NationStates Jolt Archive

EDIT, this draft has been deemed ineligible for submission. As we do not have the capacity to submit a proposal our selves we humbly request assistance in rewriting this draft, and submitting it. The need is pressing, as rival legislation will shortly be up for a vote.

UN Copyright Reform

A resolution to reduce barriers caused by conflicting copyright laws between nations.

Category: Education and Creativity

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Discoraversalism

Description: The United Nations,

NOTING that the greatest value in copyright is how it promotes art,

BELIEVING that copyright law should never hinder art more then it promotes it,

NOTING that many nations already have copyright laws in place, but these laws can vary immensely and do not always serve to promote art,

NOTING that conflicting copyright law between nations may undermine the effectiveness of copyright legislation,

AFFIRMING that international copyright reform would serve to better encourage art,

CONCLUDING that international copyright reform would give authors further incentive to market their work both internationally and nationally, improving economies through increased trade,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "copyright material" 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 copyright material and provides protection to those rights;
c. "fair use" as a use or reproduction of copyright material for educational purposes, for private/personal use, for use in critical articles or reviews, or for parodies.
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 copyright material in that nation, regardless of where the work was originally published or created or the citizenship of the author;

3. SUGGESTS that national copyright law must provide at least as much protection as the following:
a. No legal entity may print, display, demonstrate, reproduce, or store in an electronic system any copyright material without the consent of the copyright holder for a period extending until 5 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;

4. DECLARES that copyright holders may license use of copyright material 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 copyright material will automatically enter the public domain when the copyright terms expire, or if a copyright holders is deemed to be placing on an unreasonable restriction on the distribution or use of their copyright material;

7. SUGGESTS that the duration of copyright terms should never be set excessively high. To do so would not serve the purpose of copyright legislation, to promote art;

7. DECLARES that copyrights may be held by any person or legal entity, and may be transfer ed or sold, but that the original author of the work must always retain the rights to use their work.

Inspired by a prior incarnation written by Ceorana and Ausserland

This Draft is largely in response to a competing Proposal, discussed here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11114414#post11114414

here

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11099185#post11099185

here

http://community.livejournal.com/discorapolitic/7621.html

and here

http://community.livejournal.com/discorapolitic/7272.html

I am completely open to any form of suggestion.

I can't even propose the legislation currently, I need one more endorsement :) So I could use a co-author (or an endorsement :) ).

Frankly, I'm happy if this just results in more discussion about the tricky issue of Copyright.

A resolution to reduce barriers caused by conflicting copyright laws between nations.
No. The actual line your proposal generates will be "A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts." It's automatically generated.

Strength: Significant
No such animal. You have to choose from "Artistic", "Educational", "Free Press" or "Cultural Heritage".

The rest of your proposal seems like unauthorised plagiarism. Which is about right.

No. The actual line your proposal generates will be "A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts." It's automatically generated.


No such animal. You have to choose from "Artistic", "Educational", "Free Press" or "Cultural Heritage".

The rest of your proposal seems like unauthorised plagiarism. Which is about right.

It's not plagiarism, I cited my sources.

Our nation has never tried to submit a draft before, that you for the advice :)

It's not plagiarism, I cited my sources.
You cannot simply copy substantial amounts of someone else's proposal, and justify it on the grounds that one post of yours cites the reference. You need to obtain Ceo's permission before copying his definitions.

You cannot simply copy substantial amounts of someone else's proposal, and justify it on the grounds that one post of yours cites the reference. You need to obtain Ceo's permission before copying his definitions.

Oh! Where do these rules come from? I'm trying to offer amendments to someone elses proposal this seemed like the best way to do that.

Oh! Where do these rules come from?
The mods have ruled plagiarism is illegal. I can't speak for them, but at the moment, your proposal looks too heavily copied to be kosher.

I'm trying to offer amendments to someone elses proposal this seemed like the best way to do that.
The best way to do it would be to suggest them in their thread.

The mods have ruled plagiarism is illegal. I can't speak for them, but at the moment, your proposal looks too heavily copied to be kosher.


The best way to do it would be to suggest them in their thread.

Plagiarism is one of the greatest offenses you can do against art.

However I cited my sources! Plagiarism is claiming someone else's work as your own. I did not do any such thing. I named my sources, and provided links. What else should I have done to less appear to be claiming someone else's work as my own?

And I did suggest them in their thread. They did not substantively respond to suggestions, did not encourage discussion and resubmitted their legislation exactly as it was.

Do you have any other suggestions?

However I cited my sources!
No, to cite sources correctly, you reference each copied section. You haven't done so. Furthermore, when you submit the proposal, it won't contain any references. If you submit it, it'll be plagiarism.

And I did suggest them in their thread. They did not substantively respond to suggestions, did not encourage discussion and resubmitted their legislation exactly as it was.
As is their right to do so. You can suggest amendments; if they're refused, all you can do is right your own proposal (which this is not) or vote against.

No, to cite sources correctly, you reference each copied section. You haven't done so. Furthermore, when you submit the proposal, it won't contain any references. If you submit it, it'll be plagiarism.

As is their right to do so. You can suggest amendments; if they're refused, all you can do is right your own proposal (which this is not) or vote against.

I think we disagree on the proper methods of citing sources. Still I don
t understand how you can confuse plagiarism with improperly citing sources.

The amendment methodology you are proposing hardly sounds democratic. One of the best inventions in the history of democracy is the committee. Committee's are mind boggilingly slow and frustrating, but they are of criticial importance when trying to reach a compromise over important issues (like UN resolutions).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't violated any of the protocols of the UN, correct?

I see 2 choices I can make to conform to your suggestions. I can clearly indicate which portions of the text came from a prior proposal (it's most of it) or I can reword them subtly to avoid pissing anyone off.

Anything I'm missing?

-Brother Rail Gun of the Short Path

I think we disagree on the proper methods of citing sources. Still I don
t understand how you can confuse plagiarism with improperly citing sources.
OOC: Maybe it's because I'm a student who's just finished my exams, and as such have been told hundreds of times that improper citation will be punished as plagiarism. But I'm going to stop beating this thing. If Ceo and Auss complain, I'll stand by them. If they say it's fine, that's fine. It's up to them, you, the mods.

The amendment methodology you are proposing hardly sounds democratic. One of the best inventions in the history of democracy is the committee. Committee's are mind boggilingly slow and frustrating, but they are of criticial importance when trying to reach a compromise over important issues (like UN resolutions).
IC: You're not on a committee. You're in the General Assembly. They do not have to accept your amendments. If you oppose their proposal, vote against it.

That's basically it.

OOC: Maybe it's because I'm a student who's just finished my exams, and as such have been told hundreds of times that improper citation will be punished as plagiarism. But I'm going to stop beating this thing. If Ceo and Auss complain, I'll stand by them. If they say it's fine, that's fine. It's up to them, you, the mods.


IC: You're not on a committee. You're in the General Assembly. They do not have to accept your amendments. If you oppose their proposal, vote against it.

That's basically it.

It's important to note, this is an attempt to engage in politics, not right a research paper. The only method of citation I have seen used in any of our UN resolutions is a single line of attribution at the bottom of the proposal. We can discuss further the proper methods of attribution for UN proposals further if you like, but I'm more interested in discussing copyright.

I am hoping Ceo and Auss comment in some fashion.

I don't believe their proposed amendment is currently under the purview of any committee. Seeing that lack, I have tried very hard to debate the merits of their proposal. Not sensing much cooperation (and facing a great deal of slander) our nation has feeled compelled to offer our amendments.

We included their language as an homage to their hard work. Key portions of their legislation were quite reasonable.

-Mathias Timidi Cono Klast

It's important to note, this is an attempt to engage in politics, not right a research paper. The only method of citation I have seen used in any of our UN resolutions is a single line of attribution at the bottom of the proposal.
Maybe that's because other resolutions weren't copied from someone else's proposal?

But, I'm done here.

Maybe that's because other resolutions weren't copied from someone else's proposal?

But, I'm done here.

If so I'm quite dissapointed. The authoring process of UN legislation must be democratic! As such it is crucial that multiple perspectives participate in the authoring process of UN legislation.

I have simply attempted to incorporate the perspective of other's in my UN proposal. I do not see how I could have cited more sources any more thoroughly and still followed customs set by past UN proposals.

-MathiasTCK

Funny that you've just violated this proposal in what you've done to it.

I don't give my permission to use this. Sorry, but I'd prefer my/Ausserland's text go towards our goals.

Funny that you've just violated this proposal in what you've done to it.

I don't give my permission to use this. Sorry, but I'd prefer my/Ausserland's text go towards our goals.

Drat! How did I violate this proposal?

Drat! How did I violate this proposal?
By using it without my permission. I guess you didn't strictly violate this one, you definitely violated my version though. ;)

By using it without my permission. I guess you didn't strictly violate this one, you definitely violated my version though. ;)

I see! So your proposal would extend a copyright to UN legislation? That could grow very cumbersome very quickly! It would be impossible to ever print a list of all proposed legislation, for example, as no one would ever be able to secure the rights!

I see! So you your proposal would extend a copyright to UN legislation? That could grow very cumbersome very quickly! It would be impossible to ever print a list of all proposed legislation, for example, as no one would ever be able to secure the rights!
No, that was intended as a joke because you went against the spirit of the proposal. Resolution #60 says that all work by UN governments is automatically submitted into the public domain.

No, that was intended as a joke because you went against the spirit of the proposal. Resolution #60 says that all work by UN governments is automatically submitted into the public domain.

Ah ok :) I am under informed. I did find it ironic that using your words touched on intellectual property issues. I had never considered that a politician might object when his words get submitted to be entered into law :) I can see how they might request their names get taken off a bill.

Well hang on here, Ceorana, if I remember correctly you adapted those definitions from existing real-life copyright laws. Specifically I recall your definition of fair use was discarded in favour of a real one from American copyright law. So you're protesting this guy ripping off what you ripped off from someone else?

The irony is that copyright spats in the real world have occasionally gone something like that. Guy A sues guy B for infringement, guy C realises guy A infringed his copyright on what guy B is getting sued for and a good time is had by all.

That said I'm against Ceorana's one and I'm against this one. As I've already said, the only international copyright regime I'm willing to accept is a very minimal one aimed at protection of the rights of original authors, not companies, and no more than that.

So unless this is a very clever gag, which I kind of doubt, I'll have to denounce Discoraversalism as a lackey of the capitalist pig dogs.

Well I can say with certainty that the chap is not a lackey of this particular capitalist pig-dog.

Well I can say with certainty that the chap is not a lackey of this particular capitalist pig-dog.

We practically swore eternal eternal emnity :) The purpose of the legislation I put forward in this thread is to only discuss copyright under nations that use copyright. My nation consider all copyright, everywhere, fair use, so we wouldn't be affected by it all. However it would solve many of the goals of Ceorana's legislation.

Our nation has done very well without copyright, if a copyright law was to pass it would be virtually impossible to force our citizens to honor said law. Virtually 100% of Adults in the Free Land of Discoraversalism have bought or sold (at a price near the unit cost) some item trademarked in another country.

Copyright nations do a great deal of trade with us. They have simply realized that they can't rely on copyright to produce an artificial monopoly in their trade with us. So they charge more reasonable prices, or they use their copywritten material to advertise some other product in our land.

-Brother Rail Gun of the Short Path

Well hang on here, Ceorana, if I remember correctly you adapted those definitions from existing real-life copyright laws. Specifically I recall your definition of fair use was discarded in favour of a real one from American copyright law. So you're protesting this guy ripping off what you ripped off from someone else?
I adapted most of the definitions, and American copyright law is a product of the US government, and therefore in the public domain.

However, NS rules state that you can't use another player's text without permission.

I adapted most of the definitions, and American copyright law is a product of the US government, and therefore in the public domain.

However, NS rules state that you can't use another player's text without permission.

I thought the NS rules state that UN legislation is in the public domain?

I thought the NS rules state that UN legislation is in the public domain?

It is, but with the single exception of being used in other UN legislation.

Since no one has quoted them yet, I shall:

Illicit Activity Outside of Proposals

* Proposal Stealing

If it can be proven that you've simply copy and pasted somebody else's Proposal and submitted it as your own, it'll be deleted, and you may be ejected from the UN as well.

Not only does Ceorana have an active thread to prove this in, he's got posts from you in that thread PLUS he has your own thread PLUS he has his very own post where he explicitly says you can't use it. With the number of warnings you were given in this thread, it'll be a simple matter for Hack to conclude that you copied his proposal and should be ejected for it.

Plagiarism is one of the greatest offenses you can do against art.

However I cited my sources! Plagiarism is claiming someone else's work as your own. I did not do any such thing. I named my sources, and provided links. What else should I have done to less appear to be claiming someone else's work as my own?

And I did suggest them in their thread. They did not substantively respond to suggestions, did not encourage discussion and resubmitted their legislation exactly as it was.

Do you have any other suggestions?

The representative of Discoraversalism is quite correct. Technically, this is not plagiarism. We will leave it to others to judge the propriety of ripping off the work of others and using it for a purpose the person knows full well they will find objectionable.

As for not substantively responding to suggestions, that is patently untrue, as the representative of Discoraversalism has every opportunity to know. This proposal was substantively revised time and again by Ceorana in response to constructive criticism and worthwhile suggestions here and in two other forums. If the suggestions to which the representative refers had been worthwhile and the criticism constructive, it would have been acted upon accordingly.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

As for not substantively responding to suggestions, that is patently untrue...

OOC: Well done! :D

It is, but with the single exception of being used in other UN legislation.


That is what we did, we credited them, and used some text from their UN legislation in our proposed UN legislation.

Since no one has quoted them yet, I shall:

Not only does Ceorana have an active thread to prove this in, he's got posts from you in that thread PLUS he has your own thread PLUS he has his very own post where he explicitly says you can't use it. With the number of warnings you were given in this thread, it'll be a simple matter for Hack to conclude that you copied his proposal and should be ejected for it.

We explictly provided links to those threads! The proposal mentions Ceorana by name (we may have mispelled it)! The addendum clearly demonstrates where it came from.

I believe we all admit his proposal was in the public domain? Are you saying that Ceorana can remove it from the public domain? It was in the public domain when we used it regardless, even if they can remove it now.

We stand by our actions! Tell us which rule we violated?

I realize now I shouldn't have banged on about it for half a page initially. I was wrong, I recant my accusations.

I don't intend on posting in this thread again. I don't see the point. Does anyone else?

The representative of Discoraversalism is quite correct. Technically, this is not plagiarism. We will leave it to others to judge the propriety of ripping off the work of others and using it for a purpose the person knows full well they will find objectionable.

As for not substantively responding to suggestions, that is patently untrue, as the representative of Discoraversalism has every opportunity to know. This proposal was substantively revised time and again by Ceorana in response to constructive criticism and worthwhile suggestions here and in two other forums. If the suggestions to which the representative refers had been worthwhile and the criticism constructive, it would have been acted upon accordingly.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I concede I was earlier unable to find transcripts from any discussion that resulted in any altering in the text of the resolution. I have now found evidence.

This point remains, we asked many questions that went unanswered. In fact we were repeatedly told we would get no further answers.

There is no need for talks about the proposed copyright legilsation to cease. We didn't walk away from the table. However seeing no further reply comign we were forced to draft alternative legislation.

Their legislation was not completely without merit, it was just over reaching. They were attempting to expand copyright so far it no longer served it's intended purpose, to promote art!

We submitted leglisation that tried to achieve the same goal, to promote art. To do so we submitted a compromise legislation.

I think the world would be best served if we gradually phased out all copyright law. However aren't going to go tell another nation that can't issue copyrights.

We simply refuse to have another nation meddle in our art! Art is a thriving business in our culture. We do not need another nation tampering with it in an attempt to "fix" it.

I adapted most of the definitions, and American copyright law is a product of the US government, and therefore in the public domain.

However, NS rules state that you can't use another player's text without permission.

I find your characterization of NS rules unlikely, but I'm sure that if you are correct you can provide a link.

@ Gruen: I do.

Disco: UN Legislation is material that has been voted on and passed and currently resides in the UN books. What you did was take the work of another author and copy and paste large amounts of it into your own proposal (I started reading it and I wondered, "Have I been to this thread before?"). These are drafts of proposals. They have not been submitted. They are loose in the air, and what you did was, without permission, take another proposal, currently in the process of being drafted and submitted, and make your own using much of the same words. You said earlier that this was a political writing, and not a research paper, that therefore citations didn't have to be proper. By the same token, it also means that you cannot just use the writing of someone else without their permission.

It looks like you're trying to dance around the others' language to sound innocent. So I'll use the simple terms.

Ceo's proposal + copy and paste + additions =/= Disco's proposal. Shiny?

It is, but with the single exception of being used in other UN legislation.

Since no one has quoted them yet, I shall:

"
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Most Glorious Protocols
Illicit Activity Outside of Proposals

* Proposal Stealing

If it can be proven that you've simply copy and pasted somebody else's Proposal and submitted it as your own, it'll be deleted, and you may be ejected from the UN as well.
"

Not only does Ceorana have an active thread to prove this in, he's got posts from you in that thread PLUS he has your own thread PLUS he has his very own post where he explicitly says you can't use it. With the number of warnings you were given in this thread, it'll be a simple matter for Hack to conclude that you copied his proposal and should be ejected for it.

Ah ok I misundertstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying that UN legislation is in the public domain only for the purpose of makign more UN legislation. You were instead pointing out that you cannot claim another's work as your own.

Let me state this again, plagiarism is a grave offense in our culture. When other nations on this forum accused our nation of plagiarism our national honor was insulted. I don't really know the limit of what our citizenry's response will be.

What we did was not plagiarism. We repeatedly cited our sources, in fact giving several links to the original text, and discussions we participated in. We made everything a matter of public record.

This is the opposite of plagiarism. We did not claim anyone else's work as our own.

Ah ok I misundertstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying that UN legislation is in the public domain only for the purpose of makign more UN legislation. You were instead pointing out that you cannot claim another's work as your own.

Let me state this again, plagiarism is a grave offense in our culture. When other nations on this forum accused our nation of plagiarism our national honor was insulted. I don't really know the limit of what our citizenry's response will be.

What we did was not plagiarism. We repeatedly cited our sources, in fact giving several links to the original text, and discussions we participated in. We made everything a matter of public record.

This is the opposite of plagiarism. We did not claim anyone else's work as our own.


Immaterial. You used the exact words of another member without permission. Citing or not, that is what you did, and that is what you are accused of.

@ Gruen: I do.

Disco: UN Legislation is material that has been voted on and passed and currently resides in the UN books. What you did was take the work of another author and copy and paste large amounts of it into your own proposal (I started reading it and I wondered, "Have I been to this thread before?"). These are drafts of proposals. They have not been submitted. They are loose in the air, and what you did was, without permission, take another proposal, currently in the process of being drafted and submitted, and make your own using much of the same words. You said earlier that this was a political writing, and not a research paper, that therefore citations didn't have to be proper. By the same token, it also means that you cannot just use the writing of someone else without their permission.

It looks like you're trying to dance around the others' language to sound innocent. So I'll use the simple terms.

Ceo's proposal + copy and paste + additions =/= Disco's proposal. Shiny?


We do not deny using their text! We deny doing anything wrong.

We did properly cite. How else should we have cited?

Immaterial. You used the exact words of another member without permission. Citing or not, that is what you did, and that is what you are accused of.

That is against no rule. We admit to using the exact word of another member, and citing them properly. Hell, every time anyone quoted us in this discussion they did the same thing!

@ Gruen: I do.

Disco: UN Legislation is material that has been voted on and passed and currently resides in the UN books. What you did was take the work of another author and copy and paste large amounts of it into your own proposal (I started reading it and I wondered, "Have I been to this thread before?"). These are drafts of proposals. They have not been submitted. They are loose in the air, and what you did was, without permission, take another proposal, currently in the process of being drafted and submitted, and make your own using much of the same words. You said earlier that this was a political writing, and not a research paper, that therefore citations didn't have to be proper. By the same token, it also means that you cannot just use the writing of someone else without their permission.

It looks like you're trying to dance around the others' language to sound innocent. So I'll use the simple terms.

Ceo's proposal + copy and paste + additions =/= Disco's proposal. Shiny?

I believe you are saying you don't consider proposed legislation to be legislation?

We did not say citations don't have to be proper. We were pointing out that the proper method of citing a research paper is not the proper method of citing legislation within other legislation.

If you can tell us what rule we have broken then it will be much easier to discuss whether we broke the rule.

That is against no rule. We admit to using the exact word of another member, and citing them properly. Hell, every time anyone quoted us in this discussion they did the same thing!

I'm going to lay down some ground rules here for you and me. Unless I grant you permission, expressly, don't do what you did to Ceo and Auss to me. Cited or not.

I'm following Gruen out on this.

The representative of Discoraversalism is quite correct. Technically, this is not plagiarism. We will leave it to others to judge the propriety of ripping off the work of others and using it for a purpose the person knows full well they will find objectionable.

As for not substantively responding to suggestions, that is patently untrue, as the representative of Discoraversalism has every opportunity to know. This proposal was substantively revised time and again by Ceorana in response to constructive criticism and worthwhile suggestions here and in two other forums. If the suggestions to which the representative refers had been worthwhile and the criticism constructive, it would have been acted upon accordingly.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We don't much care that they didn't follow our suggestions. What bothers us are the unanswered questions.

We will leave it to others to judge the propriety of ripping off the work of others and using it for a purpose the person knows full well they will find objectionable.


We freely admit that things we say are objectionable :)

I'm going to lay down some ground rules here for you and me. Unless I grant you permission, expressly, don't do what you did to Ceo and Auss to me. Cited or not.

I'm following Gruen out on this.

Fortunately we don't consider Norderia to have sovereign rights over other nations.

We are deliberately crafting competing legislation. I don't know how your legislative bodies handle this, but within our parlement, alternate versions of bills frequently come out of different committees. Usually we then try to reconcile the differences.

We consider it bizarre that a politician might submit language for legislation, then ask it not be used to make legislation.

Whether you cited your material or not, it is still plagiarism by the UN rulebook. The UN rulebook uses a much different interpretation of what constitutes plagiarism and what constitutes an acceptable work around. It is for this very reason that proposals are not considered public domain when being used in other proposals. It is by this very reason that no matter how many times you cite your sources, unless you have the explicit permission of Ceorana, you cannot string the same sentence together.

Proposal writers spend a lot of time drafting their versions of a proposal, coming up with their own definitions that will match criteria and going over facts of the field they are trying to legislate on. To have another proposal use the same very information is a horrendous crime. Come up with your own definitions. Put in the effort that Ceorana has already devoted to his proposal.

EDIT: I should note that the rule talks about stealing, not "stealing without giving credit" as most academic institutions would word it.

I have put in a request for the mods to judge the legality of Discoveralism's proposal. That should settle the matter, and hopefully lead to a clarification of the proposal rules when it comes to plagiarism.

Whether you cited your material or not, it is still plagiarism by the UN rulebook. The UN rulebook uses a much different interpretation of what constitutes plagiarism and what constitutes an acceptable work around. It is for this very reason that proposals are not considered public domain when being used in other proposals. It is by this very reason that no matter how many times you cite your sources, unless you have the explicit permission of Ceorana, you cannot string the same sentence together.

Proposal writers spend a lot of time drafting their versions of a proposal, coming up with their own definitions that will match criteria and going over facts of the field they are trying to legislate on. To have another proposal use the same very information is a horrendous crime. Come up with your own definitions. Put in the effort that Ceorana has already devoted to his proposal.

EDIT: I should note that the rule talks about stealing, not "stealing without giving credit" as most academic institutions would word it.

If the UN rulebook defines plagiarism poorly then that is a whole nother matter for us to discuss.

It appears that your country invents proposals from whole cloth, never using another source, (or cleverly hiding your source). That is not how our country composes legislation.

What the proper method of citing sources is when composing legislation is another matter we may discuss as well.

Plagiarism is a form of deception, and we have been utterly transparent in our actions. If we have not, we will gladly answer any question put to us.

-Brother Rail Gun of the Short Path

I adapted most of the definitions, and American copyright law is a product of the US government, and therefore in the public domain.

However, NS rules state that you can't use another player's text without permission.

Aha. So you are claiming something you adapted from a public domain source is now "your" text?

I'm not taking Discoraversalism's side in any way, since he is being such a bleeding idiot. But it's kind of ironic that your own actions are illustrating a problem with your own proposal for copyright law - and of real-world copyrights.

Aha. So you are claiming something you adapted from a public domain source is now "your" text?

I'm not taking Discoraversalism's side in any way, since he is being such a bleeding idiot. But it's kind of ironic that your own actions are illustrating a problem with your own proposal for copyright law - and of real-world copyrights.

No we aren't claiming ownership of any text. We are trying to sponsor a bit of legislation but we consider it absurd to claim to own the text of proposed legislation.

No we aren't claiming ownership of any text. We are trying to sponsor a bit of legislation but we consider it absurd to claim to own the text of proposed legislation.

hehe, sorry we misread the last bit, didn't notice who was being quoted! sorry

Illicit Activity Outside of Proposals

* Proposal Stealing

If it can be proven that you've simply copy and pasted somebody else's Proposal and submitted it as your own, it'll be deleted, and you may be ejected from the UN as well.Not only does Ceorana have an active thread to prove this in, he's got posts from you in that thread PLUS he has your own thread PLUS he has his very own post where he explicitly says you can't use it. With the number of warnings you were given in this thread, it'll be a simple matter for Hack to conclude that you copied his proposal and should be ejected for it.
This is a game, and you're taking the effort of other players and attempting to attach your name to it. Doing so without permission, and in fact defending it after permission has been specifically denied, I define as malicious. Our rules make no provision for involuntary authorship (which you refer to as 'citations'), frankly because it never occured to us that anyone who plays this game would be low enough to try it.

If this has been posted, it will be removed. Consider yourself lucky that your UN membership has not been revoked as well

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

This is a game, and you're taking the effort of other players and attempting to attach your name to it. Doing so without permission, and in fact defending it after permission has been specifically denied, I define as malicious. Our rules make no provision for involuntary authorship (which you refer to as 'citations'), frankly because it never occured to us that anyone who plays this game would be low enough to try it.

If this has been posted, it will be removed. Consider yourself lucky that your UN membership has not been revoked as well

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

(OOC Alright we have a ruling. I'm kind of shocked by the language of the moderator but I can accept this. I'm going to take the ruling as being something like, UN Drafts shall not reuse the language of other UN Drafts without the author's consent? I had hoped to simulate proposing amendments to proposed legislation, but it appears there is no easy way to roleplay that. Now I just have to figure out what could have happened IC)

(OOC Alright we have a ruling. I'm kind of shocked by the language of the moderator but I can accept this. I'm going to take the ruling as being something like, UN Drafts shall not reuse the language of other UN Drafts without the author's consent? I had hoped to simulate proposing amendments to proposed legislation, but it appears there is no easy way to roleplay that. Now I just have to figure out what could have happened IC)

IC: We're beginning to feel like country yokel representatives first setting foot in big city politics. Our nation has acted as UN Delegate for some time now. Most UN legislation is pretty inoffensive. Occasionally we see legislation that is kind hearted but misguided. We haven't participated too much in political disputes because someone else was already expressing our view point.

Then we saw some proposed legislation that nearly received the support it needed to become resolution. This proposal would mandate all nations enact and support copyright law.

Copyright is anathema to our entire way of life. We are a free spirited nation, and we valure of our art and artists very highly. We are reasonably prosperous, peacefull, and cooperative with the world community. However we consider any government interference into art to be anathema. We do not trust any government to place any limitation on any form of speach or art. Copyright involves strict control of artistic expression by government entitities.

All discussion had ceased on the previously proposed legislation. It narrowly missed the required number of signatory nations to become resolution, and we have every expectation it will get them next time.

There is a great deal of good that would be done, among nations that support copyright, if some copyright reform is passed. We applaud the efforts and language of Ausserland and Ceorana in composing their legislation.

Our sole wish was to propose amending their work, so as to not inflict copyright on nations deathly opposed to it.

Discoraversalism is not part of any multinational organizations. We are not familiar with the processes used to compose UN legislation, nor do we appear to have any allies in the UN.

We are desperate. If copyright is forced upon us it will destroy our economy.

The Draft we put forth can never become law. Our nation doesn't have the endorsements needed to submit it! Somehow we have caused a great outcry, but we cannot imagine we have done much harm. Rather we have attempted to avert a much greater harm.

We humbly implore anyone who is interested to help us in drafting, and proposing, competing legislation to prevent the destruction of our nation.

-Brother Rail Gun of the Short Path

A copyright law will destroy your economy? What? Do you guys have absolutely nothing original in your nation?

Wow.......I've never felt so little sympathy from a plea for help.

If you are truly as desperate as you claim to be, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from leaving. If you're willing to cope with Ausserland and Ceorana's resolution like every other nation has to cope with every other resolution ever passed, then do so. However, I see little reason why your nation - or any other - should be exempt from the UN's mandates. Nations must sometimes defy their core beliefs if they wish to remain members, I think you can keep it together if you have to defy yours just this once.

A copyright law will destroy your economy? What? Do you guys have absolutely nothing original in your nation?

Wow.......I've never felt so little sympathy from a plea for help.

If you are truly as desperate as you claim to be, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from leaving. If you're willing to cope with Ausserland and Ceorana's resolution like every other nation has to cope with every other resolution ever passed, then do so. However, I see little reason why your nation - or any other - should be exempt from the UN's mandates. Nations must sometimes defy their core beliefs if they wish to remain members, I think you can keep it together if you have to defy yours just this once.

Um, it's not a mandate yet. We're asking for help to prevent it from becoming a mandate.

There is a great deal original in our nation. For one thing, we appear to be the only nation in the UN opposed to mandatory copyright legislation :)

Many of the genre's of art we specialize in are impossible to practice under copyright law. We know electronica, sampling etc. are reasonably popular in other nations, but it's big business in our nation.

There is a great deal original in our nation. For one thing, we appear to be the only nation in the UN opposed to mandatory copyright legislation :)

Well, it's nice to see my contributions to this discussion have been greatly appreciated. *dribbles angry sarcasm all over floor*

Also how the hell can you get to be UN Delegate with only one endorsement? Is this a region with only 2 nations or something? (edit: answered my own question. There are 2 UN members.)

(double edit: Hey! I've passed 666 posts! This makes me officialy EVIL.)

Well, it's nice to see my contributions to this discussion have been greatly appreciated. *dribbles angry sarcasm all over floor*

Also how the hell can you get to be UN Delegate with only one endorsement? Is this a region with only 2 nations or something? (edit: answered my own question. There are 2 UN members.)

(double edit: Hey! I've passed 666 posts! This makes me officialy EVIL.)

Apologies. We got lost in our own melodrama there. We know there are plenty of nations opposed to copyright :)

Once we were a proud region, with many members. However in the last few years our numbers have dwindled. It would be tempting to fold our region into a larger region, with hopes of furthering the cause of artistic freedom.

Everyone tells me our problem is we don't understand copyright. We really don't think that is the case, but we have given everyone the benefit of the doubt, so we have researched copyright.

Here is a wonderful mp3 lecture on the subject:

http://www.eff.org/IP/freeculture/free_culture.mp3

http://www.eff.org/IP/freeculture/ gives background.

Well, it appears our rival legislation has reached quorum. Any attempt at actual copyright reform will have to be submitted by another member, we cannot do more then suggest drafts, (and our last draft cannot be submitted by anyone).

I hope more opposition to copyright will surface in response to the upcoming vote on the subject.