NationStates Jolt Archive

UN Copyright Convention recently reached quorum. This is the official discussion thread that should be stickied when it goes up for vote.

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.

FAQ:

What are copyrights good for?
In a nutshell: They encourage art by allowing authors control over their work.
They allow authors and artists control over their work, giving them an incentive to produce more. A copyright, as defined in this proposal, allows an author to have pretty much exclusive control over their work. If they were an author of a fiction book, for example, this would mean that they have the right to claim royalties on the book if they so choose. If they were a free-software developer who wanted to go on the open-source path, this would allow them to force anyone who makes derivative works of their product to license it under the same license.

Why don't we just let everyone use all art?
I.A.N.: Because then people would have less of an incentive to produce art.
If we let anyone use all art, there would be a lot less art to use. If artists can't control their work, they can't make as much of a profit off of it. So by letting them control their work, we are giving them a huge incentive to create art.

Will this force my nation to have copyrights?
Yes, but it gives you some leeway. You have to have them for more than 30 years after the author's death or 65 years for a company, and the fair use standards are there, but you can choose any length of time greater than that and have a bit of leeway with fair use standards.

How is this an international issue?/Why aren't individual nations' copyrights enough?/Why create more UN bureaucracy?
In a Nutshell: Under the current system, people in nations that don't have copyright or don't have copyright for foreign works can exploit work from other nations.
Suppose Joe in Ceorana writes a book and holds the copyright under Ceoranan law. He gets royalties from it. Enter George in Other Nation. He prevents Joe from making money off of his book in Other Nation because George is selling pirated copies at half of what Joe's selling them for. Of course, then Bob undercuts George, and Fred undercuts Bob, and pretty soon the books are selling for pennies. And who loses out? Joe, the one who actually did the work to write the book.

This nation of Ceorana seems to have very weird ideas. Why should we support this revolutionary nonsense?
OOC: Just look at pretty much every developed RL nation. And their copyright terms are a lot longer than proposed here.

What's with all these conventions anyway?
I like the letter C. It has had great achievements, such as bringing 1 out of every 26 episodes of Seseme Street to us.

Can I post in this thread?
Yes. However, if you were one of us who went on for 13 pages in the submitted thread, please stay on topic and don't rehash old points. (Don't worry about it if you weren't in that thread, I just don't feel the need to make people read through more rehash if you already debated it out with me or others.) Previous discussions can be found in the submitted thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=486102), in the drafting thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481266), and in the Reclamation thread (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=93&st=0).

What about Wikipedia?
*kick's OMGTKK* ;) OOC: Go read the submitted thread. It's thouroughly hashed over there. ;)

More questions will be added if they come up a lot during the debate.

Congratulations! Norderia's support is yours.

I'm reminded of a Rant by 2... The angry furre comedian. (http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Rants/2rant-art_fans.mp3) Ahhh, immature, lewd, anthropomorphic animal rants.

Again, congrats.

The people of Airatum acknowledge the representative of Ceorana's desire to keep from rehashing old points. We are concerned, however, that many representatives may only be joining the debate now that the resolution is approved in queue. Many of them may not wish to slog through the lengthy debate in previous threads, and will confine their debating to this thread.

We point out that the representative of Ceorana did not feel there was a problem including a FAQ which makes a few of points that were already made in the previous discussion. As such, we request leeway for those opposing this legislation to succinctly state their reason, though they may have been covered in the mentioned threads.

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

The people of Airatum acknowledge the representative of Ceorana's desire to keep from rehashing old points. We are concerned, however, that many representatives may only be joining the debate now that the resolution is approved in queue. Many of them may not wish to slog through the lengthy debate in previous threads, and will confine their debating to this thread.

We point out that the representative of Ceorana did not feel there was a problem including a FAQ which makes a few of points that were already made in the previous discussion. As such, we request leeway for those opposing this legislation to succinctly state their reason, though they may have been covered in the mentioned threads.


No one is forbidden to, even if Ceorana doesn't want them to. No request is necessary.

I didn't mean that I didn't want anyone saying anything that someone else said. I just meant to discourage people from starting arguments that they had already argued, because that would make people who didn't want to repeat moot points have to read pages and pages in this thread before they posted.

FAQ:

What are copyrights good for?
They allow authors and artists control over their work, giving them an incentive to produce more.

Why don't we just let everyone use all art?
Because then people would have less of an incentive to produce art.

This nation of Ceorana seems to have very weird ideas. Why should we support this revolutionary nonsense?
OOC: Just look at pretty much every developed RL nation. And their copyright terms are a lot longer than proposed here.

Can I post in this thread?
Yes. However, if you were one of us who went on for 13 pages in the submitted thread, please stay on topic and don't rehash old points. (Don't worry about it if you weren't in that thread, I just don't feel the need to make people read through more rehash if you already debated it out with me or others.) Previous discussions can be found in the submitted thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=486102), in the drafting thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481266), and in the Reclamation thread (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=93&st=0).

More questions will be added if they come up a lot during the debate.[OOC: CEO: You might want to consider expanding your FAQ, like answering the first three questions more in-depth, including info on how your bill would meet these goals. Also, try thinking up answers to questions such as: "So will this bill force me to change my nation's copyright laws?", "My nation has no copyright law; how will this proposal affect me?", "Is this an issue warranting UN legislation?", "Why aren't nations' individual copyright laws good enough? Why create another level of bureaucracy on the international level?", and "What the heck is with all these resolutions with the word 'convention' in the title, anyway?!" Then add in something about Wikipedia, just for kicks! :p]

The kicks have coincidentally ended up in your general direction. ;) Thanks for the input, they've been added. :)

The people of Airatum acknowledge the representative of Ceorana's desire to keep from rehashing old points. We are concerned, however, that many representatives may only be joining the debate now that the resolution is approved in queue. Many of them may not wish to slog through the lengthy debate in previous threads, and will confine their debating to this thread.

We point out that the representative of Ceorana did not feel there was a problem including a FAQ which makes a few of points that were already made in the previous discussion. As such, we request leeway for those opposing this legislation to succinctly state their reason, though they may have been covered in the mentioned threads.

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

We would certainly join with the honorable representative of Airatum in hoping that those who have concerns and objections to the proposal will state them here. There's a maxim of salesmanship: "objections are opportunities." That means that, when a prospective buyer raises an objection, the salesman at least has a chance to answer it and make the sale. And the prospect has shown interest. If you never know about the objection, it just sits there and kills the sale. :)

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

What's with all these conventions anyway?
I like the letter C. It has had great achievements, such as bringing 1 out of every 26 episodes of Seseme Street to us.
*sings* C is for cookie, that's good enough for me!

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

I'm reminded of a Rant by 2... The angry furre comedian. (http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Rants/2rant-art_fans.mp3) Ahhh, immature, lewd, anthropomorphic animal rants.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Silly%20Things/SeriousFur.jpg

Ahem. >_>

Yeah... I support this.

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

Ahem. >_>

:p BAH HAHAHA!

I love 2, though. How can one not love a former minister gone gay, furre, and comedian? Ahhhhh, hated minorities. What would we do without them?

What are copyrights good for?
In a nutshell: They encourage art by allowing authors control over their work.
They allow authors and artists control over their work, giving them an incentive to produce more.

Why don't we just let everyone use all art?
I.A.N.: Because then people would have less of an incentive to produce art.
If we let anyone use all art, there would be a lot less art to use. If artists can't control their work, they can't make as much of a profit off of it. So by letting them control their work, we are giving them a huge incentive to create art.

Yes, because the only reason anyone would create art is for profit. No one would ever draw, play music, paint, write, etc. if there wasn't a profit to be made... You're missing the whole point of art. In fact you seem to have completely missed my points as well.

Let's also not get so hung up on copyright as protection of income for the artist/creator. The great majority of this profit in fact goes to publishers, particularly in books, music, with publishers taking up to 90% of the profit in most cases, and software.

As regards opting-out, you might point to this as a refutation for those with alternative systems, or for nations which don't recognise property rights. However, this mandates a default of all-rights-reserved, which is not going to be palatable for those kinds of systems.

Will this force my nation to have copyrights?
Yes, but it gives you some leeway. You have to have them for more than 30 years after the author's death or 65 years for a company, and the fair use standards are there, but you can choose any length of time greater than that and have a bit of leeway with fair use standards.

This is not in fact a lot of leeway. You have completely excluded any other system besides this rigid framework. All of this "leeway" is only within the framework you want to impose, and all alternatives are stamped out because you say yours is better. It might work for a capitalist state, will it work for everyone? Think before you answer that, because the diversity of RP cultures and systems we're dealing with is very great indeed.

How is this an international issue?/Why aren't individual nations' copyrights enough?/Why create more UN bureaucracy?
In a Nutshell: Under the current system, people in nations that don't have copyright or don't have copyright for foreign works can exploit work from other nations.

However, your example has problems. If nation A recognises this kind of copyright, and nation B does not recognise the concept of intellectual property (which we must surmise is the case since no one's enforcing the law and shutting down the book piracy), there's no profit going to be made in nation B anyway. The loss is zero.

Just because it's cheaper doesn't mean the pirated version will always be preferred. The legitimate version will most likely be of higher quality - printing, paper, binding, etc. and it will still be bought. Granted,forcing Nation B to recognise copyright law may result in an increase in royalties for the author - though that is not a certainty because people may not be willing or able to buy something for $20 compared to when it costs $2, and those buying the legit version were able to afford it anyway - but 90% of that money in a typical royalty contract actually goes to the publisher. Whose rights are you really advocating here?

Furthermore, this problem you have isn't solved because most nations are outside the UN and won't be forced to recognise foreign copyrights.

This nation of Ceorana seems to have very weird ideas. Why should we support this revolutionary nonsense?
OOC: Just look at pretty much every developed RL nation. And their copyright terms are a lot longer than proposed here.

So what? My IC neighbours include an interstellar empire of cyborgs (Packilvania), a nation with a similar interstellar presence and a large minority of hybrid cat-women (Infinite Loop), a nation with more weird races from anime or something (Fish Island), a nation which is almost completely underground (Kandarin)... It's not like the real-world copyright system is so marvellous either - and besides, it's in a world which is almost homogenously composed of capitalist, or at least, market-oriented economies.

We'd like to respond to some of the points raised by the distinguished representative of Kesslek.

Yes, because the only reason anyone would create art is for profit. No one would ever draw, play music, paint, write, etc. if there wasn't a profit to be made... You're missing the whole point of art. In fact you seem to have completely missed my points as well.

We would ask the honorable representative of Kelssek to consider how many of the things we consider great works of art were created by artists who didn't get paid (or at least expect to get paid). Certainly, fine artistic works are created by amateurs. But we believe that is the exception, not the rule. People who create art without expectation of return can and will still do so. But those artists who depend on their artistic work for their livelihood will be supported in their work.

Let's also not get so hung up on copyright as protection of income for the artist/creator. The great majority of this profit in fact goes to publishers, particularly in books, music, with publishers taking up to 90% of the profit in most cases, and software.

And -- especially in the book world -- the publisher invests substantial money in bringing the book to publication, distribution, and advertising/sales promotion. In any case, if the publishers of creative works get an unfairly large share of the profits, would the representative argue that this means no one should get any?

As regards opting-out, you might point to this as a refutation for those with alternative systems, or for nations which don't recognise property rights. However, this mandates a default of all-rights-reserved, which is not going to be palatable for those kinds of systems.

No it does not -- not for works created within your nation. If your people believe that their art should be freely shared without restriction, they are perfectly free to place it in the public domain. If they believe they should retain some rights to it (e.g., the right to be credited), they can employ a general license to make that happen. And now look at clause 3c. If your national government wants to have all works created in your nation placed in the public domain or covered by a standard licensing scheme, just make that one of the statutory requirements for copyright. Actually, you don't even have to do that. Just pass a law saying that all intellectual property created within your nation is automatically placed in the public domain immediately after creation. Or just establish any statutory requirement. Your citizens who believe in the no-copyright philosophy simply don't bother with the requirement and their work remains in the public domain.

This is not in fact a lot of leeway. You have completely excluded any other system besides this rigid framework. All of this "leeway" is only within the framework you want to impose, and all alternatives are stamped out because you say yours is better. It might work for a capitalist state, will it work for everyone? Think before you answer that, because the diversity of RP cultures and systems we're dealing with is very great indeed.

The proposal allows you to impose just about any condition you want on works created within your own nation. (See the above.) But you will be required to provide proper protection to works created in other nations.

However, your example has problems. If nation A recognises this kind of copyright, and nation B does not recognise the concept of intellectual property (which we must surmise is the case since no one's enforcing the law and shutting down the book piracy), there's no profit going to be made in nation B anyway. The loss is zero.

They can refuse to recognize the concept all they want, but they will still be required to follow the UN mandate. If they want to use works created elsewhere, they will be required to follow the law, and, if the owners of the property require payment, they'll have to be paid.

Just because it's cheaper doesn't mean the pirated version will always be preferred. The legitimate version will most likely be of higher quality - printing, paper, binding, etc. and it will still be bought. Granted,forcing Nation B to recognise copyright law may result in an increase in royalties for the author - though that is not a certainty because people may not be willing or able to buy something for $20 compared to when it costs $2, and those buying the legit version were able to afford it anyway - but 90% of that money in a typical royalty contract actually goes to the publisher. Whose rights are you really advocating here?

Furthermore, this problem you have isn't solved because most nations are outside the UN and won't be forced to recognise foreign copyrights.


The representative is correct that piracy and rip-offs will still be legal in non-UN nations without copyright, and the problem will not be solved. But would the representative argue that we should never pass any resolutions placing requirements on NSUN nations because non-member nations don't have to follow them? We believe that a resolution that applies to 30,000+ nations has substantial effect.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

But those artists who depend on their artistic work for their livelihood will be supported in their work.

In any case, if the publishers of creative works get an unfairly large share of the profits, would the representative argue that this means no one should get any?

But is this the only way for artists to make money? Often the money made from copyright isn't their main source of income. Fiction authors are the only one springing to mind whose main source of income is royalties, and you can see it either as "more copyright is needed" or "the distribution of the revenue should be more equitable". The latter, I think, benefits them more, though how that would be encouraged is a different matter. But it's simply untrue that copyright is the only way, or even the primary way, for most artists to support themselves.

No it does not -- not for works created within your nation...

The proposal allows you to impose just about any condition you want on works created within your own nation. (See the above.) But you will be required to provide proper protection to works created in other nations.


Wait, hang on. Does section 2, to you, say that? Because to me section 2 is mandating copyrights, and makes no distinction between domestic and foreign, or allow governments to define domestic copyright policy (or lack thereof).

But would the representative argue that we should never pass any resolutions placing requirements on NSUN nations because non-member nations don't have to follow them? We believe that a resolution that applies to 30,000+ nations has substantial effect.

However, this is touted as a solution to a problem with is not solved by the resolution. It doesn't matter how many nations it applies to, Ceorana claims this will solve the problem of works being "exploited" in countries without copyright but it does and can not. In any case, it sounds pretty selfish. "You can't use it because it's MINE! MINE!!!"

2 says that each nation's copyright law is valid in that nation for all copyrighted works no matter where it originated.

So if a nation choses to include in its copyright law that the government of that nation becomes a co-copyright holder for the work in question, i.e. any work, then the government will share all protection of this Convention and can do whatever they want because they are the legal copyright holder.

Although I support strong copyright protection (being a writer myself) and I appreciate the exemption for fair use (being an educator) I wonder about the lack of an expiration for copyright.

The resolution states at least the life of the author plus thirty years, or sixty-five years. However, there's no limit on the length a corporation or family could hold onto copywritten material.

With the birth of corporations that can last for decades or even centuries, what will the situation be if a corporation holds onto a copyright that effectively never ends?

Perhaps that's not a bad idea. At the same time, I wonder about corporations holding onto images and ideas that have become cultural icons...The DaVinci Corporation, for instance, removing the Mona Lisa and all images from public circulation.

Perhaps a matter best left to the individual state to decide. But a limit on copyright also seems to be needed.

Just a thought.

But is this the only way for artists to make money? Often the money made from copyright isn't their main source of income. Fiction authors are the only one springing to mind whose main source of income is royalties, and you can see it either as "more copyright is needed" or "the distribution of the revenue should be more equitable". The latter, I think, benefits them more, though how that would be encouraged is a different matter. But it's simply untrue that copyright is the only way, or even the primary way, for most artists to support themselves.


We have never claimed that revenue from copyrighted works is the only way for artists to make money. We believe it contributes significantly to their ability to do so. Royalties? Royalties are paid by publishers. Publishers do that because they expect to make a profit from producing, selling and licensing a work. Copyright is a means of helping those publishers make that profit by protecting them from rip-offs of their products. No expectation of profit = no royalties. If you believe the distribution of profits is inequitable, we wouldn't argue that. We wouldn't accept it without further study, but we wouldn't dismiss it, either. But we believe that is irrelevant to the issue of copyright.

Wait, hang on. Does section 2, to you, say that? Because to me section 2 is mandating copyrights, and makes no distinction between domestic and foreign, or allow governments to define domestic copyright policy (or lack thereof).


Section 2 simply states that the copyright law of your nation will apply to actions taken within your nation. That's basic jurisdiction of place and keeps people from having to know the copyright laws of 30,000 different nations. Section 3c gives your nation wide latitude in determining what requirements for securing a copyright will apply to works created within your nation. So you will be required to have laws that protect copyrighted works, wherever they were created. But, as I explained earlier, you have full latitude to require your citizens to relinquish copyright by placing their work in the public domain or by declining to meet your statutory requirements for copyright.



However, this is touted as a solution to a problem with is not solved by the resolution. It doesn't matter how many nations it applies to, Ceorana claims this will solve the problem of works being "exploited" in countries without copyright but it does and can not. In any case, it sounds pretty selfish. "You can't use it because it's MINE! MINE!!!"

We'd put it differently: "You can't use it unless I say so because I'm the one who put all the time, effort, money, and creative talent into producing it and making it available for you." And, once again we ask: Does the honorable representative believe all NSUN resolutions are useless because they don't apply to non-UN nations?

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Although I support strong copyright protection (being a writer myself) and I appreciate the exemption for fair use (being an educator) I wonder about the lack of an expiration for copyright.

The resolution states at least the life of the author plus thirty years, or sixty-five years. However, there's no limit on the length a corporation or family could hold onto copywritten material.

With the birth of corporations that can last for decades or even centuries, what will the situation be if a corporation holds onto a copyright that effectively never ends?

Perhaps that's not a bad idea. At the same time, I wonder about corporations holding onto images and ideas that have become cultural icons...The DaVinci Corporation, for instance, removing the Mona Lisa and all images from public circulation.

Perhaps a matter best left to the individual state to decide. But a limit on copyright also seems to be needed.

Just a thought.

We agree with the concern of the honorable representative of Sujereska about perpetual copyrights. But, as he suggests, we believe the exact duration of copyrights should be left to individual nations to determine. All the proposal does is require minimum terms (less than those generally existing in the mythical land of RL). Nations can set durations in excess of that if they wish, just as they can now. Perhaps we should have included a maximum in the proposal. We didn't; judgment call.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Although I support strong copyright protection (being a writer myself) and I appreciate the exemption for fair use (being an educator) I wonder about the lack of an expiration for copyright.

The resolution states at least the life of the author plus thirty years, or sixty-five years. However, there's no limit on the length a corporation or family could hold onto copywritten material.

With the birth of corporations that can last for decades or even centuries, what will the situation be if a corporation holds onto a copyright that effectively never ends?

Perhaps that's not a bad idea. At the same time, I wonder about corporations holding onto images and ideas that have become cultural icons...The DaVinci Corporation, for instance, removing the Mona Lisa and all images from public circulation.

Perhaps a matter best left to the individual state to decide. But a limit on copyright also seems to be needed.

Just a thought.
We thank the representative from Sujareska for his concern. However, we don't feel it's a significant problem. If a nation wants to have copyrights last forever, it can go ahead: it won't affect any other nations. We want to tread on nations' toes as little as is necessary: they could set extremely long copyright laws before this resolution, we don't see why they shouldn't be able to set them with it in place. And people in other nations can still use the work after that nation's copyright has expired.

Robert Bobson
UN Officer

But we believe that is irrelevant to the issue of copyright.

It's very relevant when proponents are claiming to be advancing the rights of artists when in fact the benefits mostly go to corporations. Many artists, in fact, give up the copyrights that are under their control (concert bootlegs, for instance) because they prefer exposure over profit. Some even have confrontations with their publisher because they publically encourage fans to violate the publisher's copyright on "their" material, especially in the music industry.

Section 3c gives your nation wide latitude in determining what requirements for securing a copyright will apply to works created within your nation. So you will be required to have laws that protect copyrighted works, wherever they were created.

An ambiguity then? It says "Except as provided in this clause", which mandates the framework - and a very rigid one.

But, as I explained earlier, you have full latitude to require your citizens to relinquish copyright by placing their work in the public domain or by declining to meet your statutory requirements for copyright.

Not as I see it because it seems that all other systems of copyright or intellectual property are effectively banned by this. So either it's an ambiguity or a major loophole. Which isn't too bad for nations like us who would look for every way to contravene the spirit of this resolution if it does get passed.

We'd put it differently: "You can't use it unless I say so because I'm the one who put all the time, effort, money, and creative talent into producing it and making it available for you." And, once again we ask: Does the honorable representative believe all NSUN resolutions are useless because they don't apply to non-UN nations?

1) Initially, it's because you need profit motive for art... so now it's just because they would create art for art's sake? What a revolutionary concept! I'm glad you acknowledged it.

2) In some cases, yes. This was one of the reasons for the failure of nuclear disarmanent resolutions, and if part of the argument is that it will stop "exploitation" as Ceorana puts it, then it is not accomplishing a stated aim. If that statement is withdrawn, of course, then objections to it are moot.

It's very relevant when proponents are claiming to be advancing the rights of artists when in fact the benefits mostly go to corporations. Many artists, in fact, give up the copyrights that are under their control (concert bootlegs, for instance) because they prefer exposure over profit. Some even have confrontations with their publisher because they publically encourage fans to violate the publisher's copyright on "their" material, especially in the music industry.

If artists are exploited by corporations with copyright in place, what possible logic says they'll be exploited less with no copyright? The predatory corporations will simply grab their work, publish and sell it, and make their profits. The creator of the work gets zip. Of course, there won't be nearly as much to rip off, because the would-be artists will be waiting on tables at Pizza Hut because they can't get paid for their work.

An ambiguity then? It says "Except as provided in this clause", which mandates the framework - and a very rigid one.

There is no ambiguity. Read clause 3c again, slowly and carefully. It states that "Nations may impose additional requirements for securing copyright, but these may apply only to works created within that nation by its own citizens." I've already given you several examples of how a nation and its citizens. could use this latitude to establish a "free use" environment as it applies to domestically produced intellectual property.

Not as I see it because it seems that all other systems of copyright or intellectual property are effectively banned by this. So either it's an ambiguity or a major loophole. Which isn't too bad for nations like us who would look for every way to contravene the spirit of this resolution if it does get passed.


Sorry, but that is simply not so. You will be required to apply protection of copyright to intellectual property produced and copyrighted in other nations. You can do pretty much whatever you like with your domestic product. Mandate everything be then released to the public domain. Require everyone to grant a very permissive license. Etc., etc., etc. It's not an ambiguity if you read the proposal carefully. You can call it a loophole if you like. It was very deliberately worked into the proposal to accommodate those who were willing to protect the work originating in other nations but wanted to keep their domestic products free for all.

1) Initially, it's because you need profit motive for art... so now it's just because they would create art for art's sake? What a revolutionary concept! I'm glad you acknowledged it.

Sorry. Believing that the creator of intellectual property has a right to control it because they were the ones who created it has nothing to do with "art for art's sake." It applies whether they did it for art's sake or under contract to a publishing house.

2) In some cases, yes. This was one of the reasons for the failure of nuclear disarmanent resolutions, and if part of the argument is that it will stop "exploitation" as Ceorana puts it, then it is not accomplishing a stated aim. If that statement is withdrawn, of course, then objections to it are moot.

As co-author of the proposal, we have never said that this proposal will "stop" exploitation or anything else. What we will say now and as often as it takes, is that this proposal will help the people who create intellectual property and bring it to us to obtain fair compensation for their work.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

If artists are exploited by corporations with copyright in place, what possible logic says they'll be exploited less with no copyright?

Since when did I say I favour no copyright? Or that no art will be created if no profit can be made? In any case, that's a very specific situation. It would not happen if private enterprise is banned, for instance. Artists could be supported by grants or government funding, or tax credits.

As I've said before, all these arguments and hypotheticals are assuming capitalist economies, consumerist cultures, and profit motives. It may be what the real world is mostly like, but that is not the case in this world. There is no regard being given to all the different kinds of societies and cultures around here.

other stuff

If this allows domestic latitude, it certainly isn't very overt and I question how many nations actually will realise how you mean it to be interpreted.What I see is:

"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;"

Which forces nations to have copyright law, and that it must apply whether foreign or domestic.

"Nations may impose additional requirements for securing copyright"

And that means they must have copyright. Maybe you impose a requirement like "anyone wishing to secure copyright must pay the government $4 gazillion dollars, sacrifice an infant in a Satanic ritual, successfully conquer the Earth, and be Lrrr, Emperor of Omicron Persei VIII", but nations are still forced to have copyright law.

What I don't see is anything like:

"Nations may define domestic copyright policy and are not required to recognise intellectual property domestically."

It's obviously too late to rewrite it now. But I'm paranoid and cynical, of course, so don't take my suspicions too seriously.

We think we've probably reached an impasse with our respected colleague from Kelssek and perhaps it's time for us to agree to disagree.

Since when did I say I favour no copyright? Or that no art will be created if no profit can be made? In any case, that's a very specific situation. It would not happen if private enterprise is banned, for instance. Artists could be supported by grants or government funding, or tax credits.

As I've said before, all these arguments and hypotheticals are assuming capitalist economies, consumerist cultures, and profit motives. It may be what the real world is mostly like, but that is not the case in this world. There is no regard being given to all the different kinds of societies and cultures around here.


We believe the proposal gives due deference to the many different sociocultural environments in the world of NationStates. It allows the various nations to reject protection of intellectual property created within their borders if their culture demands it. But it also respects the right of creators of such property in other nations to expect their work will be treated equitably by all.


If this allows domestic latitude, it certainly isn't very overt and I question how many nations actually will realise how you mean it to be interpreted.What I see is:

"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;"

Which forces nations to have copyright law, and that it must apply whether foreign or domestic.

"Nations may impose additional requirements for securing copyright"

And that means they must have copyright. Maybe you impose a requirement like "anyone wishing to secure copyright must pay the government $4 gazillion dollars, sacrifice an infant in a Satanic ritual, successfully conquer the Earth, and be Lrrr, Emperor of Omicron Persei VIII", but nations are still forced to have copyright law.

What I don't see is anything like:

"Nations may define domestic copyright policy and are not required to recognise intellectual property domestically."

It's obviously too late to rewrite it now. But I'm paranoid and cynical, of course, so don't take my suspicions too seriously.

The distinguished representative is quite right. All nations will be required to have copyright law. That's the whole point of the proposal -- to provide a degree of protection for intellectual property wherever it happens to be within the purview of the UN. If we said that nations were "not required to recognise intellectual property domestically," the whole thing would be pointless. Instead, we permit nations to carve out intellectual property created within the nation from the protections of that law.

And we doubt the honorable representative is any more paranoid or cynical than we are. We may not share your suspicions, but we fully respect your arguments -- even as we disagree.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We would ask the honorable representative of Kelssek to consider how many of the things we consider great works of art were created by artists who didn't get paid (or at least expect to get paid). Certainly, fine artistic works are created by amateurs. But we believe that is the exception, not the rule. People who create art without expectation of return can and will still do so. But those artists who depend on their artistic work for their livelihood will be supported in their work.


We would like to point out that the large majority of the body of 'great works of art' were done by professional artists, but that copyright in no way benefited them during their lifetimes.

The vast majority of classical works of art were created on commision, or under patronage systems.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

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;

We appreciate that the supporters of this legislation believe that 3c grants a wide leeway to nations for protection of communal intellectual property within their borders. We disagree, however, that this is likely to be the interpretation of this clause in the future. We appreciate that this debate is being entered into the record, as that may help in future debate over interpretation, when we will be able to point to the authors stated intent behind 3c.

Practically speaking, however, we realize that often 'original intent' has very little sway over those who desire to interpret a law a specific way.

In and off itself, 3c seems to be indicating that a government can make copyright more difficult to obtain. To say that this means we can keep our system of communal intellectual property is to say that we must require that in order to obtain a copyright the artist must declare the work in the public domain, which is just plain non-sensical.

We also continue to take issue that we are only allowed to do this with our own citizens in our own borders. We believe that guest artists working within our borders should abide by our laws, not the laws of their home nation. If they choose to reside or visit our land and partake of our free, open, artistic environment and be fed by our artist's community, then they should abide by our freedom from copyright for all works produce within our borders.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

The usual argument for copyright law is best described thusly:

"The Congress shall have Power [. . .] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. "

The goal is to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.

If that is your goal you would want to maximize how copyright benefits the progress of science and art, while minimizing any harm copyright might cause to science and art.

It would seem to us that much shorter copyright durations would still serve to encourage the creators of art and science. There is a point of diminishing returns where longer copyright durations no longer significantly increase peoples motivation to further art and science.

So who benefits most from excessive copyright durations? Why the language of this particular proposal makes that quite clear.

"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"

This well exceeds the normal goals of copyright, to promote art and science. This promotes marketing.

Who benefits from a proposal to promote marketing? Why the large corporations that currently hold the most valuable intellectual properties.

The sad fact of the matter is, most artists quickly sell their intellectual property rights to large corporations. As such, this proposal does not serve to benefit them.

It's corporate wellfare. Many of these large corporations have been holding onto their IP for many years. There is a famous rodent that is scheduled to shortly enter the public domain. This legislation will help prevent that from every happening.

If you'd like to learn more on this subject, I will refer the reader to

"How Government Patent and Copyright Monopolies Enrich the Rich and Distort the Economy"

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cns.html#5

The usual argument for copyright law is best described thusly:

"The Congress shall have Power [. . .] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. "

The goal is to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.

If that is your goal you would want to maximize how copyright benefits the progress of science and art, while minimizing any harm copyright might cause to science and art.

It would seem to us that much shorter copyright durations would still serve to encourage the creators of art and science. There is a point of diminishing returns where longer copyright durations no longer significantly increase peoples motivation to further art and science.

So who benefits most from excessive copyright durations? Why the language of this particular proposal makes that quite clear.

"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"

This well exceeds the normal goals of copyright, to promote art and science. This promotes marketing.

Who benefits from a proposal to promote marketing? Why the large corporations that currently hold the most valuable intellectual properties.

The sad fact of the matter is, most artists quickly sell their intellectual property rights to large corporations. As such, this proposal does not serve to benefit them.

It's corporate wellfare. Many of these large corporations have been holding onto their IP for many years. There is a famous rodent that is scheduled to shortly enter the public domain. This legislation will help prevent that from every happening.

If you'd like to learn more on this subject, I will refer the reader to

"How Government Patent and Copyright Monopolies Enrich the Rich and Distort the Economy"

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cns.html#5
OOC: Your quote is from the United States Constitution. The Congress in question has set their copyright term for twice as long as mandated in this proposal, and it has not been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, therefore it most likely fits what the Constitution talks about. So that argument doesn't hold much water.
In and off itself, 3c seems to be indicating that a government can make copyright more difficult to obtain. To say that this means we can keep our system of communal intellectual property is to say that we must require that in order to obtain a copyright the artist must declare the work in the public domain, which is just plain non-sensical.
That doesn't hold water. That's not a statuatory formality for getting the copyright, because the formality involves relinquishing the copyright before you even get it. You might be able to require GFDL'ing of it though, if that's how you interpret it. It's not really a formality, so I'm not sure. It's certainly not how I intended it.
We also continue to take issue that we are only allowed to do this with our own citizens in our own borders. We believe that guest artists working within our borders should abide by our laws, not the laws of their home nation. If they choose to reside or visit our land and partake of our free, open, artistic environment and be fed by our artist's community, then they should abide by our freedom from copyright for all works produce within our borders.
The point of the statuatory formalities in only the nation of citizenship is so you don't have to apply for copyright in all 30,000 nations, just one at max. Mandating that they relinquish some rights is some serious tight loophole-exploitation. If you want to exploit it, you have to live with the bumps you get.

The point of the statuatory formalities in only the nation of citizenship is so you don't have to apply for copyright in all 30,000 nations, just one at max. Mandating that they relinquish some rights is some serious tight loophole-exploitation. If you want to exploit it, you have to live with the bumps you get.

Or reject the resolution, which is what I hope, but don't actually expect, will happen.

Unfortunately the majority of debaters seem to feel that the only way to protect their copyright is to force them on everyone else, rather than eliciting an agreement to repsect copyrights from other nations while being free to have none in our own borders.

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Your quote is from the United States Constitution. The Congress in question has set their copyright term for twice as long as mandated in this proposal, and it has not been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, therefore it most likely fits what the Constitution talks about. So that argument doesn't hold much water.


OOC: I did not complain that excessive copyright was unconstitional under US law. The constitution requires that copyright be temporary, but it has been ruled constitional for congress to extend copyright duration to eternity, as long as they only do it a few years at a time.

The reason copyright duration is so high in the US is because of the lobbying by Disney, pure and simple. That, and they have faced no significant opposition.

It just wasn't that big a deal before the digital age, so no groups rose up to oppose Disney.

The actual case where it was ruled constitional to extend copyright perpetually was Eldred v. Ashcroft, and it's also a turning point in the opposition to excessive copyright duration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft

That has now changed. Eric Eldred is one of the leading figures opposed to the excessive copyright duration in the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Eldred
"
He is a founder and director of Creative Commons. He is an independent scholar and avid reader of Nathaniel Hawthorne's works. He is now on disability and lived in an Internet Bookmobile traveling the U.S. visiting schools and libraries and special events to show readers how to print their own free books. The Bookmobile can be invited to visit a particular location at [1], although Eldred is no longer driving it.

In 2004, Eldred was denied a permit at Walden Pond State Reservation to print and give away free copies of Walden on the 150th anniversary of its publication. In 2005. Eldred returned with a permit, secured with the help of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, to print and give away copies of the book, and to demonstrate to readers how to self-publish and regain control of their own culture.
"

If your sole argument for excessive copyright is that nations in RL such as the US also have excessive copyright then I would like to remind you that NS is not attempting to reproduce RL mistakes.

OOC: I did not complain that excessive copyright was unconstitional under US law. The constitution requires that copyright be temporary, but it has been ruled constitional for congress to extend copyright duration to eternity, as long as they only do it a few years at a time.

The reason copyright duration is so high in the US is because of the lobbying by Disney, pure and simple. That, and they have faced no significant opposition.

It just wasn't that big a deal before the digital age, so no groups rose up to oppose Disney.

The actual case where it was ruled constitional to extend copyright perpetually was Eldred v. Ashcroft, and it's also a turning point in the opposition to excessive copyright duration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft

That has now changed. Eric Eldred is one of the leading figures opposed to the excessive copyright duration in the US
Well, we're not planning on extending it here. If you want to keep it at 30 years forever, go ahead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Eldred
"
He is a founder and director of Creative Commons. He is an independent scholar and avid reader of Nathaniel Hawthorne's works. He is now on disability and lived in an Internet Bookmobile traveling the U.S. visiting schools and libraries and special events to show readers how to print their own free books. The Bookmobile can be invited to visit a particular location at [1], although Eldred is no longer driving it.

In 2004, Eldred was denied a permit at Walden Pond State Reservation to print and give away free copies of Walden on the 150th anniversary of its publication. In 2005. Eldred returned with a permit, secured with the help of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, to print and give away copies of the book, and to demonstrate to readers how to self-publish and regain control of their own culture.
"
I'm all for authors releasing their works for the public. I don't support extending copyrights like Disney keeps trying to get the US gov to do, and I support people campaigning for authors releasing their copyrights. However, there are cases where a person needs copyright in order to make a profit, and that option needs to be open to them.

If your sole argument for excessive copyright is that nations in RL such as the US also have excessive copyright then I would like to remind you that NS is not attempting to reproduce RL mistakes.
I've debated for upwards of 10 pages with you about copyright, and this is probably only the second or third time I've cited RL. That's not my sole argument.
Unfortunately the majority of debaters seem to feel that the only way to protect their copyright is to force them on everyone else, rather than eliciting an agreement to repsect copyrights from other nations while being free to have none in our own borders.
Ausserland can answer that better than I can, but basically the reason we do it this way is because we need jurisdiction of place: the law of the place you are doing something applies to that place. Otherwise, artists would all move to nations that had huge copyright terms, and it's hard to tell exactly where something is published anyway.

Well, we're not planning on extending it here. If you want to keep it at 30 years forever, go ahead.


For many nations, this an extension. What is the purpose of such a long duration for copyright? Surely a copyright of 20 years from the date of creation (one regular human generation) would be enough to satisfy the goal of encouraging art and science. How does a longer duration serve the interests of anyone but the corporate interests holding onto old IP?

I'm quoting bits from another thread here, as requested:

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.

For many nations, this an extension. What is the purpose of such a long duration for copyright? Surely a copyright of 20 years from the date of creation (one regular human generation) would be enough to satisfy the goal of encouraging art and science. How does a longer duration serve the interests of anyone but the corporate interests holding onto old IP?

Why should creative Elves be limited to one human generation for their rights? ;)

Why should creative Elves be limited to one human generation for their rights? ;)

As I understood it, art cycles even faster in Elven culture, making 20 years more then sufficient for copyright duration. I think it is a mistake to ever tie copyright durations to lifespan, especially when you are talking about enforcing a law in one country A, based on the lifespan of citizens in country B.

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.

This is frankly too absurd to deserve a response, but we'll respond anyway. If the representative of Discoraversalism had the slightest clue about marketing, he'd know that copyright does not affect distribution cost. It's a production cost. And authors seek relationships with publishers simply because the publishers have established the mechanisms for effective production and distribution. That has nothing to do with copyright.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

This is frankly too absurd to deserve a response, but we'll respond anyway. If the representative of Discoraversalism had the slightest clue about marketing, he'd know that copyright does not affect distribution cost. It's a production cost. And authors seek relationships with publishers simply because the publishers have established the mechanisms for effective production and distribution. That has nothing to do with copyright.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I'm glad you caught that before I did, Ms. Ahlmann. I might have been rude in a response.

Disco, that is entirely irrelevant.

I know very little about copyrights, and for a long while was against them because I just saw them as a tool used by the greedy to rake in money, but a scenario I just thought through is making me rethink that position.

I believe in the free distribution of information, hence my dislike of copyrights, but copyrights can do as much to protect free distribution as hamper it.

If I wrote a book, and decided to distribute it free of charge to anyone who wanted a copy, without making a profit on it myself, then copyrighting it would prevent some greedy sod putting their own name on it and selling my work just to make money. Pretty simplistic I know, but it has made me change my mind about this proposal and I'll be voting for when it gets to the floor.

This is frankly too absurd to deserve a response, but we'll respond anyway. If the representative of Discoraversalism had the slightest clue about marketing, he'd know that copyright does not affect distribution cost. It's a production cost. And authors seek relationships with publishers simply because the publishers have established the mechanisms for effective production and distribution. That has nothing to do with copyright.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

There is no market in copyright societies to bring down distribution costs. No one is competing with anyone else to produce the cheapest version of Young Boy goes to Wizard School. There is no innovation in the industry, because there is no demand for innovation. Reducing distribution costs from $.50 to $.49 will have little impact when the price of the book is inflated to $10.00 by copyright. Monopolies always result in such distortions, decreasing innovation.

It is phenomenally difficult to determine every way copyright has an impact on marketing. The closest RL example I can think of would be comparing the way Linux is marketed to the way Unix is marketed.

I know very little about copyrights, and for a long while was against them because I just saw them as a tool used by the greedy to rake in money, but a scenario I just thought through is making me rethink that position.

I believe in the free distribution of information, hence my dislike of copyrights, but copyrights can do as much to protect free distribution as hamper it.

If I wrote a book, and decided to distribute it free of charge to anyone who wanted a copy, without making a profit on it myself, then copyrighting it would prevent some greedy sod putting their own name on it and selling my work just to make money. Pretty simplistic I know, but it has made me change my mind about this proposal and I'll be voting for when it gets to the floor.

How is the Geedy Sod doing anyone any harm? You were giving the book away anyway. If people choose to purchase Greedy Sods version instead of taking your free version the Greedy Sod must be improving on the process somehow.

More distribution of art increases an artists reputation, and profitability.

If greedy sod is taking credit and profit for work he didn't do, then he is doing harm to the person who did do the work and decided to share it for nothing more than recognition and a pat on the back.

A RL example of this is a person who made a clone verion of one of the early Mario games just because he loved the game and wanted a PC version. He sort of released it as freeware. Another couple of bright sparks found the program, put their own names on it, and began to sell it. People bought it thinking the original free version was the copy, its amazing what effect a flashy site can have. When the original programmer discovered what was going on, he quickly made and released a better version for free, but the damage has been done. The paid for copy did lose some sales, but last time I checked (over a year ago) was still available.

If greedy sod is taking credit and profit for work he didn't do, then he is doing harm to the person who did do the work and decided to share it for nothing more than recognition and a pat on the back.

A RL example of this is a person who made a clone verion of one of the early Mario games just because he loved the game and wanted a PC version. He sort of released it as freeware. Another couple of bright sparks found the program, put their own names on it, and began to sell it. People bought it thinking the original free version was the copy, its amazing what effect a flashy site can have. When the original programmer discovered what was going on, he quickly made and released a better version for free, but the damage has been done. The paid for copy did lose some sales, but last time I checked (over a year ago) was still available.

As we have discussed at great length in the prior copyright threads, you are confusing issues related to intellectual protectionism with issues related to plagiarism.

Our society does not support this legislation, but we strongly abhor plagiarism. Artists depend on receiving credit for their work. It is vital that anyone duplicating the work of another give credit where credit is due.

We don't rely on any form of legislation to protect our citizens from plagiarism, but we wouldn't care too much if the UN enacted laws to prevent such. (Reputation is of paramoutn importance in our society, and plagiarism destroy's the reputation of the violator, and any knowing accomplice).

As long no plagiarism is commited, then any referencing or duplicating an artists work merely serves to spread said artists reputation, and thereby increases their profitability.

I'm thoroughly convinced. Maybe I won't go so far as to say that you don't know what you're talking about, but I will say that I don't know what you're talking about. Your notions are absurd.

I imagine you've never produced something of value and had it put out to the public without protecting it from theft of authorship.

There are several bands I know who have music (damn good music) that was stolen from them because they did not copyright it before sharing their demos. It would be nice if copyrights weren't needed, but it's clear that there are people who profit from stealing the work of others. Copyrights are necessary. I know I'd be all sorts of pissed off if my published writings were taken, someone's name put on them.

I'm thoroughly convinced. Maybe I won't go so far as to say that you don't know what you're talking about, but I will say that I don't know what you're talking about. Your notions are absurd.

I imagine you've never produced something of value and had it put out to the public without protecting it from theft of authorship.

There are several bands I know who have music (damn good music) that was stolen from them because they did not copyright it before sharing their demos. It would be nice if copyrights weren't needed, but it's clear that there are people who profit from stealing the work of others. Copyrights are necessary. I know I'd be all sorts of pissed off if my published writings were taken, someone's name put on them.

I've been getting this a lot. Many people grew up in a culture where copyright is the norm. They feel they somehow can own a series of 1's and 0's. From there it is a small step to feel they should be able to own said information for their entire lifetime. From there it is a small step to increase the duration, ad infinitum.

Growing up in this atmosphere it can be hard to see the problems with copyright. Simply put, it is government interferences in the market, attempting to grant a monopoly over a product. From that perspective it is a bit easier to see the problems it can cause.

I have received responses of total incomprehension of the alternatives to copyright many times, so I have been trying to compile a list of links. I have shared the best on the various UN threads dedicated to this proposal. I also made a stillborn attempt at offering some competive amendments to the proposal. Once can check out those threads. Our nation has also established some resources related to this on going debate:

http://community.livejournal.com/discorapolitic/7621.html
http://community.livejournal.com/discorapolitic/7272.html

Many of the links I have compiled on those pages are from an online encyclopedia whose name I should not mention if we wish to avoid further moderator action.

As to my personal works, I often sign them with this tag (or something similar):
"This e2 author added his original work (this writeup) to the public domain. Please consider doing likewise :)"
(works on e2 are assumed to be held under copyright, so if I want my work to be included in a public domain project I have to add this tag).

For your specific example, I would say the bands fell victim to the copyright system. It appears someone else made a false claim of credit for their work, and secured the copyright before they could.

In Discoraversalist society, the claim of original authorship could easily be backed up by showing where it was first submitted to the net. If someone else was to use or duplicate your work without properly citing the source, and this was made known, their reputation would plummet. We have found it very easy to track and maintain reputation in the digital age :)

We do consider plagiarism to be akin to theft. There is a deception involved, wherein one claims responsibility for the work of another. However if the source is properly cited, there is no need for duplication to involve any form of deception.

In Discoraversalist society, the claim of original authorship could easily be backed up by showing where it was first submitted to the net. If someone else was to use or duplicate your work without properly citing the source, and this was made known, their reputation would plummet. We have found it very easy to track and maintain reputation in the digital age :)
When you can use the internet under a bazillion different usernames, it's actually quite hard for someone to maintain a reputation. Not to mention that probably more than half the people involved won't take the time to research the "author".

When you can use the internet under a bazillion different usernames, it's actually quite hard for someone to maintain a reputation. Not to mention that probably more than half the people involved won't take the time to research the "author".

I'm not sure how you choose the next book you read, the next game you play, the next song you listen to. I usually try to follow the works of an artist whose works I have enjoyed previously. I quite often use a website whose name I cannot mention, or google, to look up an artist, go to their home page, see what they are currently working, discuss their works on forums, etc.

I have friends who don't do so, but they often come to me and ask me to recommend books :) I have other friends who are more interested in music, I go to them when I'm trying to decide what new cd to listen to when I go on a long car trip.

I also often go places like IMDB, or to a game websites to see reviews of games.

How is it hard to maintain a reputation? I admit it is easy to start over with a new identity, if you choose.

I admit it is easy to start over with a new identity, if you choose.
In other words, if you plagiarize something, that bad reputation can just be whisked away.

In other words, if you plagiarize something, that bad reputation can just be whisked away.

That is a good point. On the other hand, you haven't really accomplished much by plagiarizing the person in the first place. You clearly haven't built any reputation :) If word gets out then the proper artist will eventually get the credit for the work, increasing their reputation.

It is very hard to profit from plagiarism in our society. Artists without any reputation do have trouble making money. Typically artists in our society start out by working for commission, or simply creating art for the joy of it. Only after an artist has an established reputation do they find themselves well able to profit from their work.

Is it different in societies with intellectual protectionism? Is plagiarism profitable?

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.

I've already tried to answer this on this thread. It didn't seem right to quote someone from an old thread on a new thread, so I posted on the old thread. Apparently people kill threads here pretty quickly, so I reposted said post here, people expressed disbelief and I explained it.

P.S. 'The Most Glorious Hack' I don't seem to be able to message or email you directly, should I just use the admin request tool to try to do so? I was originally just going to refer you to my pre existing reply.

Still this is a great excuse to elaborate further :)

Without copyright it is much easier to print on demand. The demand for print on demand is much higher :) The web handles the "distribution" the book store can print your book in a matter of minutes, voila.

The reason this doesn't appear in copy "protected" regimes is that the legal compelexities make such a service much more difficult to implement.

Distribution is phenomenally easier without copyright. It's virtually a non issue. Again, this is the digital era. We don't really consider the web magic, or printers asses. Many things just seem magically easy without society being handicapped by millions of government imposed monopolies.

I'm baffled.

I think the main problem I still have with this is the one I can't circumvent via crafty loophole exploitation. That is, the all-or-nothing nature of the copyrights being mandated. As stated before, I'm all for authorship rights, profit for artists and suchlike, but against the commercial exploitation for corporate profit. My IC copyright law system reflects this and does not recognise publisher's copyright; the copyright of the published work belongs to the artists and they contract with the publisher for mutual benefit, granting the publisher rights to distribute, take x% of the revenue, etc. but with the power weighted heavily towards the artist, who can yank the licence at any time.

Therefore it's the mandating of the form copyrights must take that I'm having the problem with. We can't have that arrangement any more, it would seem. Either we restrict copyrights so much that everything is public domain, or we have to accept this system.

I fail to see how this Proposal forces the poor, downtrodden, starving, and/or suffering artists -- who want nothing more than to make the world a more beautiful place -- to transfer their rights to publishers.

Perhaps you could point to the clause that says "If artists wish to enter into a contract with a publisher, they must relinquish all rights to their work." I'm seeing the opposite:

"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."

So, you know, if the artist doesn't sell his rights to the publisher, the evil, baby-eating exploiter of virgins and purity can't make that world-destroying profit that will doom us all to a horrible nasty death, with sharp, pointy teeth.

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

I've explained this before. In many real-world copyright systems, the publisher has a copyright. In the case of music, the record company owns the copyright on the recorded form of the song. Publisher owns copyright on the printed book. Hence Sony Music, and not Britney Spears, files the copyright lawsuits. Now, it's not defined, but-

Oh wait. How silly of me. Never mind then. Let's get drunk.

Yes, except this isn't "The Real World". I hear it's a popular game, though. My kids play it all the time.

Ahem.

Now, I was going to go on about the signifigance of this, but I see I don't have to. Bring on the booze.

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

Hmm... Copyright, copyright... can't we just let the artists starve? ~ Lady Faren

As I've explained before, we can't. Besides, it could also cover your control over the Ennish Shandy. ~ Stephanie Fulton

Perhaps so. That means we could just get rid of the Lantari Supply Act... Clears up a lot of problems. Alright, FOR. ~ Lady Faren

Lady Yssandra Faren, Triumvir of Enn

Stephanie Fulton, UN Consul for Enn

I'm baffled.

Ok how is this. Why is a long copyright duration considered an appropriate intervention in the market? What makes a long copyright, a government granted monopoly, good for the economy? Don't most capitalists argue against government, (let alone UN) intervention into the market? Excessive copyright causes the same problems monopoly always causes, decreased competition, decreased innovation, etc.

Ok how is this. Why is a long copyright duration considered an appropriate intervention in the market? What makes a long copyright, a government granted monopoly, good for the economy? Don't most capitalists argue against government, (let alone UN) intervention into the market? Excessive copyright causes the same problems monopoly always causes, decreased competition, decreased innovation, etc.

I don't get why you keep bringing up monopolies, this is a copyright, not a patent. There are no goods being monopolized, there are works of creative and artistic value being protected from authorage theft. It isn't some economic sinkhole that people can't rip off other people's artistic and creative works. There's nothing to innovate, it's a publication, or a piece of art, not a new invention. There is nothing to compete for, this is about artistic expression and the author's protection, not a new engine idea, not a scientific breakthrough, your concern is for patents not copyrights.

A monopoly? I create 100 recipes and compile them into a cookbook. I copyright it and have it published. 235 others do the same thing. There are now 236 competing cookbooks on the market. And copyright gave me a monopoly? Only on the fruits of my own labor and creativity and the money and effort invested by my publisher in bringing my one piece of intellectual property to the public. No decreased competition. No decreased innovation.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I don't get why you keep bringing up monopolies, this is a copyright, not a patent. There are no goods being monopolized, there are works of creative and artistic value being protected from authorage theft. It isn't some economic sinkhole that people can't rip off other people's artistic and creative works. There's nothing to innovate, it's a publication, or a piece of art, not a new invention. There is nothing to compete for, this is about artistic expression and the author's protection, not a new engine idea, not a scientific breakthrough, your concern is for patents not copyrights.

They are similar issues but I don't see where I have confused one for the other.

Copyright is certainly a government granted monopoly.
"In economics, a monopoly (from the Latin word monoplium - Greek language Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service."
(unmentionable source)

For music, copyright results in one corporation having a monopoly over a song. This prevents innovation by increasing distribution costs, increasing legal costs, and preventing other artists from reusing the work. Ideally, distributors would be competing to distribute a song at the lowest unit price (the natural result these days would be distributing the song at near zero prices over the web).

The issue of copyright and patent get blurred in the case of software. It's typically very difficult to patent software techniques, but easy to copyright a software product.

The goal of copyright is to encourage innovation in art. The goal of patent is to encourage innovation in inventions or processes. I have carefully tried not to tread into a discussion of patents, as they are not discussed under this resolution.

There are many costs associated with copyright. Many of them occur because copyright is a form of monopoly. Some of the costs are deliberate: artificially high prices. Others are unfortunatey side affects: deadweight losses.

This legislation would mandate these side affects be applied to the entire UN. I have been told this is not a national sovereignity issue but I have trouble understanding why not. It seems clearly to be an attempt to force some nations concept of how artists should produce goods and make a living, on all UN nations, regardless of their current institutions, practices, beliefs, legal system, etc..

Who benefits? For the last umpteenth years our country has effectively placed it's entire creative product into the public domain. Other nations have been free to use our artists products to innovate their own products (we have requested that other countries cite their sources properly). Because of this, many of our artists have achieved a disproportionately high level of fame. They make a good living on commisions, advertisements, public appearances, etc. We don't depend on teams of copyright lawyers to sue groups infringing on our IP, nor do we depend on teams of laywers to OK each new creative work we produce.

I believe the real winners are the large corporations in copyright regimes that already devote significant portions of their efforst to buying and selling IP, engaged in legal broils with armies of laywers, and generally discouraging competition.

As we understand it these corporations spend a great deal of their money on marketing their art. In our culture, the art is freely distributed, and serves as "marketing" for the artist.

Were we to try and comply fully with the resolution, our Electronica industry would dissapear from it's pride of place in the mainstream of our culture. It would be forced underground, our electronica artists unable to legally give away many of their works.

Will this law be retroactive? Will we be forced to start tracking when everyone person on the planent died so that we can again start innovating on their works as has been our national passtime?

Copyright is certainly a government granted monopoly.
"In economics, a monopoly (from the Latin word monoplium - Greek language Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service."
(unmentionable source) [Emphasis added]


If the representative of Discoraversalism is going to quote a definition, he should try reading it first. Copyright gives me exclusive rights to control my specific product, not a kind of product. If, in my example above, copyright gave me exclusive rights to market cookbooks, it would be a legal monopoly. It simply isn't, no matter how much the representative would like to twist the meaning of monopoly.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

A monopoly? I create 100 recipes and compile them into a cookbook. I copyright it and have it published. 235 others do the same thing. There are now 236 competing cookbooks on the market. And copyright gave me a monopoly? Only on the fruits of my own labor and creativity and the money and effort invested by my publisher in bringing my one piece of intellectual property to the public. No decreased competition. No decreased innovation.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We don't claim that copyright eliminates all form of competition. The market is very good at adapted to handicaps placed before it.

You weren't granted a government monopoly on all cookbooks. What likely occurred was you sold the rights to your cookbook to a corporation, and at that point said corporation was the only one who could produce your cookbook. (IE they had a monopoly on said cookbook). They set the price for said cookbook, they strictly determined the distribution channels available. So the only way the book gets sold is at major book stores, with little innovation in the whole distribution process at all.

Often in cases such as these, a single cookbook rises to the top of the market, the Alpha cookbook. Whichever corporation happens to own that cookbook's IP has struck gold. At that point they start carefully scrutinizing the other cookbooks, ready to sue at the slightest hint another cookbook has duplicated one of their recipes. Meanwhile other artists will produce new competing cookbooks that will be imitations of the Alpha Cookbook. They will engage in a form of deception where they carefully construct their imitation in such a way that they don't violate any copyright law, but construct a cookbook as similar to the Alpha Cookbook.

Without copyright this is all much simpler. If you want to compete with the Alpha Cookbook you just add more recipes to it, or improve on the existing ones. There is no need to pretend your recipe idea wasn't a copy of a recipe from the Alpha Cookbook with the only change being the addition of Cilantro.

We fail to see how the publisher is a necessary part of the operation. We don't need their team of lawyers. The web handles the bulk of the distribution, and the cookbooks market themselves. With a greater amount of IP in the public domain businesses and services spring up to cheaply produce the public content.

Most of our cookbook author's are chef's themselves. Their cookbooks serve as advertisements for their restaurant, catering service, culinary academy, etc.

If the representative of Discoraversalism is going to quote a definition, he should try reading it first. Copyright gives me exclusive rights to control my specific product, not a kind of product. If, in my example above, copyright gave me exclusive rights to market cookbooks, it would be a legal monopoly. It simply isn't, no matter how much the representative would like to twist the meaning of monopoly.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

This semantic argument seems pointless. Cookbook is a kind. Cookbooks written by a specific author in Ausserland with the title "An Ausserland Cookbook" is a kind.

Have you really never heard a copyright described as a monopoly before?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly#Intellectual_property_protection

This semantic argument seems pointless. Cookbook is a kind. Cookbooks written by a specific author in Ausserland with the title "An Ausserland Cookbook" is a kind.

Have you really never heard a copyright described as a monopoly before?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly#Intellectual_property_protection
If you read the rest of the section you quoted, it says that copyrights are given for completely different reasons. Copyright doesn't reduce competition, it only makes sure that the normal principles that govern the market also govern IP. In a way, it actually increases competition: by keeping people from selling each other's work, it prompts people to write their own work. This means there are more competing cookbooks on the market all competiting. This will prompt authors to put a lot of effort into writing the best cookbook, meaning that we as a society get a better cookbook.

Robert Bobson
Exasperated UN Officer

If you read the rest of the section you quoted, it says that copyrights are given for completely different reasons. Copyright doesn't reduce competition, it only makes sure that the normal principles that govern the market also govern IP. In a way, it actually increases competition: by keeping people from selling each other's work, it prompts people to write their own work. This means there are more competing cookbooks on the market all competiting. This will prompt authors to put a lot of effort into writing the best cookbook, meaning that we as a society get a better cookbook.

Robert Bobson
Exasperated UN Officer

Copyright does promote certain activities. We do not deny that copyright has some positive aspects. It does promote people making cheap knockoffs instead of duplicates, or transparent alterations. It does promote competition in some places, and prohibit competition in others.

We think it is important that each country examine their society. They need to determine how copyright encourages some parts of their industry, while discouraging others. From their they should do a cost benefits analysis and determine what duration of copyright is most suitable to them. (We find it unlikely that a duration higher then 20 years will be helpful to any countries, but we are sure that it is too high for many).

We have found that the best cookbook is typically constructed by agknowledging the cookbooks that have come before, taking what is best from, them, and trying to improve them. They are collobaritive works, over generations. Coypright makes such collabarions harder. Most cookbook authors in copyright regimes have sold the rights to their cookbooks away. As such they can't donate portions of their cookbook to other cookbooks even if they want to. Copyright balkanizes many industries, resulting in a small number of large corporations dominating, and discouraging competition.

Anything that raises costs, such as copyright, raises the barriers to entry.

Copyright does promote certain activities. We do not deny that copyright has some positive aspects. It does promote people making cheap knockoffs instead of duplicates, or transparent alterations.
And who will buy a cheap knockoff over a good, thought-out version? Copyright forces authors to do some work and improve our society with original content in order to profit.
It does promote competition in some places, and prohibit competition in others.
The only competition it prohibits is competition between different people publishing the exact same work. That competition does not further our society intellectually, which copyright does.

We think it is important that each country examine their society. They need to determine how copyright encourages some parts of their industry, while discouraging others. From their they should do a cost benefits analysis and determine what duration of copyright is most suitable to them. (We find it unlikely that a duration higher then 20 years will be helpful to any countries, but we are sure that it is too high for many.
And those copyrights won't mean squat outside national boundaries, which is why it's imperative that the UN step in and harmonize copyrights.

We have found that the best cookbook is typically constructed by agknowledging the cookbooks that have come before, taking what is best from, them, and trying to improve them. They are collobaritive works, over generations. Coypright makes such collabarions harder. Most cookbook authors in copyright regimes have sold the rights to their cookbooks away. As such they can't donate portions of their cookbook to other cookbooks even if they want to. Copyright balkanizes many industries, resulting in a small number of large corporations dominating, and discouraging competition.
It's not collaborative if one party doesn't agree to it. There's nothing in here that says you can't take ideas from other texts, just that you can't take exact or very similar wording.

Anything that raises costs, such as copyright, raises the barriers to entry.
Copyright doesn't raise costs, except for people who just copy other peoples' work. It costs the same to write a book with or without copyright. Admittedly, it does cost more to take someone else's work and profit from it, and that cost may involve some hefty fines or restitution, but otherwise, it doesn't raise costs. (It does raise prices, but otherwise the prices would be close to zero, so it doesn't really raise them as much as ensure that the authors get fair remuneration for their work.)

Discoraversalism, I think you're doing more damage to the against argument than you are to the for argument, so much so I sometimes wonder whose side you're on.

The whole cookbook example is completely crazy. There are only so many recipes, sure, but the way in which they are presented, etc. can be very different, and that's what is really copyrighted. Think of how Jamie Oliver got popular. Anyone can go on TV and tell you how to, say, make an Italian tomato soup. But it's his personality and the way he presents his show that makes the difference over some boring old woman deadpanning, "Now we cut the tomatoes... Set the stove to medium heat..." Recipes themselves are indeed built upon what goes before, but they really aren't the issue when cookbook copyrights are in play.

does not further our society intellectually, which copyright does.

Oh, please. Society was being furthered intellectually long before anyone thought of copyright. Some of the artistic masterpieces we still are in awe of today were created in a world without copyright. I appreciate you're making a point to him, but the fact is, the effect of copyright on the intellectual development of society is debatable at best.

OOC: I know I said that I was leaving this discussion but I can't let this go unchallenged.
We don't claim that copyright eliminates all form of competition. The market is very good at adapted to handicaps placed before it.
IC: If the market is so good at adapting to handicaps (which you seem to think copyright is) then why don't you think that the market in your country can't adapt to having to be under copyright?

Simon Sais
Trade Advisor to the Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Oh, please. Society was being furthered intellectually long before anyone thought of copyright. Some of the artistic masterpieces we still are in awe of today were created in a world without copyright. I appreciate you're making a point to him, but the fact is, the effect of copyright on the intellectual development of society is debatable at best.

One of the pioneers of hydraulics suffered from lack of copyright. His own father rewrote his book and predated it to take the credit.

Whether or not copyright has an effect, positive or negative, on intellectual development, I know it does have an effect on accuracy.



Disco, I'm fully convinced that you are just clinging to your sinking ship. You're spitballing these ideas about copyrights and monopolies, and how somehow being able to use other peoples' artistic works without any sort of payment or reprocussion is a good thing, and it makes me think that you're just arguing for the sake of argument.

Personally, I prefer Kickback Cookbooks...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Off Playing Another Game...
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

For the last umpteenth years our country has effectively placed it's entire creative product into the public domain. Other nations have been free to use our artists products to innovate their own products (we have requested that other countries cite their sources properly)

This presumes that other nations' artists are as eager to use the work of your nation's artists as vice versa, which remains unproven. I've just had a quick survey carried out in St Edmund, and most of our musicians regard the 'Electronica' to which you've referred as -- to quote the current head of the Musicians' Guild, Alfreda Witherspoon -- "a second-rate 'art-form', produced mainly by second-rate musicians who are incapable of true creation"...

snip...

The only competition it prohibits is competition between different people publishing the exact same work. That competition does not further our society intellectually, which copyright does.

snip...

Copyright doesn't raise costs, except for people who just copy other peoples' work. It costs the same to write a book with or without copyright. Admittedly, it does cost more to take someone else's work and profit from it, and that cost may involve some hefty fines or restitution, but otherwise, it doesn't raise costs. (It does raise prices, but otherwise the prices would be close to zero, so it doesn't really raise them as much as ensure that the authors get fair remuneration for their work.)

The artificial increase in prices keeps the price well away from the unit cost. When prices are closer to the unit cost any decrease in cost becomes much more significant. Markets perform best when competition reduces the unit cost.

I don't see any copyright regimes rushing towards digital distribution. They just don't have to. They'd rather be selling a product with a seemingly high cost (a hardcover book, for example), then selling said product digitally. The result is a deadweight loss, (this is normally considered a bad thing in economics, hence the name).

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

Simply put, copyright results in a good being under produced. Many individuals could be made better off without others being made worse off.

That's basically another way of saying that copyright results in Pareto inneficiency:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

And again, we are not trying to prove that no country in the UN should use copyright. We are trying to prove some countries should be allowed to continue without copyright, and other countries should be free to experiment with the form and duration of their copyright system. This legislation is a straightjacket.


IC: If the market is so good at adapting to handicaps (which you seem to think copyright is) then why don't you think that the market in your country can't adapt to having to be under copyright?

Simon Sais
Trade Advisor to the Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Unfortunately everything that does not kill a market does not make it stronger. We could go back a step, leave the digital era, and return to this feudal copyright concept where we depend on the king to tell us what is valid art and what is not. We'd much rather not.

This presumes that other nations' artists are as eager to use the work of your nation's artists as vice versa, which remains unproven. I've just had a quick survey carried out in St Edmund, and most of our musicians regard the 'Electronica' to which you've referred as -- to quote the current head of the Musicians' Guild, Alfreda Witherspoon -- "a second-rate 'art-form', produced mainly by second-rate musicians who are incapable of true creation"...

We have always suspected this legislation was designed to encourage the specific art local to copyright regimes :) To each his own, I hope.


You're spitballing these ideas about copyrights and monopolies, and how somehow being able to use other peoples' artistic works without any sort of payment or reprocussion is a good thing, and it makes me think that you're just arguing for the sake of argument.

In our society, using another artists art increases the original artists reputation, and promotes their art for them, we consider that payment enough. We certainly don't want to 'repercuss' our artists or our distributors, we depend upon this system to build the reputations of our artists. We consider it bizarre to claim to own data contained with art, as all art is built on the art of others. We don't feel the best way for an artist to profit is by the government inflating prices for their goods. There are countless other ways to profit, and with the advent of the digital age the unit price for art should be nearly zero. This just wasn't as big a deal when older distribution models resulted in significantly high prices even before they were inflated by copyright.

I'm sure we appear to be spitballing, our esteemed colleagues found it bizarre to discuss the relationship between copyright and monopoly. We have tried to present an abundance of background material. If one has grown up in a copyright regime it's hard to see the forest for the trees.

Personally, I prefer Kickback Cookbooks...

Gimme a Glacial Grimoire by Gazpacho.




(If you're not referencing KoL, then ignore me.)

In our society, using another artists art increases the original artists reputation, and promotes their art for them, we consider that payment enough. We certainly don't want to 'repercuss' our artists or our distributors, we depend upon this system to build the reputations of our artists. We consider it bizarre to claim to own data contained with art, as all art is built on the art of others. We don't feel the best way for an artist to profit is by the government inflating prices for their goods. There are countless other ways to profit, and with the advent of the digital age the unit price for art should be nearly zero. This just wasn't as big a deal when older distribution models resulted in significantly high prices even before they were inflated by copyright.

A copyright prevents people from taking someone else's work, sticking their name on it, and marketing it as their own. Where in the hell are you getting this idea that the government is inflating prices? What in the crap does distribution have to do with anything? Copyright = Joe Schmo can't write his name on Joe Schlubb's artwork and steal it. Cuz that wouldn't do anything good for Joe Schmo at all. It doesn't bolster his reputation, cuz no one knows he did a god damn thing! You must have one trusting ass nation, cuz not even Norderia goes without copyright laws, and we're like, practically hippie commies.

I'm sure we appear to be spitballing,
You really do.

our esteemed colleagues found it bizarre to discuss the relationship between copyright and monopoly. We have tried to present an abundance of background material.
Your background material is just plain wrong. The situations you describe either don't happen, or they ignore everything that copyrights are meant to do. It's great that people can share their art and bolster their reputations, but that's not what copyright's are protecting people against! If someone wants to do what you say they want to do, they can get the freakin' permission from the author! I asked a band to let me use their song in a movie I made, and what did they say? "Sure." Bingo! Copyright didn't prevent that because I got permisssssssion! But when assholes steal a work and sell it for themselves.... COPYRIGHT.

If one has grown up in a copyright regime it's hard to see the forest for the trees.
Oh yes. The great government conspiracy of author protection has blinded us to the evils of copyrights. Our souls have been tainted by inflated distribution fees and the hindering of artist reputation by sharing their work. Will we ever see the light?

Gimme a Glacial Grimoire by Gazpacho.




(If you're not referencing KoL, then ignore me.)



A copyright prevents people from taking someone else's work, sticking their name on it, and marketing it as their own. Where in the hell are you getting this idea that the government is inflating prices? What in the crap does distribution have to do with anything? Copyright = Joe Schmo can't write his name on Joe Schlubb's artwork and steal it. Cuz that wouldn't do anything good for Joe Schmo at all. It doesn't bolster his reputation, cuz no one knows he did a god damn thing! You must have one trusting ass nation, cuz not even Norderia goes without copyright laws, and we're like, practically hippie commies.


You're discussing plagiarism, claiming to have done the work of another. If this was a UN resolution requiring all artistic works to properly cite their sources we wouldn't have nearly such a problem with it.

As I have said many times, Discoraversalist society does not believe in copyright, but we consider plagiarism to be anathema. Plagiarism is a serious problem, that copyright does not solve.


You really do.

Your background material is just plain wrong. The situations you describe either don't happen, or they ignore everything that copyrights are meant to do. It's great that people can share their art and bolster their reputations, but that's not what copyright's are protecting people against! If someone wants to do what you say they want to do, they can get the freakin' permission from the author!



Unfortunately that is simply not true. The result of a copyright regime is the artist being forced to sell the rights to a large corporation. It would often be in the artists interests to collobarate with other artists, let their work be spread about more freely etc. However the corporations have different interests then artists. There are a great many works of art that could make good money if they were put to greater use... but the corporation that owns the IP has set a prohibitively high price.

I understand what copyright is supposed to do... encourage art. I don't deny that done right, copyright does encourage certain art, certain ways. However it is also very easy to do copyright wrong, and excessive copyright duration is an obvious wrong.


I asked a band to let me use their song in a movie I made, and what did they say? "Sure." Bingo! Copyright didn't prevent that because I got permisssssssion! But when assholes steal a work and sell it for themselves.... COPYRIGHT.


Unfortunately this is only possible for independent artists, a great many have been forced to sell the rights to their IP to publishers, distributors, etc. The system is typically stacked against the artist.


Oh yes. The great government conspiracy of author protection has blinded us to the evils of copyrights. Our souls have been tainted by inflated distribution fees and the hindering of artist reputation by sharing their work. Will we ever see the light?

I'm actually not that worried in the long run. It appears the children of most countries understand how art is supposed to work, and are freely trading music over the web :) We're in a transition period now, where the old guard is still trying to apply outdated methods to a new era.

I'm worried about what is going to happen to my nation in the short run. As is my job, as our UN representative.

We understand what copyright was supposed to protect someone against. It was designed in an era when an artist had a very finite market (typically a single town). Reputation mattered to the artist, but it didn't matter as much as being the only guy selling a given thing in a given town.

The world market is significantly bigger now. Reputation plays a greater role. One can afford to let someone else give away the song you have been working years to construct, as long people listening know who wrote the song. If the song is any good, the artists reputation grows, and never in the history of the world has an artist with a strong reputation been unable to make a living. Fame is good :)

P.S. by background material I was referring to the links I have been providing. I try not to pull them out until someone calls the idea's I'm presenting completely ludicrous, or claims X doesn't happen in RL, or whatnot. It's easy to use wikipedia or google to find the arguments against copyright.

You're discussing plagiarism, claiming to have done the work of another. If this was a UN resolution requiring all artistic works to properly cite their sources we wouldn't have nearly such a problem with it.

As I have said many times, Discoraversalist society does not believe in copyright, but we consider plagiarism to be anathema. Plagiarism is a serious problem, that copyright does not solve.
What? Copyright does indeed stop plagiarism, which is taking credit for others' work without their permission. By requiring permission, copyright stops plagiarism.

Unfortunately that is simply not true. The result of a copyright regime is the artist being forced to sell the rights to a large corporation. It would often be in the artists interests to collobarate with other artists, let their work be spread about more freely etc. However the corporations have different interests then artists. There are a great many works of art that could make good money if they were put to greater use... but the corporation that owns the IP has set a prohibitively high price.
How is an artist forced to sell their rights to a corporation? They don't have to do anything.

The world market is significantly bigger now. Reputation plays a greater role. One can afford to let someone else give away the song you have been working years to construct, as long people listening know who wrote the song. If the song is any good, the artists reputation grows, and never in the history of the world has an artist with a strong reputation been unable to make a living. Fame is good :)
Ummm...reputation is harder to spread in a world market, not easier, because the number of people who you have to get to know your reputation is astronomically larger.

Ingrid Paella
UN Office Page

What? Copyright does indeed stop plagiarism, which is taking credit for others' work without their permission. By requiring permission, copyright stops plagiarism.


Alas no. Copyright results in plagiarism disguised just enough to avoid getting sued. Artists are unable to be honest about their sources, because if they were, whoever owns the rights to their sources work may sue them.


How is an artist forced to sell their rights to a corporation? They don't have to do anything.


It is true, no one is holding a gun to the artists head. The problem is, the large corporation holds all the cards. There is no distribution framework setup for the artist that don't sell out, and the few corporate giants in each market work hard to stifle competition. Those independent musicians that do find success tend to do it.... without depending on copyright. They give their songs away on the internet, then make money off of live performances. They are at a comparative disadvantage, since the government is basically funding the large corporations they are competing with, but they can still make a living.


Ummm...reputation is harder to spread in a world market, not easier, because the number of people who you have to get to know your reputation is astronomically larger.

Ingrid Paella
UN Office Page

You don't have to spread your fame to the entire world :) If the work is good it will spread itself anyway. Art, when it isn't handicapped, is viral.

Those independent musicians that do find success tend to do it.... without depending on copyright. They give their songs away on the internet, then make money off of live performances.

Independents do still depend on copyright - so their music isn't plagarised. They might not be into suing people for uploading their MP3s online, and they certainly would like that while the profit-motivated capitalists of the big record companies would not, but I doubt they enjoy plagarism.

Incidentally, your grasp of economics ("deadweight loss is bad because it has a scary name!" "Pareto optimality must be a good thing!") is even more appalling than your arguments overall, which is saying a lot. This isn't an invitation for a thread hijack, by the way.

Gimme a Glacial Grimoire by Gazpacho.

(If you're not referencing KoL, then ignore me.)No, I was. You get 10 points.

Independents do still depend on copyright - so their music isn't plagarised. They might not be into suing people for uploading their MP3s online, and they certainly would like that while the profit-motivated capitalists of the big record companies would not, but I doubt they enjoy plagarism.

Incidentally, your grasp of economics ("deadweight loss is bad because it has a scary name!" "Pareto optimality must be a good thing!") is even more appalling than your arguments overall, which is saying a lot. This isn't an invitation for a thread hijack, by the way.

Perhaps in copyright regimes copyright is an artists only defense against plagiarism. It's a lot easier to prevent people from committing plagiarism then it is to prevent copyright violation though. Preventing plagiarism is not nearly as controversial a topic as copyright.

Copyright results in a given work seeing seeing a significantly smaller audience. That follows as a consequence of the deadweight loss.



I can stay on topic, I'm pretty secure in my understanding of economics. As I understand it these last few copyright threads have only gone off topic when people stopped trying to discuss copyright. Myself, I'd rather have the thread be a bit off topic then dead. But I'm the first to admit, I'm having trouble judging what will bring down the wrath of the majority :)

Soooo if no one responds to a thread for some time is it ok to take it a bit off topic? I think a discussion of deadweight losses and pareto efficiency would be great here. What in tarnation are the rules about threads going off topic? Does the thread creator decide if a thread is on topic? Or are there more rules because this is the UN forum? If a discussion in a UN thread goes off topic where should I start another thread to continue the discussion?

This is an official topic. It will be used for debate of all UN members, starting tomorrow when UNCC comes up for vote. So this should stay on the topic of the proposal at hand.

Alas no. Copyright results in plagiarism disguised just enough to avoid getting sued. Artists are unable to be honest about their sources, because if they were, whoever owns the rights to their sources work may sue them.
Your government can set the threshold for copyvio suing under this resolution, so that shouldn't be a problem.

This is an official topic. It will be used for debate of all UN members, starting tomorrow when UNCC comes up for vote. So this should stay on the topic of the proposal at hand.


Your government can set the threshold for copyvio suing under this resolution, so that shouldn't be a problem.

Wait, so I can set the threshold riculously high :) Soooo this is wallpaper?

Sorry to interrupt whatever discussion you're having, but I have some questions.

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,
What are copyrights good for?
They allow authors and artists control over their work, giving them an incentive to produce more.

So, what incentive could a person have to create art 30 years after his/her death? Why not set the minimum to the time of the authors death? How does a copywrite extending past the authors lifespan help the author in any way? To me, this MINIMUM requirement seems longer than any MAXIMUM should be.


OOC: Just look at pretty much every developed RL nation. And their copyright terms are a lot longer than proposed here.

We're not dealing with real nations, but role-played ones, and in such a case you have to raise the question... Isn't this proposal unfair to those nations with shorter (or extremely longer) lifespans? Wouldn't setting a strict limit (like the 65 years for corporations) make more sense than leaving it open to whenever the author dies?

Sorry to interrupt whatever discussion you're having, but I have some questions.Oh, you aren't. That's what this thread is for.

So, what incentive could a person have to create art 30 years after his/her death? Why not set the minimum to the time of the authors death?Presumably for the artist's estate. So his or her family could continue to receive royalties even when s/he is gone. A cop's family will receive money from the municipality. The artist's family only has royalties to rely on.

Isn't this proposal unfair to those nations with shorter (or extremely longer) lifespans? Wouldn't setting a strict limit (like the 65 years for corporations) make more sense than leaving it open to whenever the author dies?65 years, hmm? Child protegy writes an opera when he's, say, 12. 65 years later, he's 77, but he no longer owns that opera he wrote? This doesn't even require superhuman lifespans; a normal human could outlive their copyright if they earned it young enough. How is it fair to take away their rights, just because they're too old?

Presumably for the artist's estate. So his or her family could continue to receive royalties even when s/he is gone. A cop's family will receive money from the municipality. The artist's family only has royalties to rely on.
It also allows for the artist's family to control who uses the artist's work, as in the RL instance of the family of the late Johnny Cash being able to prevent the song "Ring of Fire" from being used to sell hemorrhoid medication.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Presumably for the artist's estate. So his or her family could continue to receive royalties even when s/he is gone. A cop's family will receive money from the municipality. The artist's family only has royalties to rely on.
Why should the author's estate be entitled to royalties for something they did not create? To me, this is unfair in many cases, since it was not they that created the work. You are entitled to disagree with me of course, and you may want to extend the length of copyright beyond the time of the author’s death, but I do not, and this proposal would force me to do so against my will. If only because of this point, I would have to vote against the proposal.


Child protegy writes an opera when he's, say, 12. 65 years later, he's 77, but he no longer owns that opera he wrote? This doesn't even require superhuman lifespans; a normal human could outlive their copyright if they earned it young enough.
65 years is a long time to earn money from royalties, longer than the amount of years most people work, and in that time any child prodigy would have gone on to write - and copyright - more works. Regardless of what the specific number of years are, 65 - 50 - 80, we are talking about setting a MINIMUM amount, not a maximum, and I contend that the minimum needs to be lowered. You may set your minimum to any length you desire, but I would not like to be forced to set a minimum that is far too long for the authors good. Namely, after they are deceased.


How is it fair to take away their rights, just because they're too old?
I don't believe it is, but I do not believe it's fair for someone to retain their copyright after they are dead. Except for the amazingly rare occasion when a book, movie, or musical piece achieves a truly timeless status, all of these works will decline in use and popularity until they are insignificant. An author’s estate should not always have sole authority over their use. Again, I'm not arguing that you can't do these things in your nation, but I would like my nation to have a chance to differ.

It also allows for the artist's family to control who uses the artist's work, as in the RL instance of the family of the late Johnny Cash being able to prevent the song "Ring of Fire" from being used to sell hemorrhoid medication.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Another case would be the Gershwin estate preventing productions of Porgy and Bess in blackface.

Why should the author's estate be entitled to royalties for something they did not create? To me, this is unfair in many cases, since it was not they that created the work.If I'm killed while at work, my wife gets money from my employer and my union. Do you feel that's appropriate? If so, why? She's not the one working in a dangerous environment; I am. Having a family benefit from the work of a relative after they are deceased is hardly a novel concept.

Damn police and firefighter widows. Leeching money from their dead husbands. Why don't those layabouts get a job?

If I'm killed while at work, my wife gets money from my employer and my union.
Enough money to support herself for 30 years? Depending on the amount of royalties coming in, the family of the author may still have jobs. Your wife however, probably did not have a full-time job if she is entitled to those benefits. Workers' rights acquired by unions cannot be compared to copyright royalties.

Having a family benefit from the work of a relative after they are deceased is hardly a novel concept.
Agreed, but will your employer be sending you checks 30 years after you die? This isn't a case of receiving due compensation for one's work, a mandatory extension of copyright beyond one's death is simply impractical based on the proposal's argument that copyright increases the incentive to produce artworks.

Damn police and firefighter widows. Leeching money from their dead husbands. Why don't those layabouts get a job?
Again, you are talking about something akin to life insurance, where the family is compensated for the loss of a loved one. What I am asking is if the family should be compensated for all of the person's personal copyrighted works long after they die. Moreover, not only if they should be compensated but if they universally deserve such compensation in any circumstance, which is what this proposal puts forth by extending the minimum copyright a full generation beyond one's death.

Enough money to support herself for 30 years?Royalties decrease with time. My aunt was in a movie called 'F.I.S.T.' (you may have heard of it), her royalties were never very high, but were considerably less as time went on. By now, I doubt she gets anything. Likewise, the survivors of an author are unlikely to be getting huge sums of money, and certainly not enough to support themselves, after 30 years. There is also the matter of controlling the work. See the above examples of.. unsavory uses for songs and plays.

Your wife however, probably did not have a full-time job if she is entitled to those benefits.Her income is irrelevent.

Workers' rights acquired by unions cannot be compared to copyright royalties.Really? If nothing, the survivors of artists are more deserving of a cut. I wager Steven King's wife has had far more influence in his work than my wife has had on my work.

This isn't a case of receiving due compensation for one's work, a mandatory extension of copyright beyond one's death is simply impractical based on the proposal's argument that copyright increases the incentive to produce artworks.How is my wife receiving money for my work "due compensation"? We're not talking about my last paycheck for hours worked, we're talking about additional money. If the author's family didn't earn the royalties, then neither would my survivors.

Completely oppose this resolution.


30 years after death? It becomes Open Domain after 30 years of death? Two generations. No less.

It must last two generations or you are enriching robber barons with great profits.





I STRONGLY oppose.

Kill an Artist young enough...and you too can earn his profits.




I CAN'T believe this made it to queue...much less to a vote. 30 years tantamounts to placing a hit against ALL profitable young artists Artists...hell to ALL profitable Artists.

Why should the author's estate be entitled to royalties for something they did not create? To me, this is unfair in many cases, since it was not they that created the work. You are entitled to disagree with me of course, and you may want to extend the length of copyright beyond the time of the author’s death, but I do not, and this proposal would force me to do so against my will. If only because of this point, I would have to vote against the proposal.


The author's estate should be entitled to royalties for something they did not create simply because the person who did create it wanted them to be. Intellectual property is property, just like any other in this regard, and the ownership of that property is secured by copyright. It's something that the creator of the work can leave for his/her heirs. If the representative of Fishyguy will permit an analogy....

A person spends his life in the construction business. He invests his time, energies and talent in building a shopping mall. He dies and leaves the mall to his children. They receive the rents from the mall as long as it's standing. Would the representative argue that there's anything wrong with this?

A person is a biographer. She invests her time, energies and talent in writing biographical books and retains copyright. She dies and leaves the intellectual property to her children. They receive whatever income can be made from the copyright -- but only for 30 years.

The desire to leave something for one's heirs is a very common desire among people. The continuation of copyright for a reasonable time after the death of the author is a means of helping creators of intellectual property do this.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

30 years after death? It becomes Open Domain after 30 years of death? Two generations. No less.Read a little closer. I'll point out what you're missing:

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 authorIf your nation wants two generations, your nation can have two generations.

Overall, this is a good resolution, but there is one point where I have reservations.

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;

The final section "provided that such use does not excessively infringe..." worries me, because it seems to open a backdoor to censorship. If the copyright holder of a work was to say that, for example, a journalistic article citing a work and criticising it or a parody mocking a particular orginal piece of work were undermining the success and profitability of the work, he could legitimately under this resolution (as I see it) claim that this was "unfair use" and then potentially restrict access. This could result in a restriction of cultural creativity and open cultural and critical debate, if used improperly. I'd be glad if someone could address my concerns on this clause.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Marvelland does not agree on this resolution. In our country, we do not enforce any kind of copyright, since we believe that the final balance of copyrights between encouraging and discouraging creativity is for worse.

Copyrights are good for industry, not for artists. Unless one believes that, since in Renaissence no laws protected copyrights, Michelangelo or Leonardo were harmed in their creativity. The fact that most countries do have copyright laws is a circular argument, unless otherwise supported.

On the contrary, their work became inspirational to fellow artists, lacking perhaps their originality, and nurtured the field for new geniuses to come, like Caravaggio or the Flemish. No one but artists was making money on art.

It is hard to argue that the introduction of copyright laws did much for creativity, while it certainly did a lot for building corporations. Otherwise, our time would be the epithome of art, which is certainly not the case (or is it?).

No one but artists was making money on art.
Um... did you miss the entire concept of patronhood when looking at Renaissance art?

And it could be argued that artists such as Leonardo and Michelangelo were harmed in their creativity, as they were required to produce works for commission rather than choosing for themselves what to create.

Overall, this is a good resolution, but there is one point where I have reservations.



The final section "provided that such use does not excessively infringe..." worries me, because it seems to open a backdoor to censorship. If the copyright holder of a work was to say that, for example, a journalistic article citing a work and criticising it or a parody mocking a particular orginal piece of work were undermining the success and profitability of the work, he could legitimately under this resolution (as I see it) claim that this was "unfair use" and then potentially restrict access. This could result in a restriction of cultural creativity and open cultural and critical debate, if used improperly. I'd be glad if someone could address my concerns on this clause.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

We thank the honorable representative of Compadria for expressing his concern. We do not believe that the situations he cites could be considered infringement as that term is used in intellectual property law. While the actions he outlines certainly might diminish the profits of the copyright holder, they would not be an encroachment on them. The critic or parodist might profit from his own work, but he would not be converting the copyright holder's profit potential to his own.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Marvelland does not agree on this resolution. In our country, we do not enforce any kind of copyright, since we believe that the final balance of copyrights between encouraging and discouraging creativity is for worse.

Copyrights are good for industry, not for artists. Unless one believes that, since in Renaissence no laws protected copyrights, Michelangelo or Leonardo were harmed in their creativity. The fact that most countries do have copyright laws is a circular argument, unless otherwise supported.

On the contrary, their work became inspirational to fellow artists, lacking perhaps their originality, and nurtured the field for new geniuses to come, like Caravaggio or the Flemish. No one but artists was making money on art.

It is hard to argue that the introduction of copyright laws did much for creativity, while it certainly did a lot for building corporations. Otherwise, our time would be the epithome of art, which is certainly not the case (or is it?).

To respond the the points in the honorable representative's second paragraph....

We believe that the argument that copyright doesn't help artists because Michelangelo and daVinci prospered without it will not stand up to scrutiny. Those estimable gentlemen created their masterpieces in a technological and sociocultural environment very different from that existing (at least in many NSUN nations) today. The technology of reproduction we have now simply did not exist. Not to be disrespectful, but we think this is like saying we don't need laws on airline safety because they got along fine without them in the Middle Ages.

On the second point, we agree that an argument based solely on the existence of copyright law in mythical RL nations would be circular and lacking validity. However, we see nothing wrong with considering their general acceptance and long standing as one piece of evidence that the concept is a valid, workable one.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We thank the honorable representative of Compadria for expressing his concern. We do not believe that the situations he cites could be considered infringement as that term is used in intellectual property law. While the actions he outlines certainly might diminish the profits of the copyright holder, they would not be an encroachment on them. The critic or parodist might profit from his own work, but he would not be converting the copyright holder's profit potential to his own.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Thank you Minister Olembe, we can now cast our vote for the resolution in good conscience.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The Commonwealth of Mushat will vote against due to the arguement within itself over copyright. It states that copyright law in some countries must protect the rights of the creator ie production, uses etc but elsewhere in the proposal, it says no legal or government entity may reproduce it etc. This may cause an arguement within because if a legal entity or government entity cannot reproduce it under fair trade, then a civilian could. The next thing is that some countries have copyright law and they're not the same copyright law as another country.

Therefore it should be rejected because it is relying on more than one copyright law rather than a universal copyright law upheld by the creator and the UN. Underdeveloped countries with bad administration can't be relied upon to come up with good legislation to protect the creator and so it would be suggested that mickey mouse laws have been created though may not be effective to citizens of more developed countries.

In reply to the honourable delegate from Mushat, we sympathise with his concern over discrepancies in laws between countries. However, the resolution expressly defines the minimum acceptable protection, which we feel is sufficient; thus, if a nations' laws do not provide acceptable protection, the resolution implicitly allows the UN to act against that country, whether through censure, advice or other action, and thus bring their legal system to the acceptable standard.

We do not, however, understand the honourable delegate's concern regarding conflicts between entities. The resolution, we feel, expressly safeguards the copyright holder's interests (which, however, said holder may relinquish or transfer to legal entities), against individuals, legal entities and governments, except under fair use. Thus, unless the copyright holder had expressly permitted it, no entity, government or individual, shall be allowed to reproduce the item. We encourage the delegate to expand the expression of concern, so that we may debate the issue more fully.

The Commonwealth of Mushat will vote against due to the arguement within itself over copyright. It states that copyright law in some countries must protect the rights of the creator ie production, uses etc but elsewhere in the proposal, it says no legal or government entity may reproduce it etc. This may cause an arguement within because if a legal entity or government entity cannot reproduce it under fair trade, then a civilian could.
In clause 1, civilians are included in the definition of "legal entity", so I don't think that's the problem.
The next thing is that some countries have copyright law and they're not the same copyright law as another country.

Therefore it should be rejected because it is relying on more than one copyright law rather than a universal copyright law upheld by the creator and the UN. Underdeveloped countries with bad administration can't be relied upon to come up with good legislation to protect the creator and so it would be suggested that mickey mouse laws have been created though may not be effective to citizens of more developed countries.
This mandates that they create the laws, and compliance is mandatory.

Horace Indigo
Ambassador-at-Large, yo!

Um... did you miss the entire concept of patronhood when looking at Renaissance art?

And it could be argued that artists such as Leonardo and Michelangelo were harmed in their creativity, as they were required to produce works for commission rather than choosing for themselves what to create.

Of course, Renaissance artists did make a living (fortunately), and patrons had "side benefits" in exchange for their support (prestige, usually).
Artists have existed for the whole history, irrespective from copyrights. What could not exist without copyrights is "mass art" industry, whose preservation is hardly as compelling. Arguing that artists were harmed in their creativity due to lack of copyrights would require that in countries and time where copyright exists greater works of original art are found.
Again, is this the case? Or is it the opposite, and industry coerces creativity much more than patronhood or commission ever did?

The nation of Tarandella is AGAINST this resolution. For starters, our nation has copyright laws, thus the intellectual property of artists is proected.

Furthermore, this resolution is nothing more than beaucratic red tape giving the UN permission to get involved in a nation's domestic policies. It should also be noted that copyrights are recognized internationally, whether or not a nation officially has copyright laws in place.

The UN has more important things to worry about, such as establishing peace amongst nations. Policies, such as regulating copyrights, should be kept to the individual nations of the world, as it is their respective citizens who fall directly under copyright laws.

The nation of Tarandella is AGAINST this resolution. For starters, our nation has copyright laws, thus the intellectual property of artists is proected.
Congratulations, this won't force you to change your laws then, unless they are too weak.

Furthermore, this resolution is nothing more than beaucratic red tape giving the UN permission to get involved in a nation's domestic policies. It should also be noted that copyrights are recognized internationally, whether or not a nation officially has copyright laws in place.
Hem hem. What this resolution does is make sure work is protected internationally. Without it, nations can copy work of people in other nations willy-nilly.

The UN has more important things to worry about, such as establishing peace amongst nations. Policies, such as regulating copyrights, should be kept to the individual nations of the world, as it is their respective citizens who fall directly under copyright laws.
But citizens of nations do fall under the copyright laws of other nations, because their work is distributed there. Therefore, copyright is definitely an international issue that should be legislated by the UN.

The nation of Ronclone is inclined to support this resolution even though a delegate used the phrase, "willy nilly".

The nation of Tarandella is AGAINST this resolution. For starters, our nation has copyright laws, thus the intellectual property of artists is proected.

Furthermore, this resolution is nothing more than beaucratic red tape giving the UN permission to get involved in a nation's domestic policies. It should also be noted that copyrights are recognized internationally, whether or not a nation officially has copyright laws in place.

The UN has more important things to worry about, such as establishing peace amongst nations. Policies, such as regulating copyrights, should be kept to the individual nations of the world, as it is their respective citizens who fall directly under copyright laws.

We would commend the nation of Tarandella for properly respecting the property rights of others by having copyright law. But we would direct the representative's attention to the many posts in this thread and the earlier discussions of this topic which clearly show that there are nations which do not. While the government and people of Tarandella are honoring the copyrights of other nations, in some nations the rip-off artists and pirate publishers are happily ignoring Tarandellan copyrights and siphoning off the potential revenues of Tarandellans.. That sort of thing is what this proposal seeks to remedy.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

never in the history of the world has an artist with a strong reputation been unable to make a living.



What about Mozart? He clearly had a strong reputation, but he died a penniless pauper and was buried in a mass grave...

Kapistranostros will vote for the resolution mandating intellectual property legislation in all states, as we see that it is flexible enough to accommodate nuances unique to each nation with regards to the treatment of intellectual creations.

We, however, submit (although amendments, as we understand, might not be accommodated anymore at this stage) that governments must be given the right to store intellectual works in electronic format, for purposes of cataloguing and archiving works, to be used primarily by public prosecutors and courts in cases of intellectual property rights conflict. The government must also be allowed to reserve the right to appropriate copyrighted or patented works for facilitation of "fair use" (e.g. reproduction of books for use in schools, etc.) and for use in emergencies (e.g. reproduction of patented medicines in times of outbreak).

Our nation does not believe in the current framework of intellectual property rights, wherein intellectual creations are primarily treated as economic products for trade instead of social artifacts (in the case of artistic works), where scientific pursuits and inventions are done not in order to contribute to the font of knowledge but to trust accounts.

We see "intellectual property rights" not as civil rights but as investor incentives or privileges. For instance, a research-based pharmaceutical company, who takes into heavy consideration in its business plan the time period before a molecule becomes part of public domain, will heavily benefit from this "right." The primary motivation for the development of these goods will then become profit, not the elimination of disease. We have seen this in recent times, when products made and heavily marketted by certain firms have caused more negative externalities than benefit.

In other instances, we have seen that artists do not benefit from such "rights" as long as other unjust legal infrastructure--such as the current framework of contracts and obligations--exist. A musician, for instance, is forced to sign a contract, penned by a record label, which mandates him to surrender all access and rights to his works and control to all stages of his own creative process. In many instances, the record label only returns 1% to 5% in "royalty" to the artist, while it earns a margin worth millions. More importantly, the artist's creative freedom is at the mercy of the record label's benevolence.

On the other hand, our nation believes that intellectual creations--both scientific and artistic--do not belong to a few legal entities entitled to "intellectual property rights" but to the public domain, with all citizens having access and gaining benefits of such works. By allowing all access and rights to such works, other citizens will then be allowed to improve and develop these works. In the end, this framework will redound to more superior intellectual creations, more beneficial to humanity. We have seen this in the development of open-source software.

In other words, intellectual creation's purpose, we believe, must be centered on the desire of citizens to improve living conditions and contribute to the development of humanity, not on the desire to earn a windfall.

Unfortunately, the global framework on intellectual creations is that works are tradeable properties. Thus, our nation is deeply compelled to sign this convention just in order to protect the economic rights of our own scientists and artists (i.e. so that multinational capitalists will not earn from their products without their consent and without compensation).

We could vote FOR this resolution with the following provisio:

This resolution shall not apply to use of any material, copyrighted or otherwise, for the purpoe of inteligence and analysis so long as said material is used only internally and is not utilized for profit or gain.


As the resolution currently reads any inteligence agency could not use such material, e.g. copy it and include it in a report, and this would be a serious problem.

As an example, many intel agencies use a "daily tickler" that gives an overview of open press reports and may include full articles. Others translate and distribute journals produced in other nations, such as a trade journal or a military affiars journal, for the puroposes of analysis.

On this basis I urge delegates to NOT vote for this resolution as it stands and I unquivicolly state that The Commonwealth of Upadaria will not in any wise feel bind to its provisions when doing so is not in the interest of our inteligence servcies.

Regent Bill C

We could vote FOR this resolution with the following provisio:

This resolution shall not apply to use of any material, copyrighted or otherwise, for the purpoe of inteligence and analysis so long as said material is used only internally and is not utilized for profit or gain.


As the resolution currently reads any inteligence agency could not use such material, e.g. copy it and include it in a report, and this would be a serious problem.

As an example, many intel agencies use a "daily tickler" that gives an overview of open press reports and may include full articles. Others translate and distribute journals produced in other nations, such as a trade journal or a military affiars journal, for the puroposes of analysis.

On this basis I urge delegates to NOT vote for this resolution as it stands and I unquivicolly state that The Commonwealth of Upadaria will not in any wise feel bind to its provisions when doing so is not in the interest of our inteligence servcies.

Regent Bill C
Use for intellegence purposes is fair use, as it is private, which falls under fair use. Obviously, the intel agencies aren't sharing what they have with the public, so it's private. It's also somewhat of a review, although that's kind of a stretch.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

What about Mozart? He clearly had a strong reputation, but he died a penniless pauper and was buried in a mass grave...

My understanding of the specifics of Mozart's life are largely based on a single film I saw, that I am sure took liberties. But as I understand it, he made a great living, and spent a great deal of money. Everyone has a right to spend their last dime whoring and drinking, if they so choose, don't they?

I don't think he would have done better had he sold his rights to some corporate entity, do you?

Liberastan has to vote against for the following reasons:

No UPPER limits for copyright are proposed.

The definition of "fair use" is extremely limited.

Point 5 is entirely subsumed by point 4.

As regards point 6: why is it considered necessary to allow transfer or sale of copyrights? This is entirely counter-productive to the first two goals stated.

Liberastan has to vote against for the following reasons:

No UPPER limits for copyright are proposed.

The definition of "fair use" is extremely limited.

Point 5 is entirely subsumed by point 4.

As regards point 6: why is it considered necessary to allow transfer or sale of copyrights? This is entirely counter-productive to the first two goals stated.

We appreciate the representative of Liberastan's raising his concerns and will try to respond to two of them.

Clauses 4 and 5 address quite different issues. Clause 4 covers licensing; clause 5 covers renunciation of copyright by placing the material in the public domain.

We don't understand why the representative objects to clause 6. Sale of a copyright is one way in which the creator of the material can be compensated for their work. Transfer would cover the common practice of an author's transferring copyright to a book publisher in exchange for agreed-upon royalties. We'd appreciate a more specific description of just what in the proposal this is in conflict with, so we might be able to provide a more satisfactory response.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

My understanding of the specifics of Mozart's life are largely based on a single film I saw, that I am sure took liberties.If you're refering to Amadeus, then "liberties" is something of an understatement. Might wish to start here (http://www.mozartproject.org/essays/brown.html). And from a timeline elsewhere on that site:

After being blessed in front of the Crucifix Chapel of St. Stephen's, Mozart's body is buried in a common grave in the cemetery at St. Marx."Common grave" is not exactly what a weathy man would be buried in.

My understanding of the specifics of Mozart's life are largely based on a single film I saw, that I am sure took liberties. But as I understand it, he made a great living, and spent a great deal of money. Everyone has a right to spend their last dime whoring and drinking, if they so choose, don't they?

I don't think he would have done better had he sold his rights to some corporate entity, do you?

No. Certainly not. But if he had licensed the rights, Constanze and their children might have had the benefit of income from royalties after his death.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Liberastan has to vote against for the following reasons:

No UPPER limits for copyright are proposed.
If a nation wants to have very long copyright terms, it's their decision, and no business of the UN.

The definition of "fair use" is extremely limited.
True, but we've found it covers most reasonable scenarios.

Point 5 is entirely subsumed by point 4.
Actually, not really. Licensing work, even licensing all rights, means you still have (albeit not much) copyright on the work. Releasing into the public domain is throwing away the copyright all together.

As regards point 6: why is it considered necessary to allow transfer or sale of copyrights? This is entirely counter-productive to the first two goals stated.
The author still has an incentive to create the work: for money from sale of the copyright.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

We appreciate the representative of Liberastan's raising his concerns and will try to respond to two of them.

Clauses 4 and 5 address quite different issues. Clause 4 covers licensing; clause 5 covers renunciation of copyright by placing the material in the public domain.

We don't understand why the representative objects to clause 6. Sale of a copyright is one way in which the creator of the material can be compensated for their work. Transfer would cover the common practice of an author's transferring copyright to a book publisher in exchange for agreed-upon royalties. We'd appreciate a more specific description of just what in the proposal this is in conflict with, so we might be able to provide a more satisfactory response.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

May the honorable ambassador explain any substantive difference between:

a) Licencing use of intellectual property to all legal entities under no terms (legal per clause 4 of the proposed Convention)

and

b) Placing same intellectual property in public domain (legal per clause 5)?

This representative has to admit he can't, and, indeed, the present copyright laws of Liberastan treat these situations identically.

Clause 6: here are the goals as stated in the preamble of the proposed Convention:


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, ...


After the transfer of the copyright, legal per clause 6, does the creator loses such control? Is it transferred along with the copyright? If the answer is positive, we feel these goals are not fulfilled by the proposed Convention; if it is negative, it seems unclear exactly what rights are transferred.

Depending on the amount of royalties coming in, the family of the author may still have jobs.
...
Except for the amazingly rare occasion when a book, movie, or musical piece achieves a truly timeless status, all of these works will decline in use and popularity until they are insignificant.
Royalties decrease with time. My aunt was in a movie called 'F.I.S.T.' (you may have heard of it), her royalties were never very high, but were considerably less as time went on. By now, I doubt she gets anything. Likewise, the survivors of an author are unlikely to be getting huge sums of money, and certainly not enough to support themselves, after 30 years.
Yes, that's what I said. If the income is insignificant, than why should the author's estate retain exclusive control? Except for those few works of iconic status, no one will relate a specific work to a certain author after so many years. Copyrights are no longer protecting the author or their work 30 years after they are dead. Instead, they allow an estate/corporation to hold the final say in any public use. This is no longer advancing an artist or their work but holding back the usage of others in their art.


Workers' rights acquired by unions cannot be compared to copyright royalties.
Really? If nothing, the survivors of artists are more deserving of a cut.
However, we are not talking about a sudden loss of income because of an unexpected death, but the relinquishing of copyrighted material 30 years after an author's death. If an author wishes for his/her estate to profit from his/her works, which is perfectly fair, they have plenty of time to do so while still alive. Bringing back the idea of a child prodigy, an author could have 50 - 65 - 80 years to store away money for his/her estate, much longer than the amount of time most people will be saving for their children.


How is my wife receiving money for my work "due compensation"? We're not talking about my last paycheck for hours worked, we're talking about additional money. If the author's family didn't earn the royalties, then neither would my survivors.
"If I'm killed while at work, my wife gets money from my employer and my union."

I think this is what separates the contract between you, your union, and your employer, from any sort of copyright laws.


The author's estate should be entitled to royalties for something they did not create simply because the person who did create it wanted them to be.
"Because I said so" is a poor reason to do something.

Your analogy is a poor one Ausserland, because the builder owns but a single commodity, a mall. He cannot claim ownership over shoppers in his mall, censor talk about his mall, or halt the construction of any other mall. However, the holder of a copyright can put restrictions on all of these things. He limits who can and can't use the copyrighted work, how it is used, if it is publicly viewed and discussed, and if other works infringe on his existing copyright. He holds more sway in all of these matters than any mall builder does. I do not assert that all of these things are bad in all situations, and I do not wish to restrict you if that is how your nation works, but I am strongly against the placement of these restrictions on my nation.


The desire to leave something for one's heirs is a very common desire among people. The continuation of copyright for a reasonable time after the death of the author is a means of helping creators of intellectual property do this.
Most people do this by setting up a savings account. It is reasonable to expect an author to save money while they are still alive. I would like to hear an example of a person who receives paychecks from their employer 30 years after they retire, or their family receiving money 30 years after they die. Nothing about life insurance, sickness/accident coverage, or lawsuits, just honest work. To the best of my knowledge, it does not happen. I will say again, that a mandatory copyright extension beyond the natural life of the author does not further his/her interests or those of the artistic community because dead people have no incentive to create more works.


If a nation wants to have very long copyright terms, it's their decision, and no business of the UN.
Then why isn't the opposite true? Why are very short (or non-existent) copyright terms important to the UN? Infinite copyrights carry just as much harm with them as a lack of copyright protection.


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;
Would this mean that the proposal recognizes works from non-un state's citizens while those states are not required to recognize our artists? Laws regarding copyright such as this one only work as well as the laws of the least restrictive nation.


So if a nation choses to include in its copyright law that the government of that nation becomes a co-copyright holder for the work in question, i.e. any work, then the government will share all protection of this Convention and can do whatever they want because they are the legal copyright holder.
If this were true, then it would be a part of the public domain, as specified by Resolution #60 "Public Domain". If a nation chose to do this, then all works created in their country would be a part of the public domain from the start. Doesn't this render the proposal ineffective?

May the honorable ambassador explain any substantive difference between:

a) Licencing use of intellectual property to all legal entities under no terms (legal per clause 4 of the proposed Convention)

and

b) Placing same intellectual property in public domain (legal per clause 5)?
While I'm not who you asked, I believe that I can answer your question. You seem to misunderstand the concept of licensing the use of a work. Basically that is an agreement where one person (or corporation) pays another person (or corporation) for the right to use their creation. And if anyone is stupid enough to license their work without receiving payment, well, we can't protect people from their own stupidity.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

This is no longer advancing an artist or their work but holding back the usage of others in their art.Indeed. I can't wait to see Cash's "Ring of Fire" used in a commercial for hemmeroids. That will truly advance art.

If an author wishes for his/her estate to profit from his/her works, which is perfectly fair, they have plenty of time to do so while still alive.Unless they, say, die right before a work is published. Then it's just tough shit, I suppose.

I think this is what separates the contract between you, your union, and your employer, from any sort of copyright laws.Except that you seem to think that families of artists should be screwed over when the person in question dies. Do you defend my situation because the word "union" is in there?

While I'm not who you asked, I believe that I can answer your question. You seem to misunderstand the concept of licensing the use of a work. Basically that is an agreement where one person (or corporation) pays another person (or corporation) for the right to use their creation. And if anyone is stupid enough to license their work without receiving payment, well, we can't protect people from their own stupidity.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'm not sensing much opposition to licensing agreements. The system gets abused when artists have little choice but to sign exclusive licensing agreements. Does anyone disagree that this sort of legislation often leads to large corporations monopolizing an industry, and using their IP and resources to prevent competition?

This can be easily prevented with more reasonably copyright durations. There are some extreeeeeeeeemely long lifespans in member countries of the UN :)

If you're refering to Amadeus, then "liberties" is something of an understatement. Might wish to start here (http://www.mozartproject.org/essays/brown.html). And from a timeline elsewhere on that site:

"Common grave" is not exactly what a weathy man would be buried in.

Wealth is determined both by income... and spending.

Indeed. I can't wait to see Cash's "Ring of Fire" used in a commercial for hemmeroids. That will truly advance art.


The best parrt is, it would :) Sure people make bad art if you give them the freedom to do so, but the government can't stop people from making bad art. Meanwhile we would see some people use "Ring of Fire" beautifully as background music in countless independed films.


Unless they, say, die right before a work is published. Then it's just tough shit, I suppose.

Except that you seem to think that families of artists should be screwed over when the person in question dies. Do you defend my situation because the word "union" is in there?

Copyright just can't be associated with the lifespan of the author, in our NSUN. The lifespans just differ to greatly. If the duration of copyright is independent of the lifespan of the author everything is much easier.

Indeed. I can't wait to see Cash's "Ring of Fire" used in a commercial for hemmeroids. That will truly advance art.
One unintended use does not warrant a stop to all legitimate use. This is the same for any commercial product, why should it be different for intellectual products?


Unless they, say, die right before a work is published. Then it's just tough shit, I suppose.
Except that you seem to think that families of artists should be screwed over when the person in question dies.
I don't believe anyone should be screwed over, but I don't see the retention of copyright 30 years after death as a viable way to increase incentives to artists. If works are published posthumously, it is easy to imagine a scenario where the primary benefits pass unto one's spouse or closest living relative. Of course, this may be too long/complicated to be included in any proposal, another reason to let individual nations handle their copyright laws.


Do you defend my situation because the word "union" is in there?
I don't think your situation is relevant to copyright laws. If you die while at work then your family is entitled to certain benefits that would not be had otherwise. This proposal would give 30 years of benefits to one's estate regardless to the amount of time they were held previous.

I believe my post had many more points than just those you mentioned Hack, but instead of repeating them, I will see if anyone else cares to answer.

Royalties decrease with time. My aunt was in a movie called 'F.I.S.T.' (you may have heard of it), her royalties were never very high, but were considerably less as time went on. By now, I doubt she gets anything. Likewise, the survivors of an author are unlikely to be getting huge sums of money, and certainly not enough to support themselves, after 30 years. There is also the matter of controlling the work. See the above examples of.. unsavory uses for songs and plays.


Isn't this an argument for a low copyright duration? It appears most of the monetary benefit to the artist occurs during the first few years of the copyright, afterwards there is diminishing returns. How is it justified to prevent art that no longer profits anyone from entering the public domain?

While I'm not who you asked, I believe that I can answer your question. You seem to misunderstand the concept of licensing the use of a work. Basically that is an agreement where one person (or corporation) pays another person (or corporation) for the right to use their creation. And if anyone is stupid enough to license their work without receiving payment, well, we can't protect people from their own stupidity.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Do you believe anyone releasing their work into public domain is stupid as well? If not, what is the difference?

If a nation wants to have very long copyright terms, it's their decision, and no business of the UN.

But if a nation wants to have very short copyright terms, it isn't their decision, and a business of the UN?

True, but we've found it covers most reasonable scenarios.

Note that your definition covers someone pirating a software program, so long as he does it for personal use (not necessarily his personal use). But it doesn't cover someone who wants to quote three words of copyrighted material in a fiction book.

Actually, not really. Licensing work, even licensing all rights, means you still have (albeit not much) copyright on the work. Releasing into the public domain is throwing away the copyright all together.

Very well.

The author still has an incentive to create the work: for money from sale of the copyright.

But this is the fifth goal; I was talking about the first two. This clause expressly opposes the second goal: "BELIEVING that creators of intellectual property should be able to have control over the distribution and display of their work." Such transfer takes away this control. See a lot of real-life examples. The majority of movies based on books, for a start.

Isn't this an argument for a low copyright duration? It appears most of the monetary benefit to the artist occurs during the first few years of the copyright, afterwards there is diminishing returns. How is it justified to prevent art that no longer profits anyone from entering the public domain?She was little more than an extra. I believe she had all of one line, and isn't even listed on IMDB's entry for F.I.S.T. The fact that she got any royalties means she managed a pretty nice contract. I'm sure Sly did considerably better.

While we support this resolution for the most part, I'd like to bring up one small point:


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;

How does non-fiction factor into this resolution? Are books of historical or cultural studies, for example, protected by it?


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The Commonwealth of Lisergicanbis would liek to make and sugestion of aditon on this Corprigth laws we sugest that the Thecnologies that acount on means of Imrpoving Eviromental issues and Animal Welfare(such as reclying and clean energy resources) may be freelly used by all nations if it concernes the means of producing clean non enviromental damanging result in an obivious way would improve the life conditions in the world and that all mankidn should benefict of such discovery without being subject to the abusive prices that may be charge for such discovery.
Thus beeing defined as free use thecnology
Therefore paving the way for undislcosed progress to all peopleof all lands.
This sugestion is believed to have te suport of the Peace region and of all Peace loving natios of NationStates

But if a nation wants to have very short copyright terms, it isn't their decision, and a business of the UN?

Yes, but what's being acted upon here is a desire to improve the intellectual property rights of individuals, which requires the protection of their essential rights to ownership of work of their creation for a reasonable period of time. Thus, the time is intended to reflect a compromise to take into account the majority interests of these owners, not necessarily those of the individual state.

Note that your definition covers someone pirating a software program, so long as he does it for personal use (not necessarily his personal use). But it doesn't cover someone who wants to quote three words of copyrighted material in a fiction book.

I think you'll find that Ceorana has in fact covered this particular concern.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

While we support this resolution for the most part, I'd like to bring up one small point:



How does non-fiction factor into this resolution? Are books of historical or cultural studies, for example, protected by it?


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Absolutely. Non-fiction works are creative works, the creativity lying in the selection, arrangement, and presentation of the material.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The Commonwealth of Lisergicanbis would liek to make and sugestion of aditon on this Corprigth laws we sugest that the Thecnologies that acount on means of Imrpoving Eviromental issues and Animal Welfare(such as reclying and clean energy resources) may be freelly used by all nations if it concernes the means of producing clean non enviromental damanging result in an obivious way would improve the life conditions in the world and that all mankidn should benefict of such discovery without being subject to the abusive prices that may be charge for such discovery.
Thus beeing defined as free use thecnology
Therefore paving the way for undislcosed progress to all peopleof all lands.
This sugestion is believed to have te suport of the Peace region and of all Peace loving natios of NationStates

We appreciate the concern of the representative of Lisergicanabis. We would point out, though, that technologies would be covered by patents, not copyrights.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

For one thing, many artists (by which I am referring to web site and software creators as well) actually WANT their work to be free (See (http://devrandom.freehostpro.com) real (http://www.linux.org)-life (http://www.sourceforge.net) examples (http://www.gimp.org) here (http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2006/04/14/thing-a-week-29-code-monkey/)).

While copyright is used to KEEP these works free, they only need to do this BECAUSE copyright exists.

Also, this violates UN proposal rules, as it prevents anarchy, which as a government system happens to be unbannable.

While it would certainly be impressive if I said that I would resign from the UN (particularly as a UN delegate), I will not. As a part of the UN, I can initiate repeals. Which I will if need be. But the vote seems oretty close now, and I have until Thursday to tell about the problems around this.

OOC: The smileys that apply to how I feel abiut your proposal are :sniper: :mp5: :upyours: :headbang: :gundge: and I'd say that IC if I didn't expect to get banned for having that IC.

We appreciate the representative of Liberastan's response to our request for clarification of his concern.

May the honorable ambassador explain any substantive difference between:

a) Licencing use of intellectual property to all legal entities under no terms (legal per clause 4 of the proposed Convention)

and

b) Placing same intellectual property in public domain (legal per clause 5)?

This representative has to admit he can't, and, indeed, the present copyright laws of Liberastan treat these situations identically.


The practical effect of the two acts would be the same. The difference lies in ownership of the copyright. If I license use of a work, I retain ownership of the copyright. If I place a work in the public domain, I renounce copyright. Frankly, we can't see why anyone would take the action described in a). It seems to make no practical sense.

Clause 6: here are the goals as stated in the preamble of the proposed Convention:

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, ...


After the transfer of the copyright, legal per clause 6, does the creator loses such control? Is it transferred along with the copyright? If the answer is positive, we feel these goals are not fulfilled by the proposed Convention; if it is negative, it seems unclear exactly what rights are transferred.

When the proposal states that the creator of a work should have control of it, that includes the right to cede that control to someone else if the compensation is worth it. Yes, if the creator of the work transfers the copyright, he or she loses control of the work. But they do so after deciding that whatever they receive in return is worth it. I write a book. Copyright gives me control of the work. I then shop it to publishers. I receive positive responses. I then decide, having control of the work, which publisher to choose based on the terms of the proffered contracts. I am in control. I decide to go with Butterworth-Heinemann. My decision is based, not just on the royalties offered, but on what the contract obliges the publisher to do as far as preparing the book for publication and marketing it. As part of the contract, I transfer copyright to the firm. I have done so of my own free will, enabled to receive compensation for my efforts by the copyright law which gave me control of the work.

We hope this explains things satisfactorily.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

For one thing, many artists (by which I am referring to web site and software creators as well) actually WANT their work to be free (See (http://devrandom.freehostpro.com) real (http://www.linux.org)-life (http://www.sourceforge.net) examples (http://www.gimp.org) here (http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2006/04/14/thing-a-week-29-code-monkey/)).

While copyright is used to KEEP these works free, they only need to do this BECAUSE copyright exists.

You say that "many artists" want their works to be free. Fine. All they have to do is say that the works are placed in the public domain. And what about the multitude of artists and other creators of intellectual property who aren't included in the "many"? Are we supposed to ignore them?

Also, this violates UN proposal rules, as it prevents anarchy, which as a government system happens to be unbannable.

Nonsense. If this had a shred of credibility, most NSUN resolutions would be illegal.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

The people of Airatum urge the UN to reject this proposal.

We believe copyright legislation could have been enacted that would have protected copyright for nations that wish to have it without forcing it on other nations. We have no problem enforcing copyrights on works generated in other nations, but do not wish to grant copyrights to works produced within our own borders.

This was brought up before the proposal was submitted, but no change was made; indeed, no serious consideration of this seemed to be made. This viewpoint seems to be largely dismissed.

Because of this, we can only reason that the drafters of this legislation are not out to only protect copyright for their citizens, but wish to impose copyright on countries that do not wish to have it. Should later legislation be drafted that will protect copyrights for nations wishing to have them, but allow other nations not to, we will gladly be in support.

For that reason we hope the UN will vote AGAINST this proposal.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

The people of Airatum urge the UN to reject this proposal.

We believe copyright legislation could have been enacted that would have protected copyright for nations that wish to have it without forcing it on other nations. We have no problem enforcing copyrights on works generated in other nations, but do not wish to grant copyrights to works produced within our own borders.

This was brought up before the proposal was submitted, but no change was made; indeed, no serious consideration of this seemed to be made. This viewpoint seems to be largely dismissed.

Because of this, we can only reason that the drafters of this legislation are not out to only protect copyright for their citizens, but wish to impose copyright on countries that do not wish to have it. Should later legislation be drafted that will protect copyrights for nations wishing to have them, but allow other nations not to, we will gladly be in support.

For that reason we hope the UN will vote AGAINST this proposal.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN
There was serious consideration. In fact, the proposal started like that, way back in November or December when I first started on intellectual property. However, it was changed, because that would cause a huge flaw: all work would then be published in nations that had extremely long copyright terms, which would hurt the nations with shorter terms. Your (and my original) idea may have worked if nations and the people in them were solid and walled together, but they're not. People and publishers are only mildly hampered by national borders.

We've seriously considered your idea. We decided that it wouldn't work. Sorry.

It's also in line with the concept of jurisdiction of place, which makes the legal tangles a lot easier.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

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.

I am sorry for my igonorance, but are you saying that after I have sold my rights I am also allowed to use said entity without authorization by whom I sold them too. That seems a bit odd to me. Please take the time to clarify.

Prime Minister of Jacobic
UN Member:confused:

The people of Airatum urge the UN to reject this proposal.

We believe copyright legislation could have been enacted that would have protected copyright for nations that wish to have it without forcing it on other nations. We have no problem enforcing copyrights on works generated in other nations, but do not wish to grant copyrights to works produced within our own borders.

This was brought up before the proposal was submitted, but no change was made; indeed, no serious consideration of this seemed to be made. This viewpoint seems to be largely dismissed.

Because of this, we can only reason that the drafters of this legislation are not out to only protect copyright for their citizens, but wish to impose copyright on countries that do not wish to have it. Should later legislation be drafted that will protect copyrights for nations wishing to have them, but allow other nations not to, we will gladly be in support.

For that reason we hope the UN will vote AGAINST this proposal.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

First, our apologies to the honorable representative of Airatum. We did not respond often enough to his earlier postings. We can only offer as an excuse our frustration with the repeated and voluminous postings by another member which have polluted this discussion. We were distracted and we shouldn't have been.

The concern expressed by the honorable representative was considered very carefully in drafting the proposal, particularly in response to the strong objections to the early drafts by the distinguished representative of Ecopoeia. That's reflected in the thread on the Reclamation forum linked in the first post of this thread. The draft was changed significantly to allow nations great leeway in crafting their copyright law as it would apply to their own citizens. Yes, your nation will be required to have copyright law which meets the proposal's standards. But subsection 3c, combined with a bit of creativity on the part of your legislature, will allow you to effectively make your national environment copyright-free as it applies to domestic works only.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Do you believe anyone releasing their work into public domain is stupid as well?Of course not, their releasing their work into the public domain is their choice.

If not, what is the difference?The difference is that when a work is licensed the intent is to provide more income to the creator of said work i.e. a cartoonist allows his characters to be put on t-shirts, and releasing a work into the public domain basically means that the creator just wants it out there.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Of course not, their releasing their work into the public domain is their choice.

The difference is that when a work is licensed the intent is to provide more income to the creator of said work i.e. a cartoonist allows his characters to be put on t-shirts, and releasing a work into the public domain basically means that the creator just wants it out there.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

In this case I beg you to explain how any of the following licences fulfill this intent: GPL, LGPL, BSD License, Artistic License, Creative Commons. Or you could admit this is not always the intent.


The practical effect of the two acts would be the same. The difference lies in ownership of the copyright. If I license use of a work, I retain ownership of the copyright. If I place a work in the public domain, I renounce copyright. Frankly, we can't see why anyone would take the action described in a). It seems to make no practical sense.

Exactly in order to retain copyright on the work? Note that in most real-life cases when creative work is made available for free, it is most often under some license (Creative Commons, Artistic License, etc.) and not in public domain in the sense of proposed resolution.

Yes, but what's being acted upon here is a desire to improve the intellectual property rights of individuals, which requires the protection of their essential rights to ownership of work of their creation for a reasonable period of time. Thus, the time is intended to reflect a compromise to take into account the majority interests of these owners, not necessarily those of the individual state.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this means copyrights should never expire. We believe that the interests of creators, while very important, are not the only ones that need to be considered in this issue.

My decision is based, not just on the royalties offered, but on what the contract obliges the publisher to do as far as preparing the book for publication and marketing it. As part of the contract, I transfer copyright to the firm. I have done so of my own free will, enabled to receive compensation for my efforts by the copyright law which gave me control of the work.

We fail to perceive how this is better than merely licensing your work to the publisher.

Note that your definition covers someone pirating a software program, so long as he does it for personal use (not necessarily his personal use). But it doesn't cover someone who wants to quote three words of copyrighted material in a fiction book.

I think you'll find that Ceorana has in fact covered this particular concern.

Could you provide a reference?

Originally Posted by Ausserland
The practical effect of the two acts would be the same. The difference lies in ownership of the copyright. If I license use of a work, I retain ownership of the copyright. If I place a work in the public domain, I renounce copyright. Frankly, we can't see why anyone would take the action described in a). It seems to make no practical sense.

Exactly in order to retain copyright on the work? Note that in most real-life cases when creative work is made available for free, it is most often under some license (Creative Commons, Artistic License, etc.) and not in public domain in the sense of proposed resolution.

The representative's example was "Licencing use of intellectual property to all legal entities under no terms" [Emphasis added]. If we issue a completely unrestricted license to everyone, we cede all control of the material to everyone. I retain the copyright, but I can't prevent anyone from doing whatever they want with the material -- plagiarize it, modify it, copy it, sell it, whatever. So my retention of copyright is meaningless.

We're frankly puzzled as to the point the honorable representative is making. If his assertion is correct -- and we have no reason to doubt it -- those persons will still be able to release their work under a standard license such as Creative Commons or Copyleft, or a custom license, for that matter. Or, if they choose, they can simply place it in the public domain. And we would remind the representative that the alternative or standard licensing schemes such as Creative Commons are based on copyright. They are not in any way replacements for copyright.

Originally Posted by Ausserland
My decision is based, not just on the royalties offered, but on what the contract obliges the publisher to do as far as preparing the book for publication and marketing it. As part of the contract, I transfer copyright to the firm. I have done so of my own free will, enabled to receive compensation for my efforts by the copyright law which gave me control of the work.

We fail to perceive how this is better than merely licensing your work to the publisher.

We didn't suggest that this was preferable to licensing. However, it is common practice in the publishing industry. Under the resolution, you can transfer the copyright or license the material. The choice is the creator's.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We thank the representatives who have pointed out the origin of this legislation, and apologize if our rejection of this proposal was too vehement.

We continue to feel that 3c does not adequately protect the rights of nations to remain without copyright, and so continue to oppose this legislation. We are, however, grateful that this point of view was at least considered and weighed earlier in the process.

With respect,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Taken to its logical conclusion, this means copyrights should never expire. We believe that the interests of creators, while very important, are not the only ones that need to be considered in this issue.

No it doesn't, I implied no such thing. Kindly refrain from mis-representing my arguments.

Note that your definition covers someone pirating a software program, so long as he does it for personal use (not necessarily his personal use). But it doesn't cover someone who wants to quote three words of copyrighted material in a fiction book.

Could you provide a reference?

As I see it, the resolution seems to define the intellectual property in a manner that includes copyrighted material in a fiction book.

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;

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;

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The representative's example was "Licencing use of intellectual property to all legal entities under no terms" [Emphasis added]. If we issue a completely unrestricted license to everyone, we cede all control of the material to everyone. I retain the copyright, but I can't prevent anyone from doing whatever they want with the material -- plagiarize it, modify it, copy it, sell it, whatever. So my retention of copyright is meaningless.

We're frankly puzzled as to the point the honorable representative is making. If his assertion is correct -- and we have no reason to doubt it -- those persons will still be able to release their work under a standard license such as Creative Commons or Copyleft, or a custom license, for that matter. Or, if they choose, they can simply place it in the public domain. And we would remind the representative that the alternative or standard licensing schemes such as Creative Commons are based on copyright. They are not in any way replacements for copyright.

The point is that "Licencing use of intellectual property to all legal entities under no terms" is effectively indistinguishable from placing it in the public domain; and thus clause 5 appears to be redundant.
However, Liberastan has no objection against clause 5 per se: we merely believe it follows from clause 4 automatically.

We don't believe we in any way suggested licensing schemes are replacements for copyright! To clarify where we are coming from: Liberastan does recognise intellectual property in general and copyright in particular. Liberastan believes there is a need for a UN convention on copyright. However, we oppose the currently proposed convention. While Liberastan agrees with the position of Kapistranostros (post #108 in the present discussion) in many respects, we do not find the proposed convention sufficiently flexible.

Firt, our legal department must apologise for a careless perusal: clause 3a in no way affects derivative works. Even given this, we find the lower limits proposed far too high. At the very least, such large term should not be provided for automatically! Note that clause 3c is no help here: once granted copyright, "30 years after death" seems to follow automatically.

We didn't suggest that this was preferable to licensing. However, it is common practice in the publishing industry. Under the resolution, you can transfer the copyright or license the material. The choice is the creator's.

However, copyright transfer is sufficiently advantageous to the publisher that the licensing option may be unavailable. While we have no objection against other countries allowing transfer of copyright, we do object against all countries having to allow such.

The Holy Empire of Macdoodlefinney has this to say:

Ideas cannot be owned. The means of the distribution of ideas certainly can. One can own a book. One can own a compact disc or a DVD. But one cannot own the ideas found in those books, CD's or DVD's. For once I have read, listened, watched, or otherwise interacted with the medium of distribution of those ideas, than the idea becomes mine - and short of the most violent and oppressive means of mind control, that idea cannot be taken away from me.

Let's call "Intellectual Property" what it really is: Ownership of ideas. When one owns something, one controls it. When Intellectual Property laws are enforced, eventual only the wealthy will have access to the best ideas, and through that access, they will control the flow of those ideas. Control of ideas can be (and historically has been) used to violate the most basic freedoms and civil rights.

The representative from the Holy Empire of Macdoodlefinney encourages all nations that hate oppression and value individual liberty to vote NO on this resolution.

The Holy Empire of Macdoodlefinney has this to say:

Ideas cannot be owned. The means of the distribution of ideas certainly can. One can own a book. One can own a compact disc or a DVD. But one cannot own the ideas found in those books, CD's or DVD's. For once I have read, listened, watched, or otherwise interacted with the medium of distribution of those ideas, than the idea becomes mine - and short of the most violent and oppressive means of mind control, that idea cannot be taken away from me.


Agreed.

Let's call "Intellectual Property" what it really is: Ownership of ideas. When one owns something, one controls it. When Intellectual Property laws are enforced, eventual only the wealthy will have access to the best ideas, and through that access, they will control the flow of those ideas. Control of ideas can be (and historically has been) used to violate the most basic freedoms and civil rights.

No! Intellectual property is control of a particular expression of an idea, not of the idea itself!

It has been some time since my government has announced its support for a UN resolution, but the people of Mikitivity has cast our vote in favour of this Convention.

The Grand Duchy of Gilbert Pike is voting against the current resolution, but would happily support a severely less restricted one. Our issues lie with the following key points (and apologies for repetition of earlier debate).

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;

We feel that extending copyrights to this length of time as a matter of international law is excessive. Although clearly in line with some existing nations, it violates legitimate views of other nations, who believe the greatest profitability occurs within the first five years of any given patent or copyright, and still others believe that copyrights should be renewed on the basis of the individual copyright's merit, to be determined by a judiciary. While patent law is certainly different, owing to copyright's nature as intellectual - rather then physical - property, we would never allow a pharmaceutical company to own a sole patent on a drug for 65 years, and there are certainly copyrights for which 65 years would also be excessive, particularly works of a deliberately international, or mythological flavour.

In addition, the principle that a copyright should extend beyond it's creator's death is not a universally accepted one.


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;

If someone makes a movie called Alexander (about Alexander the Great), who would own the copyright? The film company? Greece? Rome? Not all intellectual property can be easily catagorised as belonging to one Nation's corporation, or citizen. Nor could such a copyright occur unchallenged on the basis that copyright is granted automatically as soon as it is placed in tangible form. Nothing would prevent someone who came up with an idea from making a small, locally distributed work, and then simply waiting for something similar, and widely distributed, to emerge eslewhere, and simply sue for the profits. These rules are unfair to a number of private and national interests, which are simply not accounted for by this resolution.

We would support a much more limited version of this resolution, that granted an originator one year of international copyright protection to secure copyrights in individual nations.

A multination copyright protection treaty is a sufficiently adequate method for like-minded nations to consolidate their intellectual property laws, and does not require a UN resolution to be enforceable.

The Grand Duchy of Gilbert Pike

The Grand Duchy of Gilbert Pike is voting against the current resolution, but would happily support a severely less restricted one. Our issues lie with the following key points (and apologies for repetition of earlier debate).

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;

We feel that extending copyrights to this length of time as a matter of international law is excessive. Although clearly in line with some existing nations, it violates legitimate views of other nations, who believe the greatest profitability occurs within the first five years of any given patent or copyright, and still others believe that copyrights should be renewed on the basis of the individual copyright's merit, to be determined by a judiciary. While patent law is certainly different, owing to copyright's nature as intellectual - rather then physical - property, we would never allow a pharmaceutical company to own a sole patent on a drug for 65 years, and there are certainly copyrights for which 65 years would also be excessive, particularly works of a deliberately international, or mythological flavour.

In addition, the principle that a copyright should extend beyond it's creator's death is not a universally accepted one.
Well, it's a way that seems to be accepted, and we had to choose something, right?


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;

If someone makes a movie called Alexander (about Alexander the Great), who would own the copyright? The film company? Greece? Rome? Not all intellectual property can be easily catagorised as belonging to one Nation's corporation, or citizen. Nor could such a copyright occur unchallenged on the basis that copyright is granted automatically as soon as it is placed in tangible form. Nothing would prevent someone who came up with an idea from making a small, locally distributed work, and then simply waiting for something similar, and widely distributed, to emerge eslewhere, and simply sue for the profits. These rules are unfair to a number of private and national interests, which are simply not accounted for by this resolution.
The work would be owned by the author, which would probably be the film company. If a number of companies cooperated to make the film, they would have to agree in their contract who would own the copyright.

We would support a much more limited version of this resolution, that granted an originator one year of international copyright protection to secure copyrights in individual nations.
This resolution doesn't give international protection, and it also says that you don't have to do anything to "secure" copyright. All this does is force people to work out who will own the copyright before they start working, which is pretty obvious anyway in most cases.

A multination copyright protection treaty is a sufficiently adequate method for like-minded nations to consolidate their intellectual property laws, and does not require a UN resolution to be enforceable.
But what if an author wants to distribute his work internationally. It is better that it is protected across the entire United Nations.

I am sorry for my igonorance, but are you saying that after I have sold my rights I am also allowed to use said entity without authorization by whom I sold them too. That seems a bit odd to me. Please take the time to clarify.
That's just a little common sense thing. We figured that you should be able to use your own work, even if you've sold the rights. You can't distribute it or make money off of it, but as a matter of common sense, you ought to be able to use it yourself.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

We appreciate the representative of Gilbert Pike taking the time to express his objections to this proposal cogently and thoughtfully.

The Grand Duchy of Gilbert Pike is voting against the current resolution, but would happily support a severely less restricted one. Our issues lie with the following key points (and apologies for repetition of earlier debate).

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;

We feel that extending copyrights to this length of time as a matter of international law is excessive. Although clearly in line with some existing nations, it violates legitimate views of other nations, who believe the greatest profitability occurs within the first five years of any given patent or copyright, and still others believe that copyrights should be renewed on the basis of the individual copyright's merit, to be determined by a judiciary. While patent law is certainly different, owing to copyright's nature as intellectual - rather then physical - property, we would never allow a pharmaceutical company to own a sole patent on a drug for 65 years, and there are certainly copyrights for which 65 years would also be excessive, particularly works of a deliberately international, or mythological flavour.

In addition, the principle that a copyright should extend beyond it's creator's death is not a universally accepted one.

The appropriate duration of copyright is, of course, a matter of judgment on which there can be honest disagreement. We believe that the minimum duration set by the resolution is reasonable, and would note that it is much shorter than set by the EU, the USA, and many other countries in the mythical world of RL.

And we concede that extension of copyright beyond the creator's death is not a universally accepted principle. Very few things are. But it is a generally accepted one, to which we subscribe. It allows creators of intellectual property to pass along value to their heirs.


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;

If someone makes a movie called Alexander (about Alexander the Great), who would own the copyright? The film company? Greece? Rome? Not all intellectual property can be easily catagorised as belonging to one Nation's corporation, or citizen. Nor could such a copyright occur unchallenged on the basis that copyright is granted automatically as soon as it is placed in tangible form. Nothing would prevent someone who came up with an idea from making a small, locally distributed work, and then simply waiting for something similar, and widely distributed, to emerge eslewhere, and simply sue for the profits. These rules are unfair to a number of private and national interests, which are simply not accounted for by this resolution.

We respectfully suggest that the representative may have fallen prey to a common misunderstanding. You cannot copyright ideas, concepts or facts -- only the tangible expression of them. In this case, we would assume that the writer of the screenplay would be the original owner of the copyright on the screenplay. The production company would own the copyright on the film itself. If infringement were to be alleged by the producer of the small, locally distributed work, he or she would have to demonstrate to a court that the expression of the material in the second movie (not the facts of Alexander's life) was substantially the same as his/hers.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador-at-Large

Love and esterel support this proposal. We think it's a logical follow up of the passed "UN Patent Law".

"Intellectual Property" has no place in the new digital age.
Your logic is flawed, thoughts, ideas i.e. the expressions of life,
belong to no-one as "property". A song is not a beach house, a play is not a car.
All ideas belong to the shared cultural collective.

I urge all to vote against this worthless pro-corporate resolution.

ASU

Even though most creators would like control over thier work, due to the different policies of other nations, this can't work. Most innovators are government funded, meaning the government controls what happens to it, hence them shelling out the money for it to be done. Although this can work for some governments, this can not, and should not apply to every nation.

"Intellectual Property" has no place in the new digital age.
Your logic is flawed, thoughts, ideas i.e. the expressions of life,
belong to no-one as "property". A song is not a beach house, a play is not a car.
All ideas belong to the shared cultural collective.

I urge all to vote against this worthless pro-corporate resolution.

ASU
Copyrights don't apply to ideas, only exact texts.
Even though most creators would like control over thier work, due to the different policies of other nations, this can't work. Most innovators are government funded, meaning the government controls what happens to it, hence them shelling out the money for it to be done. Although this can work for some governments, this can not, and should not apply to every nation.
I'm afraid I don't quite get what you're saying. Could you rephrase that?

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

"Intellectual Property" has no place in the new digital age.
Your logic is flawed, thoughts, ideas i.e. the expressions of life,
belong to no-one as "property". A song is not a beach house, a play is not a car.
All ideas belong to the shared cultural collective.

I urge all to vote against this worthless pro-corporate resolution.

ASU

Tommo the Stout leans his head up from its prone position in the hammock as the representative from the Andean Social Utopia relinquishes the floor. In a rare moment, he rises from his hammock to speak, smoothing his dual-braided beard as he stands. He gesticulates almost wildly throughout.

Never has there been a more perfect time for intellectual property than in the digital age. There has never been such a rapid and considerable stifling of artistic identity than in the digital age. Books are no longer written letter by letter, one need not be in the presence of the artist to hear music, or see a theatrical performance. It's all so removed, so impersonal, and so infinitly easy to replicate. Artists have a kind of gift that few people do, and it takes more time and effort to hone the skills necessary to perfect that gift than they have, especially if they cannot earn a living from it. You're absolutely right -- a song is not a beach house, a play is not a car, they are not constructed by droning laborers and programmed machines, they are the mindful expressions of individuals who are better at it than us. If they cannot hold their work proudly aloft and say "At last, I have done something that can be revered, I have done something that does more than just sit stagnant, I have done something to enrich life and culture and extend humanity beyond mindless careerism" without someone who can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground ripping it from their grasp and turning it into just another something that came from nowhere and winds up in a place just as important, then there is no point in putting forth the effort. the fruits of their intellectual labor are naught. You're right in that all ideas belong to the collective, but the expression of those ideas is unique enough to protect.

At this point, The Stout moves to lay down once again in his hammock, his voice lowering, and a more condescending tone easing out.

Furthermore, where is the logic flawed? Can you point out the logical fallacies? If you can, can you even name them? What good is your claim that logic is flawed if you don't employ logic yourself? You've made your claim, so let's see the premises.



(There. Got the fluffiness out of my system.)
Tommo the Stout
UN Ambassador of Norderia
Delegate of the North Sea

Even though most creators would like control over thier work, due to the different policies of other nations, this can't work. Most innovators are government funded, meaning the government controls what happens to it, hence them shelling out the money for it to be done. Although this can work for some governments, this can not, and should not apply to every nation.

We're not sure why government funding of innovation is an argument against the resolution. If your government funds creation of intellectual property and wants control of it, they can simply make it a provision of the contract or a condition of employment that the copyright of all material created as a part of fulfillment of the contract or performance of official duties belongs to the government. Or maybe we just don't get your point.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

This is a good idea, but the wording of the resolution is vague and flawed.

For example, it states:

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

But then the actual changes in law don't mention anything about such an international convention.

"Intellectual Property" has no place in the new digital age. Your logic is flawed, thoughts, ideas i.e. the expressions of life,
belong to no-one as "property".

Why has digital technology changed the nature of the mind?

A song is not a beach house, a play is not a car. All ideas belong to the shared cultural collective.

Which is to say, there is no worth in the individual human mind. Pretty radical position to take.

I urge all to vote against this worthless pro-corporate resolution.

Pro-corporate is a meaningless buzzword with no logic or reasoning behind it. It could be pro- or anti-corporate depending on the situation. Should a corporation (being made up of individuals who are part of this supposed shared cultural collective) be able to make money off of unrelated individuals creations unasked?

But then the actual changes in law don't mention anything about such an international convention.
You're missing the forest for the trees. ;) The whole thing is an international convention on copyrights. I think we might disagree on the meaning of the world "convention", but that's just semantics. :)

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

[The doors to the General Assembly chamber swing open, and a collective gasp emits from many of the ambassadors seated as Jack Riley, who has been absent for nearly a month*, appears in the entryway. Waiting in baited breath as though he is about to say something about the proposal at vote, the delegates are instead treated to the Kennyite deputy jumping out of his clothes and streaking down the aisle, blinding several emissaries as he goes. Across his torso are painted the words:]

FREE THE THESSADORIANS!!
(They're suffocating in her Baby Tee!)

[The assembly breaks out in spontaneous cheers for their beloved resident nutcase as he bellows:]

AVENGE MOLTAN BAUSCH!! ELECT KIVISTO DELEGATE!! WHOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

[He "accidentally" trips up Foreign Minister Olembe and, racing past the Secretary General's lectern, bounds up another aisle and capsizes Tommo's hammock. He stops at the exit, whirls around with his arms raised in triumph, and proclaims:]

SAVE THE UN FROM ITSELF!! DEFEAT ISD!!

[His words are greeted with a tremendous, sarcastic ovation from the representatives as the naked diplomat about-faces, punches a gnome, and disappears down an outside corrider, suddenly alerted security officers chasing after him.]


* Owing to a hospital visit brought on by a near-fatal allergic reaction to a bouquet of flowers from Tommo the Stout.



[/insanely non-germane post]

[He "accidentally" trips up Foreign Minister Olembe and, racing past the Secretary General's lectern, bounds up another aisle and capsizes Tommo's hammock.

*snip*

* Owing to a hospital visit brought on by a near-fatal allergic reaction to a bouquet of flowers from Tommo the Stout.


Tommo the Stout pulls a cartoonish spin in the capsizing hammock, whirling around in a blur whilst bellowing, "WHOAWHOAWHOAWHOAWHOAWHOAWHOAWHOA!" before being flung in a long arc several rows away, landing on one knee and one foot, swaying unsteadily from the dizziness. A far off look is upon his face, and he sits for a moment mindlessly babbling.

Roses.... So many... Roses...

I appreciate the attempts of the proposal's authors to read and respond to all of these posts, and understand that it is quite a challenge, but I believe some issues have been completely ignored thus far, and would like to see them answered.


She was little more than an extra. I believe she had all of one line, and isn't even listed on IMDB's entry for F.I.S.T. The fact that she got any royalties means she managed a pretty nice contract.
You missed the point of his post.
"How is it justified to prevent art that no longer profits anyone from entering the public domain?"


However, it was changed, because that would cause a huge flaw: all work would then be published in nations that had extremely long copyright terms, which would hurt the nations with shorter terms.
This proposal sets no maximum limit to the length of a copyright, so how does it solve this flaw?


Well, it's a way that seems to be accepted, and we had to choose something, right?
You could have been less restrictive in the proposal's wording, you could have allowed greater room for individual nations to decide, you could have said nothing about it at all. Better to leave it up to individual nations than oppress the UN with your views.


NOTING that many nations already have copyright laws in place, but these laws can vary immensely and do not apply to other nations,
...
CONCLUDING that an international convention on copyrights would give authors an incentive to market their work both internationally and nationally,
This resolution doesn't give international protection,
Do you admit then, that your proposal fails what it set out to accomplish?


The appropriate duration of copyright is, of course, a matter of judgment on which there can be honest disagreement.
Yet you refuse to allow nations to differ in their copyright laws. I don't understand how you can force-feed your laws unto everyone without a thought to the social and economic consequences it will carry to the many unique government forms found in NationStates.


We believe that the minimum duration set by the resolution is reasonable, and would note that it is much shorter than set by the EU, the USA, and many other countries in the mythical world of RL.
Wait, wait! I don't even need to type a response to this because I know exactly where it is heading. In fact, I can quote how that discussion led us to where we are now.
Isn't this proposal unfair to those nations with shorter (or extremely longer) lifespans? Wouldn't setting a strict limit (like the 65 years for corporations) make more sense than leaving it open to whenever the author dies?
This doesn't even require superhuman lifespans; a normal human could outlive their copyright if they earned it young enough. How is it fair to take away their rights, just because they're too old?
I don't believe it is, but I do not believe it's fair for someone to retain their copyright after they are dead.
Royalties decrease with time. My aunt was in a movie called 'F.I.S.T.' (you may have heard of it), her royalties were never very high, but were considerably less as time went on. By now, I doubt she gets anything.
Isn't this an argument for a low copyright duration? How is it justified to prevent art that no longer profits anyone from entering the public domain?
Still awaiting a response.


If your government funds creation of intellectual property and wants control of it, they can simply make it a provision of the contract or a condition of employment that the copyright of all material created as a part of fulfillment of the contract or performance of official duties belongs to the government.
Can this be extended even further? As Too Kind pointed out and I asked earlier...
So if a nation choses to include in its copyright law that the government of that nation becomes a co-copyright holder for the work in question, i.e. any work, then the government will share all protection of this Convention and can do whatever they want because they are the legal copyright holder.
If this were true, then it would be a part of the public domain, as specified by Resolution #60 "Public Domain". If a nation chose to do this, then all works created in their country would be a part of the public domain from the start. Doesn't this render the proposal ineffective?


Many questions have been exchanged thus far, but I am still not satisfied by the authors' (and Hack's) ability to respond. If the proposal truly deserves the consideration of the UN, it should at least be able to stand up to simple criticisms. So far, this is what it seems we have.

1. "So, what incentive could a person have to create art 30 years after his/her death?"
- Still unanswered, although "we concede that extension of copyright beyond the creator's death is not a universally accepted principle."

2. "Why not set the minimum to the time of the author’s death?"
- "It allows creators of intellectual property to pass along value to their heirs."

3. "Why should the author's estate be entitled to royalties for something they did not create?" (This time I would like for someone else to answer, instead of Hack's attempt to turn the question back towards me. Also, I believe I explained why Ausserland's analogy doesn't work.)
- "Having a family benefit from the work of a relative after they are deceased is hardly a novel concept."

4. "Extension of copyright beyond one's death is simply impractical based on the proposal's argument that copyright increases the incentive to produce artworks."
- See question 1.

I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record, but it seems that I keep asking these questions while receiving no feedback. These questions are not unreasonable. My objections are not to the idea of copyright itself but to this specific proposal. By this time, I'm starting to believe that people simply vote for a proposal because it "looks pretty", regardless of the actual substance it contains.

I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record, but it seems that I keep asking these questions while receiving no feedback. These questions are not unreasonable. My objections are not to the idea of copyright itself but to this specific proposal. By this time, I'm starting to believe that people simply vote for a proposal because it "looks pretty", regardless of the actual substance it contains.

While I will say that some of the things you've said near the end there look like straw mans, I'll agree that a lot of people vote for or against resolutions for reasons that are short of reasonable.

I'm not about to address any of your concerns, because they go into a realm I'm not comfortable arguing with, but now that you've taken the time to restate it all and make your grievances clear and known, I'm sure you'll get a response that is at the very least satisfying in caliber if it doesn't persuade you. I applaud your patience, as most people wouldn't make the effort.

Tommo the Stout leans his head up from its prone position in the hammock as the representative from the Andean Social Utopia relinquishes the floor. In a rare moment, he rises from his hammock to speak, smoothing his dual-braided beard as he stands. He gesticulates almost wildly throughout.

Never has there been a more perfect time for intellectual property than in the digital age. There has never been such a rapid and considerable stifling of artistic identity than in the digital age. Books are no longer written letter by letter, one need not be in the presence of the artist to hear music, or see a theatrical performance. It's all so removed, so impersonal, and so infinitly easy to replicate. Artists have a kind of gift that few people do, and it takes more time and effort to hone the skills necessary to perfect that gift than they have, especially if they cannot earn a living from it. You're absolutely right -- a song is not a beach house, a play is not a car, they are not constructed by droning laborers and programmed machines, they are the mindful expressions of individuals who are better at it than us. If they cannot hold their work proudly aloft and say "At last, I have done something that can be revered, I have done something that does more than just sit stagnant, I have done something to enrich life and culture and extend humanity beyond mindless careerism" without someone who can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground ripping it from their grasp and turning it into just another something that came from nowhere and winds up in a place just as important, then there is no point in putting forth the effort. the fruits of their intellectual labor are naught. You're right in that all ideas belong to the collective, but the expression of those ideas is unique enough to protect.

At this point, The Stout moves to lay down once again in his hammock, his voice lowering, and a more condescending tone easing out.

Furthermore, where is the logic flawed? Can you point out the logical fallacies? If you can, can you even name them? What good is your claim that logic is flawed if you don't employ logic yourself? You've made your claim, so let's see the premises.



(There. Got the fluffiness out of my system.)
Tommo the Stout
UN Ambassador of Norderia
Delegate of the North Sea


Since you took the time to provide a thoughtful reply, I shall do endevour to do likewise.

To answer your main point - very well made, infact i would almost agree -
I think recognition of ones artistic contribution does not necessarily need
to come in the form of "intellectual property" as generally defined.
I do not believe that artistic works should be subject to the market place.
Although i agree with the argument that creative work in general should be protected, I believe that it the main thing it needs protection is from potential exploitation under the capitalism system, so the answer here would be not to introduce new laws, but rather to deal with the underlying cause of exploitation.

As for the internet/ digital realm, yes the creator should have the right to take credit, but this should not prevent the free use/enjoyment of the work by the wider community. (The incentive for mis-use would again here come from those wanting to re-sell or exploit it as there own for a profit. i.e. a symptom of Capitalism.

I am of course aware of the fact that my arguement may not be convincing if you happen to have an opposing ideological stance, but regardless of ideology I am not convinced that the current resolution is the right way to go about protecting the work of artists, and it seems to lean heavily toward supporting the profit margins of the industries that dominate and stiffle the creative fields rather than the person responsible of its expression. Furthermore, such a resolution should not be imposed on members whose political and economic systems do not recognise the concept of private property, let alone
intellectual property.

As for your stringent request that I point out a logical fallacy of the resolution, I shall be more than happy to do so.

Premise 1: All resolutions put forward should be in the common interests of the members of the UN, and the citizens of member nations.

Premise 2: It is in the best interests of citizens to have democractic and free access to information and creative works for the well being of individual citizens and of society as a whole.

Premise 3: A resolution introducing intellectual property rights, whereby creative works are treated as property, to be marketed as consumer goods (and according to the resolution to "improve economies through increased trade") is in the best interests of the citizens of UN member nations.

Fact: The resolution will in fact limit the creative/leisurely use of "intellectual products" by limiting access, and stiffle the free flow of information. Rather than allowing for the democractic use of information, it will reinforce a hierarchical structure in the realm of infromation and creative products.

Therefore: The resolution is logically flawed, as premise 1 and 2 are inconsistent with premise 3. (Of course it is possible that you may disagree with the second premise).

You missed the point of his post.
"How is it justified to prevent art that no longer profits anyone from entering the public domain?"

Because sometimes it becomes possible for works to increase in popularity after a few years have passed: There have, for example, been cases where an author or musician who didn't achieve widespread fame until quite late on in their career was then able to re-release earlier works -- that hadn't been very successful when originally released -- and gain an increased benefit from those as well as from their later works... Would you deny them the right to do so?

"How is it justified to prevent art that no longer profits anyone from entering the public domain?"

I regard concerns about the use of art to be a more than adequate justification. Earlier on in the thread, examples were brought up regarding this (June Carter's song Ring of Fire and the Gershwin opera Porgy and Bess in particular).

I see no problem with preventing the use of art in ways that would be detrimental to that piece of art, providing some justification can be found.

No it doesn't, I implied no such thing. Kindly refrain from mis-representing my arguments.

I do not believe you wished to imply this. We do think this is a logical consequence. You have claimed this period (30 years after author's death) "is intended to reflect a compromise to take into account the majority interests of these owners, not necessarily those of the individual state." Wouldn't requiring eternal copyright take them into account even better? This is what I meant by taking other interests into account as well.

As I see it, the resolution seems to define the intellectual property in a manner that includes copyrighted material in a fiction book.

Er, yes. That was my point: it is not fair use, under this definition, if your character quotes a single sentence from a novel under copyright, or speaks the title of a copyrighted song; it is fair use to copy software, which you do not even need to own, for anybody's personal use.

Many questions have been exchanged thus far, but I am still not satisfied by the authors' (and Hack's) ability to respond. If the proposal truly deserves the consideration of the UN, it should at least be able to stand up to simple criticisms. So far, this is what it seems we have.

In posing these questions, the honorable representative of Fishyguy seems to overlook or dismiss two characteristics of human nature that we believe are both common and pertinent. The first is that people -- including the creators of intellectual property -- are motivated by expectation of future events. That's basic motivational psychology. Those events may be very close in time or quite distant. (Contributions to retirement funds is an example of actions motivated by distant expectations.) The second is that many people wish to leave a legacy for their heirs -- sometimes a legacy of reputation or renown, sometimes money or property. We suggest the very common practice of buying life insurance clearly demonstrates this. If the representative wishes to dismiss or deny these premises, then, regretfully, there is no basis for trying to discuss these issues. Now to the specific questions.


1. "So, what incentive could a person have to create art 30 years after his/her death?"
- Still unanswered, although "we concede that extension of copyright beyond the creator's death is not a universally accepted principle."

The creator is motivated by his/her expectations of continued value which will benefit his/her heirs. If this is to be dismissed or denied, then we would be at a loss to explain why people would buy life insurance.

2. "Why not set the minimum to the time of the author’s death?"
- "It allows creators of intellectual property to pass along value to their heirs."

We stand on this reason.

3. "Why should the author's estate be entitled to royalties for something they did not create?" (This time I would like for someone else to answer, instead of Hack's attempt to turn the question back towards me. Also, I believe I explained why Ausserland's analogy doesn't work.)
- "Having a family benefit from the work of a relative after they are deceased is hardly a novel concept."

The author created the work. We believe the author should be entitled to determine who profits from it. If the author wishes to have his heirs and assigns profit, we believe that is a perfectly valid desire. It's not the entitlement of the estate that's at issue here; it's the entitlement of the author.

4. "Extension of copyright beyond one's death is simply impractical based on the proposal's argument that copyright increases the incentive to produce artworks."
- See question 1.


This is, once again, ignoring the basic fact of motivational psychology that people are motivated to act based on their expectations of future consequences. It is not at all impractical. It takes into account an important reality of human nature.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

In posing these questions, the honorable representative of Fishyguy seems to overlook or dismiss two characteristics of human nature that we believe are both common and pertinent. The first is that people -- including the creators of intellectual property -- are motivated by expectation of future events. That's basic motivational psychology. Those events may be very close in time or quite distant. (Contributions to retirement funds is an example of actions motivated by distant expectations.) The second is that many people wish to leave a legacy for their heirs -- sometimes a legacy of reputation or renown, sometimes money or property. We suggest the very common practice of buying life insurance clearly demonstrates this. If the representative wishes to dismiss or deny these premises, then, regretfully, there is no basis for trying to discuss these issues. Now to the specific questions.

Given these premises (with which we agree fully) we do not believe that setting copyright terms to 30 years after author's death is the best, or the only, way to fulfill these expectations.

We beg you to explain how the present law of Liberastan, which the proposed convention would make illegal, doesn't achieve any of the goals desired:

1) The copyright is automatical, as per the proposed convention.
2) The copyright is not transferable under any circumstances. We believe that licensing is adequate for any purposes commonly served by the sale of copyright.
2) The protections specified in clause 3a of the proposed convention is originally granted for the term of 5 years. It may be extended for up to 20 more years at the request of the creator or his heirs, after these 5 years pass.
3) After this term expires, any entity may print, display, demonstrate, reproduce, or store in an electronic system any intellectual property without the consent of the creator or his heirs; however, the creator or his heirs are entitled to half of any and all income from such actions, should they choose to claim it. The creator or his heirs must be informed of these actions in advance of their being taken; if this is not done, they are entitled to the entire income and any damages awarded to them by the court.
4) The law doesn't discriminate between humor, satire and other derived works: all of them may be made freely. However, the author of the original work, or his heirs, are entitled to any and all income from such works for the term of protection specified in clause 2, should they choose to claim it; and to half of such income after this term expires. The creator or his heirs must be informed of such derived works in advance of their becoming available; if this is not done, they are entitled to the entire income and any damages awarded to them by the court.

I do not believe you wished to imply this. We do think this is a logical consequence. You have claimed this period (30 years after author's death) "is intended to reflect a compromise to take into account the majority interests of these owners, not necessarily those of the individual state." Wouldn't requiring eternal copyright take them into account even better? This is what I meant by taking other interests into account as well.

My apologies for jumping the gun on your implication. Nevertheless, I still don't quite appreciate your point. When I said "to reflect a compromise..." I was trying to balance the need for protection of the rights of the owner of intellectual property to control of its dissimulation and the right of the public to have fair access, after a reasonable period of time, to that property, since it can be beneficial to the public interest. 30 years is a compromise, but indefinite copyright wouldn't be, because it would be skewing the balance too far in the favour of the owner of the intellectual property. That was my point.


Er, yes. That was my point: it is not fair use, under this definition, if your character quotes a single sentence from a novel under copyright, or speaks the title of a copyrighted song; it is fair use to copy software, which you do not even need to own, for anybody's personal use.

I can't see where in the definition of fair use it implies this. If you use the quotation for an educational purpose or for better understanding of the work in question, in an educational setting, I fail to see why it wouldn't be fair. The same applies for the software example.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Er, yes. That was my point: it is not fair use, under this definition, if your character quotes a single sentence from a novel under copyright, or speaks the title of a copyrighted song; it is fair use to copy software, which you do not even need to own, for anybody's personal use.
It's not fair use to do that to software unless you personally know the person you are distributing it to. It's not "personal" if you have to impersonally sell it in a marketplace.

And you could probably make your national laws so that titles cannot be copyrighted, since their not of much creative value and are only a few words.
You missed the point of his post.
"How is it justified to prevent art that no longer profits anyone from entering the public domain?"
Who decides when it no longer profits anyone? Who can tell if it won't in the future?

This proposal sets no maximum limit to the length of a copyright, so how does it solve this flaw?
Because each nation's copyright law applies only to that nation. If a nation wants to set the copyright for a million years after the author's death, that's not hurting any other nation, so it's not the UN's business.

You could have been less restrictive in the proposal's wording, you could have allowed greater room for individual nations to decide, you could have said nothing about it at all. Better to leave it up to individual nations than oppress the UN with your views.
OOC: We're not oppressing anybody. The conditions are actually a lot looser than the RL Berne Convention, which seemed reasonable to us while drafting, and there were no compelling arguments to make it shorter. And we decided that authors did need protection greater than that of what some people were arguing for. (For the record, the NSO is voting 8-0 on its forum poll on this issue, so I'd think twice about crying natsov.)

Do you admit then, that your proposal fails what it set out to accomplish?
NO! I said that is doesn't give international protection. It does, however, give national protection internationally. I was replying to a post where you said everyone should get 1 year of international protection while they apply for copyrights in all nations. (Which is still unreasonable, it could easily take more than a year to send out all those applications and jump through hoops that some nations would want to set up.)


Yet you refuse to allow nations to differ in their copyright laws. I don't understand how you can force-feed your laws unto everyone without a thought to the social and economic consequences it will carry to the many unique government forms found in NationStates.
I allow them to differ, a lot! You can have 30 years over life, 50 years over life, 70 years over life, 1 million years over life, you can even have a copyright for a straight period of 500 years, provided none of your citizens grew to be over 470. There are many ways to comply with this resolution.

Still awaiting a response.
I answered this above in this post, and so did other posters.

Can this be extended even further? As Too Kind pointed out and I asked earlier...
Only if the artist actually gets funding from the government, and signs the contract.

Many questions have been exchanged thus far, but I am still not satisfied by the authors' (and Hack's) ability to respond. If the proposal truly deserves the consideration of the UN, it should at least be able to stand up to simple criticisms. So far, this is what it seems we have.
We're sorry we're missing some of the post, there's a lot to respond to and sometimes some fall through the cracks.

1. "So, what incentive could a person have to create art 30 years after his/her death?"
- Still unanswered, although "we concede that extension of copyright beyond the creator's death is not a universally accepted principle."

2. "Why not set the minimum to the time of the author’s death?"
- "It allows creators of intellectual property to pass along value to their heirs."

3. "Why should the author's estate be entitled to royalties for something they did not create?" (This time I would like for someone else to answer, instead of Hack's attempt to turn the question back towards me. Also, I believe I explained why Ausserland's analogy doesn't work.)
- "Having a family benefit from the work of a relative after they are deceased is hardly a novel concept."

4. "Extension of copyright beyond one's death is simply impractical based on the proposal's argument that copyright increases the incentive to produce artworks."
- See question 1.[/QUOTE]
Ausserland answered all of these very satisfactorally.

I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record, but it seems that I keep asking these questions while receiving no feedback. These questions are not unreasonable. My objections are not to the idea of copyright itself but to this specific proposal. By this time, I'm starting to believe that people simply vote for a proposal because it "looks pretty", regardless of the actual substance it contains.
Well, we've tried to answer your concerns. If you have any more, please don't hesitate to post.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Given these premises (with which we agree fully) we do not believe that setting copyright terms to 30 years after author's death is the best, or the only, way to fulfill these expectations.

We beg you to explain how the present law of Liberastan, which the proposed convention would make illegal, doesn't achieve any of the goals desired:

1) The copyright is automatical, as per the proposed convention.
2) The copyright is not transferable under any circumstances. We believe that licensing is adequate for any purposes commonly served by the sale of copyright.
2) The protections specified in clause 3a of the proposed convention is originally granted for the term of 5 years. It may be extended for up to 20 more years at the request of the creator or his heirs, after these 5 years pass.
3) After this term expires, any entity may print, display, demonstrate, reproduce, or store in an electronic system any intellectual property without the consent of the creator or his heirs; however, the creator or his heirs are entitled to half of any and all income from such actions, should they choose to claim it. The creator or his heirs must be informed of these actions in advance of their being taken; if this is not done, they are entitled to the entire income and any damages awarded to them by the court.
4) The law doesn't discriminate between humor, satire and other derived works: all of them may be made freely. However, the author of the original work, or his heirs, are entitled to any and all income from such works for the term of protection specified in clause 2, should they choose to claim it; and to half of such income after this term expires. The creator or his heirs must be informed of such derived works in advance of their becoming available; if this is not done, they are entitled to the entire income and any damages awarded to them by the court.

We appreciate the honorable representative's giving us a chance to examine his nation's copyright law. It would certainly accomplish the goals we're discussing. We do have a couple of comments on specific provisions:

2) [first one] We fail to see what the problem is with transfer of copyrights. But we can see why it may be necessary in light of the other provisions of the law.

2) [second one] Workable, but it adds complexity to the licensing process for relatively recent works. If we want to use a 10-year-old work, we have the added step of finding out if the copyright has been extended. A fixed term would preclude the necessity.

3) This provision frankly astounds us. You say the copyright expires at the end of the 20-year extension. But what we see is that your creators have perpetual copyright-on-demand, whether it's called copyright or not, with an automatic entitlement to 50% of the gross income from the derived work. A firm publishes an annotated edition of an 80-year-old novel and they're expected to pay the heirs of the original author 50% of the income? Given that, in book publishing in Ausserland (and in the mythical land of RL), royalties tend to run somewhere between 5% and 15% of net income, we find this incredible.

And please note that we have never said a life+30-year minimum duration was the only possibility. It is the standard we have chosen to put before this Assembly for its consideration, and which we believe to be reasonable.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Who decides when it no longer profits anyone? Who can tell if it won't in the future?


Nonresponsive. We were attempting to point out, again, that there is a point of diminishing returns with copyright duration. The first few years of the copyright benefit the artists most, the last years benefit large corporations most.

I found the prior point where you talk about how much leeway is given to individual nations under this proposal laughable. How many NSUN nations have a longer copyright duration then is set here? I would wager significantly more have shorter. So the leeway is to increase their duration, or farrrrrrrrrr increase their duration.

You have aptly demonstrated that the purpose of this legislation is not to ecourage artists, but to increase the profits of the large corporations that artists are forced to sell their rights to, in a copyright regime.

I would also like to point out again that copyright is not the best way to protect artists from plagiarism. If your concern is to prevent someone from stealing credit for another artists work then using this copyright legislation is akin to using a sledge hammer to kill a gnat.

We do need further NSUN legislation designed to prevent plagiarism. After that we'll need to repeal this legislation (it appears that it will pass) and work on drafting more moderate copyright reform.

A firm publishes an annotated edition of an 80-year-old novel and they're expected to pay the heirs of the original author 50% of the income? Given that, in book publishing in Ausserland (and in the mythical land of RL), royalties tend to run somewhere between 5% and 15% of net income, we find this incredible.

It makes perfect sense if your goal is to protect the artist, rather then use government intervention to line the pockets of large corporations.


And please note that we have never said a life+30-year minimum duration was the only possibility.

This legislation sets it as a minimum. That makes it the minimum possiblity.

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.

This clause is contradictory.

Surely if the original author transfers or sells (ie relinquishing the copyright),he cannot thereafter retain ownership. The wording of this clause would assigning any copyright to a third party worthless. If “copyrights” is exchanged for “Licences” in this clause then the clause may make sense.

On these grounds, and on the grounds that all property is theft, Carlitoland must urge delegates to reject the convention

Nonresponsive. We were attempting to point out, again, that there is a point of diminishing returns with copyright duration. The first few years of the copyright benefit the artists most, the last years benefit large corporations most.

Please provide the logic behand this statement. We do not see it. If the creator of intellectual property licenses rights under a royalty arrangement, the publisher's net income and the author's royalties would decline at the same rate.

I found the prior point where you talk about how much leeway is given to individual nations under this proposal laughable. How many NSUN nations have a longer copyright duration then is set here? I would wager significantly more have shorter. So the leeway is to increase their duration, or farrrrrrrrrr increase their duration.


We would happily take that wager. Since neither we nor the representative of Discoraversalism have any way of determining the copyright durations in NSUN nations, we can only look to the mythical land of RL for an analogy. There we find that the following countries have established durations (with some exceptions for particular works) of life of the author plus 70 years: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, The United Kingdom, The United States, Switzerland, France, and Spain. In Jordan, The Philippines, Japan and Hong Kong, it's life +50. And these are only countries where we were able to specifically verify the duration. Those interested might also like to examine this list: Copyright lengths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_length). Now, would the representative of Discoraversalism care to tell us whether there's any rational basis for his wager?

You have aptly demonstrated that the purpose of this legislation is not to ecourage artists, but to increase the profits of the large corporations that artists are forced to sell their rights to, in a copyright regime.


Nonsense. If artists are "forced" to sell their rights to corporations, it's a function of the realities of publishing and marketing, not copyright.

I would also like to point out again that copyright is not the best way to protect artists from plagiarism. If your concern is to prevent someone from stealing credit for another artists work then using this copyright legislation is akin to using a sledge hammer to kill a gnat.


The concern is to prevent the theft of credit for work, but also to prevent the theft of potential income from works by rip-off artists and pirate publishers reducing the market for legitimately published works. We recognise that the representative of Discoraversalism sees nothing wrong with that. We believe the other members of this Assembly will see things differently.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Please provide the logic behand this statement. We do not see it. If the creator of intellectual property licenses rights under a royalty arrangement, the publisher's net income and the author's royalties would decline at the same rate.


The lare corporations benefit by preventing competition. Copyright is used to stifle competition.


We would happily take that wager. Since neither we nor the representative of Discoraversalism have any way of determining the copyright durations in NSUN nations, we can only look to the mythical land of RL for an analogy.


Fortunately the NSUN is a better place then the mythical realm you refer to. We could do a simple poll of participants here. Does a single country besides the 2 involved in authoring this document have a longer copyright duration then the minimum set by this legislation? We have heard from many that have shorter durations.


Nonsense. If artists are "forced" to sell their rights to corporations, it's a function of the realities of publishing and marketing, not copyright.



Lol. The realities of publishing and marketing in copyright regimes are determined by copyright. Again, it's the digital age, publishing costs are now nearly zero, and marketing of art is best done by giving away representative samples of the artists work.

It is not inevitable that large corporations prey on artists. Many others on this very thread have proposed ways to prevent said predation from occuring. Every response I have heard to those proposals has been along the lines of "But how will large corporations then control their IP for an excessive amount of time!" (or at least that's how it sounded to us).

The lare corporations benefit by preventing competition. Copyright is used to stifle competition.Really, considering how many authors, musicians, artists are out there working under copyright I find it hard to believe that copyright has any effect at all on competition.

Fortunately the NSUN is a better place then the mythical realm you refer to. We could do a simple poll of participants here. Does a single country besides the 2 involved in authoring this document have a longer copyright duration then the minimum set by this legislation? We have heard from many that have shorter durations.We do, standard copyright duration in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites is life+45 years.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

My apologies for jumping the gun on your implication. Nevertheless, I still don't quite appreciate your point. When I said "to reflect a compromise..." I was trying to balance the need for protection of the rights of the owner of intellectual property to control of its dissimulation and the right of the public to have fair access, after a reasonable period of time, to that property, since it can be beneficial to the public interest. 30 years is a compromise, but indefinite copyright wouldn't be, because it would be skewing the balance too far in the favour of the owner of the intellectual property. That was my point.

I believe that placing only a lower bound does not and can not reflect such a compromise. While I believe 30 years after the author's death is far too long, I would be willing to accept it, provided an upper limit was also present.

I can't see where in the definition of fair use it implies this. If you use the quotation for an educational purpose or for better understanding of the work in question, in an educational setting, I fail to see why it wouldn't be fair. The same applies for the software example.

The scenario you describe does work. However, of the two scenarios I describe, neither involve educational setting.

To be more precise: consider a fan of Sherlock Holmes who writes a book. He wants one of his craracters to say: "The game is afoot!" This is copyrighted material. In the US I am pretty sure this would pass the amount test for fair use; but the proposed convention does not allow this test. It does allow any use and reproduction for personal purposes, which leads to my software example. I do not consider the software example to actually be fair use; so I am concerned about the convention making it fair use.

I hope this makes my objection more clear.

Fortunately the NSUN is a better place then the mythical realm you refer to. We could do a simple poll of participants here. Does a single country besides the 2 involved in authoring this document have a longer copyright duration then the minimum set by this legislation? We have heard from many that have shorter durations.

In the St Edmundan Antarctic (as in St Edmund itself, and the rest of the Godwinnian Commonwealth) it's 'life + 50 years'... and some of our people are partly Ouphish in ancestry, which gives them lifespans that could be two or three times as long as typical Human ones...

It's not fair use to do that to software unless you personally know the person you are distributing it to. It's not "personal" if you have to impersonally sell it in a marketplace.

Wait a moment: you think it is fair use if you do know this person?

Really, considering how many authors, musicians, artists are out there working under copyright I find it hard to believe that copyright has any effect at all on competition.

We do, standard copyright duration in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites is life+45 years.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Art cannot be stamped out by any amount of legislation. However that is not a reason to take any action to reduce competition.

There is a reason many bands have taken their licks, and gone independent. Distributors may refuse to distribute their wares, ticket masters may refuse to handle ticket sales, corporate radio stations may refuse to play their songs, but they find it necessary to protest the current corporate stagnation that occurs under excessive copyright regimes.

So far the poll appears to be 2 to 1. Our Free Land of Discoraversalism has significantly shorter copyright duration the minimum proposed here, and the Flibbleites have longer (EDIT, St Edmundan Antarctic has longer as well).

Art cannot be stamped out by any amount of legislation. However that is not a reason to take any action to reduce competition.

There is a reason many bands have taken their licks, and gone independent. Distributors may refuse to distribute their wares, ticket masters may refuse to handle ticket sales, corporate radio stations may refuse to play their songs, but they find it necessary to protest the current corporate stagnation that occurs under excessive copyright regimes.

So far the poll appears to be 2 to 1. Our Free Land of Discoraversalism has significantly shorter copyright duration the minimum proposed here, and the Flibbleites have longer (EDIT, St Edmundan Antarctic has longer as well).

3 to 1. Norderia is at Life +70 years.

I'm still at a loss as to where you got your ideas about copyrights from.

I represent a region of immortal beings, inhuman creatures and the living dead, for which reason limiting copyright duration to "death + x years" is immediately rendered meaningless and unfair.

My great-uncle Vlad is a huge country-and-western star, and has been frustrated throughout his career that since he is technically dead his copyright retention only lasts for so many years and after that he loses his rights, and can't claim royalties on the young, 2000-and-something year old upstarts who do covers of his stuff.

I for one think this is unacceptable. The UN should give more rights to the dead, the immortal and the non-human. You're all just gonna be our minions one day anyway, once the apocalypse comes around.

We appreciate the honorable representative's giving us a chance to examine his nation's copyright law. It would certainly accomplish the goals we're discussing. We do have a couple of comments on specific provisions:

2) [first one] We fail to see what the problem is with transfer of copyrights. But we can see why it may be necessary in light of the other provisions of the law.

We believe that copyright derives from having created the work in question. Since you can't transfer this, you can't transfer copyright.

2) [second one] Workable, but it adds complexity to the licensing process for relatively recent works. If we want to use a 10-year-old work, we have the added step of finding out if the copyright has been extended. A fixed term would preclude the necessity.

The added step is simply a request to the copyright office.

3) This provision frankly astounds us. You say the copyright expires at the end of the 20-year extension. But what we see is that your creators have perpetual copyright-on-demand, whether it's called copyright or not, with an automatic entitlement to 50% of the gross income from the derived work. A firm publishes an annotated edition of an 80-year-old novel and they're expected to pay the heirs of the original author 50% of the income? Given that, in book publishing in Ausserland (and in the mythical land of RL), royalties tend to run somewhere between 5% and 15% of net income, we find this incredible.

They are expected to actually talk to the author or heirs first and reach an agreement, which is generally far below 50% of the gross. 50% is intended to be punitive and gross income is used to prevent any "creative accounting". The intention is to allow free non-commercial use of the work once a reasonable period (20 years) has passed. For commercial use, yes, copyright is pretty close to perpetual.

Please note, however, that there has been a mistake in editing clause 4: it is actually up to 50% of income for the term specified in the second clause 2 (another editing mistake) and up to 25% afterwards. This "up to" may depend on how derivative this work is. In your case of an annotated edition, it may qualify as a derived work.

3 to 1. Norderia is at Life +70 years.

I'm still at a loss as to where you got your ideas about copyrights from.

We have tried hard to be completely transparent. In each of the last 4 threads on this issue we have provided a series of links describing the background for my position. Largely from wikipedia, a tangent we cannot discuss.

Anyway, I saved all those links and compiled them here:
http://community.livejournal.com/discorapolitic/7621.html
and here:
http://community.livejournal.com/discorapolitic/7272.html

It appears the only people responding to my little survey have copyright in exceeded that proposed by this legislation :) It is indeed 3 countries with excessive copyright (which I define as longer then that proposed by this legislation) and so far 1 country with shorter copyright duration then the minimum proposed here.

I represent a region of immortal beings, inhuman creatures and the living dead, for which reason limiting copyright duration to "death + x years" is immediately rendered meaningless and unfair.

My great-uncle Vlad is a huge country-and-western star, and has been frustrated throughout his career that since he is technically dead his copyright retention only lasts for so many years and after that he loses his rights, and can't claim royalties on the young, 2000-and-something year old upstarts who do covers of his stuff.

I for one think this is unacceptable. The UN should give more rights to the dead, the immortal and the non-human. You're all just gonna be our minions one day anyway, once the apocalypse comes around.

Set your copyright limits at life + 1,000,000 years or more. This Resolution doesn't set a maximum. That is for member nations to do. Your great-Uncle Vlad is having trouble as the result of your nation's apparent self-neglecting copyright laws. It is no trouble of the UN if your nation refuses to set a high maximum for its own population which, as previously stated is largely immortal.

(OOC: For all the supernatural entities and their general rarity in the game, it has been widely accepted that the species mentioned in resolutions such as "persons" or "humans" extend to include the creatures living in the unconventional nations. If we had to write a bill of rights for every Marclarg and flareinjanger that populated the NSUN world, we'd never get anywhere.)

We have tried hard to be completely transparent. In each of the last 4 threads on this issue we have provided a series of links describing the background for my position. Largely from wikipedia, a tangent we cannot discuss.

Anyway, I saved all those links and compiled them here:
http://community.livejournal.com/discorapolitic/7621.html
and here:
http://community.livejournal.com/discorapolitic/7272.html

It appears the only people responding to my little survey have copyright in exceeded that proposed by this legislation :) It is indeed 3 countries with excessive copyright (which I define as longer then that proposed by this legislation) and so far 1 country with shorter copyright duration then the minimum proposed here.

Your apparently biggest and most mentioned point is that the free distribution of your artist's work increases their reputation. I've debunked this before, but I'll do it again.

Without copyright, a person can take your artists work, call it their own, and sell it as their own. That will not do a god damn thing to help the artist who made it. It won't. And if you thought that every person would be nice and give credit where credit is due, then you wouldn't be in an organization that seeks to create laws that prevent people from not doing the right thing, now, would you? People seek to profit, and they don't always do it in a very Kosher way. You say plagiarism is very taboo in your country, and yet you denounce copyrights -- a tool used to punish plagiarism. If your country is just so perfect that nobody plagiarizes because the citizenry is so well-behaved, then fine. Your artists don't have to get copyrights. They can whore out their work and increase their reputation because apparently there are no selfish people in your nation. Great. But it does not work that way in every country. And several countries may be close to your perfection with artistic creations being held in high enough regard that nobody steals them, but would prefer to have copyrights to protect the authors and artists just in case. Your crusade against copyrights is inane and self-centered.

Without copyright, a person can take your artists work, call it their own, and sell it as their own.


You are describing plagiarism. If this legislation limited it's scope the slightest bit, and put more focus on combating plagiarism, we would support it. We are big fans of actual copyright reform.

You say plagiarism is very taboo in your country, and yet you denounce copyrights -- a tool used to punish plagiarism. If your country is just so perfect that nobody plagiarizes because the citizenry is so well-behaved, then fine.


I expect that plagiarism actually occurs in our country at roughly the same rate as yours. We don't use governmental means to combat it, but if such is required in your country, more power to you. In our country reputation is recognized to be of paramount importance to artists. Many actions artists take are solely designed to increase reputation. We can discuss the details of how reputation relates to profit for artists in some other place. I have to be very careful here to stay on topic.


But it does not work that way in every country. And several countries may be close to your perfection with artistic creations being held in high enough regard that nobody steals them, but would prefer to have copyrights to protect the authors and artists just in case. Your crusade against copyrights is inane and self-centered.

You cannot equate copyright with plagiarism protection. There are lots of other ways to prevent plagiarism.

I have given up trying to convince the UN that mandating international copyright is unnecessary. At this point I am happy to limit my scope to reducing the minimum copyright duration. We are big fans of compromise :)

If you feel copyright is the only way to prevent plagiarism, then perhaps you could support more moderate copyright law, that had a shorter mandatory minimum duration? (I'm against most mandatory minimums. It is typically best if the people in a given land decide for themselves what is appropriate for their culture. However we will settle for a lower minimum).


Set your copyright limits at life + 1,000,000 years or more. This Resolution doesn't set a maximum. That is for member nations to do. Your great-Uncle Vlad is having trouble as the result of your nation's apparent self-neglecting copyright laws. It is no trouble of the UN if your nation refuses to set a high maximum for its own population which, as previously stated is largely immortal.

(OOC: For all the supernatural entities and their general rarity in the game, it has been widely accepted that the species mentioned in resolutions such as "persons" or "humans" extend to include the creatures living in the unconventional nations. If we had to write a bill of rights for every Marclarg and flareinjanger that populated the NSUN world, we'd never get anywhere.)

We have seen no response to the examples proposed earlier, of nations with excessivly long lifespans. If an immortal author writes a book, then enters a coma, and is put in cryo stasis, can that book never be printed again?

The Free Land of Nagapura, supports this resolution. Even though it only addresses one part of the problem, and not even the most important part, we feel that it addresses it reasonably well. The arts have always been a major focus in Nagapura, and any resolution in support of them is likely to gain our vote, as this one has.


FOR

{Oh, and did I mention that I, myself, am a writer?}

I expect that plagiarism actually occurs in our country at roughly the same rate as yours. We don't use governmental means to combat it, but if such is required in your country, more power to you. In our country reputation is recognized to be of paramount importance to artists. Many actions artists take are solely designed to increase reputation. We can discuss the details of how reputation relates to profit for artists in some other place. I have to be very careful here to stay on topic.

What means do you use to combat it then?

And beyond that, you're missing (again) the point I am making about reputation. I don't doubt that artist reputation helps the artist profit, but you're ignoring the fact that if nobody knows what artist actually did what, then the real artist doesn't have reputation. If the RL author Bill Watterson had his Calvin and Hobbes stories stolen from him, the thiefs name placed on it, and the books more widely published by the thief, then whose reputation is being helped? The real author? Certainly not. Sure, reputation is being improved, but not the author's. It doesn't matter how good a persons' artistic reputation is if they aren't even responsible for the art for which they've been given such a reputation.

What means do you use to combat it then?

And beyond that, you're missing (again) the point I am making about reputation. I don't doubt that artist reputation helps the artist profit, but you're ignoring the fact that if nobody knows what artist actually did what, then the real artist doesn't have reputation. If the RL author Bill Watterson had his Calvin and Hobbes stories stolen from him, the thiefs name placed on it, and the books more widely published by the thief, then whose reputation is being helped? The real author? Certainly not. Sure, reputation is being improved, but not the author's. It doesn't matter how good a persons' artistic reputation is if they aren't even responsible for the art for which they've been given such a reputation.

We freely admit that artists need to be able to profit off their works by building their reputation. The above example is plagiarism, which we have repeatedly declared anathema.

We can discuss the specifics of how Discoraversalist society handles plagiarism somewhere else. Do you claim that copyright is the only way to prevent plagiarism?

The Free Land of Nagapura, supports this resolution. Even though it only addresses one part of the problem, and not even the most important part, we feel that it addresses it reasonably well. The arts have always been a major focus in Nagapura, and any resolution in support of them is likely to gain our vote, as this one has.


FOR

{Oh, and did I mention that I, myself, am a writer?}

We humbly ask that the representative from Nagapura rethink their support. What aspect of what problem do you feel this legislation properly addresses?

If we believed this legislation supported art we would be all for it. Unfortunately we believe that the excessive copyright duration in this bill serves only to restrict and control art, by handing off control of art to large corporate interests.

3) After this term expires, any entity may print, display, demonstrate, reproduce, or store in an electronic system any intellectual property without the consent of the creator or his heirs; however, the creator or his heirs are entitled to half of any and all income from such actions, should they choose to claim it. The creator or his heirs must be informed of these actions in advance of their being taken; if this is not done, they are entitled to the entire income and any damages awarded to them by the court.
4) The law doesn't discriminate between humor, satire and other derived works: all of them may be made freely. However, the author of the original work, or his heirs, are entitled to any and all income from such works for the term of protection specified in clause 2, should they choose to claim it; and to half of such income after this term expires. The creator or his heirs must be informed of such derived works in advance of their becoming available; if this is not done, they are entitled to the entire income and any damages awarded to them by the court.

Additional important clarification: any derived works and works republished without consent MUST include acknowledgement and atribution to the original author. Lack of such atribution means penalties as above, and the courts are likely to award pretty big damages in such a case!

this resolution is horrible. i cant believe its winning!

this resolution is horrible. i cant believe its winning!

(OOC I'm betting people are accustomed to copyright in RL, and they haven't given much thought to how it works, who it benefits, or what an appropriate copyright duration is. In the U.S. our copyright terms have basically been decided by Disney, and few have thought to question.)

For what it's worth, we're +30 here. Of course, we've got pretty long life-spans here -- [yay PMT] -- so it'd be pretty close to +100 compared to some less advanced nations.

But, yeah. +30 is the official law.

As for stolen work increasing a reputation, I gotta say... I never liked Calvin and Hobbes until I saw those little Calvins pissing on everything under the sun, from vehicle company emblems to sports teams. I tell ya, seeing those stolen imagines pissing out their Streams of Justice just made me say, "That Watterson. He's a great guy! Here's something entirely unrelated to anything he's actually done, they just stole the image, but, boy oh boy, has he suddenly become a genius in my mind! Thank God those people used that image without his permission!"


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

Originally Posted by Discoraversalism
We humbly ask that the representative from Nagapura rethink their support. What aspect of what problem do you feel this legislation properly addresses?

If we believed this legislation supported art we would be all for it. Unfortunately we believe that the excessive copyright duration in this bill serves only to restrict and control art, by handing off control of art to large corporate interests.

Convince me. Explain why I should vote no.

As for stolen work increasing a reputation, I gotta say... I never liked Calvin and Hobbes until I saw those little Calvins pissing on everything under the sun, from vehicle company emblems to sports teams. I tell ya, seeing those stolen imagines pissing out their Streams of Justice just made me say, "That Watterson. He's a great guy! Here's something entirely unrelated to anything he's actually done, they just stole the image, but, boy oh boy, has he suddenly become a genius in my mind! Thank God those people used that image without his permission!"
Aside from the fact that I hate those stickers, perhaps Calvin and Hobbes was a poor example. It happens to be the closest book to me on my bookshelf there, so I took it. A better example would be something without a visual reference, or something with the author's name written on it, like a novel or a painting.

Disco, you say that plagiarism is declared anathema. Great. Fine. So's murder, rape, child molestation and whatever. But there are STILL (in many cases, since someone's bound to say some dickheaded remark to the contrary) laws against those. All you have done is say that plagiarism is frowned upon. Very much. As if anyone has ever stopped doing something simply because other people discourage it. You want me to bring up other examples of what other plagiarism protections there are, but you won't even show how copyrights don't protect against it. All you're doing is dismissing my argument because of anathema. You can shake your fist all you want, but if you think that's going to make people stop misbehaving, then you've clearly got a lot to learn.

I thank everyone who offered a response to my previous post. I'm tired tonight and will not provide a lengthy answer to anything, but I will bring up some points.


If the representative wishes to dismiss or deny these premises, then, regretfully, there is no basis for trying to discuss these issues.
I have not denied either premise of yours, but the argument that copyright should extend 30 years beyond death does not automatically follow either of them. There are plenty of reasons to discuss these issues regardless of my personal stance.


Because each nation's copyright law applies only to that nation. If a nation wants to set the copyright for a million years after the author's death, that's not hurting any other nation, so it's not the UN's business.
But didn't you say "People and publishers are only mildly hampered by national borders." ? What's stopping them from taking their business to the countries with lengthy copyright?


We're not oppressing anybody.
The author must admit however, that the proposal is rather ethnocentric, if it's not, then at least your arguments defending it have been. You say you provide nations a wide range to set their copyright terms, but it is a range that you have established. It is not a naturaly recognizable minimum, but an artificial one that the authors have set up.


For the record, the NSO is voting 8-0 on its forum poll on this issue, so I'd think twice about crying natsov.
I'm not familiar with NSO, but their decisions carry no weight on this proposal.


I said that is doesn't give international protection. It does, however, give national protection internationally.
Maybe I'm just too tired, but that didn't register with me. :confused:


I was replying to a post where you said everyone should get 1 year of international protection while they apply for copyrights in all nations.
I actually didn't say that, Gilbert Pike did.


We're sorry we're missing some of the post, there's a lot to respond to and sometimes some fall through the cracks.
No need to apologize, I'm not replying to everything in one post either.


The poll on the length of NSUN nation's copyright laws is amusing, and absolutely irrelevant. No one who is for this proposal is going to admit they have anything shorter, while those against will surely play it the other way.
The focus should not be what other nations here have, but what length will benefit the majority of the UN by the greatest amount.


I believe that placing only a lower bound does not and can not reflect such a compromise. While I believe 30 years after the author's death is far too long, I would be willing to accept it, provided an upper limit was also present.
I applaud Liberastan and am willing to join his position if that will help correct the current proposal.

this sounds fair

Section 1d. What's offensive is the "taken for granted" stance that this resolution creates. Creates that corporations are legal entities on par with actual people

Section 3a. Copyright after death is clearly a "taken for granted" human rights stance ... since when do the dead own anything? Can dead people give consent? If dead people cannot speak on their own behalf, does it fall upon the state to appoint a ward of the state? If you say the "dead have ownership rights" then they can get sued also ... the dead need representation!

Section 2. Makes us as UN members become responsible for non-UN copyright trails. Since we can't enforce UN resolutions on non-UN states, we should never accept responsibility for something that's best administered in the author's home nation. Why should my nation be responsible if it uses something that has no apparent ownership, then some non-UN citizen seeks damages against us? Read the resolution ... this can happen. Section 2 just uses too much blanket terms and absolute conditions. We should not approve a resolution that is not practically enforcable.

Section 6. "Original author of work must always have rights to use their work". Follow my thoughts ... so someone employee of a corporation is being paid to create a work ... he creates it, but still controls it ... okay, he has sold his control through his salary ... but he still possesses the "right to use their work" ... but such work is sensitive, maybe a classified government thesis, a innovative ballistics or HUD targeting program ... said author no longer works for such corporation or government agency ... is the person as author reasonably given the "right to use" their creation? The "right to use" is an empty phrase ... use for what? Application or Claim? Write a novel and sell it, you're always welcome to read it after you buy it from the store. "Right to claim credit" is more what this proposes to fix, but actually doesn't. "Use" is too non-descript and therefore loses application when seeking enforcement.

Section 5. Since section 5 creates a distinction between "use" and "attribution", authors will be free to read their own novels but not be claimants to said creation. The resolution only enforces "use" and "control" on behalf of the author, never "attribution" ... which is what I feel is the actual spirit of this resolution ... to allow authors to claim their creations for their credit.

Overall, a well-wrote resolution that simply fails to see the unintended consequences of its blanket enforcement.

Section 1d. What's offensive is the "taken for granted" stance that this resolution creates. Creates that corporations are legal entities on par with actual people
The definition is just a way of not having to say "corporation or person" every time. No need to be offended.

Section 3a. Copyright after death is clearly a "taken for granted" human rights stance ... since when do the dead own anything? Can dead people give consent? If dead people cannot speak on their own behalf, does it fall upon the state to appoint a ward of the state? If you say the "dead have ownership rights" then they can get sued also ... the dead need representation!
The dead can't own it. Whoever owns the copyright gets to control it until that amount of time after the author's death. Obviously, dead people can't own anything, so they'd have to transfer it to their kids or whatever.

Section 2. Makes us as UN members become responsible for non-UN copyright trails. Since we can't enforce UN resolutions on non-UN states, we should never accept responsibility for something that's best administered in the author's home nation. Why should my nation be responsible if it uses something that has no apparent ownership, then some non-UN citizen seeks damages against us? Read the resolution ... this can happen. Section 2 just uses too much blanket terms and absolute conditions. We should not approve a resolution that is not practically enforcable.
The point is that regardless of where a work is published, the same law applies to it. If it was published in a non-UN nation, that doesn't make a difference. As I said, national borders are not much of a barrier to people, so it doesn't make sense to discriminate against works that happened to be originally published in non-UN nations. We're "taking the high road", so to speak.

Section 6. "Original author of work must always have rights to use their work". Follow my thoughts ... so someone employee of a corporation is being paid to create a work ... he creates it, but still controls it ... okay, he has sold his control through his salary ... but he still possesses the "right to use their work" ... but such work is sensitive, maybe a classified government thesis, a innovative ballistics or HUD targeting program ... said author no longer works for such corporation or government agency ... is the person as author reasonably given the "right to use" their creation? The "right to use" is an empty phrase ... use for what? Application or Claim? Write a novel and sell it, you're always welcome to read it after you buy it from the store. "Right to claim credit" is more what this proposes to fix, but actually doesn't. "Use" is too non-descript and therefore loses application when seeking enforcement.
"Use" is deliberately vague, to account for situations such as yours. That is a restriction on national copyright law, so you can make exceptions for clauses such as your example so that "use" only means "use for personal use", etc.

Section 5. Since section 5 creates a distinction between "use" and "attribution", authors will be free to read their own novels but not be claimants to said creation. The resolution only enforces "use" and "control" on behalf of the author, never "attribution" ... which is what I feel is the actual spirit of this resolution ... to allow authors to claim their creations for their credit.
I assume you mean section 6. If an author sells their copyright, the new owner can do what he/she wants with it. Much better for the artist would be for them to license the copyright to someone else, to allow them to use it with payment/attribution.

You are also free to have national anti-plagiarism laws that mandate attribution, that wouldn't contridict this in most cases.

But didn't you say "People and publishers are only mildly hampered by national borders." ? What's stopping them from taking their business to the countries with lengthy copyright?
They can do that. But the long copyright laws only affect people who choose to be inside the nations with those long terms. In other words, people in my nation don't care if people in your nation have obnoxiously long copyright terms: they don't hurt us. So it's not the UN's business. On the other hand, nations with very short copyright terms do hurt other nations, by allowing their work to be redistributed too soon.

The author must admit however, that the proposal is rather ethnocentric, if it's not, then at least your arguments defending it have been. You say you provide nations a wide range to set their copyright terms, but it is a range that you have established. It is not a naturaly recognizable minimum, but an artificial one that the authors have set up.
Ethnocentric? Perhaps partial to one way of thinking, but aren't all resolutions like that one way or another?

I'm not familiar with NSO, but their decisions carry no weight on this proposal.
Yes, I know. I was just bringing that up as a sidenote.

Maybe I'm just too tired, but that didn't register with me.
The person who wrote the post I was responding to wanted to give a year of international copyright protection. I said we weren't going to have international copyright protection, only guarantee that all nations would have national copyright protection.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Section 6. "Original author of work must always have rights to use their work". Follow my thoughts ... so someone employee of a corporation is being paid to create a work ... he creates it, but still controls it ... okay, he has sold his control through his salary ... but he still possesses the "right to use their work" ... but such work is sensitive, maybe a classified government thesis, a innovative ballistics or HUD targeting program ... said author no longer works for such corporation or government agency ... is the person as author reasonably given the "right to use" their creation? The "right to use" is an empty phrase ... use for what? Application or Claim? Write a novel and sell it, you're always welcome to read it after you buy it from the store. "Right to claim credit" is more what this proposes to fix, but actually doesn't. "Use" is too non-descript and therefore loses application when seeking enforcement.
I thought of another thing. The government or corporations can always have employees sign legally binding trade secret or confidentiality agreements. Copyright isn't the only way of preventing redistribution. And in the case of the government, they can't own copyrights anyway.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Convince me. Explain why I should vote no.

My basic argument is that this legislation does not protect artists at all, it results in a system where by far most of the profits go to distributors and publishers.

A simple example would be a new band that shows great talent, and various agents expect them to be wildly popular. If they don't sign with a major label the various large corporations that control public performances won't work with them. They can't book large halls, sell tickets, advertise on the radio, etc..

The band could easily make a great living doing live shows in large venues, if the few large corporations didn't discourage competition.
(OOC real life example, Ticketmaster violating anti-trust law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticketmaster#Ticket_sales_market)

So the bands choices are being marginalized by the megacorps, or selling all rights to their music to said megacorps.

There is a point of diminishing returns in copyright duration. The first few years of it give the greatest revenue. The longer durations only serve corporate interests, giving them greater control of the market, and allowing them to prevent independent companies from gaining a foothold. It raises the barriers to entry.

If the goal of copyright is to encourage art then excessive copyright duration does not serve that goal. If the goal of copyright is to increase the profits of the megacorps that already exist in the countries that have long copyright durations, then this legislation is perfect.

It's real easy to figure out who reaps the most benefit from long copyright, and who pays the costs. Just examine where most of the profit goes, who has to give up their rights, and who pays inflatd prices.



Disco, you say that plagiarism is declared anathema. Great. Fine. So's murder, rape, child molestation and whatever. But there are STILL (in many cases, since someone's bound to say some dickheaded remark to the contrary) laws against those.

In our country we take great steps to minimize the government interference in art. Again, we are not asking any other country to refrain from using legislation to discourage plagiarism.


All you have done is say that plagiarism is frowned upon. Very much. As if anyone has ever stopped doing something simply because other people discourage it. You want me to bring up other examples of what other plagiarism protections there are, but you won't even show how copyrights don't protect against it.

In every copyright regime we are aware of, that has access to the net, the copyright laws are routinely ignored. Music and movies are traded freely. The unit cost of distributing art should be zero, and the market will make it so. If the legal market does not allow it, the black market will. It's damn hard to fight the invisible hand of capitalism :) A law requiring attribution though need not raise the unit cost significantly. If the legal market distributes goods at close to the unit cost the black market can't compete.


All you're doing is dismissing my argument because of anathema. You can shake your fist all you want, but if you think that's going to make people stop misbehaving, then you've clearly got a lot to learn.

Um, I don't really follow. Again, are you claiming copyright is the only way to prevent plagiarism?

Why can we not limit the scope of this legislation, shorten it's duration, but add a greater demand for attribution?

The results of an excessive copyright duration force artists to sell their rights to large corporations. It also results in people making cheap knockoffs, clearly inspired by another artist. The creators of these knockoffs cannot legally admit they are knockoffs, or they'd be sued. They are in fact prevented from giving attribution.

Section 1d. What's offensive is the "taken for granted" stance that this resolution creates. Creates that corporations are legal entities on par with actual people


We'd respectfully suggest the representative might benefit from some study of the legal principle of incorporation. The whole purpose of incorporation is to create a legal entity (sometimes called a "legal person" or "fictional person") with certain rights and obligations under the law. What those rights and obligations are -- and how much they are "on par" with those of natural persons -- is completely dependent on your nation's laws governing incorporation. This resolution does not "create" corporations as legal entities; it simply recognizes that they exist.

Section 3a. Copyright after death is clearly a "taken for granted" human rights stance ... since when do the dead own anything? Can dead people give consent? If dead people cannot speak on their own behalf, does it fall upon the state to appoint a ward of the state? If you say the "dead have ownership rights" then they can get sued also ... the dead need representation!

Of course the dead can't own property. But the living have a right to determine what happens to their property after death. Have you never heard of a will? The title to a copyright is property and can be inherited like any other property.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

My basic argument is that this legislation does not protect artists at all, it results in a system where by far most of the profits go to distributors and publishers.
That assumes a number of things, as I will show below.

A simple example would be a new band that shows great talent, and various agents expect them to be wildly popular. If they don't sign with a major label the various large corporations that control public performances won't work with them. They can't book large halls, sell tickets, advertise on the radio, etc..
What is the incentive for the owners of large halls, ticketsellers, radio companies, etc. for doing this?

So if there are a whole bunch of artists who don't want to sign on with labels, isn't there a huge market for a company to open up a large hall or sell and record CDs for independent artists? If people want something, the market will give it to them.

The band could easily make a great living doing live shows in large venues, if the few large corporations didn't discourage competition.
(OOC real life example, Ticketmaster violating anti-trust law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticketmaster#Ticket_sales_market)
That's an argument for stronger anti-trust laws, not against copyrights.

So the bands choices are being marginalized by the megacorps, or selling all rights to their music to said megacorps.

[QUOTE]There is a point of diminishing returns in copyright duration. The first few years of it give the greatest revenue. The longer durations only serve corporate interests, giving them greater control of the market, and allowing them to prevent independent companies from gaining a foothold. It raises the barriers to entry.
How? If there is no revenue from it, evidently people don't want it. How can that raise barriers to entry or tighten corporate control over the market?

However, you are missing an important point here. This resolution is meant to further all art, and that means furthering a lot of art that can only be produced by corporations. Newspapers are generally run by corporations. Same goes for magazines. Books do as well, since one person generally can't afford to bind all of the copies. Copyright doesn't do anything to increase that, but the corporations it affects are not necessarily "evil": they are the only ones that can produce some types of art, and that doesn't change with copyright.

If the goal of copyright is to encourage art then excessive copyright duration does not serve that goal. If the goal of copyright is to increase the profits of the megacorps that already exist in the countries that have long copyright durations, then this legislation is perfect.

It's real easy to figure out who reaps the most benefit from long copyright, and who pays the costs. Just examine where most of the profit goes, who has to give up their rights, and who pays inflatd prices.
You still haven't said why megacorps get more profit from long copyright durations. Nor have you said why that is a bad thing in all cases.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

That assumes a number of things, as I will show below.


What is the incentive for the owners of large halls, ticketsellers, radio companies, etc. for doing this?

To curry favor with the megacorps that are their primary customers.

So if there are a whole bunch of artists who don't want to sign on with labels, isn't there a huge market for a company to open up a large hall or sell and record CDs for independent artists? If people want something, the market will give it to them.


There is a large supply of independent artists. However the megacorp practices that prevent competition reduce the publicity and distribution of said independent artists. If you can't get your song on the radio because you don't have a major record label backing you up, it's hard to build demand for your shows.


That's an argument for stronger anti-trust laws, not against copyrights.


It's both :)



How? If there is no revenue from it, evidently people don't want it. How can that raise barriers to entry or tighten corporate control over the market?



There are a lot of people who would love to take a song written 30 years ago, and rework it. The original artist often supports the practice. However the megacorp that owns all the rights to the song has no reason to allow any competition. Others in this thread have described alternative copyright law that prevents corporations from discouraging art in this fashion.



However, you are missing an important point here. This resolution is meant to further all art, and that means furthering a lot of art that can only be produced by corporations. Newspapers are generally run by corporations. Same goes for magazines. Books do as well, since one person generally can't afford to bind all of the copies. Copyright doesn't do anything to increase that, but the corporations it affects are not necessarily "evil": they are the only ones that can produce some types of art, and that doesn't change with copyright.


You still haven't said why megacorps get more profit from long copyright durations. Nor have you said why that is a bad thing in all cases.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

After a work ceases to be profitable to a corporation the excess remaining copyright duration only serves to discourage innovation on said work. It doesn't help the corporation by giving it further profits, it helps by allowing the corporation to discourage innovation.

You have given examples of art that is produced by corporations, in your country. In our country, most the artists portion of the process is done by independent artists. Corporations are most useful in producing material goods.

We don't claim all corporations are bad. However it is in their best interest to stifle competition, and excessive copyright duration is a tool they can use to do so. When that happens, art is not being encouraged.

If there exist forms of art we are unaware of that cannot be produced without a megacrop backing it, great. Let the megacorps produce said works under more moderate copyright durations. Again, again, again, we are not asking anyone to lower their copyright durations, we are asking for this unnaceptably high minimum to be lower.

In her last statement, the ambassador of the Glorious People's Republic of Groot Gouda in the NSUN fully supports this resolution and will cast the Groot Gouda vote FOR this resolution. It seems best that the last thing we do here is promote proper, well-written legislation. After this resolution passes we'll take our long awaited leave from the UN (some must have waited for two years before that would happen ;) )

My basic argument is that this legislation does not protect artists at all, it results in a system where by far most of the profits go to distributors and publishers.

A simple example would be a new band that shows great talent, and various agents expect them to be wildly popular. If they don't sign with a major label the various large corporations that control public performances won't work with them. They can't book large halls, sell tickets, advertise on the radio, etc..

The band could easily make a great living doing live shows in large venues, if the few large corporations didn't discourage competition.
(OOC real life example, Ticketmaster violating anti-trust law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticketmaster#Ticket_sales_market)

So the bands choices are being marginalized by the megacorps, or selling all rights to their music to said megacorps.

There is a point of diminishing returns in copyright duration. The first few years of it give the greatest revenue. The longer durations only serve corporate interests, giving them greater control of the market, and allowing them to prevent independent companies from gaining a foothold. It raises the barriers to entry.

If the goal of copyright is to encourage art then excessive copyright duration does not serve that goal. If the goal of copyright is to increase the profits of the megacorps that already exist in the countries that have long copyright durations, then this legislation is perfect.

It's real easy to figure out who reaps the most benefit from long copyright, and who pays the costs. Just examine where most of the profit goes, who has to give up their rights, and who pays inflatd prices.


Once again, the representative of Discoraversalism displays his complete ignorance of the realities of marketing. If a corporation is able to create a monopolistic environment in a market, it's because they have siezed control of channels of distribution.

We would ask our honorable colleagues, in assessing the merits of this representative's arguments, to consider this quote from one of his innumerable earlier posts:

The realities of publishing and marketing in copyright regimes are determined by copyright. Again, it's the digital age, publishing costs are now nearly zero, and marketing of art is best done by giving away representative samples of the artists work.

If you agree with this completely illogical and baseless statement, then you should give the arguments of the representative considerable weight. If not, take them for what they're worth. If you're not sure, ask anyone who has been involved in publishing a book in this "digital age" or is involved with marketing. We're sure they'll be happy to give you their opinion of whether this makes any sense at all.

Patrik T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The Copyright proposal is a farce. A copyright term of sixty five years (or 30 years post mortem autoris) is way too long. Most copyrights diminish in value to zero after 30 years. This copyright term is just a way for the greedy record and movie companies to diminish the public domain and stifle public learning so that they can perpetuate a dishonest lifestyle.

This proposal's definition of "fair use" as "educational" entirely omits the economic nature of fair use. In Sony v. Betamax, the Supreme Court protected the Betamax because the Betamax was deemed to be a "staple article of commerce" - in other words, the Betamax recorder was a article of commerce that has legitimate, non-infringing uses and its infringing uses does not erode the economic value of television (in fact it strengthens it). And the Home Recording Act protects home copying as a fair use because home copying does not impact the economic value of commercially traded art like a CD or a movie. These economic fair uses have been consistent with high court rulings about fair use ever since the late eighteenth century British court systems going back to Donaldson v. Beckett. This act does nothing to protect the fair uses that are economically derivable.

Third, this copyright proposal is archetypal of the present copyright system, the copyright system that is rusting as fast as the obsolescence of the latest microprocessor. The record companies and the movie companies want a stronger copyright policy because that protects the status quo - so that the government will continue to protect their little fiefdoms on popular entertainment. But, given that the digital age undermines enforcability of copyright laws and will probably continue to revolutionize the artist / end user relationship, the burden is on the industry to justify the status quo. Why not just enact a modern copyright system that accounts for the pressures of the digital era?

Once again, the representative of Discoraversalism displays his complete ignorance of the realities of marketing. If a corporation is able to create a monopolistic environment in a market, it's because they have siezed control of channels of distribution.


It's sufficient to be partnered with the groups that control the channels of distribution.


We would ask our honorable colleagues, in assessing the merits of this representative's arguments, to consider this quote from one of his innumerable earlier posts:



If you agree with this completely illogical and baseless statement, then you should give the arguments of the representative considerable weight. If not, take them for what they're worth. If you're not sure, ask anyone who has been involved in publishing a book in this "digital age" or is involved with marketing. We're sure they'll be happy to give you their opinion of whether this makes any sense at all.

Patrik T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Well if you disagree with the statement we can start that discussion all over again. I will gladly elaborate on any point you find unclear, and will try to repeat the various unanswered questions raised on this thread, if you wish to answer them now. If there is any specific claim you contest, name it. I have tried very hard to provide all the background material necessary to explain my claims.

Do you feel copyright is the only way to prevent plagiarism? If an immortal author writes a book, falls into a coma, and is placed in cryo is it right that the book never be printed again? Is it not much more reasonable to detach copyright duration from the lifespan of the author? Why was such a large copyright duration chosen? Who do you think benefits from the last 25 years of a 75 year copyright duration?

In her last statement, the ambassador of the Glorious People's Republic of Groot Gouda in the NSUN fully supports this resolution and will cast the Groot Gouda vote FOR this resolution. It seems best that the last thing we do here is promote proper, well-written legislation. After this resolution passes we'll take our long awaited leave from the UN (some must have waited for two years before that would happen ;) )

The Ausserland delegation is sad to learn of the departure of the honorable Ambassador from Groot Gouda. While we have disagreed strongly with her on a number of occasions, we do deeply appreciate the many fine contributions she has made to the work of the NSUN. We thank her for her support of this resolution and wish her godspeed.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Afairs

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Miulana Kapalaoa
Minister for External Affairs
The Protectorate of Wailele Island

Um, I don't really follow. Again, are you claiming copyright is the only way to prevent plagiarism?
No. You, however, are claiming that it is NOT a way to prevent plagiarism.

And furthermore, you haven't illustrated any other ways of doing it.

The results of an excessive copyright duration force artists to sell their rights to large corporations.
Like Ausserland said, you really don't know what goes on. Who in the hell sits there and thinks, "Damn, I own these rights for this long? Wow... I have no CHOICE but to sell them to a large corporation!" Where are you getting this malarkey (Been waiting to use that word)?

It also results in people making cheap knockoffs, clearly inspired by another artist. The creators of these knockoffs cannot legally admit they are knockoffs, or they'd be sued. They are in fact prevented from giving attribution.
As opposed to just plain stealing it, as would be allowed without copyrights, correct?

It's great that you're down with sticking it to corporations, but you're doing more harm than good here by misdirecting the blame and plain making stuff up. I can name off the top of my head at least 5 or 6 record companies that can hardly be called corporations that own, along with the bands inside the labels, the rights to the music. There ain't a damn thing happening to stifle competition or screw artists. (For those that are bound to ask, Neurot Records, Translation Loss Records, Hydrahead Records, Relapse Records, Unfortunate Miracle Records)

Beyond that, if someone wants to make cheap knockoffs, god knows they wouldn't sell to anyone who knows anything about the art form. Copyrights don't infringe on influence, they infringe on copies. It says "can't think of something original? Well you can't steal this either."

No. You, however, are claiming that it is NOT a way to prevent plagiarism.


Alright then, if we both admit there are other ways of preventing plagiarism, then we could stay on topic rather then discussing those. I simply wish to seperate the issue of copyright from the issue of plagiarism. I support large parts of this legislation, I agree that plagiarism is a signficant issue. However I don't feel this legislation is a good way to fight plagiarism, the cost is too high.


And furthermore, you haven't illustrated any other ways of doing it.


I have, ad nauseum, in other threads. However I've also been repeatedly chastized for allowing the discussion to go off topic, and I'm trying not to do so here. If you admit there are other ways to combat plagiarism we can move on to discussing the topic at hand.


Like Ausserland said, you really don't know what goes on. Who in the hell sits there and thinks, "Damn, I own these rights for this long? Wow... I have no CHOICE but to sell them to a large corporation!" Where are you getting this malarkey (Been waiting to use that word)?


If I have any misconceptions you should feel free to point out any mistakes I have made, but I see little evidence that you can gauge my understanding of the issues at hand. There is a reason ant trust law suits follow extending copyright duration. Extended copyright duration best serves groups who wish to engage in anti competitive behavior.


As opposed to just plain stealing it, as would be allowed without copyrights, correct?


Again, if copyright is your only defense against plagiarism and you abolish copyright, you'll need to adapt. But we are not asking anyone to give up copyright! Nor does this legislation prevent plagiarism after a work enters the public domain. Stealing relates to duplication without attribution, not duplication with attribution.


It's great that you're down with sticking it to corporations, but you're doing more harm than good here by misdirecting the blame and plain making stuff up.


If you want to stop pontificating and point out any specific claim of mine you disagree with, I will gladly respond.


I can name off the top of my head at least 5 or 6 record companies that can hardly be called corporations that own, along with the bands inside the labels, the rights to the music. There ain't a damn thing happening to stifle competition or screw artists. (For those that are bound to ask, Neurot Records, Translation Loss Records, Hydrahead Records, Relapse Records, Unfortunate Miracle Records)


We don't claim that zero competition exists in copyright regimes. We claim it reduces competition. Every artist who realizes they are being screwed tries to start their own corporation. Then, if they succeed and the corporation outlives them, it typically begins engaging in anti competitive practices as well. Anti-trust law suits help, but it is also better not to give corporations the anti competitive tool in the first place.


Beyond that, if someone wants to make cheap knockoffs, god knows they wouldn't sell to anyone who knows anything about the art form. Copyrights don't infringe on influence, they infringe on copies. It says "can't think of something original? Well you can't steal this either."

They force artists to deny that their work is a cheap knock off, to avoid being sued. We greatly prefer a system where the artists are encouraged to admit that their sci fi movie is a remake of another samurai movie, without being sued.

But again, we are not trying to convince anyone to drop their copyright system, we are trying to convince the UN not to enforce an unreasonably long copyright duration on those nations that don't want it. It does not serve the artists interest.

The Copyright proposal is a farce. A copyright term of sixty five years (or 30 years post mortem autoris) is way too long. Most copyrights diminish in value to zero after 30 years. This copyright term is just a way for the greedy record and movie companies to diminish the public domain and stifle public learning so that they can perpetuate a dishonest lifestyle.

This proposal's definition of "fair use" as "educational" entirely omits the economic nature of fair use. In Sony v. Betamax, the Supreme Court protected the Betamax because the Betamax was deemed to be a "staple article of commerce" - in other words, the Betamax recorder was a article of commerce that has legitimate, non-infringing uses and its infringing uses does not erode the economic value of television (in fact it strengthens it). And the Home Recording Act protects home copying as a fair use because home copying does not impact the economic value of commercially traded art like a CD or a movie. These economic fair uses have been consistent with high court rulings about fair use ever since the late eighteenth century British court systems going back to Donaldson v. Beckett. This act does nothing to protect the fair uses that are economically derivable.

Third, this copyright proposal is archetypal of the present copyright system, the copyright system that is rusting as fast as the obsolescence of the latest microprocessor. The record companies and the movie companies want a stronger copyright policy because that protects the status quo - so that the government will continue to protect their little fiefdoms on popular entertainment. But, given that the digital age undermines enforcability of copyright laws and will probably continue to revolutionize the artist / end user relationship, the burden is on the industry to justify the status quo. Why not just enact a modern copyright system that accounts for the pressures of the digital era?

We appreciate the support of the Jimm representative. It appears this resolution will pass. We expect that many of those voting for it have not seriously considered all the ramifications of copyright law, or put serious thought into what an appropriate copyright duration is. It's a tricky issue, and it is hard to see the forest for the trees. We retain hope that discussions such as these will raise awareness about the issues related to copyright, and this legislation will be replaced by a more moderate version.

Our nation has been tracking this topic for some time now, few nations have been willing to give serious thought to the faults of excessively restrictive copyright law. We are willing to continue to bear the brunt of the problems that result from fighting for a minority position. Copyright law made much more sense for the last few hundred years. We expect that the youth of the digital nations will continue to be shocked by the intellectual property notions of their parents.

These anti competitive practices will pass, and those who try to place a strangle hold on artistic expression will see their influence dwindle. We are sure a few oppresive regimes will hold on longer then others, but the best thing about progress is it's practically inevitable :)

Upon reflection of the respectful responses to the original post from the Grand Duchy, we have moderated our opinion on this proposal (luckily, since voting closes soon, and it looks like it's going to pass). However, the "No" vote from Gilbert Pike still stands.

It does seem that the proposal favours wealthier nations, with well established corporate environments over smaller nations, with more localised economies.

In truth, we agree that international copyright protection is needed, but cannot support the length of the extended copyright, particularly because of the "automatic" nature of the copyright. While certainly a laudable ideal, we feel it is impractical at the international level, and still feel said copyright should last only a year, during which time the copyright must be registered with national, or international copyright bodies (like the UN in this proposal), if for no other reason than to allow others with similar ideas to become aware of the existing copyright and proceed accordingly.

Lastly,

"'Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceorana
I was replying to a post where you said everyone should get 1 year of international protection while they apply for copyrights in all nations.'

"I actually didn't say that, Gilbert Pike did."
FishyGuy

I guess we can't blame someone for mixing up Pike and FishyGuy.:)

GD of Gilbert Pike

Upon reflection of the respectful responses to the original post from the Grand Duchy, we have moderated our opinion on this proposal (luckily, since voting closes soon, and it looks like it's going to pass). However, the "No" vote from Gilbert Pike still stands.

We much appreciate the willingness of the representative of the Grand Duchy to keep an open mind on this resolution and consider it carefully. We regret he doesn't see fit to support it, but that's a decision we all have to make for ourselves and we certainly respect his.

It does seem that the proposal favours wealthier nations, with well established corporate environments over smaller nations, with more localised economies.

We cannot agree with this at all. The resolution would provide the same protection to works created in the smallest nation and those created in giant lands with mega-monster corporations. Certainly, small nations with "localised" economies have people fully capable of creativity. This resolution would help them safeguard the potential income from their work from people like the government-sanctioned rip-off artists and pirate publishers of Discoraversalism.

In truth, we agree that international copyright protection is needed, but cannot support the length of the extended copyright, particularly because of the "automatic" nature of the copyright. While certainly a laudable ideal, we feel it is impractical at the international level, and still feel said copyright should last only a year, during which time the copyright must be registered with national, or international copyright bodies (like the UN in this proposal), if for no other reason than to allow others with similar ideas to become aware of the existing copyright and proceed accordingly.

Again, we think we must agree to disagree. For our part, what we considered unworkable was the gigantic NSUN bureacracy that would be needed to operate an international copyright system. Registration is certainly a possibility, and individual nations could require it as part of their copyright law applying to their own citizens, but there are practical issues involved which caused the concept to be discarded by most nations in the mythical land of RL.

Lastly,

"'Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceorana
I was replying to a post where you said everyone should get 1 year of international protection while they apply for copyrights in all nations.'

"I actually didn't say that, Gilbert Pike did."
FishyGuy

I guess we can't blame someone for mixing up Pike and FishyGuy.:)



:D

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Sufficient doubts have been raised. The Free Land of Nagapura votes AGAINST. We shall endevourto convince our regional government to accept this stance.

Sufficient doubts have been raised. The Free Land of Nagapura votes AGAINST. We shall endevourto convince our regional government to accept this stance.

Is the number more important than the quality?

As we have said previously in this thread, our government support this proposal and we would like to congrats the authors for the way they drafted it and they debate it.

Once again, we are also happy that self-declared champions of national sovereignty co-authored or support this proposal which establish a mandatory international Copyrights system in the UN, force members to introduce some capitalism elements in their own nations and undermine all the efforts of UN members wanting to function without copyrights system or a different one, for cultural, religious, economic philosophy or others various reasons.

I think it may be better if champions of national sovereignty, may not be self-declared anymore but recognized only for their commitment to not impose their ideas and values upon others nations and for their commitment to not try to form a One World Order.

PS: I absolutely don’t think that (and I hope that) this post will not change the trend of the current vote. I also waited that the gap of the vote be significant, before posting this, by respect for the authors.

In her last statement, the ambassador of the Glorious People's Republic of Groot Gouda in the NSUN fully supports this resolution and will cast the Groot Gouda vote FOR this resolution. It seems best that the last thing we do here is promote proper, well-written legislation. After this resolution passes we'll take our long awaited leave from the UN (some must have waited for two years before that would happen ;) )
William Smithers walks to the ambassador from Groot Gouda.

In honor of your years of service to the UN I'd like to do something that we've never done before, but our Legal Department assures me that we can do. And that is to present you with the deed to your office so that should you ever decide to return your office will be waiting for you.

William Smithers
Senior VP
UN Building Management

Is the number more important than the quality?

I heard some fairly convincing arguements. Truth be told we are not certain what to think of this resolution. We have decided to ere on the side of caution.

I heard some fairly convincing arguements. Truth be told we are not certain what to think of this resolution. We have decided to ere on the side of caution.

Though it doesn't look like it matters at this point, but, Abstaining isn't cautious enough? :p

Generally, Norderia abstains on the issues it cannot decide, or does not care about. That way indecision or apathy are not getting their own vote one way or another.

I heard some fairly convincing arguements. Truth be told we are not certain what to think of this resolution. We have decided to ere on the side of caution.

While we wish the honorable representative had erred on the side of voting for the resolution, we have to appreciate his diligence in carefully considering the arguments presented. We wish more NSUN members did that.

Patrick T, Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

My government has given me the go-ahead to annouce that the nation of Benzote isin full spport of this resolution.

Leon B. Cooper
Chairman of Foreign Affairs
People's Republic of Benzote

This is likely to be my last post on the subject...
*The General Assembly bursts into applause*
Hey now, I still have some things to say! *Ahem*

Because sometimes it becomes possible for works to increase in popularity after a few years have passed: There have, for example, been cases where an author or musician who didn't achieve widespread fame until quite late on in their career was then able to re-release earlier works -- that hadn't been very successful when originally released -- and gain an increased benefit from those as well as from their later works... Would you deny them the right to do so?
Would you deny that this is the exception, and not the norm? Also, this proposal isn't about what I do in my nation, it's about forcing everyone to do things in their nations. If a majority of works decrease in popularity and profits over time, it only makes sense to end their copyright when they no longer benefit the authors. I'd be all for a proposal that allows nations to periodically review there copyrighted materials to decide if the copyright should stand. This proposal does not even come close.


I regard concerns about the use of art to be a more than adequate justification. Earlier on in the thread, examples were brought up regarding this.
It was also shown why the use of art has little bearing on the extension of copyright.
Sure people make bad art if you give them the freedom to do so, but the government can't stop people from making bad art.
One unintended use does not warrant a stop to all legitimate use. This is the same for any commercial product, why should it be different for intellectual products?


The author created the work. We believe the author should be entitled to determine who profits from it.
We are rarely talking profits after 50 years.


If the author wishes to have his heirs and assigns profit, we believe that is a perfectly valid desire. It's not the entitlement of the estate that's at issue here; it's the entitlement of the author.
I had not thought of the issue in this way before, and believe it is a very valid point. It is a point however, that should also be balanced with the entitlement of other artists and the general public.


Who decides when it no longer profits anyone? Who can tell if it won't in the future?
It is fairly easy to measure profits, I don't think we need to argue if a work is profitable. I think a better discussion would be to decide when most works are no longer profitable. This would give us a better idea of where a minimum restriction should be placed.


Only if the artist actually gets funding from the government, and signs the contract.
Awesome loophole then.


Ethnocentric? Perhaps partial to one way of thinking, but aren't all resolutions like that one way or another?
Not at all in the way that this proposal is. I do not believe that this proposal is in any way what will benefit the nations of the UN by the greatest amount.


I said we weren't going to have international copyright protection, only guarantee that all nations would have national copyright protection.
Thank you for the clarification.


It seems best that the last thing we do here is promote proper, well-written legislation.
I'm starting to believe that people simply vote for a proposal because it "looks pretty", regardless of the actual substance it contains.
;)


There is a reason ant trust law suits follow extending copyright duration.
Damn ants and their law suits. :p


We expect that many of those voting for it have not seriously considered all the ramifications of copyright law, or put serious thought into what an appropriate copyright duration is.
I expect that many of those voting for it have not read this thread.


I guess we can't blame someone for mixing up Pike and FishyGuy.
:D True.


Is the number more important than the quality?
The authors of any proposal should be able to defend it against all reasonable objections. It is not the duty of the objectors to defeat every measure of the proposal. Did that make any sense?


And my favorite quotes from this thread...
If your concern is to prevent someone from stealing credit for another artists work then using this copyright legislation is akin to using a sledge hammer to kill a gnat.
I believe that placing only a lower bound does not and can not reflect such a compromise. While I believe 30 years after the author's death is far too long, I would be willing to accept it, provided an upper limit was also present.
Once again, we are also happy that self-declared champions of national sovereignty co-authored or support this proposal which establish a mandatory international Copyrights system in the UN, force members to introduce some capitalism elements in their own nations and undermine all the efforts of UN members wanting to function without copyrights system or a different one, for cultural, religious, economic philosophy or others various reasons.

Lastly, thanks to all who have contributed, supporters and detractors. Good night.

In honor of your years of service to the UN I'd like to do something that we've never done before, but our Legal Department assures me that we can do. And that is to present you with the deed to your office so that should you ever decide to return your office will be waiting for you.

The ambassador thanks you deeply on behalf of the billions of Groot Gouwenaars who are honoured and touched by this gesture (although the question was raised whether this included regular cleaning & dusting of our offices so we won't return to a pile of dust ;) ).

Where are the time limits in this policy? Owning something 100 years past the oringinal creators death would be a bit pointless and unfortunate (Disney).

I didn't think about that point before, it's why I continue to support this proposal, but it seems to me that it lacks a few years period of implementation in members nations (as in the GFDA resolution), before the mandate to be applied. For exemple in RL, nations as Vietnam or many others which are not part of the WTO may be in the impossibility to comply with now. I will not support a repeal , because the process will be to much heavier, but once again I really regreat the absence of amendments;)

I didn't think about that point before, it's why I continue to support this proposal, but it seems to me that it lacks a few years period of implementation in members nations (as in the GFDA resolution), before the mandate to be applied. For exemple in RL, nations as Vietnam or many others which are not part of the WTO may be in the impossibility to comply with now. I will not support a repeal , because the process will be to much heavier, but once again I really regreat the absence of amendments;)

Um, I've been begging for an amendment for 4 threads now. Not knowing how the amendment process worked I tried amending it myself and that provoked moderator action.

I didn't think about that point before, it's why I continue to support this proposal, but it seems to me that it lacks a few years period of implementation in members nations (as in the GFDA resolution), before the mandate to be applied. For exemple in RL, nations as Vietnam or many others which are not part of the WTO may be in the impossibility to comply with now. I will not support a repeal , because the process will be to much heavier, but once again I really regreat the absence of amendments;)

OOC: Just out of curiosity, L&E, why would Vietnam be unable to comply with this resolution? Seems to me their bilateral agreement with the US obliges them to do pretty much what this resolution requires across the board. http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/1997/1297Bulletin/Vietnam_CopyrightAgrUS.html

And thanks for your support of the resolution.

OOC: Just out of curiosity, L&E, why would Vietnam be unable to comply with this resolution? Seems to me their bilateral agreement with the US obliges them to do pretty much what this resolution requires across the board. http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/1997/1297Bulletin/Vietnam_CopyrightAgrUS.html

And thanks for your support of the resolution.

A clear example of a superpower forcing concessions from a weaker trade partner.

The resolution has passed by a 2/3 majority. Thanks to everyone who debated and all the nations that voted. Ceorana gives special thanks to the Ausserlander delegation, who were of immense help in drafting and campaigning for this resolution, and the Antrian delegation, who gave much-needed help in the telegram campaign.

James Lin
President of Ceorana

I personaly think we should keep copyrght. It does improve the ecoomy. If we got rid of copyright, hen it would be a slow downhill decent to communism, maybe. And i'm a country of free enterprise. Those are my beliefs, keep copyright, don't get rid of it.

OOC: This etter be whatwe're talking about.

We would like to thank the delegates who added their approval of the proposal and the members who voted in favor of it. And a special thanks to our distinguished colleagues from Norderia and Flibbeites for their spirited and valuable defense of the measure and to all others who spoke out in favor of it. We'd also like to thank those who spoke out against the measure in reasonable, logical and courteous ways during the debate, and especially during the drafting phase.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The Supreme President of the Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar, the Honorable Lady Millicent McGee, released this statement regarding the passage of the United Nations Copyright Convention:

"We of the Serene Republic welcome the opportunity to implement this Convention. While we were opposed to the measure, our recent accession to the UN prevented us from lobbying against it. However as signatories to the treaty we are fully prepared to comply with and abide by the Convention, as our recent Serene Court decision (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=489908) demonstrates.

"We do express our disappointment that an international body founded on the principals of peaceful resolution of disputes and the betterment of all would be so concerned with advancing the interests of multinational corporations ahead of private individuals.

"We can see no discernable benefit for subverting this august body for commercial purposes, and express our displeasure that certain nations have allowed their representatives to be co-opted by multinational corporations who engage in price-fixing, intensive lobbying, aggressive legal action, intrusive marketing, privacy violation, suborning the rights of artists, and subverting free expression and the rights of private property."

The Supreme President of the Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar, the Honorable Lady Millicent McGee, released this statement regarding the passage of the United Nations Copyright Convention:

"We of the Serene Republic welcome the opportunity to implement this Convention. While we were opposed to the measure, our recent accession to the UN prevented us from lobbying against it. However as signatories to the treaty we are fully prepared to comply with and abide by the Convention, as our recent Serene Court decision (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=489908) demonstrates.

"We do express our disappointment that an international body founded on the principals of peaceful resolution of disputes and the betterment of all would be so concerned with advancing the interests of multinational corporations ahead of private individuals.

"We can see no discernable benefit for subverting this august body for commercial purposes, and express our displeasure that certain nations have allowed their representatives to be co-opted by multinational corporations who engage in price-fixing, intensive lobbying, aggressive legal action, intrusive marketing, privacy violation, suborning the rights of artists, and subverting free expression and the rights of private property."

The Free Land of Discoraversalism commends the Serene Court of Ishtar on it's reasoned judgement. We shall instruct our courts to refer to this decision for precedent.

However, there are some countries whose courts may misinterpret this NSUN resolution. As such we seek assistance in drafting a replacement, and working on repealing this resolution so that more moderate copyright reform may be passed.

First, a question: which country has jurisdiction in the case of a violation? The country the violation took place? The country the original copyright was filed? The home country of the violater? The home country of the content creator? The UN? A commitee of all or some of these? Someone else?
Also, no punishment is defined for violators. So in cases falling under my country's jurisdiction, the punishment will be being required to say "Hi" to the judge.

OOC: Just out of curiosity, L&E, why would Vietnam be unable to comply with this resolution? Seems to me their bilateral agreement with the US obliges them to do pretty much what this resolution requires across the board. http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/1997/1297Bulletin/Vietnam_CopyrightAgrUS.html

And thanks for your support of the resolution.


Thanks for the link, but the reality in Vietnam and many nations is pretty far from these goals. I don't know exactly how much of this Agreement had been implemented into law in Vietnam. But even if it was implemented, it's obviously not in application.

Copyright is not an easy to understand concept, It's why even if I'm for Copyright laws I really think we have to be compassionate with people selling photocopyed western bestsellers books in the street of Ho Chi Minh City.

Though it doesn't look like it matters at this point, but, Abstaining isn't cautious enough? :p

Generally, Norderia abstains on the issues it cannot decide, or does not care about. That way indecision or apathy are not getting their own vote one way or another.

Good advice. I shall keep that in mind.

While we wish the honorable representative had erred on the side of voting for the resolution, we have to appreciate his diligence in carefully considering the arguments presented. We wish more NSUN members did that.

Patrick T, Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ahhh, that's the nicest thing that anyone's ever said to me! :D Sad but true...

Copyright is indeed a hot topic
On a sidenote, this is just related by the topic, and not really with the discussion which took places here, but this case is pretty interesting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5124720.stm

I personnaly tend to think that Virgin is best to be cleared of charge here (for the interest of customers, and for piracy decrease in the long run) what do you think?

Soooo am I still allowed to talk here, or is this thread dead now?

I am in utter shock that this horrendous resolution passed. I suggest someone draft up a repeal immediately. Copyright laws should be the responsibility of the individual nations, not the UN. It is not the job of the UN to babysit every nation over every single topic conceivable. This is utterly ridiculous.

If you want to protect copyrights in other nations, simply threaten the governments with embargos. If they don't have access to the materials, then they can't violate the copyright laws.

If you want to protect copyrights in other nations, simply threaten the governments with embargos. If they don't have access to the materials, then they can't violate the copyright laws.
That's unreasonable. Because work from nation A can reach nation B, even with an embargo, through nation C, you are talking about a complete closing of all national borders to civilian travel, complete stop of all international trade (can't have books being smuggled in potato boxes), complete guarding of all borders to protect smuggerls, complete cutoff of all internet access, etc. This is a much more practical way to do it.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

I am in utter shock that this horrendous resolution passed. I suggest someone draft up a repeal immediately. Copyright laws should be the responsibility of the individual nations, not the UN. It is not the job of the UN to babysit every nation over every single topic conceivable. This is utterly ridiculous.

If you want to protect copyrights in other nations, simply threaten the governments with embargos. If they don't have access to the materials, then they can't violate the copyright laws.

Wanna help draft the appeal? I haven't had much luck authoring competing legislation to the the aforementioned copyright monstrosity.

While we would have preferred that this resolution fail, we commend the authors for their time, patience and willingness to at least listen to others' objections.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

That's unreasonable. Because work from nation A can reach nation B, even with an embargo, through nation C, you are talking about a complete closing of all national borders to civilian travel, complete stop of all international trade (can't have books being smuggled in potato boxes), complete guarding of all borders to protect smuggerls, complete cutoff of all internet access, etc. This is a much more practical way to do it.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

First of all, if these nations can't be bothered to develop copyright laws, then they are nations that upstanding nations, like Tarandella, shouldn't have to put up with. By creating a copyright resolution that's regulated by the UN, forces Tarandella to deal with such nations.

However, I have figured a loop hole in your "Copyright Convention". All nations would willingly develop copyright laws, because artisans in all nations would want to have their works protected. And those nations that don't have or can't afford to develop copyright laws, are also nations that can't afford to pirate works.

The end result is, your resolution is giving the UN the right to meddle in affairs that do not concern the UN. The UN was established to help foster peace and cooperation among the member nations. This resolution is going one step too far in that mission. Plain and simple.

However, I have figured a loop hole in your "Copyright Convention". All nations would willingly develop copyright laws, because artisans in all nations would want to have their works protected. And those nations that don't have or can't afford to develop copyright laws, are also nations that can't afford to pirate works.
Ahem. The business end of this resolution is Clause 3b: "National copyright law must not discriminate in favor of domestic works;". The rest of the resolution just makes sure that national copyright laws are substantial enough to satisfactorally protect the works of other nations. Without this resolution, copyright laws could simply say "All works produced in MyNation are protected for author's life + 50 years, but all works produced in other nations are not protected at all."

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Ahem. The business end of this resolution is Clause 3b: "National copyright law must not discriminate in favor of domestic works;". The rest of the resolution just makes sure that national copyright laws are substantial enough to satisfactorally protect the works of other nations. Without this resolution, copyright laws could simply say "All works produced in MyNation are protected for author's life + 50 years, but all works produced in other nations are not protected at all."

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Uhm...no. That's NOT what copyright laws do. You clearly don't undestand copyright laws, and plus you seem to enjoy cramming governments full of unnecessary beurocracy. This resolution is unnecessary. Copyrights are respected and protected around the world. There is no need for the UN to regulate them. If there were, the real UN would have a resolution similar to this, but it doesn't.

This resolution is unnecessary. Copyrights are respected and protected around the world.
Except in countries like Discoraversalism, ‘Linux and the X’, ‘The Island of Ishtar’, and Kelssek…

There is no need for the UN to regulate them. If there were, the real UN would have a resolution similar to this, but it doesn't.
OOC: The real UN has no higher power imposing a “Compliance is mandatory” rule on its resolutions, so if it did pass a resolution like this any countries whose governments wanted to let their people pirate foreigners' 'intellectual property' would still be able to do so & the resolution would be useless for that reason…

If there were, the real UN would have a resolution similar to this, but it doesn't.
Yes it does. (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/convention/index.html)

Yes it does. (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/convention/index.html)

Okay. I stand corrected on that point. But it's still red tape in my opinion, and I think it should be repealed, plain and simple.

First of all, if these nations can't be bothered to develop copyright laws, then they are nations that upstanding nations, like Tarandella, shouldn't have to put up with.


Bah, upstanding nations realize that copyright laws are archaic relics of a bygone era.


By creating a copyright resolution that's regulated by the UN, forces Tarandella to deal with such nations.

However, I have figured a loop hole in your "Copyright Convention". All nations would willingly develop copyright laws, because artisans in all nations would want to have their works protected. And those nations that don't have or can't afford to develop copyright laws, are also nations that can't afford to pirate works.


I'm all for working to appeal said resolution but your arguments don't seem to be helping the cause :) Anyone with a computer can easily violate copyright, for free, as the children of most digital nations can attest to.



The end result is, your resolution is giving the UN the right to meddle in affairs that do not concern the UN. The UN was established to help foster peace and cooperation among the member nations. This resolution is going one step too far in that mission. Plain and simple.

I agree completely that the UN should not be sticking it's nose into art. The UN is a weak enough body as is, without it meddling in controversial and ill understood issues. We would appreciate it if the sovereign nations of the world stopped telling our artists what to do.

Uhm...no. That's NOT what copyright laws do. You clearly don't undestand copyright laws, and plus you seem to enjoy cramming governments full of unnecessary beurocracy. This resolution is unnecessary. Copyrights are respected and protected around the world. There is no need for the UN to regulate them. If there were, the real UN would have a resolution similar to this, but it doesn't.

I think very few people really understand all the ramifications of copyright law. I like to believe the authors of copyright legislation are good intentioned, and they believe they are helping to promote art. Unfortunately excessive copyright regulation primarily impedes the free flow of ideas and information, by creating government sanctioned monopolies and encouraging the current anti-competitive practices of many media megacorps and zaibatsu.

I am willing to grant the possibility that a small amount of moderate copyright legislation may actually be good for both artists and the economy. But the legislation just passed is clearly excessive. Given the lifespans in many NSUN member nations...