exists without copyright, in fact it predates the concept.

If you are an artist in a copyright-using country you would do well to offer your art a reasonable price (something close to the unit price) in countries that haven't adopted copyright. You could also offer it free, and gather revenue from advertising or other sources.

I will gladly answer any similar question. Meanwhile so as to educate the reader on a specific art form you are attempting to attack, I will refer them here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28music%29#Legal_issues

I will particularly refer you to this barrier to entry:
"Independent bands, lacking the funds and legal assistance to clear samples, are at a disadvantage."

Copyright does not protect artists, it serves corporate interests.

I'm perusing this article now, I would recomend it for further reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture

Artists get money from their work. If you don't have or respect copyrights, they don't get money. Therefore, rippers are stealing money from artists.

Artists don't own the money in my pocket I may give them if they provide me a service. Denial of possible sales is not theft. Denial of possible sales is a standard business tactic.

Rippers increase distribution. Increased distribution increases the spread of an artists reputation. Respected artists have no trouble making a living.

Rippers are giving money to artists.

RESPECTED ARTISTS HAVE NO TROUBLE MAKING A LIVING??? :headbang:

do you mean JK Rowling? Ya she would never have a problem but if you want to see how much your system would roughly give to others just look at the bible It is the number one sold book by a huge amount but no money almost no money is made from it.

So who do you think should get more money an idiot with a printer or a smart person who spent 3 years of there life writing a book

Most books are only going to be read by so many people for example so if you give it out free that is one person who won't buy it. But i refuse to talk to you on this subject again but I must say this is a very very stupid idea.

There is no deprivation of property, therefore it is not theft. I do not know how your laws are composed, so I do not intend to discuss whether it is legally synomous with theft in your country.
On the contrary, there is deprivation of property, the creator is being deprived of income. Here's an example.

A software company, let's call them Macrohard, spends millions of dollars developing a new OS. Macrohard then releases the OS and sells it for $100 a copy. The owner of Pirate Software Inc. buys a copy of Macrohard's software and then proceeds to copy it and sell it for $10. As a result Macrohard cannot recoup the money they invested in development and has to close their doors. Now without copyrights that situtation is perfectly legal but I ask you, is what PSI did right? Is it right for someone else to profit from someone else's hard work?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

RESPECTED ARTISTS HAVE NO TROUBLE MAKING A LIVING??? :headbang:

do you mean JK Rowling? Ya she would never have a problem but if you want to see how much your system would roughly give to others just look at the bible It is the number one sold book by a huge amount but no money almost no money is made from it.


What corporation do you feel should be paid for the bible?


So who do you think should get more money an idiot with a printer or a smart person who spent 3 years of there life writing a book

Most books are only going to be read by so many people for example so if you give it out free that is one person who won't buy it. But i refuse to talk to you on this subject again but I must say this is a very very stupid idea.

Under copyright, the idiot with the printer makes most of the money. Remember, part of my argument is that copyright makes artists slaves to large corporations. The system encourages middlemen more then it encourages the artists themselves.

On the contrary, there is deprivation of property, the creator is being deprived of income. Here's an example.


Possible future income is not property. Corporations frequently take actions to deprive each other of income. We encourage this, because the result is goods at low prices for all!


A software company, let's call them Macrohard, spends millions of dollars developing a new OS. Macrohard then releases the OS and sells it for $100 a copy. The owner of Pirate Software Inc. buys a copy of Macrohard's software and then proceeds to copy it and sell it for $10. As a result Macrohard cannot recoup the money they invested in development and has to close their doors. Now without copyrights that situtation is perfectly legal but I ask you, is what PSI did right? Is it right for someone else to profit from someone else's hard work?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

If Macrohard can't compete competively with Pirate Software then they have a very poor businees model, especially considering all the advatanges they have. It is a good thing that Pirate Software keeps Macrohards prices low though. One of the best qualities of a market system is it keeps unit prices near unit costs.

Are you familiar with how art works? All art is based on other art. All human achievement is built on prior achievement. It is right to profit from someone else's hard work.

Here is how it plays out in our land:

A software company, let's call them Macrohard, starts an open source project to develope a new OS. Macrohard then releases the OS and sells it for $100 a copy. The owner of Pirate Software Inc. buys a copy of Macrohard's software and then proceeds to copy it and sell it for $10. Macrohard can drop it's prices as low as it chooses to compete.

Macrohard has a greater familiarity with the new OS. This allows them to sell updates to the OS directly to any connected consumer. It allows them to design other application for the OS better then any competitor.

Meanwhile, as a result of this opensource project, Macrohard has developed quite a reputation (assuming the new OS is any good). People buy Macrohard T shirts, follow links from Macrohard sites to it's corporate partners, etc. It's called a halo effect.

Pirate software, meanwhile, has a reputation for selling copies of Macrohard software. People don't have any particular reason to trust Pirate Software, or to purchase other Pirate Projects.

RESPECTED ARTISTS HAVE NO TROUBLE MAKING A LIVING??? :headbang:

do you mean JK Rowling? Ya she would never have a problem but if you want to see how much your system would roughly give to others just look at the bible It is the number one sold book by a huge amount but no money almost no money is made from it.


Almost no money is made from the bible? The catholic church is the largest owner of land in the world.

I didn't claim the artist would make all their money without copyright in the same way as they do with.

Almost no money is made from the bible? The catholic church is the largest owner of land in the world.
Irrelevent. The vast majority of that land was received through grants, bequeathals and simply taking control of other sites. It was not purchased with profits from selling the Bible. You appear to be quite ignorant of the history of the Church.

This fell out of queue earlier than I thought it would. Oh well, I caught the list of approvers, and will resubmit soon.

One more piece of absurdly illogical argument from Discoraversalism.

If Macrohard can't compete competively with Pirate Software then they have a very poor businees model, especially considering all the advatanges they have. It is a good thing that Pirate Software keeps Macrohards prices low though. One of the best qualities of a market system is it keeps unit prices near unit costs.

Are you familiar with how art works? All art is based on other art. All human achievement is built on prior achievement. It is right to profit from someone else's hard work.

Here is how it plays out in our land:

A software company, let's call them Macrohard, starts an open source project to develope a new OS. Macrohard then releases the OS and sells it for $100 a copy. The owner of Pirate Software Inc. buys a copy of Macrohard's software and then proceeds to copy it and sell it for $10. Macrohard can drop it's prices as low as it chooses to compete.

But Microhard has invested several million dollars in the development. If they drop their prices below your pirate's, they can't recoup the development cost. You keep harping on unit cost, yet you seem completely ignorant of the fact that development cost is often the greatest factor in determining unit cost. Your pirate house has no development cost.

Macrohard has a greater familiarity with the new OS. This allows them to sell updates to the OS directly to any connected consumer. It allows them to design other application for the OS better then any competitor.

Right. And when they release them, your pirate will just rip them off and sell them below what MicroHard would have to charge to recoup their development costs.

Meanwhile, as a result of this opensource project, Macrohard has developed quite a reputation (assuming the new OS is any good). People buy Macrohard T shirts, follow links from Macrohard sites to it's corporate partners, etc. It's called a halo effect.

And its corporate partners will be in the sam fix as MicroHard.

Pirate software, meanwhile, has a reputation for selling copies of Macrohard software. People don't have any particular reason to trust Pirate Software, or to purchase other Pirate Projects.

But it's exactly the same software. Try explaining to your management why you chose to pay $100 for a piece of software because of somebody's reputation when you could have gotten the identical item (developed and produced by MicroHard and ripped off intact by Pirate Software) for $10.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Irrelevent. The vast majority of that land was received through grants, bequeathals and simply taking control of other sites. It was not purchased with profits from selling the Bible. You appear to be quite ignorant of the history of the Church.
I did not claim the property came through sales of the bible... Rather you have demonstrated many of the other possible ways a book may pay off.

One more piece of absurdly illogical argument from Discoraversalism.



But Microhard has invested several million dollars in the development.


A further diasvatage of your copyright system. It wouldn't cost nearly that much without copyright. Open source development is significantly cheaper.


If they drop their prices below your pirate's, they can't recoup the development cost. You keep harping on unit cost, yet you seem completely ignorant of the fact that development cost is often the greatest factor in determining unit cost.




Development cost is completely seperate from unit cost. Development cost affects the price of the first item sold, it doesn't affect the unit cost after that. There is no reason the pirate house should be paying less for each additional unit made (the unit cost).



Your pirate house has no development cost.

Right. And when they release them, your pirate will just rip them off and sell them below what MicroHard would have to charge to recoup their development costs.

And its corporate partners will be in the sam fix as MicroHard.

But it's exactly the same software. Try explaining to your management why you chose to pay $100 for a piece of software because of somebody's reputation when you could have gotten the identical item (developed and produced by MicroHard and ripped off intact by Pirate Software) for $10.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

My example doesn't have MicroHard charging 10x what Pirate Software is charging, nor does it have Pirate Software offering an identical service.

Copyright does affect how business is done. Business's that are used to a copyright model would have to adapt if copyright was removed from them.

But that is not what we are talking about! You are asking what would happen if a business designed to run udner copyright lost it's copyright.

Business designed to run without copyright do just fine without it.

What we are talking about is imposing copyright on whole countries that don't want it!

We are not proposing to change how business operates in your countries, this legislation tried to control how business ran in countries that are opposed to copyright.

I did not claim the property came through sales of the bible... Rather you have demonstrated many of the other possible ways a book may pay off.
Uh... what? You said,
Almost no money is made from the bible? The catholic church is the largest owner of land in the world.
How the bloody hell am I supposed to read that as anything except you saying the Church bought the land through Bible profits?

Open source development is significantly cheaper.A cure for what ails ya, huh?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Silly%20Things/Firefox.jpg

Keep beatin' that drum. Eventually someone might start dancing.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

This fell out of queue earlier than I thought it would. Oh well, I caught the list of approvers, and will resubmit soon.

Some of the goals of this legislation are admirable. A variety of different conflicting copyright systems is less efficient then a more regulated system.

Some countries copyright systems have grown so corrupt that specific corporations have extended the duration of copyright to protect a specific company's intelectual property!

In another "Orphan Works" result when the owner of a copywritten work disappears.

I think many people have forgotten that the purpose of copyright is to encourage the production of art! That's it. Pure and simple. Increase the creative output.

There is no need for a copyright duration exceeding 5 years in any country.

If this legislation had merely tried to standardize copyright amongst those countries that supported the concept, we would gladly support it. We have seen how clumsily written copyright law has stunted the economies of nations.

-Brother Rail Gun of the Short Path

A further diasvatage of your copyright system. It wouldn't cost nearly that much without copyright. Open source development is significantly cheaper.Cheaper =/= better.



Development cost is completely seperate from unit cost. Development cost affects the price of the first item sold, it doesn't affect the unit cost after that. There is no reason the pirate house should be paying less for each additional unit made (the unit cost).You try selling a piece of software for $100 million and see how far you get. On the other hand including a fraction of the total development cost to the unit cost will recoup the development costs.

What we are talking about is imposing copyright on whole countries that don't want it!

We are not proposing to change how business operates in your countries, this legislation tried to control how business ran in countries that are opposed to copyright.
I'm about to say something that I'd really rather not say. If you don't like it, there's the door, don't let it hit you on the way out.

Oh and you never answered my question, "Is it right for someone else to profit from someone else's hard work?"

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

This fell out of queue earlier than I thought it would. Oh well, I caught the list of approvers, and will resubmit soon.


OOC: My apologies. I saw it was very close to quorum (within about 20 or so) and meant to copy the list of those who'd approved for you (I'm out of work at the moment and have nothing better to do really ;) ), but I forgot. Good luck on the resubmit, and I'll try to keep an eye on it for you, as I like this proposal very much.

Oh and you never answered my question, "Is it right for someone else to profit from someone else's hard work?"

Well, then we should deny copyright to publishers, right? They profit from the hard work of others, taking up to 90% of the retail price, just because they own the stamping machine or the printing press... Or how Disney blatantly plagarises folk stories (Someone brought it up earlier, I believe it was The Lion King and some African tribe) and then copyrights them for its own profit. Or perhaps there isn't really a way to answer that question in this context without getting everyone involved into a logical quagmire.

Nonetheless, the question here isn't "is copyright right/good/better/t3h aw3s0m3?", it's "should we force everyone to comply with this?". Taking the IC perspective, there's absolutely no reason a decent software program or creative work could not generate an adequate income for the creator in the capitalist copyright-loving countries, since there are plenty of them with plenty of consumers. Thus forcing everyone in the UN to comply with this regime is simply profit enhancement for them. Further to that, the present situation is one without a UN-mandated copyright regime. The "artists will starve to death and companies will go bankrupt" argument goes out the window because the lack of this resolution is the current situation and that isn't happening.

Oh and you never answered my question, "Is it right for someone else to profit from someone else's hard work?"

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Scroll up. The answer is yes, it is right. All of human creation is built on someone else's hard work. It is better to do so then reinvent the wheel. Doesn't that go without saying?

Well, then we should deny copyright to publishers, right? They profit from the hard work of others, taking up to 90% of the retail price, just because they own the stamping machine or the printing press... Or how Disney blatantly plagarises folk stories (Someone brought it up earlier, I believe it was The Lion King and some African tribe) and then copyrights them for its own profit. Or perhaps there isn't really a way to answer that question in this context without getting everyone involved into a logical quagmire.

Nonetheless, the question here isn't "is copyright right/good/better/t3h aw3s0m3?", it's "should we force everyone to comply with this?". Taking the IC perspective, there's absolutely no reason a decent software program or creative work could not generate an adequate income for the creator in the capitalist copyright-loving countries, since there are plenty of them with plenty of consumers. Thus forcing everyone in the UN to comply with this regime is simply profit enhancement for them. Further to that, the present situation is one without a UN-mandated copyright regime. The "artists will starve to death and companies will go bankrupt" argument goes out the window because the lack of this resolution is the current situation and that isn't happening.

We thank the Ambassador from Kelssek for this attempt to get the conversation back on track. The merits and flaws of copyright law can be debated endlessly, without really settling whether or not this particular broad brush of legislation should be applied to all UN member nations.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Cheaper =/= better.


What's not better about the same service being provided cheaper?


You try selling a piece of software for $100 million and see how far you get. On the other hand including a fraction of the total development cost to the unit cost will recoup the development costs.


I'm going to stop trying to explain what a unit cost is to you. If you wish to understand what unit cost is I am sure you will do fine.


I'm about to say something that I'd really rather not say. If you don't like it, there's the door, don't let it hit you on the way out.

Oh and you never answered my question, "Is it right for someone else to profit from someone else's hard work?"

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I ain't going anywhere :)

Well, then we should deny copyright to publishers, right? They profit from the hard work of others, taking up to 90% of the retail price, just because they own the stamping machine or the printing press... Or how Disney blatantly plagarises folk stories (Someone brought it up earlier, I believe it was The Lion King and some African tribe) and then copyrights them for its own profit. Or perhaps there isn't really a way to answer that question in this context without getting everyone involved into a logical quagmire.

Nonetheless, the question here isn't "is copyright right/good/better/t3h aw3s0m3?", it's "should we force everyone to comply with this?". Taking the IC perspective, there's absolutely no reason a decent software program or creative work could not generate an adequate income for the creator in the capitalist copyright-loving countries, since there are plenty of them with plenty of consumers. Thus forcing everyone in the UN to comply with this regime is simply profit enhancement for them. Further to that, the present situation is one without a UN-mandated copyright regime. The "artists will starve to death and companies will go bankrupt" argument goes out the window because the lack of this resolution is the current situation and that isn't happening.

I appreciate the support :) I don't think I'm mad or suffering some mental defect. I thought I had studied the issues, and tried to provide useful links for people that had not considered alternatives to copyright.

I expect that the UN will one day standardize copyright law. I just hope they don't try to force compliance amongst those who disagree with the concept.

I think in a few years peopel will start to realize that the public good is not served by long copyright durations, and they'll start scaling them back. When an author's children are dead it makes little sense to claim that you need to extend a copyright to 100 years after authors death otherwise art will suffer.

I ain't going anywhere :)

Drat.

A cure for what ails ya, huh?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Silly%20Things/Firefox.jpg

Keep beatin' that drum. Eventually someone might start dancing.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Wait you mean you don't use firefox?

Anyway, here are some more links describing drawbacks to poorly written intelectual property law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons

Drat.

I am thoroughly enjoying this :) It would be nice if someone wanted to debate the issues at hand, and had actually considered the alternatives to copyright. I figure if this thread lives long enough without being deleted eventually I'll meet such a person.

Uh... what? You said,

How the bloody hell am I supposed to read that as anything except you saying the Church bought the land through Bible profits?

Umm ok I'll try this again. An author can profit as a result of writing a book in many ways. One way is to sell lots of copies. One way is to give it away, and have a single patron pay you.

Another way is to read your own book alound to an audience, and then ask for donations. You can pass a collection plate around, and people will donate what they want.

The result is the same no matter how you do it, the author makes a living from his art.

Umm ok I'll try this again. An author can profit as a result of writing a book in many ways. One way is to sell lots of copies. One way is to give it away, and have a single patron pay you.

Another way is to read your own book alound to an audience, and then ask for donations. You can pass a collection plate around, and people will donate what they want.

The result is the same no matter how you do it, the author makes a living from his art.

Yeah, maybe in the Middle Ages...

I am thoroughly enjoying this annoying smilie It would be nice if someone wanted to debate the issues at hand, and had actually considered the alternatives to copyright. I figure if this thread lives long enough without being deleted eventually I'll meet such a person.
Bear in mind, this is a thread to debate the proposal at hand; not a thread to debate IP systems in general. So you probably have already met such people - they just haven't raised those points because they don't consider them relevant.

Scroll up. The answer is yes, it is right. All of human creation is built on someone else's hard work. It is better to do so then reinvent the wheel. Doesn't that go without saying?
You know what, fuck this shit, you go live in your fantasy land where copyrights are a bad thing. I'll stay in the real world where copyrights are necessary to protect people's hard work from being ripped off by bastards who don't give a damn.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need a drink.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Umm ok I'll try this again. An author can profit as a result of writing a book in many ways. One way is to sell lots of copies. One way is to give it away, and have a single patron pay you.

Another way is to read your own book alound to an audience, and then ask for donations. You can pass a collection plate around, and people will donate what they want.

The result is the same no matter how you do it, the author makes a living from his art.

So if you love donations and think that everyone is going to donate like this I think you should go with no taxes just optional donations that would work.:)

If everyone is so loyal and nice we would not need jails. But we happen to need jails.

Yeah, maybe in the Middle Ages...

It is still done this way. Our land uses these methods, in addition to numerous others. If the only setting you are familiar with that doesn't include copyright law is the middle ages then I'm not surprised you would be forced to reference to understand the alternatives to Copyright.

Bear in mind, this is a thread to debate the proposal at hand; not a thread to debate IP systems in general. So you probably have already met such people - they just haven't raised those points because they don't consider them relevant.

I am continally asked the same question, how will art survive without copyright? I agree that the question doesn't really relate to the proposal, because it is a given fact that art is surviving just find in our lands without it. However no one seems to believe that, and I find myself answering the question anyway.

It doesn't seem to matter how many times I have to remind people that the proposal is about the UN enforcing copyright on those who don't want it. The affects of removing copyright from those who do aren't germaine!

So if you love donations and think that everyone is going to donate like this I think you should go with no taxes just optional donations that would work.:)

If everyone is so loyal and nice we would not need jails. But we happen to need jails.

Taxes are needed to produce goods and services that cannot be freely duplicated. Taxes aren't needed to promote art, which is produced most freely when duplication is encouraged.

We're a free market capitalistic society, anyone who wishes to receive the benefits of our government pays taxes. Most do, because they are numerous.

Our criminal system isn't similar to yours, we don't focus on incarceration to the same degree that we focus on rehabilitation. We use public shaming as our primary deterrent :)

Did I sufficiently answer your questions about the functioning of The Free Land of Discoraversalism? I don't really want to take this discussion to far off topic.

You know what, fuck this shit, you go live in your fantasy land where copyrights are a bad thing. I'll stay in the real world where copyrights are necessary to protect people's hard work from being ripped off by bastards who don't give a damn.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need a drink.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Well there you go that's our whole point! Partly because of our artistic freedom the Free Land of Discoraversalism is an Eden in comparison to many countries.

Our problem here is that you are attempting to inflict your ideas about the world on the art of our nation, and we won't stand idly by and let that happen.

If you find copyrights necessary, WE WILL NOT BE STOPPING YOU IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM FROM USING THEM. We merely choose not to practice the archaic concept within our borders.

OOC: As a side note, I make a decent (though not extravagant) living as an artist, and copyright does not help me do so. I have salaried position with an organization, and supplement that income with commissioned work.

Just thought I'd point out a real-world, non-fantasyland, example of an artist living on his work without needing copyright protection.

Of course, I do realize that many artists in the capitalist country in which I live do need copyright protection in order to make a living doing what they do, but then the system is set up that way.

-The player behind Airatum

Taxes are needed to produce goods and services that cannot be freely duplicated. Taxes aren't needed to promote art, which is produced most freely when duplication is encouraged.

We're a free market capitalistic society, anyone who wishes to receive the benefits of our government pays taxes. Most do, because they are numerous.

Our criminal system isn't similar to yours, we don't focus on incarceration to the same degree that we focus on rehabilitation. We use public shaming as our primary deterrent :)

Did I sufficiently answer your questions about the functioning of The Free Land of Discoraversalism? I don't really want to take this discussion to far off topic.

I cannot help reply when you said that I don't belive in Rehabilitation. I actulay do (my nation is the opposite of my views lol i thought this game was diffrent) I am very in favor of rehabilition unlike the US. But I know you need jails too. There needs to be some deterent too.

My point was not a question about your area I could not care less my point was that your idea is the same thing as having donations for taxes.

You know what, fuck this shit, you go live in your fantasy land where copyrights are a bad thing. I'll stay in the real world where copyrights are necessary to protect people's hard work from being ripped off by bastards who don't give a damn.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need a drink.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I think you have captured the sentiment behind copyright quite nicely though. Some artists forget that the art they produce has been heavily influenced by every other tidbit of art they have encountered. They like to pretend they are islands, working in isolation, toiling away like some farmer growing wheat. When they have produced their art they try to hoard it, control it, when it is in their best interest to encourage that their art be duplicated and spread as widely as possible.

This philosophy is a denial of many of the basic principles of art. For most artists, art is an attempt to express their vision. To communicate with the culture. It is a response to the art they have observed.

Copyright hinders this communication, unnecessarily.

This hindrance is not trivial. Art is one of the primary means whereby a culture expresses it's desires, wants, needs, thoughts etc. The "group mind" of a nation is best expressed by it's art.

Anything that hinders it renders that mind dumber.

Judging by the reception we have received so far, I don't expect the perspective I have described to be received favorably on this forum :) I'm not sensing too many artists in the crowd.

Oh it occurs to me, if we want people in copyright nations to re use this rant, or anything else that has been typed here representing our nation, we have to add some tidbits of text to it. Here goes.

This work is in the public domain. Copyleft. All rights reversed. Feel free to repost any text from this author on this domain and repost it anywhere you choose, for profit or not. It would be cool if you cited the source, but if that is too cumbersome we still give you permission to use it. We may simply publicly mock you for doing so.

-Brother Rail Gun of the Short Path
-Mathias Timidi Cono Klast

Copyright hinders this communication, unnecessarily.

Or...maybe its a way of protecting the rights of artists by ensuring that no one legally copies their work and sells it off as if its theirs?

Perhaps that's why these clauses were included in UN Resolution #138: Artistic Freedom

2. DECLARES the rights of artists to create and interpret works of art, and of any person to distribute and preserve them, without interference from other individuals, any government, or the N.S.U.N., provided they:

a) RESPECT national and international law on property rights, including copyrights,

I cannot help reply when you said that I don't belive in Rehabilitation. I actulay do (my nation is the opposite of my views lol i thought this game was diffrent) I am very in favor of rehabilition unlike the US. But I know you need jails too. There needs to be some deterent too.

My point was not a question about your area I could not care less my point was that your idea is the same thing as having donations for taxes.

Well then again, we don't use taxes to pay for things that can be reproduced for free. We use taxes to pay for things that are harder to produce. Copyright is designed specifically to prevent reproduction, resulting in a net decrease in production, consumption, and general well being.

Or...maybe its a way of protecting the rights of artists by ensuring that no one legally copies their work and sells it off as if its theirs?

Perhaps that's why these clauses were included in UN Resolution #138: Artistic Freedom

There is nothing wrong with the above clauses, because currently our nation has no copyright law, and there is no international copyright law that I'm aware of.

Or...maybe its a way of protecting the rights of artists by ensuring that no one legally copies their work and sells it off as if its theirs?

Perhaps that's why these clauses were included in UN Resolution #138: Artistic Freedom

We do not believe artists somehow acquire rights to control information by producing art. Information is most useful to society when it is not controlled. How can you own a series of 1's and 0's?

Copyright is an attempt to take the concept of property, which applies to physical things, and to apply it to information.

It was an interesting idea, it had some pro's and some con's.

But we are well into the digital age! The cost of duplicating and transmitting information is virtually zero now. That makes any increase at all in said cost (royalties for example) onerous.

Royalties just weren't as big a problem when you had to go through the trouble of printing books. It raised an already significant unit cost a little bit higher. Now it raises a unit cost that is virtually zero and makes it more then some people can afford.

We don't need you to agree with us. We just need you to stop forcing the archaic concept onto our soil.

Please, redraft this proposal and limit it to countries with existing copyright law.

This proposal has been resubmitted. Scratch that, I've clicked the button to resubmit it, but the page hasn't actually loaded yet.

The proposal will not be redrafted. Copyrights are used all over RL to good effect. I don't understand how some artists could survive without it, or why you feel that copying the work of others without their permission should be legal. Yes, I know you've explained it, but I don't see how it's viable.

Please approve the proposal at http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_Proposal1/match=copyright.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

Robert Bobson
UN Affairs Officer

I've been authorized by my boss (who most likely won't be returning to this thread) to inform you that you've got your first approval, or you will once the page updates.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

PS Discoraversalism, congratulations, you're only the second person to piss my boss off like that.

This proposal has been resubmitted. Scratch that, I've clicked the button to resubmit it, but the page hasn't actually loaded yet.

The proposal will not be redrafted. Copyrights are used all over RL to good effect. I don't understand how some artists could survive without it, or why you feel that copying the work of others without their permission should be legal. Yes, I know you've explained it, but I don't see how it's viable.

Please approve the proposal at http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_Proposal1/match=copyright.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

Robert Bobson
UN Affairs Officer

Why won't you just let us wallow in our un viable existance then? We obviously won't keep it up for very long if we aren't viable?

We are junior members to the UN, and are not entirely familiar to it's processes. How would we go about submitting an alternative proposal, that merely attempted to reform copyright law, rather then expanding it beyond all reason?

I've been authorized by my boss (who most likely won't be returning to this thread) to inform you that you've got your first approval, or you will once the page updates.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

PS Discoraversalism, congratulations, you're only the second person to piss my boss off like that.

Well thanks I guess. Our goal is not to create strife though. This process has been educational. I expect this discussion will continue elsewhere.

Many people seem to be forecasting doom for our nation's artists unless we submit and adopt the policy of "copyright." Assuming the next proposal get's approved, passes, and enters into UN law, what would be the ramifications? Are we expected to begin jailing and beating our citizens until they give up their way of life, or will the UN do it for us?

Why won't you just let us wallow in our un viable existance then? We obviously won't keep it up for very long if we aren't viable?
Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding, I meant that OOC-wise. In other words, I don't accept that your system is working.

We are junior members to the UN, and are not entirely familiar to it's processes. How would we go about submitting an alternative proposal, that merely attempted to reform copyright law, rather then expanding it beyond all reason?
Submit it on the UN page.

ooc: wasn't the Lion King Hamlet with a happy ending?

I'd be extremely pissed off if someone used my designs without my permission. I'm trying to set up my own t-shirt business, and it's hard enough to come up with new ideas without having someone pinching them. Which is why I've watermarked all my work I've put online that I want identified as mine.
However, to say I haven't been influenced by others would be a lie.

I think there's several copywriteable concepts.
The iconic image - something that indicates a certain artist, brand etc. So trademarks and things such as Dali's floppy watches.
The object as a whole.
Particularly in written works, including music, certain structural ideas.
How and where it is distributed.
There's only 5 storylines or something, but from those come hundreds of novels, each with its own tale. While it might be believable that characters can follow similar paths it's obvious when a book plagerises another. Is that good? I don't think so.
Parody is an accepted tribute, it's usually a compliment. As are any nods at someone's work.
I think the first few points relate more to authorship and it is the last one, to do with ownership, which seems to be the contentious issue.

The iconic image - something that indicates a certain artist, brand etc. So trademarks and things such as Dali's floppy watches.


Trademark is a very separate issue :) So is patent. It's very tempting to lump all intelectual propery together, but each has a very different impact on the world.

Branding is designed to identify authorship. We don't consider it nearly as harmful copyright.

Patent law has some of the same problems as copyright, orphan works, and prohibitively high costs. If patent law is done poorly it can have a significant negative impact.

This reached quorum last night, but then fell out over the update.

The Ceoranan UN Delegation will be submitting this again soon, telegramming all the delegates who have approved it in past submissions as well as a few others if we can find them.

Robert Bobson
UN Officer

This reached quorum last night, but then fell out over the update.

The Ceoranan UN Delegation will be submitting this again soon, telegramming all the delegates who have approved it in past submissions as well as a few others if we can find them.

Robert Bobson
UN Officer

We'd like to congratulate the distinguished representative of Ceorana for his excellent effort in bringing this to quorum. As of about midnight (US EDT), it had gained the 129 approvals needed, but apparently someone lost delegate status before the site was updated.

We'd also like to thank the delegates who added their approvals.

We hope the distinguished representative of Ceorana will resubmit the proposal, but we'd suggest waiting a while. We'll discuss our reasons with him privately.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding, I meant that OOC-wise. In other words, I don't accept that your system is working.


Submit it on the UN page.

Well trying to submit a proposition didn't go too well :)

It's a common problem we run into when trying to describe our society. Those raised under copyright have trouble conceiving how things work without it. I've tried several times to give examples how any given type of artist can make a living without copyright. Copyright lawyers have trouble making a living without copyright... but that is insufficient reason to introduce copyright to our country.

-Brother Rail Gun of the Short Path

We'd like to congratulate the distinguished representative of Ceorana for his excellent effort in bringing this to quorum. As of about midnight (US EDT), it had gained the 129 approvals needed, but apparently someone lost delegate status before the site was updated.

We'd also like to thank the delegates who added their approvals.

We hope the distinguished representative of Ceorana will resubmit the proposal, but we'd suggest waiting a while. We'll discuss our reasons with him privately.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs
I have some time tomorrow that I'll submit at unless there is a strong reason not to...I've telegrammed you about it.

We'd like to congratulate the distinguished representative of Ceorana for his excellent effort in bringing this to quorum. As of about midnight (US EDT), it had gained the 129 approvals needed, but apparently someone lost delegate status before the site was updated.I'm looking into this.

I'm looking into this.
We didn't do it!

Resubmitted! Approval link: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=copyright

Or...maybe its a way of protecting the rights of artists by ensuring that no one legally copies their work and sells it off as if its theirs?

Perhaps that's why these clauses were included in UN Resolution #138: Artistic Freedom

I know I post here more then anyone else, but I think this is an important debate :)

Anyway, if someone legally copies someone else's work they aren't harming the artist. If they fail to credit the arist they are. Plagiarism is bad, but that does not make copyright good.

Copying someone elses work is FREE ADVERTISING. Done right, art is viral.

After you have done the advertising it is necessary that an artist make a living. Copyright is one way, but there are innumerable more.

Copyright is interference in the free market, and should be opposed on that ground alone.

The reason my opponents are unaware of alternatives to copyright is they have no experience with them, and they haven't followed any of the links I have provided :)

This legislation would make it much harder for UN nations to practice those alternatives to copyright, decreasing innovation in art.

The goal seems to be to increase profit amongst nations that support copyright, at the expense of those that do not.

This legislation specifically targets those nations which do not currently practice copyright. What do you predict the effect will be in those nations?

Copyrights are used all over RL to good effect. I don't understand how some artists could survive without it,

I've been going on and on about how copyrights aren't what's keeping artists from starving to death, and may even be detrimental to their income. Or maybe you don't want to deal with that? Copyrights are overwhelmingly for corporate profit. The artist is lucky if they get more than 10% of the money. There's extremely assymetrical benefits here and to keep saying artists won't be able to make a living is disingenuous.

or why you feel that copying the work of others without their permission should be legal.

We need to seperate the issues of plagarism and reproduction. Plagarism is indeed a bad thing and the original artist should be able to take action against it. Reproduction, however, is different. The artist's royalty income might take a hit but the royalty income isn't that great anyway. The reproduction, authorised or not, gives greater access and exposure for the artist, and might actually go the other way, gaining them more fans who will attend concerts and buy future albums. Why do you think so many bands and musicians actually came out against their record companies in the copyright battle over Napster and filesharing? Metallica is the only high-profile band I'm aware of which takes a pro-copyright stance.

EDIT:
Here's an example for my own favourite band, The Tragically Hip. They can't do anything about their CDs because the copyright belongs to the record company, but they allow and even encourage bootlegging of their concerts. Their own official website, http://www.thehip.com has a Song of the Day which allows you to download such recordings for free. Fans have also set up a BitTorrent network at http://bt.hipfans.com/

but I don't see how it's viable.

Well, I can see it working, I've seen the donation thing going on at poetry readings and the like in the real world, and even just giving coins to buskers on the subway. If his society values artistic creation there's no reason the people in it wouldn't donate. It's a reasonable RP, and the diversity of societies and cultures the players create is a great thing. I'm sad to say you seem to ignore all that and make the mistake of thinking everything in here is just like in the real world. It's the basis, obviously, but even the real world has great diversity. It's not inconceivable that such a society/culture would exist.

If, as you claim, an artist would like to waive his copyright for the song, he has full rights do so. If the copyright belongs to the record company for a song, then, yeah, how else would record companies make money? And if they can't make money, how would we get records from them?

For donations, maybe it could work, and it's fine if it does, but it wouldn't in a lot of nations, and that's why this proposal.

If, as you claim, an artist would like to waive his copyright for the song, he has full rights do so. If the copyright belongs to the record company for a song, then, yeah, how else would record companies make money? And if they can't make money, how would we get records from them?

For donations, maybe it could work, and it's fine if it does, but it wouldn't in a lot of nations, and that's why this proposal.

Perhaps your nation is dependent on record companies to get records, but records aren't that hard to produce. A friend of mine put out his own record recently. Again, this is the digital age, remember :)

Donations may not work in some nations, but copyright also won't work in some nations. It's fine if your culture is adapted and supportive of copyright, but mine isn't!

We aren't talking about forcing anyone to depend on donations. You're talking about forcing everyone to depend on copyright.

If the copyright belongs to the record company for a song, then, yeah, how else would record companies make money? And if they can't make money, how would we get records from them?

A lot of the reason for the existence of the large record labels is their marketing power. They can make artists who otherwise would have to find another job based on the merits of their work into very rich people. The system, however, doesn't have to work the way it does work in Los Angeles. Our IC situation is that we recognise copyright for authorship only, not publishing, so the publishers make their money by providing a service to artists. But you're approaching it as the real situation being the only way it can work when in fact there are more possibilities than that.

Furthermore, you're assuming purely profit motivation again. Many record companies have been set up by musicians mainly to help promote and improve the music scene rather than to make a big profit. As long as it's self-sustaining they're happy. Independent record companies, for instance, are usually associated with this approach.

For donations, maybe it could work, and it's fine if it does, but it wouldn't in a lot of nations, and that's why this proposal.

Then those nations can have their own copyright laws, and be as restrictive as they want, right? This isn't even a national sovereignity issue, it's just what makes the most sense and in keeping with the spirit of this crazy game where, as another player who I think was New Fubaria said, you get wars which are "like watching a movie that's Star Wars vs. Lord of the Rings vs. Black Hawk Down".

I know I post here more then anyone else, but I think this is an important debate :)

Anyway, if someone legally copies someone else's work they aren't harming the artist. If they fail to credit the arist they are. Plagiarism is bad, but that does not make copyright good.

Copying someone elses work is FREE ADVERTISING. Done right, art is viral.

After you have done the advertising it is necessary that an artist make a living. Copyright is one way, but there are innumerable more.

Copyright is interference in the free market, and should be opposed on that ground alone.

The reason my opponents are unaware of alternatives to copyright is they have no experience with them, and they haven't followed any of the links I have provided :)

This legislation would make it much harder for UN nations to practice those alternatives to copyright, decreasing innovation in art.

The goal seems to be to increase profit amongst nations that support copyright, at the expense of those that do not.

This legislation specifically targets those nations which do not currently practice copyright. What do you predict the effect will be in those nations?

We wish the representative of Discoraversalism would avoid stooping to making completely false statements in this debate. How on earth could you presume to know what links we followed, much less how much we are aware of "alternatives to copyright"? As I recall, one of your links talked about a company that had gotten itself into a bind with an unworkable licensing agreement. Another talked about "alternative licensing" schemes.

As for copying someone's work without permission or compensation "not harming the artist," we guess it depends on your viewpoint. Ripping off the results of someone's creative effort and using it to compete with their legitimately published product reduces the revenues they might otherwise obtain. It seems you don't consider that harm. We do.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Our respected colleague from Kesslek has voiced objections several times in this debate. They've been thoughtful and thought-provoking, and, though we disagree with their thrust, they're certainly welcome.

We've noticed one thing, though. As we recall, the comments of the honorable representative have focused solely on the entertainment industry -- particularly recorded music. Keeping in mind that copyright protects the products of all sorts of creative effort -- from songwriting, novel writing and non-fiction writing, to such things as lexicography, compilation of scientific encyclopedias and making crossword puzzles -- how would his principles apply in the broader context?

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We've already talked about readables. Specifically I talked about how newspapers profit more if their printed content is shared around, since their income is predominantly advertising and they get paid more the more people read the paper. Hence copyright is only important to them as far as preventing plagarism, rather than as a source of income.

Novel writers have even more to gain if there was a more equitable share of the retail revenue from selling books. As for non-fiction, arguably there's a public interest to greater access to all the research and knowledge, and most scientific writing is part of getting the news out, rather than being a source of income. Most scientists' income comes from grants or from holding appointments based on their expertise, such as at universities or government bodies. Furthermore, libraries have so far failed to cause mass author starvation so the effect on the income of writers is clearly not a very great one.

In a broader context we might see publishers and promoters acting as a service rather than their current role as the only way for artists to access the market in any significant manner. They could do the dirty work of syndicating and badgering newspapers and leave the crossword puzzle maker to make crossword puzzles. He pays the syndicate or the publisher for the service and keeps most of the money for his work. Likewise the author would pay for the printing and binding of the book and for someone to get it in bookshops, and keep the rest of the revenue. That's something I just came up with and I haven't really put hours of consideration into how an alternative system might work, but I'm sure you could find all kinds of radical ideas out there.

As a PS to Discoraversalism, using easily-vandalised Wikipedia articles with doubtful accuracy as evidence isn't exactly going to convince people.

Likewise the author would pay for the printing and binding of the book and for someone to get it in bookshops, and keep the rest of the revenue.Question: Why did it take so long for House of 1,000 Corpses to be released?
Answer: Because Rob Zombie couldn't get a distributor.

While movies are different than books, the basic concept is the same: distribution is enormously expensive. Mr. Zombie is hardly hurting for money, but he still needed someone to distribute his movie. Stephen King and Dean Koontz both sell insane numbers of books and have personal fortunes, but still work with publishers. JK Rowling is richer than the Queen, but she has a publisher, too.

Mass distribution is too expensive for Jenny-the-waitress to manage.

We wish the representative of Discoraversalism would avoid stooping to making completely false statements in this debate. How on earth could you presume to know what links we followed, much less how much we are aware of "alternatives to copyright"? As I recall, one of your links talked about a company that had gotten itself into a bind with an unworkable licensing agreement. Another talked about "alternative licensing" schemes.

As for copying someone's work without permission or compensation "not harming the artist," we guess it depends on your viewpoint. Ripping off the results of someone's creative effort and using it to compete with their legitimately published product reduces the revenues they might otherwise obtain. It seems you don't consider that harm. We do.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I have to admit, I did overstate myself. I am glad you have examined our examples.

It appears you have a value system where it is legitimate to deny that all art springs from other art. In such a system one can claim ownership, because one denies that really, the art would then have to belong to whoever influenced them most. This had led you to describe spreading someone distributin someone else's art as "ripping them off." We instead feel that distributing someone else's art is "doing them a favor." You have given them free advertising, increasign the amount of money they artist makes when they do work that provides them legitimate income.

The people mass duplicating art don't compete with artists in our culture. They are doing the artists a legitimate service. Meanwhile the artist makes money, any number of other ways.

How is said artist harm? The artist is glad, the manufacturer of their music is glad. Neither of them want yorr copyright law forced on them. They do not want your values forced on them either.

Our respected colleague from Kesslek has voiced objections several times in this debate. They've been thoughtful and thought-provoking, and, though we disagree with their thrust, they're certainly welcome.

We've noticed one thing, though. As we recall, the comments of the honorable representative have focused solely on the entertainment industry -- particularly recorded music. Keeping in mind that copyright protects the products of all sorts of creative effort -- from songwriting, novel writing and non-fiction writing, to such things as lexicography, compilation of scientific encyclopedias and making crossword puzzles -- how would his principles apply in the broader context?

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Each artist would likely be making their money in a slightly different fashion. The market is a different place without copyright then with it :) Songwriters get paid by any number of people to compose songs for them. Nover writers as well. Non-fiction is usually paid for as an educational expense, or if it serves another cause. Scientific encyplopedias can be made in the same way all scientific articles are made in your country. Do not scientists compete for respect and recognition in your countries?

I can describe how any for any artist dependent on copyright in your country, a similar artist in our country can make a good living.

Meanwhile the costs of copyright are innumerable. Isn't that exactly how copyright works? by raising the cost of works that would otherwise be reproduced at a much lower price?

But again, why are you asking us to prove our system works? Is it not evident that it does? You shouldn't be asking us to prove our system is better then yours. We are not asking you to adopt ours! You are asking us to adopt yours! Meanwhile you are making no effort to convince us.

As a PS to Discoraversalism, using easily-vandalised Wikipedia articles with doubtful accuracy as evidence isn't exactly going to convince people.

We consider promoting wikipedia to be furthering our cause.

How familiar is the representvie of Kelsek with Wikipedia. It is a young project, still in it's experimental stage. It exists in a country with Copyright, but it is a project put in the public domain. Still I consider it to be the best resource available online.

It is very hard to vandalize wikipedia for more then a moment. The next user to see the sight is most likely to catch the vandalism. Meanwhile every version of a page ever to appear is saved. So it is easier to rever to the last version of a page then it is to do the vandalism in the first place.

Meanwhile, no one spends much time vandalizing wikipedia. The people that reverse the vandals spend hours contributing :) In our country, we consider such actions to be public service. Of course we don't have copyright, and we have been doing fine without it for some time, so our equivalent to wikipedia is good deal more accurate and encompassing.

Stephen King and Dean Koontz both sell insane numbers of books and have personal fortunes, but still work with publishers. JK Rowling is richer than the Queen, but she has a publisher, too.

Arguably, it's because they don't have a choice. I'm not too familiar with the books industry, but I doubt the publishers' profit margins are so bad they can't afford to give authors a greater share of revenue.

Mass distribution is too expensive for Jenny-the-waitress to manage.

Okay, accepted. Admittedly there's a risk the publisher takes in an unknown author's first work. I'm not saying the author has to bear the distribution costs, but instead that there should be a more equitable share of the profit. We're kind of sidetracking from the issue of copyright, though.

We're kind of sidetracking from the issue of copyright, though.

I don't think we have a choice. The author's of this legislation continue to express disbelief that art is possible without copyright. They don't seem convinced even when go into great detail explaining the alternatives. It's hard to stay on topic having to do that :)

Still I consider it to be the best resource available online... It is very hard to vandalize wikipedia for more then a moment.

Friend of mine added his own name to "BR", a disambiguation page, and it stayed there for months before someone realised it was complete nonsense. From Feb to March this year I was part of a revert war with someone who was determined that Eric Lindros's article should call him an Anglophone chauvinist. Us at WikiProject Ice Hockey actually formed an informal hit squad to guard against the idiot. And there was a lengthy (and I mean VERY lengthy) shoutfest (and edit war) over the phrase "[Wayne Gretzky] is widely considered among the greatest players of all time."

I do use Wikipedia frequently. Overall, I've found that inaccurate or incorrect info can easily stay for long periods of time, misinforming people who forget to take everything with a pinch of salt. It's good as a resource and a starting point for research, sure, but don't be relying on it. And it's spelt "site", by the way.

Friend of mine added his own name to "BR", a disambiguation page, and it stayed there for months before someone realised it was complete nonsense. From Feb to March this year I was part of a revert war with someone who was determined that Eric Lindros's article should call him an Anglophone chauvinist. Us at WikiProject Ice Hockey actually formed an informal hit squad to guard against the idiot. And there was a lengthy (and I mean VERY lengthy) shoutfest (and edit war) over the phrase "[Wayne Gretzky] is widely considered among the greatest players of all time."

I do use Wikipedia frequently. Overall, I've found that inaccurate or incorrect info can easily stay for long periods of time, misinforming people who forget to take everything with a pinch of salt. It's good as a resource and a starting point for research, sure, but don't be relying on it. And it's spelt "site", by the way.

Um, all that happened was 2 letters were added to a page? You can sneak insignificant tidbits into wikipedia, but I don't see how that affects it's quality.

I do feel relying on any encyclopedia is a mistake, but I don't see it's more a mistake to rely on wikipedia then any other encyclopedia.

Those articles which aren't very reliable on wikipedia wouldn't even appear in any other encyclopedia.

You seem to have demonstrated how if anyone cares about an article then people naturally rise to defend it.

We consider promoting wikipedia to be furthering our cause.Wikipedia can be a good source. A recent Nature study found that its scientific articles were nearly as accurate as those found in Encyclopedia Britannica; however, articles on copyright theory are not scientific.

Furthermore, while any given article can be completely accurate, it can also be woefully inaccurate depending on when one is viewing it. All things considered, it is not an acceptable source when dealing with controversial subjects. No matter how kindred its spirit may be.


Arguably, it's because they don't have a choice. I'm not too familiar with the books industry, but I doubt the publishers' profit margins are so bad they can't afford to give authors a greater share of revenue.Nonsense. You were advocating vanity publication. By and large, that will not, and cannot, give an author wide readership. It is woefully insufficient for someone who wishes to make writing their primary -- or only -- source of income.

Okay, accepted. Admittedly there's a risk the publisher takes in an unknown author's first work.That's the whole point though, and why publishers take such a heavy cut. For every Rowling, there are thousands of fantasy writers who fail miserably. I'm sure she got a much better cut from The Half-Blood Prince than she did from The Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone, but she was a proven artist by then (say what you will about your personal like or dislike of her books). Also, remember, the publishers don't exist to spread art; they exist to make money. If I wrote a manuscript and sent it in, they would be taking a risk on publishing my book. Should I prove successful, then I get a better contract. Should I flop, the company will have a better chance to break even with a higher cut.

If I don't want to give the publisher my rights, I already have options. I can submit to, say, Weird Tales for a set fee. If it rocks, a publisher may give me a better cut. Or, I could go for vanity press, and have my sales pretty much limited by word-of-mouth. That may work great for internet sites (like NS) where anybody can easily access, it's less successful for books. There's something to be said for effort after all. Vanity press requires ordering the book specifically; you can't just nab it off the shelves.

And I don't think this is a copyright in the slightest. You promoted (in so many words) vanity publication; I'm showing why that isn't sufficient.

Discowhatever: Nope, for several months "Boris Ran" was listed as a meaning for "BR". Admittedly it's not much but still, it's not as awesome as you think. And in between edits you probably had hundreds of people going there and coming away thinking that Eric Lindros hates French people. I enjoy using and contributing to Wikipedia, I just find it highly overrated.

EDIT to Hack:

Right, bad idea then. I was just thinking of other ways besides the real system, and the easiest was to switch roles around.

Also, remember, the publishers don't exist to spread art; they exist to make money.

That's my point. Keep in mind one of the justifications used for this proposal is the promotion of art. Systemically, the real-world arrangement doesn't promote art, it promotes profit. Likewise, this proposal emphasises profit over the creation of art and that's in essence why I don't like copyright.

Discowhatever: Nope, for several months "Boris Ran" was listed as a meaning for "BR". Admittedly it's not much but still, it's not as awesome as you think. And in between edits you probably had hundreds of people going there and coming away thinking that Eric Lindros hates French people.

Kels, what point are you making with this example? Wikipedia does have errors. But where else can you even go for all the possible meanings of BR? It's the only place to go for that (and therefore automaticaly the most authoritive).

Wikipedia can be a good source. A recent Nature study found that its scientific articles were nearly as accurate as those found in Encyclopedia Britannica; however, articles on copyright theory are not scientific.

Furthermore, while any given article can be completely accurate, it can also be woefully inaccurate depending on when one is viewing it. All things considered, it is not an acceptable source when dealing with controversial subjects. No matter how kindred its spirit may be.


Wikipedia has faults, but it's still the best encyclopedia out there. Meanwhile, even badly contested pages provide you with links to the specific cites to get more information on the subject.

I can't wait to see other innovative wiki's like wikireason (for debate) take off.

Wikipedia has faults, but it's still the best encyclopedia out there.Just because you wish to ignore my points doesn't make them invalid. I've already dealt with the flaws with Wiki.


That's my point. Keep in mind one of the justifications used for this proposal is the promotion of art.Yes, but publishers do promote art, in their own way. Their primary goal is to make money, but if they don't successfully publish, they can't make money. Therefore, it is in their own best interest to have wildly successful authors under contract.

Or, to put it another way, if there were no nation/worldwide publishers, nobody outside of Maine would have ever heard of Stephen King. Even if you don't like his works, you have to admit that by being published all over the world, "art" has been promoted. Publishing houses aren't perfect, and aren't immune to political forces (just ask Ann Coulter*), but they're better than the alternative: no publishing houses.


* Figured I should explain my point about her... After her first book was published and became a New York Times Bestseller, the company that published it refused to publish her second book. She eventually found another publisher (obviously), and that book also became a best seller. One assumes that her politics trumped her track record as being an author people were interested in.

Kels, what point are you making with this example?

That you can't trust it all the time, and it's most definitely NOT authoritative?Okay, well, maybe convincing people that a hockey player is a racist and so a hate figure for the Quebecois isn't that big a deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eric_Lindros). But it's been well-documented that political workers have sneaked in uncomplimentary assertions about their candidate's opponent. See this, for instance - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13269186/

I love that you can slag off capitalists like that, but a lack of balance isn't helpful either. Anyway, this is what I'm interested in:

The site is gaining in popularity and credibility -- a December article in the journal Nature said Wikipedia was right on scientific topics about as often as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a charge Britannica hotly disputed -- but has been criticized for emphasizing open-ended editing over accuracy.

That policy has made Wikipedia an attractive attack tool in the political world. In April, Morton Brilliant, campaign manager for Georgia gubernatorial candidate Cathy Cox, resigned after the campaign of Democratic rival Mark Taylor claimed he had doctored Taylor's Wikipedia biography.

U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall, a Democrat from Macon, also saw his Wikipedia profile rewritten by political opponents, and the bios of several U.S. senators have been edited from congressional computers.

Wikipedia articles on large corporations, too, are filled with information those companies might prefer left out. Other high-profile targets like Nike Inc. (NYSE: NKE) and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) have been fiercely debated in the past, Wales said. Wal-Mart employees or operatives are even alleged to have edited the site to reflect positively on the company.

Hack:

You misinterpret my position. It's not publishing houses etc. I'm against. The situation certainly isn't as grossly exploitative as in the music industry. I've already shown why I believe they wouldn't suffer much from absence of the proposed copyright regime anyway. You brought up readables and I've shown how I don't think the industry needs the proposal, or indeed restrictive copyright laws, for survival.

Just because you wish to ignore my points doesn't make them invalid. I've already dealt with the flaws with Wiki.



I really am not trying to ignore your posts. You came up with some places where wikipedia is not perfect, I point out that entries like "Things that BR could stand for" don't even exist in other encyclopedias, nor is there any better place to look them up.

That you can't trust it all the time, and it's most definitely NOT authoritative?Okay, well, maybe convincing people that a hockey player is a racist and so a hate figure for the Quebecois isn't that big a deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eric_Lindros). But it's been well-documented that political workers have sneaked in uncomplimentary assertions about their candidate's opponent. See this, for instance - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13269186/


In those places where you can't trust wikipedia, there isn't any other reference you can trust more.

Eric Lindros wouldn't even appeare in other encyclopedias. As to specialty sites related to him, well those urls are listed on the wikipedia entry, so if you were looking for those wikipedia was still a great place to look.

Showing that you can sneak something into wikipedia does not reduce it's authority. It does mean there is like a .1% error rate, but that's true of a regular encyclopedia as well.

You misinterpret my position. It's not publishing houses etc. I'm against. The situation certainly isn't as grossly exploitative as in the music industry.Any blanket law that effects the music industry will effect book publishing (and book publishing actually is an NS industry). Furthermore, the high costs of book distribution are mirrored in the music industry. It's not like CD's magically appear in stores.

I've already shown why I believe they wouldn't suffer much from absence of the proposed copyright regime anyway. You brought up readables and I've shown how I don't think the industry needs the proposal, or indeed restrictive copyright laws, for survival.If there is nothing to protect the publishing house, it will quit publishing. If there's nothing protecting the music company, it will stop producing CDs. Being able to steal music because you don't feel like paying for it is gross arrogance. Without copyright, nothing will exist to stop people from simply taking it.

Any blanket law that effects the music industry will effect book publishing (and book publishing actually is an NS industry). Furthermore, the high costs of book distribution are mirrored in the music industry. It's not like CD's magically appear in stores.

Beyond shipping, what is so costly about distribution? Transportation in bulk isn't terribly expensive. It's an honest question. I'd like to know, and it would help both our arguments.

This is a blanket law. There's a valid point there in what Discowhatever said. A change is being made to the way things are done, you're advocating imposing a system on the entire UN, and you have to justify it. That's not being done; all I'm seeing is a rehashing of the propaganda put out by the very companies who find their profits threatened.

If there is nothing to protect the publishing house, it will quit publishing. If there's nothing protecting the music company, it will stop producing CDs. Being able to steal music because you don't feel like paying for it is gross arrogance. Without copyright, nothing will exist to stop people from simply taking it.

As I've already said, profits can still be made without the copyright protection. Copyright isn't easy to enforce except for very big cases, and so to a huge extent it isn't. Granted profits have fallen in the entertainment industry, but they haven't disappeared, and even with the surge in independent music and increased stealing, the major labels aren't going bankrupt or even close. Ditto movie production companies, big software companies. They aren't shutting down because they're still making profits even with copyright enforcement almost zero.

And just because nothing will stop people from taking something doesn't mean they will take it. Recently the Toronto Transit Commission employees union told their members not to enforce non-payment of fares as a protest against the company not doing enough to protect them from when they enforce it and the non-payer gets violent. 99% still paid their transit fare according to reports.

(Also a lot of the time it isn't because I don't feel like paying, it's because a lot of the music I listen to is very hard to buy legitimately. Not because it's banned or anything, but because there isn't a lot of demand for it. The irony is that I still end up getting boxes of stuff off Amazon.com because it's only slightly easier to get an MP3 of a Joel Plaskett Emergency song from the Internet than it is to find it in a store outside of Canada.)

---

Discoblahblah:

I was the one who said that, not Hack. Sort out who's saying what.

- Eric Lindros probably won't be in the Brittanica, but any sports encyclopedia worth using would include him. I am not denying the usefulness of Wikipedia, I'm saying it cannot ever be considered authoritative at face value, far from the "most authoritative" or the "best encyclopedia" as you claim. Additionally Google would be much more useful for finding sites about him, wouldn't you agree?

- The error rate is a hell of a lot higher than 0.1%

- You haven't addressed the misinformation thing, deliberate or otherwise. It can have a serious impact, especially concerning political candidates, because it can affect votes.

- You dodged the vandalism thing. You said it's hard to vandalise and make it stick, I showed you an example which stayed for quite a while, and then you went, "Oh, well you couldn't find it elsewhere", which is also your response to Hack's point that inaccuracies still exist. That's not a reply, that doesn't deal with it at all, that's weaseling out of a point you know you've lost. There are inaccuracies and it means you can't trust it completely, but you're so high on your high horse that you're getting hypoxic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoxia_(medical) - Go on. Try and see if you know what I mean. There's a prize, but not a very good one.

Discoblahblah:

I was the one who said that, not Hack. Sort out who's saying what.


Not sure what you are objecting to kels. Did I misuse the quote function somehow?


- Eric Lindros probably won't be in the Brittanica, but any sports encyclopedia worth using would include him. I am not denying the usefulness of Wikipedia, I'm saying it cannot ever be considered authoritative at face value, far from the "most authoritative" or the "best encyclopedia" as you claim. Additionally Google would be much more useful for finding sites about him, wouldn't you agree?


You appear to be trying to compare wikipedia to a specialty encyclopedia. I'm not sure why, I never said wikipedia is the most authoritative sports encyclopedia, that would be comparing apples and oranges.

I do not agree that google is more usefull for trying to find encylopedia articles. I use answers.com. It backends to several enclopedias, and dictionaries, and if it turns up nothing it gives you a google search. 90% of the time I just use it to quickly get to a wikipedia article.

Google and wikipedia aren't really comporable in this fashion. If I wanted to go to a random site dedicated to Eric Lindros I would use google. If I wanted an encyclopedia entry on him I would use wikipedia. Wikipedia is not all things for all people, there are things outside of it's scope. It's the best encyclopedia, not the best sports encyclopedia, best search engine, or whatever else you want to compare it to.


- The error rate is a hell of a lot higher than 0.1%


Why do you say that?



- You haven't addressed the misinformation thing, deliberate or otherwise. It can have a serious impact, especially concerning political candidates, because it can affect votes.


I felt I did. If there is misinformation on page that gets visited, it gets corrected. If no one cares on about the subject, it might not, but it also doesn't matter.


- You dodged the vandalism thing. You said it's hard to vandalise and make it stick, I showed you an example which stayed for quite a while, and then you went, "Oh, well you couldn't find it elsewhere", which is also your response to Hack's point that inaccuracies still exist. That's not a reply, that doesn't deal with it at all, that's weaseling out of a point you know you've lost. There are inaccuracies and it means you can't trust it completely, but you're so high on your high horse that you're getting hypoxic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoxia_(medical) - Go on. Try and see if you know what I mean. There's a prize, but not a very good one.

I do not deny vandalism occurs! I do not claim you can trust wikipedia 100%. I apologize if I I claim you can't trust any encyclopedia 100% and that wikipedia is the best there is.

You gave an example of a flawed article. I tried to run a mental comparison to how that article would be handled by other encyclopedias, and of course the answer is, it wouldn't have existed. So wikipedia wins the comparison.

If you feel another all purpose encyclopedia is more authoritive we can discuss why it is, or is not so.

- You dodged the vandalism thing. You said it's hard to vandalise and make it stick, I showed you an example which stayed for quite a while, and then you went, "Oh, well you couldn't find it elsewhere", which is also your response to Hack's point that inaccuracies still exist. That's not a reply, that doesn't deal with it at all, that's weaseling out of a point you know you've lost. There are inaccuracies and it means you can't trust it completely, but you're so high on your high horse that you're getting hypoxic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoxia_(medical) - Go on. Try and see if you know what I mean. There's a prize, but not a very good one.

Your example qualifies as the weakest form of vandalism. It's like saying the litter outside impairs the architextural appeal of a building. It is reallllllly easy to add stuff to wikipedia that have no impact on it's authority. It is much harder to vandalize an article of any importance.

How likely vandalism is to be corrected is directly tied to how significant the vandalism is. If it's not significant, no one is likely to view the page, or it has an insignificant impact. But insignificant vandalism does not reduce wikipedia's authority.

- The error rate is a hell of a lot higher than 0.1%


It's easy to forget this, when you think of wikipedia as an enclopedia, but wikipedia is much larger then any remotely similar encyclopedia.

Here are some statistics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
"
Wikipedia statistics

Wikipedia currently has 1,190,705 articles.

That number excludes redirects, discussion pages, image description pages, user profile pages, templates, help pages, portals, articles without links to other articles, and pages about Wikipedia. Including these, we have 4,553,069 pages.

Users have made 60,606,287 edits, an average of 13.31 per page, since July 2002.

The job queue length is currently 115,846.
User statistics

We have 1,613,821 registered user accounts, of which 937 (or 0.06%) belong to administrators.
"

1 million articles. If the error rate was as high as .1% (it's not), then there would have to be a thousand entries that are patently false.

The error rate is significantly lower on the articles that would actually exist in another encyclopedia. There at their highest on articles that are simply copies of data that exist elsewhere, but no later editor has even seen the article to mark it for cleanup.

I think you are overestimating the number of people who try to vandalize wikipedia, and how much time they spend doing so. That, or you are underestimating the number of registered editors, or how much time they spend maintaining it.

Wikipedia is not invincible. If a group spent money paying people to attack it then it would not be able to exist in it's current state. Nothing like that has happened yet, so it has been able to stay pretty unprotected.

If it were to happen, it would still be a relatively simple matter to respond, start reverting entries, and trace the source.

Every time we get asked, but how can art exist without copyright? We are dragged off subject. When that stops happening, and the author's of this legislation admit large projects can be undertaken without copyright, then wikipedia will be off topic. Until then it is a great example of a work that is handicapped by copyright, but still demonstrates that copyright is not needed.

Imagine how much more powerful our Discordian Universalist version of wikipedia is! It's been developed for years, and all the work of artists in our country is in the public domain. There is no question, "will we get sued if we actually show the episode the wikipedia article is about?" Our whole culture contributes to our various wikis. It's a vertitable wikitopia :)

We do produce different works then some cultures that believe in intelectual protectionism. We value the diversity of the world's nations, and find the works produced under such a strange framework fascinating. We have whole classes dedicated to explaining why arists in other cultures don't want art spread across the world.

So again, we are not trying to enforce our values on you, we are resisting the legislators efforts to enforce their values on us.

We would like to remind the delegations here that Wikipedia does fall under copyright. It licenses under the GFDL but still uses the protection of copyright.

We are not saying that art cannot exist without copyright, but it would be increased and more fair with copyright.

The proposal has until Friday on the list and is already more than halfway to quorum. Let's get it the rest of the way: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=copyright

We would like to remind the delegations here that Wikipedia does fall under copyright. It licenses under the GFDL but still uses the protection of copyright.
I love the smell of irony in the afternoon.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You appear to be trying to compare wikipedia to a specialty encyclopedia. I'm not sure why, I never said wikipedia is the most authoritative sports encyclopedia, that would be comparing apples and oranges.

You are implying that without wikipedia you could not find information about Eric Lindros from an encyclopedia. By which I assume you're including all of them. I'm quite sure most encyclopedias are in fact "specialty" to meet the needs of people who want more depth than the general encyclopedias can have.

I do not agree that google is more usefull for trying to find encylopedia articles.

I'm talking other sources. Fan sites and news articles. How the hell do you think Wikipedia gets its information and people check facts? This is a matter of how you get information, and it has nothing to do with the way in which you get it. Stop trying to shift the damn goalposts.

Why do you say that?

Because I'm certain there are more than 1,000 articles with at least some inaccuracies or errors, minor or otherwise.

I felt I did. If there is misinformation on page that gets visited, it gets corrected.

But how quickly? In the meantime hundreds of people may see it and believe it, because like you they forget that the very thing that makes Wikipedia successful is also why you have to approach the information on it critically. The thing being people.

it wouldn't have existed. So wikipedia wins the comparison.

Even so, what difference does it make? I think misinformation is a problem and worse than not having the information at all. And if you're narrowing down by eliminating encyclopedias you don't feel like having to contend with by saying "all purpose"...

If you feel another all purpose encyclopedia is more authoritive we can discuss why it is, or is not so.

It's very simple. The general ones, most well-known being Brittanica, has professional fact-checking and a reputation. Wikipedia does not. I have no doubt most of the information on Wikipedia is accurate, after all I myself contribute quite a bit to it. But you can be sure that what's in Brittanica has been researched and is complete. It's professional, and that gives it more legitimacy.

What on earth are you trying to prove anyway? No one here is disputing the usefulness of Wikipedia, so it's perfectly fine to regard it as a success of free licensing. Besides, you didn't link to a factual article, you linked to one which was basically an argument posing as an article.

it would be increased and more fair with copyright.

*everything I've already said over the last 12 pages about this contention*

We would like to remind the delegations here that Wikipedia does fall under copyright. It licenses under the GFDL but still uses the protection of copyright.

We are not saying that art cannot exist without copyright, but it would be increased and more fair with copyright.

The proposal has until Friday on the list and is already more than halfway to quorum. Let's get it the rest of the way: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=copyright

Um we already stated that wikipedia exists within a copyright regime. In such a regime it is difficult to maintain credit for a work without relying on copyright law. Wikipedia will freely allow anyone to display or use the content of wikipedia, it just requires you to cite your sources.

Our society understands the importance of reputation. The reputation of anyone who uses anothers work without giving credit plumets. We haven't handicapped our society to the point where it depends on intelectual protectionism to prevent plagiarism.

You have failed to respond to the numerous examples of art that can barely survive within a copyright regime. Our Electronica industry is unmatched by any within a copyright regime, if we do say so ourselves. Why must you destroy it?

All the Electronica industry has to do is get the artists' permission.

It's also not true. They don't need to just give the artists permission, because most artists have been exploited to the point where they can't even give permission. They have sold the ability to let other people reference their art to a large compnay. The aspiring Electronica artist needs to talk to the record company, who needs to talk to X other companies, who have no interest in promoting any artist they don't own, so they'll charge a prohibitively high price for any sampling.


Have you ever tried to get 10 artists permission? That raises the cost of producing electronica higher then the profit. It means an electronica artist can't even give away his work, (in order to raise reputation and eventually be able to afford to pay large costs).

Copyright has made the barrier to entry to high.

You are implying that without wikipedia you could not find information about Eric Lindros from an encyclopedia.


No I'm saying no single general purpose encyclopedia is more authoritive.


By which I assume you're including all of them. I'm quite sure most encyclopedias are in fact "specialty" to meet the needs of people who want more depth than the general encyclopedias can have.


I am not comparing a general purpose encyclopedia to a specialty encyclopedia. I have demonstrated that wikipedia will also serve to help you find a special purpose encyclopedia, if that is what you seek.


I'm talking other sources. Fan sites and news articles. How the hell do you think Wikipedia gets its information and people check facts? This is a matter of how you get information, and it has nothing to do with the way in which you get it. Stop trying to shift the damn goalposts.


I have to admit, I have lost track of your point. I am not trying to shift the goal posts. If you are not seeking a general purpose encyclopedia entry then there may be better places to look then wikipedia. If you are seeking the authority on random subject A though, wikipedia is the best place to start. It will likely give you a brief discussion, and refer you to a better source. If not you will not have spent much time.


Because I'm certain there are more than 1,000 articles with at least some inaccuracies or errors, minor or otherwise.


A 1,000 articles with minor errors would not be a .1% error rate. If you find a specific claim in an article that is an error, and you want to figure out what the error rate is for claims made by wikipedia you would have to estimate the average number of claims made per article.


But how quickly?


How quickly depends on the article. The more important the article, the more people view and edit it, the faster it gets fixed.


In the meantime hundreds of people may see it and believe it, because like you they forget that the very thing that makes Wikipedia successful is also why you have to approach the information on it critically.


You have to approach all sources of information critically. If you doubt any specific tidbit on wikipedia is easy to check the history of the page, or go to the talk page for the article. If anyone is examining an enclopedia article uncrititcally that is very a different problem.

The fact of the matter is, for the purposes wikipedia serves, there is no alternative you can trust more. You can't trust a Brittanica article any more then the equivalent wikipedia article.


The thing being people.

Even so, what difference does it make? I think misinformation is a problem and worse than not having the information at all.


Ah ok well that's a matter of opinion. I feel partial information is always better then none. Also, misinformation on wikipedia leads to people correcting it later on down the line. It is much harder to build on an article that has mistakes then a nonexistant article.


And if you're narrowing down by eliminating encyclopedias you don't feel like having to contend with by saying "all purpose"...


Wikipedia is not a sports encyclopedia. It is not fair to compare it to a sports encyclopedia. You can compare it to Brittanica or Google, as they serve similar functions


It's very simple. The general ones, most well-known being Brittanica, has professional fact-checking and a reputation.

Wikipedia does not.


Actually wikipedia does have professionals fact-checking it, and it does have a reputation. The easiest way to measure reputation on the internet is the google ranking, and few sites have a higher google rank then wikipedia.



I have no doubt most of the information on Wikipedia is accurate, after all I myself contribute quite a bit to it. But you can be sure that what's in Brittanica has been researched and is complete. It's professional, and that gives it more legitimacy.


I agree that some people give Brittanica more legitmacy then wikpedia. That's purely a matter of public opinion though. Meanwhile wikipedia is rising in the worlds opinion, and Brittanica is falling (as can be determined from sales).


What on earth are you trying to prove anyway? No one here is disputing the usefulness of Wikipedia, so it's perfectly fine to regard it as a success of free licensing. Besides, you didn't link to a factual article, you linked to one which was basically an argument posing as an article.

*everything I've already said over the last 12 pages about this contention*

I am responding to this post:
"As a PS to Discoraversalism, using easily-vandalised Wikipedia articles with doubtful accuracy as evidence isn't exactly going to convince people."

I feel that pointing out there is a wikipedia article on the exact subject under discussion is a valid point. Especially when the author's of this article claim that there is no alternative to copyright.

You slandered the accuracy of wikipedia, and I could not allow that to go without a response.

Electronica can still exist, just in different circumstances. Suppose a group of ten bands got together, made a bunch of music, sold CDs, and also made electronica out of it?

Or suppose a record company got permission from all of its artists to have a branch of it, or a contracted independent group, sample music?

You won't be able to have any person on the street take a bunch of other people's music and sell his own electronica. But you can still have electronica, and in ways that aren't too hard.

Anti-stealing laws hurt the black market industries. Anti-murder laws hurt the gang industry. Copyright laws hurt the industry that profits off of artists work without their permission.

Um we already stated that wikipedia exists within a copyright regime. In such a regime it is difficult to maintain credit for a work without relying on copyright law. Wikipedia will freely allow anyone to display or use the content of wikipedia, it just requires you to cite your sources.
There's more to it than that. From what I gather from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL, which is Wikipedia's license, you have to license your modifications under the same license, and there are other restrictions.

Electronica can still exist, just in different circumstances. Suppose a group of ten bands got together, made a bunch of music, sold CDs, and also made electronica out of it?

Or suppose a record company got permission from all of its artists to have a branch of it, or a contracted independent group, sample music?

You won't be able to have any person on the street take a bunch of other people's music and sell his own electronica. But you can still have electronica, and in ways that aren't too hard.

Anti-stealing laws hurt the black market industries. Anti-murder laws hurt the gang industry. Copyright laws hurt the industry that profits off of artists work without their permission.

What makes the sort of Electronica song we are discussing (the kind that samples) popular is it references other works the audience is already familiar with. 10 unknown artists can not build a reputation by referencing each other.

This is not theft! No one is being deprived of any thing! Music is a rival good! When I copy my friend Joe's cd he loses nothing! Please stop using such inflamtory and misleading words as theft when described DUPLICATION. When you do so you make it clear you do not intend to honestly discuss the issues.

All artist profit off every other artists work they've seen, when they produce their work. To deny that is madness. To require an artist to get Shakespeares permission to remake Romeo and Juliet is madness.

Hell, all human society is based off building on the works of those who came before.

Copyright does not result in other artists consulting each other for permission. It results in artists begging Lawyers for permission.

There's more to it than that. From what I gather from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL, which is Wikipedia's license, you have to license your modifications under the same license, and there are other restrictions.

So that someone does not build off the work of wikipedia, and then use copyright to prevent others from building off their work. You are describing how wikipedia defends itself from copyright.

So that someone does not build off the work of wikipedia, and then use copyright to prevent others from building off their work. You are describing how wikipedia defends itself from copyright.
Defends? Wikipedia chooses to relinquish some of its copyright rights. But without copyright, it would have a lot harder time existing, because many contributers want credit and the reassurance of where their work will be used, something that cannot be guaranteed without copyright. It it often hard to spread the word that plagiarism is going on, and even if it was, many people don't care if they aren't artists, especially if the people they know support them.

EDIT: Wikipedia also uses many fair use images that could not be used without copyright.

Defends? Wikipedia chooses to relinquish some of its copyright rights. But without copyright, it would have a lot harder time existing, because many contributers want credit and the reassurance of where their work will be used, something that cannot be guaranteed without copyright. It it often hard to spread the word that plagiarism is going on, and even if it was, many people don't care if they aren't artists, especially if the people they know support them.

EDIT: Wikipedia also uses many fair use images that could not be used without copyright.

Um, what contributors to wikipedia want credit? Are you familiar with how it works? To try and figure out what part of an article came from where takes a lot of work.

Wikipedia does have technological solution, that automatically tracks the activity of it's editors, but that system does not need copyright at all.

It's really easy in Discoraversalist society to spread the word that plagiarism is going. It is a major crime in our culture, news media covers it extensively. On a smaller scale, it is recorded in our equivalent of wikipedia :)

You may have noticed it is a lot easier to track someone's reputation in the digital age. It is easy to run a search on a screen name. It is easy to accuse someone of plagiarism on a blog.

Your society might not care if plagiarism goes on. Perhaps because the duty of dealing with that issue was somehow given to copyright lawyers. We prefer not to depend on coroporate megacorps to protect our art.

Can you give me an example why wikipedia needs copyright to exist at all?

I feel that pointing out there is a wikipedia article on the exact subject under discussion is a valid point. Especially when the author's of this article claim that there is no alternative to copyright.


Once more the representative of Discoraversalism resorts to a complete misrepresentation. We have never said there were no alternatives to copyright. Period. We do not believe that the alternatives with which we are familiar have the necessary force and effect internationally to assure producers and distributors of creative works a reasonable return on their investment of time, effort, money and talent and provide them some measure of protection against the sort of blatant rip-offs you promote and which your nation's policy of piracy legitimatizes.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Once more the representative of Discoraversalism resorts to a complete misrepresentation. We have never said there were no alternatives to copyright. Period. We do not believe that the alternatives with which we are familiar have the necessary force and effect internationally to assure producers and distributors of creative works a reasonable return on their investment of time, effort, money and talent and provide them some measure of protection against the sort of blatant rip-offs you promote and which your nation's policy of piracy legitimatizes.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Very well, you admit there are alternatives to copyright, and you have stated your opinion that they are inferior. How do you go from there to making the alternatives impossible for all UN members, and forcing upon them copyright legislation, and enforcement?

Once more the representative of Discoraversalism resorts to a complete misrepresentation. We have never said there were no alternatives to copyright. Period. We do not believe that the alternatives with which we are familiar have the necessary force and effect internationally to assure producers and distributors of creative works a reasonable return on their investment of time, effort, money and talent and provide them some measure of protection against the sort of blatant rip-offs you promote and which your nation's policy of piracy legitimatizes.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

You appear to be stating that the purpose of copyright is to "assure producers and distributors of creative works a reasonable return on their investment of time, effort, money and talent."

We have found that production and distribution is much easier without copyright. In the digital age, distribution costs are virtualy zero, so we aren't depended on the megacorporations that I believe handle such things in copyright regimes?

Prodution, under a copyright regime, requires a team of lawyers whose sole purpose is to indentify what level of copyright violation their work has commited, to try and buy off the right people, to setup a defense. Their other job is to viciously attack any competition they can, using copyright legislation as a weapon.

In our country, we don't enact legislation under the guise of protecting artist, when the result is providing welfare for lawyers and large unneccesary corporations.

Once more the representative of Discoraversalism resorts to a complete misrepresentation. We have never said there were no alternatives to copyright. Period. We do not believe that the alternatives with which we are familiar have the necessary force and effect internationally to assure producers and distributors of creative works a reasonable return on their investment of time, effort, money and talent and provide them some measure of protection against the sort of blatant rip-offs you promote and which your nation's policy of piracy legitimatizes.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Our artists do not need your teams of lawyers and giant megacorporate distributors to help them see a return on their investment of time, effort, money and talent. They make a good living, and they do not want your interference.

Your lawyers, and giant megacorporations may be dependent on your copyright regime. As such we know it could be very hard for you to abandon your dependence on copyright. If you find the political will to solve that problem, we would recomend you begin gradually reducing your copyright durations to a managable level. There is a corporation run by a mouse you might be familiar with who may pressure you to raise your copyright duration, every 5 years or so, by 5 or so years. It is in your cultures best interest to resist them.

If you decide to maintain your copyright regime as is, we wish you well.

Someone shut him up, please. This is getting painful.

Someone shut him up, please. This is getting painful.

You appear to care about this enough to step in, but not enough to keep the debate civil. What do you find painful?

I am not comparing a general purpose encyclopedia to a specialty encyclopedia. I have demonstrated that wikipedia will also serve to help you find a special purpose encyclopedia, if that is what you seek.

Are you being difficult on purpose or are you always like that? If Wikipedia is supposed to be the ultimate encyclopedia it isn't only World Book and Britannica and suchlike you compare it with. You just want to ignore whatever is inconvenient to your argument.

How quickly depends on the article. The more important the article, the more people view and edit it, the faster it gets fixed.

It kind of depends if it gets spotted as well. There was even a policy change because the articles on controversial figures such as policitians kept getting altered by people with agendas.

is easy to check the history of the page, or go to the talk page for the article.

Don't treat me like an idiot. Checking the history doesn't tell you who posted what without spending a lot of time comparing edits. Talk pages don't usually give you much information either, except screaming arguments about how saying "Gretzky is widely considered as one of the best players ever to play hockey" is POV bias.

The fact of the matter is, for the purposes wikipedia serves, there is no alternative you can trust more. You can't trust a Brittanica article any more then the equivalent wikipedia article.

I can and do. Particularly for historical events and figures.

Ah ok well that's a matter of opinion. I feel partial information is always better then none.

Are you aware of the saying "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"? Or better, "Ignorance can be cured, but stupidity is forever."

Wikipedia is not a sports encyclopedia. It is not fair to compare it to a sports encyclopedia. You can compare it to Brittanica or Google, as they serve similar functions

Why not? I guess all my efforts and those of WikiProject Ice Hockey should be deleted, then, under the pretext that Wikipedia isn't a sports encyclopedia? The breadth of its content and lack of limitations normal encylcopedias face is Wikipedia's strength. How is it unfair to make that comparison based on specific subject matter?

And why compare to Google? Google is supposed to be a source of information? It isn't; it's to help you find information.

Actually wikipedia does have professionals fact-checking it, and it does have a reputation.

Yes. But you never know the guy's credentials, and I'm willing to bet that most of it is never fact-checked by an expert.

The easiest way to measure reputation on the internet is the google ranking, and few sites have a higher google rank then wikipedia.

That's so ridiculously stupid I you make me think you're doing it on purpose.

Brittanica is falling (as can be determined from sales).

Since when do sales determine factual accuracy, or reputation?

You slandered the accuracy of wikipedia, and I could not allow that to go without a response.

You could have just gone into that article and added whatever you wanted to prove and use it being on Wikipedia as "evidence". And it likely would have remained long enough for your purposes. People have done it before, that's why many academic institutions don't accept Wikipedia as a source in students' work. "Slander" is a very serious accusation and I don't believe I have slandered the accuracy when it is a fact that WP's accuracy can be compromised easily.

You're such a fustrating person to argue with.

---

But without copyright, it would have a lot harder time existing, because many contributers want credit and the reassurance of where their work will be used, something that cannot be guaranteed without copyright.

Er, by putting your stuff on Wikipedia you relinquish those rights. That isn't a concern at all and it hasn't kept contributions out.

EDIT: Wikipedia also uses many fair use images that could not be used without copyright.

Without copyright they could use any images they want. Fair use is an exception and a limit to copyright, and isn't really part of it.

Er, by putting your stuff on Wikipedia you relinquish those rights. That isn't a concern at all and it hasn't kept contributions out.
No you don't. The GFDL ensures that Wikipedia is credited, and your source in the page history credits that, and it also guarantees that the work will be used under the GFDL as well.

Without copyright they could use any images they want. Fair use is an exception and a limit to copyright, and isn't really part of it.
Ahem. This is what the whole proposal is about. If someone had given Wikipedia permission to use it, it wouldn't be fair use. Therefore, that person wanted copyright on the image, so there is a good chance they wouldn't have taken the picture in the first place.

Are you being difficult on purpose or are you always like that? If Wikipedia is supposed to be the ultimate encyclopedia it isn't only World Book and Britannica and suchlike you compare it with. You just want to ignore whatever is inconvenient to your argument.



It kind of depends if it gets spotted as well. There was even a policy change because the articles on controversial figures such as policitians kept getting altered by people with agendas.



Don't treat me like an idiot. Checking the history doesn't tell you who posted what without spending a lot of time comparing edits. Talk pages don't usually give you much information either, except screaming arguments about how saying "Gretzky is widely considered as one of the best players ever to play hockey" is POV bias.



I can and do. Particularly for historical events and figures.


Eek! Historical events are where I trust Brittanica least. It tends to present a single viewpoint of history, rather then showing how the historical perspective on an event or figure has changed over time. For controversial figures it tends to gloss over the matters that are still under debate. I'd much prefer an NPOV tag and a heated discussion page to glossing over.

But I think that's because I prefer suspect information on a subject to lack of information on a subject.


Are you aware of the saying "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"? Or better, "Ignorance can be cured, but stupidity is forever."


It's a good saying :) What I take from it is that it is dangerous to put much trust in too little knowledge. It is better to have lots of knowledge, that is a little suspect then have a tiny amount of knowledge you put too much trust in.

As to the 2nd, I'd take that to be plainly stating that learning is good, but we all have different capacities to learn.


Why not? I guess all my efforts and those of WikiProject Ice Hockey should be deleted, then, under the pretext that Wikipedia isn't a sports encyclopedia? The breadth of its content and lack of limitations normal encylcopedias face is Wikipedia's strength. How is it unfair to make that comparison based on specific subject matter?


Here is my claim, there is no more authoritative general purpose source of enclopedic knowledge then wikipedia. I may have accidentally moved the goal posts, but I'm not above shifting changing my claims if they are shown to be erroneous.

There are thousands of sources more authoritative then wikipedia on a specific subject. It could one day be better then each of those, but it doesn't have to be.


And why compare to Google? Google is supposed to be a source of information? It isn't; it's to help you find information.


I use google to serve the same purposes as wikipedia. Well I used to, now I use wikipedia first. Too often I would use google when what I wanted was a brief encyclopedic entry on a subject. Google kept failing to lead me to a source I respected at all. Well I wouldn't say it failed. I'm reasonably good with google, I can typically get it to take me where I wanted to go. It just so happened I kept finding myself starting with google, and ending with wikipedia. So these days I use answers.com which gets me to wikipedia faster then google. I like it's handy toolbar.


Yes. But you never know the guy's credentials, and I'm willing to bet that most of it is never fact-checked by an expert.


That gets us sliding into the a discussion of what is or is not an expert. I personally prefer 50 people with some expertise look at something, as opposed to 1 guy some other guy feels is an expert.


That's so ridiculously stupid I you make me think you're doing it on purpose.

Since when do sales determine factual accuracy, or reputation?


There is a strong corelation between sales and what I would call the absolute value or magnitude of reputation. You can generate sales from negative as well as positive reputation.


You could have just gone into that article and added whatever you wanted to prove and use it being on Wikipedia as "evidence". And it likely would have remained long enough for your purposes.


I could have, but I hope no one on nation states would be fooled. If I am at all suspect of an article I check it's history and talk page. Most editors do likewise, and would revert my vandalism if I tried that.

People have done it before, that's why many academic institutions don't accept Wikipedia as a source in students' work. "Slander" is a very serious accusation and I don't believe I have slandered the accuracy when it is a fact that WP's accuracy can be compromised easily.


Wikipedia's accuracy can be compromised easily, but it's hard to compromise it for long, on any subject of any importance. It's easy to vandalize articles people won't read. It's easy to add insignificant faults to articles everyone reads.

It bothers me that academic instituions don't accept wikipedia as a source of student's work. I think the issue of whether to accept it is a great topic for classroom discussion, it is important to discuss the very idea of authority in the class room. Wikipedia is a very different sort of beast to what academia is used to though, so I don't mind if institutions require additional sources as well. A good wiki article should cite it's sources too though, so you if you can't use wikipedia you should be able to use whatever sources it cites.

I'm sure you don't consider it slander because you don't believe your statement was false :) You appear to hold wikipedia in a higher esteem then I thought as well.

Unfortunately, wikipedia's success partly depends on it's reputation. I felt that your remarks mischaracterized wikipedia, and I'd rather support wikipedia's reputation by defending it here then by improving it's articles :) I tend to participate in it more by pointing out flaws in articles on talk pages, or putting up requests, then by actually fixing them myself.


You're such a fustrating person to argue with.



You have hit on one of my faults. I much too easily piss people off. I am open to discussing why it is frustrating to argue with me :) I think part of it is I tend to focus too much on the words said most recently, and I respond to those. I have often lost track of the narrative of what other people are saying, so I don't interpet them to mean what they wanted them to mean.

I'm also quite a devil's advocate. I love to take a contrary position, even when I don't agree with it.


---



Er, by putting your stuff on Wikipedia you relinquish those rights. That isn't a concern at all and it hasn't kept contributions out.



Without copyright they could use any images they want. Fair use is an exception and a limit to copyright, and isn't really part of it.

There is no difference between suspect information and zero information. Period. If you're not taking things from Wikipedia with a grain of salt, then you are not thinking critically. Wikipedia may be able to point one in the right direction, but to use it as a source of fact is to put money on a horse raised by strangers.

There is no difference between suspect information and zero information. Period. If you're not taking things from Wikipedia with a grain of salt, then you are not thinking critically. Wikipedia may be able to point one in the right direction, but to use it as a source of fact is to put money on a horse raised by strangers.

There is no such thing as non suspect information. If you are taking things from anywhere without a grain of salt then you are not thinking critically. The very idea Fact is a Fiction.

Trust no one!

No you don't. The GFDL ensures that Wikipedia is credited, and your source in the page history credits that, and it also guarantees that the work will be used under the GFDL as well.


It is a technological construct that credits you, and that construct can exist fine without copyright. Wikipedia has not made some legal guarantee to credit it's users.

Part of what makes wikipedia such a success is it is not about vanity, it takes work to determine who contributed what. The "artist" is not readily apparent.

Wikipedia certainly does not need copyright law to exist.

[QUOTE=Ceorana
Ahem. This is what the whole proposal is about. If someone had given Wikipedia permission to use it, it wouldn't be fair use. Therefore, that person wanted copyright on the image, so there is a good chance they wouldn't have taken the picture in the first place.[/QUOTE]

It is a technological construct that credits you, and that construct can exist fine without copyright. Wikipedia has not made some legal guarantee to credit it's users.
But it needs the legal guarantee of copyright to do so.

Part of what makes wikipedia such a success is it is not about vanity, it takes work to determine who contributed what. The "artist" is not readily apparent.

Wikipedia certainly does not need copyright law to exist.
Maybe not, but I've pointed out many ways that it is improved by copyright law.

This discussion has gone off on a tangent. Let's get back to the original topic. Or better yet, agree that the same three or four people have made at least 3/4 of the posts here and give it a rest for a bit.

Historical events are where I trust Brittanica least. It tends to present a single viewpoint of history, rather then showing how the historical perspective on an event or figure has changed over time.

At least when you're dealing with Britannica you have some idea of the bias, and I've found it much more useful in things like "Colonialism in South East Asia" or "Islam" than Wikipedia. Anyway, what the hell is your problem with sources of information that are not Wikipedia? All versions of history are inherently one-sided. You can't get around that. Furthermore, as regards your other point, looking for history books I'd be more inclined to trust, and find useful, a book written by one well-regarded historian, say John Lewis Gaddis, than a collaborative effort by 50 secondary school history students. Quantity is no guarantee of quality.

Trust no one!

Did you ever see that movie where the guy tells the other guy to trust no one and then it turns out the guy who said it was the traitor? Oh man what a great movie it was! I think it was called "Trust" or "Tryst" or something.

No you don't. The GFDL ensures that Wikipedia is credited, and your source in the page history credits that, and it also guarantees that the work will be used under the GFDL as well.

As I've already pointed out, it's extremely difficult to figure out who did what in a WP article.

Ahem. This is what the whole proposal is about. If someone had given Wikipedia permission to use it, it wouldn't be fair use. Therefore, that person wanted copyright on the image, so there is a good chance they wouldn't have taken the picture in the first place.

What do you mean? Uploading your own photos to Wikipedia for use requires you to relinquish part of your rights, giving permission is essentially putting it into public domain, or at least the Creative Commons Licences. The whole concept of public domain and fair use only exists because copyright exists, without copyright everything is "public domain".

So you're saying relinquishing copyright means you want a copyright?... Maybe you want to rephrase that to be clearer about your meaning here.

What do you mean? Uploading your own photos to Wikipedia for use requires you to relinquish part of your rights, giving permission is essentially putting it into public domain, or at least the Creative Commons Licences. The whole concept of public domain and fair use only exists because copyright exists, without copyright everything is "public domain".

So you're saying relinquishing copyright means you want a copyright?... Maybe you want to rephrase that to be clearer about your meaning here.
But not everyone releases into PD, as you've pointed out. There's also GFDL, CC and others. But without copyright, those cannot exist. Additionally, not all images on Wikipedia are GFDL or similar. There are fair use images. An example is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lbj1964.jpg. Without copyright, they may have never been made.

GFDL, CC, etc. only need to exist because of copyright. They're convenient ways to express how you'd like your work to be used in a world where the default is "all rights reserved". Without copyright, and remember that's not what I'm advocating, there's no need for them because everything would be public domain anyway.

The purpose for that image to exist was to promote a political cause. That motivation exists with or without copyright.

At least when you're dealing with Britannica you have some idea of the bias, and I've found it much more useful in things like "Colonialism in South East Asia" or "Islam" than Wikipedia. Anyway, what the hell is your problem with sources of information that are not Wikipedia?


I'm not looking for a single consistant bias. I would much rather face lots of sources of info, with lots of different biases (sp?).

Sometimes the Brittanica entry seems more useful to me then the wikipedia entry. However in those cases I like to think the best of the Brittanica entry will be added to the wikipedia entry. I have to admit some of my bias about wikipedia is that in those few cases I see faults, I expect them to be resolved.

I don't think the Brittanica article on Islam will see much improvement in my lifetime.

All versions of history are inherently one-sided. You can't get around that.


Are wikipedia articles one sided? I would say they are often many sided. I like that so many include criticisms of the subject at hand.

Furthermore, as regards your other point, looking for history books I'd be more inclined to trust, and find useful, a book written by one well-regarded historian, say John Lewis Gaddis, than a collaborative effort by 50 secondary school history students. Quantity is no guarantee of quality.


If I find an author I hold in high regard, I do place their history books in higher esteem. I don't hold Brittanica in the same esteem.


Did you ever see that movie where the guy tells the other guy to trust no one and then it turns out the guy who said it was the traitor? Oh man what a great movie it was! I think it was called "Trust" or "Tryst" or something.


I don't think I've seen that one, but I think I have seen the same sort of scene. I will tell you to trust no one, and not to put absolute faith in me either. I have made some mistakes on this very thread. I don't trust my memory, for example.


As I've already pointed out, it's extremely difficult to figure out who did what in a WP article.

What do you mean? Uploading your own photos to Wikipedia for use requires you to relinquish part of your rights, giving permission is essentially putting it into public domain, or at least the Creative Commons Licences. The whole concept of public domain and fair use only exists because copyright exists, without copyright everything is "public domain".

So you're saying relinquishing copyright means you want a copyright?... Maybe you want to rephrase that to be clearer about your meaning here.

But not everyone releases into PD, as you've pointed out. There's also GFDL, CC and others. But without copyright, those cannot exist. Additionally, not all images on Wikipedia are GFDL or similar. There are fair use images. An example is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lbj1964.jpg. Without copyright, they may have never been made.

What do you see the purpose of putting one's work in the public domain, or GFDL, or CC?

Are you just saying black cannot exist without white?

The purpose for that image to exist was to promote a political cause. That motivation exists with or without copyright.

I think that's a key point. Very often a large part of an artists intent is to communicate some message to the culture. That message is best communicated if it can be freely distributed.

Say I'm a popular punk artist, living in a copyright regime. I write a series of songs about civil war, violent retribution, attacking capitalism, and promoting anarchy. I support all these things. I also want cash. The easiest legal way to distribute my works is by partnering with the giant megacorp WeOwnArtists. If I do not partner with them, WeOwnArtists will make it very hard for me to advertise, rent performance halls, sell tickets, promote concerts etc. I have little choice, if I want lots of cash, but to try playing the game by the rules set by WeOwnArtists. When I sell the rights to my songs to them, I no longer own them. I cannot give anyone else permission to use them. They are no longer mine. My intent means nothing.

Who wins in this exchange? The artists message is not freely downloaded off the net. My reputation and artistic integrity are compromised. WeOwnArtists made most of the profit.

What service did WeOwnArtists provide me? Without copyright I could have gone to my local neighborhood WeMakeCheapCDs. My fans coudl freely download my music. I would have no trouble selling tickets, promoting performances, etc. In fact, my whole culture is designed to reward me for my work (assuming I'm a good artist).

Have I not accurately described what happens to some artists in a copyright regime?

Enough.

Enough of the Wikipedia debate.

And, Disco, there was no need for you to spend three posts to respond to one post of Ausser's. There's an edit button for a reason. Use it. Love it. Live it.

Enough.

Enough of the Wikipedia debate.

And, Disco, there was no need for you to spend three posts to respond to one post of Ausser's. There's an edit button for a reason. Use it. Love it. Live it.

We'll stop defending wikipedia when people stop attacking it :) Likewise everytime someone says people that don't believe in copyright are stealing that will provoke another rant about what the word stealing means.

I'm used to threaded debates. When I'm making an entirely separate point I liked to let seperate those threads from the parent thread.

But this isn't a threaded forum, and I'm starting to pickup what the consensus is here. I'm not trying to piss off the consensus, I just don't mind pissing off those few people trying to push specific legislation :) I will gladly avoid any further wrath of moderator.

We'll stop defending wikipedia when people stop attacking it.No, you'll stop it when I tell you to. The legitimacy of Wikipedia is irrelevent and has led to a massive hijack that doesn't belong in this debate.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

No, you'll stop it when I tell you to. The legitimacy of Wikipedia is irrelevent and has led to a massive hijack that doesn't belong in this debate.

Hijack? The author of the thread seemed to be participating in the discussion. As I understood it I was supposed to follow their lead as to what was, and what wasn't, on topic.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png
It stayed there this time right?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

Congratulations.

What estimates would you give on how long until it will be up to vote?

What estimates would you give on how long until it will be up to vote?
It'll be up for vote in 3 weeks' time. You don't need to check back till then: save your energy for the ferocious debate to come.

For further debate, please use the official topic. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=487992)

Question: Why did it take so long for House of 1,000 Corpses to be released?
Answer: Because Rob Zombie couldn't get a distributor.

While movies are different than books, the basic concept is the same: distribution is enormously expensive. Mr. Zombie is hardly hurting for money, but he still needed someone to distribute his movie. Stephen King and Dean Koontz both sell insane numbers of books and have personal fortunes, but still work with publishers. JK Rowling is richer than the Queen, but she has a publisher, too.

Mass distribution is too expensive for Jenny-the-waitress to manage.

Distribution is so expensive because of copyright. It so happens that the books and movies that the public is most intererested in fall under copyright. (It also has something to do with the massive amount spent on marketing said works). Those works that don't fall under copyright are cheap and easy to get ahold of.

Without copyright, Jenny-the-waitress would have no trouble distributing her book.

Once more the representative of Discoraversalism resorts to a complete misrepresentation. We have never said there were no alternatives to copyright. Period. We do not believe that the alternatives with which we are familiar have the necessary force and effect internationally to assure producers and distributors of creative works a reasonable return on their investment of time, effort, money and talent and provide them some measure of protection against the sort of blatant rip-offs you promote and which your nation's policy of piracy legitimatizes.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The following response sure seemed to be saying that without copyright copyright artists don't get money.

Artists get money from their work. If you don't have or respect copyrights, they don't get money. Therefore, rippers are stealing money from artists.

The following response sure seemed to be saying that without copyright copyright artists don't get money.
Yes. They don't get money. That isn't to say they don't get any money, but they don't get the money they would have received with copyright.

And please, use the official topic!

And please, use the official topic!
Ask for a lock.

Without copyright, Jenny-the-waitress would have no trouble distributing her book.Because the copies will just fall out of her ass and magically teleport to stores.

Sheej.

And, yeah, this is probably bad form to lock after making such a snippy comment, but there's an official thread, so I'm gonna lock anyway.