NationStates Jolt Archive

Case Number: SCRII-06-29-06
SERENE COURT OF ISHTAR OPINION

in the matter of:

Multinational Media Monopoly; Creative Cartels, et. al.; multinational corporations doing business in the Congressional Republic of Ceorana, the Principality of Ausserland, the Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar, etc.,
Plaintiffs; Appellants

VS.

PiratesOfIshtar.com, a non-profit entity located in the Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar (hereafter "the Republic"); and additional individual defendants, numbered but not limited to 100, hereafter referred to as "John Does #1-100,"
Defendants; Appellees


Parties to the Complaint
Plaintiffs are engaged in the commercial recording, distribution and sale of copyrighted musical and video works. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are copyright infringers in violation of the United Nations Copyright Convention (hereafter "the Convention").

Defendant is a non-profit entity organized as a charity under Republic law. It creates and distributes in the public domain an open source software client ("Pirateship.exe") which enables peer-to-peer electronic file trading. The defendant alleges that its activities constitute "fair use" as defined under the Convention.

Additional defendants ("John Does #1-100") are users of the open source software client, using screen names including but not limited to 'cutegrrl14' and 'folksinger3granny' whose counsel alleges their activities constitute "fair use" under the Convention.

Plain Facts
Additional agreed-upon FACTS which are not in dispute by plaintiffs or defendants are set forth below:

* That the Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar ("the Republic") recently repealed all copyright laws ("the Repeal") within the Republic on or around June 1, 2006.
* That the plaintiffs filed against the defendants in the Superior Court of the Island of Ishtar on Midnight, June 1, 2006, when the Repeal went into effect.
* That the Superior Court dismissed the case summarily, with prejudice, as there was no copyright law in the Republic, at that time.
* That subsequent to the Repeal, the United Nations passed the UN Copyright Convention ("the Convention") on June 29, 2006; which is legally binding upon the Republic as a member in good standing of the United Nations.
* That the plaintiffs appealed the suit on June 29, 2006 when the Convention went into effect, on grounds that the Convention now rendered the lower court decision invalid.
* That given the international nature of the case, the government of the Republic urged the Serene Court to expedite its judgment of this matter.


Relevant Legislation
Relevant portions of the Convention (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=162) are excerpted below:

1. DEFINITIONS
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;

3. MANDATES
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;


Our Findings
Whereby:

1. LEGAL ENTITIES
We note PiratesOfIshtar.com is not a legal entity ("sentient being or corporation") as defined by Article 1d of the Convention. We note, and the plaintiffs do not dispute, that PiratesOfIshtar.com is not a sentient being.

We further note that a corporation is a specific form of common law legal entity, with unique rights and privileges, distinct from that of other common law entities, such as municipalities, trusts, banks, trade unions, etc. However the Convention specifically defines "legal entity" for the purposes of the Convention as a corporation or sentient being.

We find that the primary defendant while in common law is a legal entity it is not under the narrow terms of the Convention a legal entity and so under the terms of the Convention is exempted from statutory oversight in this matter.

We agree with the plaintiffs, and the defendants do not dispute, that the additional defendants (John Does #1-100) are sentient beings and thus legal entities as defined by the Convention.


2. FAIR USE
We note Article 1c of the Convention defines fair use as "a use or reproduction of intellectual property for private/personal use." We find that the users of the non-profit "PiratesOfIshtar.com" peer-to-peer network are creating reproductions of intellectual property for private and personal use.

We note that private and personal use of personal property includes the loaning of personal property to other persons or individuals, and the reproducing of personal property for non-commercial purposes, such as convenience or backup purposes.

We find that private individuals may freely share their private property with other individuals in the interests of "friendship", "shared interests" or "hobbies." We further note private property includes legal, non-commercial copies of private property.

The plaintiff alleges that such use "excessively infringes on the rights and profits of the copyright holder" in violation of the Convention. We find that as no profit was made nor intended to be made, and that all such reproductions for personal use as previously cited do not excessively infringe upon the international copyright holder.



3. ELECTRONIC STORAGE AND REPRODUCTION
The plaintiffs argue that Article 3A forbids the electronic storage or reproduction of copyrighted works by any government or legal entity without permission, excepting fair use.

We note fair use has already been clearly established. We note additionally the Convention does not apply to the PiratesOfIshtar.com website itself, as it is not a legal entity and therefore is not forbidden from storing or reproducing copyrighted works.

We also note that the peer-to-peer client software only transmits, but does not permanently store, reproduce, or display, the copyrighted material. Reproduction of the electronic media is done manually by the private persons prior to using the software.

Furthermore we find that the non-profit, peer-to-peer network "PiratesOfIshtar.com" constitutes an enabling technology, the electronic equivalent of a newspaper ad for a hobbyist convention or an electronic swap-meet, and is thus protected by the right of Free Assembly and Free Speech as defined by the Constitution of the Republic.


SUMMARY OF JUDGEMENT
We are not convinced of the plaintiff's allegations in this case and find the defendants not guilty. The Serene Court hereby declares that the non-profit loaning of personal copies of electronic media by private persons of The Island of Ishtar and any other users who are legally permitted to access our networks across a non-corporate peer-to-peer network ("PiratesOfIshtar.com") constitutes 'fair use' under the UN Convention's definition.

We affirm the Convention's ban on commercial sale of copyrighted works by non-copyright holders, but find no evidence of that in this action.

The plaintiff's suit is dismissed and the Multinational Media Conglomeration and its co-plaintiffs are hereby ordered to pay all the defendants' legal fees plus an additional 100 million Cowries in emotional and statutory damages to the defendants, and an additional 400 million Cowries to charity, specifically the PiratesOfIshtar.com's "Art is for People, Not Profits" Copyleft Legal Defense Fund.

June 29, 2006
His Serene Honor, Chief Justice Kilroy McGee

Amicus Brief Filed by the Ceoranan UN Office

We object to this case on the grounds that it misinterprets the Convention. The Convention makes no such laws, only mandates that nations make them. Therefore, we urge the Republic to have a retrial once the Republic enters compliance with the Convention by passing the necessary laws.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Theodore Locke
Secretary of State

Amicus Brief Filed by Tzatzing Multimedia, Inc., a member of the plaintiffs (included in "et al")

We object to the ruling given. Our profits within our trading sector of the Republic have fallen significantly since PiratesOfIshtar.com began distributing them. This means that it cannot be fair use under the Republic's copyright law, per the last section of clause 1d, which states that fair use only applies "provided that such use does not excessively infringe on the rights and profits of the copyright holder".

We also dispute the claim that "PiratesOfIshtar.com is not a legal entity ("sentient being or corporation") as defined by Article 1d of the Convention." It is a corporation, because it is a group that does business or operates, under which nonprofits certainly fall. Furthermore, we dispute the claim that "the plaintiffs do not dispute[] that PiratesOfIshtar.com is not a sentient being", because, frankly, we do.

Benjy Bobson
Legal Counsel, Tzatzing Multimedia, Inc.

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.

United Nations Embassy,
Most Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar

To:
Hon. Mr. Enrique Lopez,
Mr. Secretary,
Mr. Bobson,

Your Excellency, sirs, Greetings:

I have communicated your concerns to my government and received its reply and am prepared to make the following published response.

We of the Most Serene Republic welcome your communications and share your concerns about the proper interpretation of the recent UN Convention in question. We believe further dialogue and negotiation may resolve this issue in a manner satisfactory to all parties concerned. We are deeply concerned about the abuse of copyright, whether it is pirate outfits selling counterfeit DVDs or multinational corporations hoodwinking naïve and uninformed artists out of their royalties.

We regret that the amici curiae briefs presented by the Ambassador on behalf of his government and the Tzating Multimedia corporation were not filed in a timely manner. Unfortunately the Serene Court of Ishtar is the last court of appeals in the Republic, and the ruling therefore stands barring new legislation from the Republic's various legislative or executive bodies. Notices of impending court action were published in the classified section of a newspaper (The Ishtarian Racing Form) three (3) days before the decision, the minimum required by local law.

It should be added that our government vigorously disputes allegations in the international press that "Multinational Media Monopoly" and "Creative Cartels" are shell companies set up by friendly entities who filed on behalf of private interests within the Republic.

On a personal note, I should hasten to add that this unfortunate dispute in no way prejudices the Most Serene Republic against any person, corporation, or government, and that the Republic looks forward to working with and standing by our friends on future issues that concern us all.

Respectfully,

Her Serene Grace
UN Ambassador
Lady Galadriel McGee

OOC: I'm going to RP this out. Please don't be offended OOCly.

IC:

Request to Take Legal Action Against PiratesOfIshtar.com

Plaintiff: Rose Longren, a poor Ceoranan citizen currently living in The Island of Ishtar, barely scraping by as a singer contracting with the Ceoranan company Singing Freely, a multinational record company for artists that wish to keep their copyrights and have the record company take a cut of the artist's profits rather than the other way around. Singing Freely is a for-profit corporation that makes its money off of the vast number of artists who use its service, even though it makes a comparitively low profit per artist. Ms. Longren makes very few CDs, since her style of music is time-consuming to author.

Defendant: PiratesOfIshtar.com and John Does #1-100, which have used the open source software client "Pirateship.exe" to use Ms. Longren's music without payment or permission.

Ms. Longren alleges that she has been vastly financially hurt by this pirating of her music, due to the fact that she is making even less then her meager sum of CD money now that people are using it for free, and asks for payment from each person who has used her CDs, in addition to a compensation of 3,000 gnor from PiratesOfIshtar.com.

---

Ms. Longren is taking up the above case in the courts of The Islands of Ishtar. However, her counsel has informed her that it will almost surely be thrown out on precedent of Multinational Media Monopoly et al v. PiratesOfIshtar.com et al.

We regret that the amici curiae briefs presented by the Ambassador on behalf of his government and the Tzating Multimedia corporation were not filed in a timely manner. Unfortunately the Serene Court of Ishtar is the last court of appeals in the Republic, and the ruling therefore stands barring new legislation from the Republic's various legislative or executive bodies. Notices of impending court action were published in the classified section of a newspaper (The Ishtarian Racing Form) three (3) days before the decision, the minimum required by local law.
How could that have happened? The court could have only known that the appeal would have taken place approximately six hours ago, upon the passing of the Convention.

Ellen Perionas
Director, Suboffice of Technical Legislative and Legal Matters, Ceoranan UN Office

It should be added that our government vigorously disputes allegations in the international press that "Multinational Media Monopoly" and "Creative Cartels" are shell companies set up by friendly entities who filed on behalf of private interests within the Republic.

On a personal note, I should hasten to add that this unfortunate dispute in no way prejudices the Most Serene Republic against any person, corporation, or government, and that the Republic looks forward to working with and standing by our friends on future issues that concern us all.
Certainly, this dispute is on a single issue and we will continue to work as friendly governments on other issues that concern us both.

Herbert Indigo
Ambassador-at-Large, yo!

OOC: No offense taken or intended! It's all rp fun right? :) We might need clarification on the exchange rate for Cowries and Gnors...is there something you all use, like by going by Economic ratings?

Regardless, reply forthcoming...

Case Number: SCRII-06-29-06-b
SUPERIOR COURT OF ISHTAR FILING

Ms. Longren
Plaintiff

VS.

PiratesOfIshtar.com, a non-profit entity located in the Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar (hereafter "the Republic"); and additional individual defendants, numbered but not limited to 100, hereafter referred to as "John Does #1-100,"
Defendants

COMPLAINT
Presented above.

CURRENT STATUS:
The complaint has been lawfully filed and registered with the Superior Court of the Most Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar and awaits a trial date.

How could that have happened? The court could have only known that the appeal would have taken place approximately six hours ago, upon the passing of the Convention.

Ellen Perionas
Director, Suboffice of Technical Legislative and Legal Matters, Ceoranan UN Office

The Serene Court was notified in advance of the impending appeal based on very public and quite visible UN debate, as well as through informal channels, and acted appropriately and in accordance with local jurisprudence and Ishtarian Common Law.

-Legolas McGee
Submassistant and junior manager of Legalities and Formalities

Shouldn't RPs like this be in II?

Well, it's definitely UN-related, and in fact I was planning to do something similar.

Small question: Who in the U.N. would judge a copyright case, such as this one?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Well, it's a domestic case and Ishtar's laws apply, in this case. The Convention, as Ceorana has said, is not a law, it just says the legislatures have to pass laws. So it's actually quite indirect and legislatures can exploit loopholes if they don't like copyright to pass a copyright law which meets the requirements of the Convention, yet essentially doesn't protect copyright as much as Ceorana would want. No enforcement measures are specified, for instance, so you can pass a law limiting damages in copyright suits to $1 and remove criminal penalties, for example.

Well, it's a domestic case and Ishtar's laws apply, in this case. The Convention, as Ceorana has said, is not a law, it just says the legislatures have to pass laws. So it's actually quite indirect and legislatures can exploit loopholes if they don't like copyright to pass a copyright law which meets the requirements of the Convention, yet essentially doesn't protect copyright as much as Ceorana would want. No enforcement measures are specified, for instance, so you can pass a law limiting damages in copyright suits to $1 and remove criminal penalties, for example.
OOC: But you do have to stop the infringement. You can't just have them pay $1 and then let them continue. The convention says that companies can't do that kind of stuff, so you have to stop them from doing it.

[This is my interpretation of all resolutions in the UN, unless they specify otherwise, and not necessarily or at all agreed upon by all members or even all regulars.]

Plaintiff: Rose Longren, a poor Ceoranan citizen currently living in The Island of Ishtar, barely scraping by as a singer contracting with the Ceoranan company Singing Freely, a multinational record company for artists that wish to keep their copyrights and have the record company take a cut of the artist's profits rather than the other way around. Singing Freely is a for-profit corporation that makes its money off of the vast number of artists who use its service, even though it makes a comparitively low profit per artist. Ms. Longren makes very few CDs, since her style of music is time-consuming to author.

Defendant: PiratesOfIshtar.com and John Does #1-100, which have used the open source software client "Pirateship.exe" to use Ms. Longren's music without payment or permission.

Ms. Longren alleges that she has been vastly financially hurt by this pirating of her music, due to the fact that she is making even less then her meager sum of CD money now that people are using it for free, and asks for payment from each person who has used her CDs, in addition to a compensation of 3,000 gnor from PiratesOfIshtar.com.


BootlegsBringCash would like to extend a business proposal to Ms. Longren. We currently provide a streaming music service to any IP that does not block our broadcasts. We insert small advertising messages between songs, but would love to expand our revenue stream. Currently Ms. Longrens songs are climbing on our charts, and we would love her assistance. Would she be willing to perform live at our annual event?

If not we have several other offers we would like to extend to her. Would she like the details of her court case advertised in our stream? Would she mind recording a variation on her most recent hit, but this time exchange the phrase "like a loving songbird" for the phrase "like LoveBirds song?" Our partner LoveBird.com would gladly discuss other way you could help them advertise their products. Could we get a picture of her wearing a leather jacket with the LoveBird logo?

We understand how many artists have fallen on hard times recently, and we would be glad to assist.

Sincerely,
Anonymous CEO of BootLegsBringCash hiding behind several layers of obfuscation to prevent identification by LMCMATH(LargeMaliciousCorporateMonopolliesAndTheirAnyonymousHitman).

To whom it may concern, BootLegsBringCash:

I would love to accept your offer, but cannot bear to have advertising played along with, or Heaven forbid woven into my pure music. There is no need for me to succumb to corporate greed by advertising their silly jackets or products and compromise my personal identity. All I want is to play music, and to have it heard in its pure form for a small compensation to me, its hard-working creator. Therefore, I must respectfully decline your offer.

Rose Longren

P.S.: I could not perform live at your annual event anywhere, because my music is made with background music from natural features, such as streams, rivers, oceans, forests, and other outdoor places that provide most beautiful sounds.

OOC: But you do have to stop the infringement. You can't just have them pay $1 and then let them continue. The convention says that companies can't do that kind of stuff, so you have to stop them from doing it.

If a court awards damages, that means it has decided copyright infringement is taking place, and that's telling them to stop, isn't it? That's open to interpretation, though. I think in some places you'd have to keep suing them, and it can also be a contempt of court issue.

OOC: Sorry to keep it with the ooc hijacks, but :) for this thread. It's nice to see a bit of interesting RPing adding to discussions in the UN forum.

IC: The Holy Wenaist Sultanate of Gruenberg condemns these Wena-damned communists, and our foremost expert in international law, Lori Jiffjeff, is currently reviewing the case. Having recently announced a trade agreement with Ceorana, standing by their commercial artists in this time of crisis and assault is of the greatest priority to us, and we intend to contribute every required aid to the resolution of this matter.

Small question: Who in the U.N. would judge a copyright case, such as this one?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

United Nations Embassy,
Most Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar

To:
Hon. Mr. L. Otterby,

Your Excellency,

We do not believe the UN has further jurisdiction in this internal matter. The Convention did not propose or create a higher court of appeals nor did it establish any legal mechanism to interpret and enforce the Convention.

The UN Convention was proposed and accepted, and as a member nation in good standing the Most Serene Republic has accepted and implemented the Convention, relying upon local jurisprudence and case law to interpret said Convention in accordance with local law.

Respectfully,

Her Serene Grace
UN Ambassador
Lady Galadriel McGee

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.

Excellencies,

We welcome the support of the Free Land of Discoraversalism and the Federation of Kelssek in this matter, and our Ministry of Justice freely offers its prior expert testimony, prior research, and discovery phase files in order to assist your own legal procedures as you interpret and implement this UN law.

Respectfully,

Her Serene Grace
UN Ambassador for the Most Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar
Lady Galadriel McGee

OOC: But you do have to stop the infringement. You can't just have them pay $1 and then let them continue. The convention says that companies can't do that kind of stuff, so you have to stop them from doing it.

[This is my interpretation of all resolutions in the UN, unless they specify otherwise, and not necessarily or at all agreed upon by all members or even all regulars.]

OOC: Ceorana is correct that the UN convention does mandate that "legal entities" must not reproduce, store, etc. the media without permission. It does not however mandate penalties.

But Kellsek is also correct that since no minimum penalties are specified, the government can create penalties or bureaucratic obstacles so ineffectual that the government can be in compliance nominally while in effect doing very little.

I should add Ishtar's interpretation of the Convention does not permit pirate companies to profit off other people's media (ala Southeast Asia). It is for the right of individuals to exchange electronic information (ala P2P). We could have been even more extreme in the interpretation using the loopholes Kellsek pointed out but did not.

Shouldn't RPs like this be in II?

OOC Admittedly I am new here, but let me see. There is a whole host of debate prior to the passage of a convention, during the proposal phase and right up until the moment of voting.

But passing a law is not like having an election. It's not over on election day. There are legal challenges, interpretations, etc., that go on for years. And the debate over interpretation and enforcement goes on.

If the mods think this thread is getting too rp-ish or off-topic, it could be moved or we could have a new one in the RP forum. But I thought Ishtar's implementation of the Convention was relevant to the forum.

So, where actually doing the whole "break a UN Resolution and we bring you to court" thing now? Or am I missing something, or are they (the guys in court) missing something? Or should I just not be playing NS at 2:23 am?

So, where actually doing the whole "break a UN Resolution and we bring you to court" thing now? Or am I missing something, or are they (the guys in court) missing something? Or should I just not be playing NS at 2:23 am?

One nation has shared it's own court rulings regarding the recent copyright resolution. They have shown to us all the correct way to interpret said copyright resolution.

Some have suggested it would be better to follow the intent of those who drafted the copyright legislation, which is probably to stamp out any who do not practice copyright. Fortunately, that is an impossible task. I'm willing to bet even in the drafters nations, their youth routinely disregard copyright as they amass and share music from the net.

The Dashanzi government is heartened by the Serene Court's judgement and sends its commendations. The Dashanzi judiciary is analysing the decision and will shortly determine whether or not it is in agreement with the Ishtari findings.

Benedictions,

- Gao Qiang, Foreign Minister, the New Cultural Revolution of Dashanzi

Supreme Court reaches Decision
by Jane Grey
Delta City Gazette

The Flibbleite Supreme Court has reached a verdict in the copyright infringement case against PiratesOfIshtar.com. By a 6-0 vote (with one abstention) the court found that the website PiratesOfIshtar.com was guilty of copyright infringement. One judge was quoted as saying, “while we understand that the Serere court of Ishtar ruled that they hadn’t violated the recently passed UN Copyright Convention’s fair use clause, [PiratesOfishtar.com has] violated Flibbleite copyright law by allowing the transfer of music produced by members of the Flibbleite Musicians Guild without providing compensation for the artists work or obtaining permission from the artists to do so.”

In related news, the Flibbleite Legislature passed a bill condemning the actions of PiratesOfIshtar.com and calling for the site to be shut down. The bill, which is currently awaiting the Grand Poobah’s signature, also called for a trade embargo to be placed upon The Most Serene Republic of The Island of Ishtar if the site is not shut down, with the embargo only ending when the site has been shut down.

We of Avernoan, after hours of debate with our judicial advisors, have come to the conclusion that Pirates of Ishtar is not in violation of the Copyright Convention. It's file sharing program has other uses than just sharing copyrighted media, and it does not force others to use this function, although it does facilitate that use more than others.

We further find that, though by laws of our glorious nation Pirates of Ishtar is a defined as a non-profit corporation, it may not be so in the nation of corporate residence. Therefore we must concede that, by definitions of the convention, it is exempt from the mandates of said convention.

However, we wish it to be known that by Avernoan's copyright laws, anyone found to be downloading copyrighted files by use of this program, or another of its nature, will be prosecuted and fined as well as forced to pay damages to the holder of the copyright, whether domestic or international.


We would like to thank The Island of Ishtar for bringing this case to our attention. And hope for future good relations with all nations involved with this matter.

Supreme Court reaches Decision
by Jane Grey
Delta City Gazette

The Flibbleite Supreme Court has reached a verdict in the copyright infringement case against PiratesOfIshtar.com. By a 6-0 vote (with one abstention) the court found that the website PiratesOfIshtar.com was guilty of copyright infringement. One judge was quoted as saying, “while we understand that the Serere court of Ishtar ruled that they hadn’t violated the recently passed UN Copyright Convention’s fair use clause, [PiratesOfishtar.com has] violated Flibbleite copyright law by allowing the transfer of music produced by members of the Flibbleite Musicians Guild without providing compensation for the artists work or obtaining permission from the artists to do so.”

In related news, the Flibbleite Legislature passed a bill condemning the actions of PiratesOfIshtar.com and calling for the site to be shut down. The bill, which is currently awaiting the Grand Poobah’s signature, also called for a trade embargo to be placed upon The Most Serene Republic of The Island of Ishtar if the site is not shut down, with the embargo only ending when the site has been shut down.

Will any Flibbleite representative respond to the news stories alleging that many Flibbleite servers are hosting mirrors to download the above mentioned "open source software client" as well as describing the best way to bypass the anti-duplication measures implemented in certain digital songs? What about the reports that many of these servers are run by teenagers in their parents homes? Would it be appropriate for all nations to embargo the Flibbleites based on these charges?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v428/numbersaregood/kelssek/neorvinsherald.gif
No changes to copyright law, says Supreme Court

Kelssek will not need to change its copyright laws to comply with the UN Copyright Convention passed recently, and can claim jurisdiction over all copyright cases involving a citizen of Kelssek, according to a ruling by the Supreme Court of Kelssek today.

The question had been posed by Minister for Justice Alexandre Desbois. The ruling that the existing law was in compliance was unanimous, while one judge dissented on the question regarding the claim of jurisdiction.

Of particular concern was the need to recognise a copyright for publishers of works, but the court ruled that the Copyright Convention did not mandate this. "Protection is only mandated for original artists, and there is no implied protection for publishers," said the ruling.

The law stating that all government works are public domain can also stand, said the court, as the law itself "is effectively the government willfully putting its work into the public domain, explicitly in compliance with section 5 of the Convention."

In the ruling, the court also noted that "private/personal use" in the fair use provisions of the Convention is also open to interpretation and will have to be tested in any future copyright cases involving private individuals.

The second question dealt with a proposed law, similar to the one passed in response to the UN Patent Law, aimed at protecting Kelssek citizens and businesses from prosecution for violations overseas, which can include hefty fines and even jail time, in comparison to Kelssek's laws which have no criminal penalties and do not allow punitive damages to be awarded. The new law will be voted on after Parliament reopens this fall and is expected to pass given the ruling Green Party's majority and wide public support. The courts, meanwhile, have agreed to postpone any copyright cases which come up in the meantime in order to have the new law take effect first.

"This isn't a carte blanche, however," warned Desbois, "Once you leave our borders everyone should remember they are subject to foreign laws and should conduct themselves accordingly. There is no extradition obligation for copyright offences."

Will any Flibbleite representative respond to the news stories alleging that many Flibbleite servers are hosting mirrors to download the above mentioned "open source software client" as well as describing the best way to bypass the anti-duplication measures implemented in certain digital songs? What about the reports that many of these servers are run by teenagers in their parents homes? Would it be appropriate for all nations to embargo the Flibbleites based on these charges?
I inquired about this with the Flibbleite Investigative Bureau and, after getting the run around because I'm only filling in as UN Rep, while Mr. Flibble is on vacation, was told that they couldn't comment on ongoing investigations, and they also want to know what news organizations these stories are from.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

I inquired about this with the Flibbleite Investigative Bureau and, after getting the run around because I'm only filling in as UN Rep, while Mr. Flibble is on vacation, was told that they couldn't comment on ongoing investigations, and they also want to know what news organizations these stories are from.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

A quick net search should be able to bring up some stories.

The Flibbleites are hardly alone in this matter though. Few nations have been able to prevent their youth from trading music, even amongst those nations who seem to support copyright expansion.

A quick net search should be able to bring up some stories.

The Flibbleites are hardly alone in this matter though. Few nations have been able to prevent their youth from trading music, even amongst those nations who seem to support copyright expansion.
Ceorana has done so pretty well. An industry standard in our nation that was backed up by national law at the time of the passing of the Convention mandates that all file-sharing programs, web browsers and digital music players distributed in our nation must respect do-not-copy orders written into CDs and other ways of distributing music and other media. Yes, you can get around it if you write your own web browser, file-sharing program and player, but we find that most file-sharers are casual users who aren't meaning to break the law. Since it is so much harder to pirate music and software, prices are correspondingly lower, and most people find it affordable to just go out and buy the CD.

Bill Senada
Director, Office of Commerce
Ceoranan Department of Domestic Affairs

Ceorana has done so pretty well. An industry standard in our nation that was backed up by national law at the time of the passing of the Convention mandates that all file-sharing programs, web browsers and digital music players distributed in our nation must respect do-not-copy orders written into CDs and other ways of distributing music and other media. Yes, you can get around it if you write your own web browser, file-sharing program and player, but we find that most file-sharers are casual users who aren't meaning to break the law. Since it is so much harder to pirate music and software, prices are correspondingly lower, and most people find it affordable to just go out and buy the CD.

Bill Senada
Director, Office of Commerce
Ceoranan Department of Domestic Affairs

You are saying the lack of competition with file sharers lowered the prices somehow? We have noticed the opposite effect in most nations.

Don't your citizens still just download good free open source browsers off the net?

Do you have some sort of multitiered firewall system like some "communist" nations we are all familiar with that try to police the net?

John Q Public
Discordian Free Press

You are saying the lack of competition with file sharers lowered the prices somehow? We have noticed the opposite effect in most nations.
You don't compete with file sharers, it's like dividing by zero. It's not competition when one thing is for free.

I'll explain why prices go down: There are X people who want to get a certain piece of music. In a "traditional" system, X₁ of them do it legally, by buying a CD or off a pay-to-download site. X₂ of them do it illegally, by downloading off the web for free. The artist and record company want to get Y profit per listener. Since there are X₂ people downloading with no profit to the artist or record company, the artist and record company need to raise their prices for the X₁ buyers to compensate.

Now, if X₂ is dramatically reduced, what happens? The prices go down, because there are more people buying legally. In economic terms, demand goes up, so prices go down.

Don't your citizens still just download good free open source browsers off the net?
Yes, of course. But they're still subject to the law. Granted, some people can download open-source browsers from nations that don't do this, but they'd also have to download a digital music player and file-sharing program from that nation as well. This would mean it would take a fair bit of effort to download illegal music, and we find that most illegal downloaders are pretty casual: they won't go through a lot of trouble to get the music. And for those that do, we have other ways of enforcing the law. Record companies take a lot of it into their own hands by copy-protecting the CDs and other anti-piracy tricks.

Do you have some sort of multitiered firewall system like some "communist" nations we are all familiar with that try to police the net?
No, of course not. That law's not airtight, but it does reduce the problem by a lot.

Bill Senada
Director, Office of Commerce
Ceoranan Department of Domestic Affairs

You don't compete with file sharers, it's like dividing by zero. It's not competition when one thing is for free.

Of course it's competition. Lots of products compete with free services. I could go vist the water fountain, bring a bunch of water bottles and fill them up. I buy bottled water because it's more convenient. At places where one can not find free water to compete with the bottle water, concerts perhaps, you'll notice that the bottled water is a lot more expensive.


I'll explain why prices go down: There are X people who want to get a certain piece of music. In a "traditional" system, X₁ of them do it legally, by buying a CD or off a pay-to-download site. X₂ of them do it illegally, by downloading off the web for free. The artist and record company want to get Y profit per listener.


Um, Y is infinity right? Everyone wants as much profit as they can possibly get?


Since there are X₂ people downloading with no profit to the artist or record company, the artist and record company need to raise their prices for the X₁ buyers to compensate.

Now, if X₂ is dramatically reduced, what happens? The prices go down, because there are more people buying legally. In economic terms, demand goes up, so prices go down.


That is an interesting theoretical model, but I doubt it represents even the pricing practices in Ceorana. How much money one wants to make does not change the price, because people virtually always want to make as much money as possible. Rather, the prices are set as high as they can be without reducing profit. They inevitably reach a point where raising the prices any further reduces the number of customers too much.

Competition with a free nonrival good results in lower prices.



Yes, of course. But they're still subject to the law. Granted, some people can download open-source browsers from nations that don't do this, but they'd also have to download a digital music player and file-sharing program from that nation as well. This would mean it would take a fair bit of effort to download illegal music, and we find that most illegal downloaders are pretty casual: they won't go through a lot of trouble to get the music. And for those that do, we have other ways of enforcing the law. Record companies take a lot of it into their own hands by copy-protecting the CDs and other anti-piracy tricks.


Perhaps net users in Ceorana do favor a Ceorana specific browser, Ceorana specific music player, etc. However internationally we have noticed a rising popularity in the use of the free alternatives available on the net.

It is more work to get superior open source version of an application then to use the one bundled with the computer. That is one of the reasons people pay for music rather then using the competing free music channels. People won't go out of their way to save a little money, but they will go out of their way to save a lot of money.

We are familiar with the tricks used by record companies, trying to install malware on users computers. We consider such actions reprehensible. If a company tries to install a rootkit they deserve the bad press they get.


No, of course not. That law's not airtight, but it does reduce the problem by a lot.

Bill Senada
Director, Office of Commerce
Ceoranan Department of Domestic Affairs

Again, we are not intimately familiar with the state of affairs in Ceorana. However we see no decrease in file sharing internationally. Each specific file sharing program has a product life cycle, but the technology is constantly being improved. Many proprietary software companies have made use of the technology developed in the process of designing the various file sharing programs.

We have watch in dismay as other countries have begun prosecuting their youth for file sharing. One nation started a War on Net Music campaign designed to "educate" the youth on the dangers of downloading music. We hope Ceorona is not implementing similar measures.

Max Cypher
Editor in Chief Netizen magazine

Actually Ceo, economics points to prices actually lowering if more people are doing filesharing of music, whether it's legal or not. This is because music CDs are a non-essential, price elastic good. Smart record companies/retailers would lower prices to entice people to buy the CD. Furthermore, music lovers as a rule want lots of music and likely they will and are circumventing the your efforts against music piracy. However, well, I think this article says it for me: http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/07/27/Arts/Downloaders_050727.html

Buying the CD has several advantages over filesharing. Firstly, the extra stuff usually packaged with it. Second, you get the whole thing. If you're into independent music like I am, it's hard to get an entire album off the Internet; I usually use it to decide what's worth buying - and often it's Amazon.com I have to use because my local music stores don't stock what I want. Yes, that's right, the guy vehemently opposed to strict copyright goes to extra effort and pays international shipping costs to get legal music. I only do it if I'm sure I'll like it, though - usually I download a few tracks first.

Anyway, price elasticity refers to the effect that a decrease in price has on quantity demanded. With a perfectly inelastic good, people cannot live without it. Say, insulin for diabetics. The firm can set any price it likes; the quantity demanded will remain the same. The opposite is true for perfectly elastic goods. Most goods range from perfectly inelastic to varying levels of elasticity.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v428/numbersaregood/elasticity.gif

Crude, but it illustrates what I mean. On the right is a highly price elastic good, such as music CDs, note the much gentler demand curve. A small decrease in price leads to a larger than proportionate increase in quantity demanded. There is also more profit, since the box on the bottom is bigger than the box on the top. As a rule companies don't actually say "we want X profit per listener", they just seek to maximise profit and don't care about how many listeners they have. By increasing prices, there's a big drop in the quantity demanded and people are more likely to go to the effort to pirate the music.

That's not to say your approach to it is completely wrong, however, it doesn't agree with conventional economic understanding and to me it makes little sense.

OOC: did you major in economics for awhile too?

The Ishtarean Ambassador to the United Nations releases a short communique:

The Most Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar regrets the recent lack of communication from our UN legation due to our traditional, two week national holiday in July. The Legation is now vigorously examining important diplomatic correspondence that has arrived in the mean time.

An additional informal Note follows;

The Most Serene Republic extends its congratulations and thanks to the Republic of Dashanzi, the Commonwealth of Avernoan, the Free Land of Discoraversalism, the Federation of Kelssek for their support and mutually supporting legal decisions regarding this matter. We believe that by working together on this issue, we can continue to advance the rights of private citizens and creative artists, helping free intellectual property from the bonds of multinational corporations and the prison of abrasive copyright enforcement.


OOC: Sorry, didn't mean to abandon my thread, summer vacation and all that.

It has come to the attention of the government of the Most Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar that a UN member nation and minor trading partner has recently taken legislative action we consider entirely negative and hostile:

In related news, the Flibbleite Legislature passed a bill condemning the actions of PiratesOfIshtar.com and calling for the site to be shut down. The bill, which is currently awaiting the Grand Poobah’s signature, also called for a trade embargo to be placed upon The Most Serene Republic of The Island of Ishtar if the site is not shut down, with the embargo only ending when the site has been shut down.


The M.S.R.I.I. deeply regrets the decision of the Flibbleite Legislature's passage of a bill condemning a non-profit, volunteer-run website hosted in our country and calling for it to be shut down. We do not feel it is appropriate for foreign legislatures to attempt to regulate the free expression and creativity of our citizens, and we categorically reject the jurisdiction of said Legislature to interfere in our domestic affairs.

We call upon the Flibbleite Legislature to immediately repeal this law, which can only be construed as a diplomatic insult. We additionally appeal to all UN members in good standing to condemn the Flibbleite's threatened trade embargo as a hostile act, completely out of proportion to the alleged provocation.


We remind the Flibbleite government of UN Resolution #10 regarding PRIVACY, which states categorically:

"All personal communication, including, but not limited to face-to-face conversations, mail, telephone, radio, LAN and Internet shall NOT be intercepted by the government, unless there is serious evidence of a planned or committed crime."
Ishtar argues that the Flibbleite's government's spying upon its own citizens to see who accesses our websites, if proven, would put Flibbelite in contravention of UN law.


We remind the Flibbelite government also of UN Resolution #48 regarding SOVEREIGNTY, which states:

"Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.
Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.
Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.
Ishtar argues that Flibbelite's attempt to censure and embargo Ishtar violates the letter and the spirit of Resolution #48, in contravention of UN law.


We remind the Flibbelite government of UN Resolution #60 "PUBLIC DOMAIN", which states:

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

Works pass into the public domain when:
(1) the term of copyright for the work has expired
(2) the author failed to satisfy statutory formalities to perfect the copyright
3) it is a work of a UN Government
4) it is deemed "freeware" or "shareware"
Ishtar argues that the Flibbelite government, backed by multinational media conglomerates who profit off of the creative works of deceased artists, are blatantly and willingly contravening UN Resolution #60, which in common law interpretation places the shared cultural works of humanity in the public domain.


We implore the Flibbelite government to take the following steps: Repeal your obnoxious and illegal bill; comply with all cited UN Resolutions; and immediately cease these unacceptable threats of economic retaliation against a fellow UN member state in good standing.

Her Serene Grace
UN Ambassador for the Most Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar
Lady Galadriel McGee

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/flibbleites.jpg
From the office of the Grand Poobah of
The Rogue Nation of FlibbleitesIt has come to the attention of the government of the Most Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar that a UN member nation and minor trading partner has recently taken legislative action we consider entirely negative and hostile:




The M.S.R.I.I. deeply regrets the decision of the Flibbleite Legislature's passage of a bill condemning a non-profit, volunteer-run website hosted in our country and calling for it to be shut down. We do not feel it is appropriate for foreign legislatures to attempt to regulate the free expression and creativity of our citizens, and we categorically reject the jurisdiction of said Legislature to interfere in our domestic affairs.

We call upon the Flibbleite Legislature to immediately repeal this law, which can only be construed as a diplomatic insult. We additionally appeal to all UN members in good standing to condemn the Flibbleite's threatened trade embargo as a hostile act, completely out of proportion to the alleged provocation. First off, I line item vetoed the trade embargo, however we still want your nation to either shut the site down or rewrite the software to prevent copyrighted works from being traded on it.


We remind the Flibbleite government of UN Resolution #10 regarding PRIVACY, which states categorically:
"All personal communication, including, but not limited to face-to-face conversations, mail, telephone, radio, LAN and Internet shall NOT be intercepted by the government, unless there is serious evidence of a planned or committed crime."

Ishtar argues that the Flibbleite's government's spying upon its own citizens to see who accesses our websites, if proven, would put Flibbelite in contravention of UN law.It wasn't the government of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites who discovered that Flibbleite citizens were using your software, it was the Flibbleite Musicians Guild, and furthermore they didn't violate that resolution either. When they found out that copyrighted works be Flibbleite artists were being traded they started searching your site and any time they found a user with qualifing songs available they took down the IP address and looked up which ISP is belongs to.


We remind the Flibbelite government also of UN Resolution #48 regarding SOVEREIGNTY, which states:
"Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.
Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.
Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Ishtar argues that Flibbelite's attempt to censure and embargo Ishtar violates the letter and the spirit of Resolution #48, in contravention of UN law.First off don't even thing you can out do us when it comes to sovereignty, my brother's the fucking Don of the NSO (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx). Secondly your quoting resolution #49 Rights and Duties of UN States, not resolution #48 which has been repealed (that's #48 that's been repealed, not #49) Anyway, I refer you to Article 2 of Rights and Duties of UN States, which you quoted earlier, "Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law," all we're doing is exercising our right to exercise our jurisdiction over our people. Furthermore I refer you to Article 11 of the same resolution which states, "§ Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law," now as the UN has recognized copyrights by passing the UN Copyright Convention, your nation should probably be respecting them.


We remind the Flibbelite government of UN Resolution #60 "PUBLIC DOMAIN", which states:
UN nations resolve to establish a public domain. If something is 'in the public domain' then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the exclusive rights that apply to a copyrighted work.

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

Ishtar argues that the Flibbelite government, backed by multinational media conglomerates who profit off of the creative works of deceased artists, are blatantly and willingly contravening UN Resolution #60, which in common law interpretation places the shared cultural works of humanity in the public domain.Irrelevent, the works were talking about are not part of the public domain, therefore resolution #60 (which we've never liked anyway due to it's putting shareware and freeware in the public domain) doesn't apply here.


We implore the Flibbelite government to take the following steps: Repeal your obnoxious and illegal bill; comply with all cited UN Resolutions; and immediately cease these unacceptable threats of economic retaliation against a fellow UN member state in good standing.

Her Serene Grace
UN Ambassador for the Most Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar
Lady Galadriel McGee
I assure you that we are in complete compliance with all UN resolution currently in effect to the letter.

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/flibbleites.jpg
From the office of the Grand Poobah of
The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

First off don't even thing you can out do us when it comes to sovereignty, my brother's the fucking Don of the NSO (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx).

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites.

Does the NSO exist specifically to tread on national soveregnty rights? Every time our delegation has seen national sovereignty violations recently it's been justified by the fact that those trying to interfere with national sovereignty are members of the NSO. Is there some other organization that actually exists to defend national sovereignty we should report these violations too?

-Office of the Discoraversalist Delegation

Does the NSO exist specifically to tread on national soveregnity rights? Every time our delegation has seen national sovereignity violations recently it's been justified by the fact that those trying to interfere with national sovereignity are members of the NSO. Is there some other organization that actually exists to defend national sovereignity we should report these violations too?

-Office of the Discoraversalist Delegation
It could be that your main focus in the UN is Resolution #163:UNCC, which you feel is a violation of sovereignity and the NSO doesn't, as it's an international issue in their eyes.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Does the NSO exist specifically to tread on national soveregnty rights? Every time our delegation has seen national sovereignty violations recently it's been justified by the fact that those trying to interfere with national sovereignty are members of the NSO. Is there some other organization that actually exists to defend national sovereignty we should report these violations too?

-Office of the Discoraversalist Delegation
Since copyright violations can occur internationally, yes it's a fucking international issue.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

It could be that your main focus in the UN is Resolution #163:UNCC, which you feel is a violation of sovereignity and the NSO doesn't, as it's an international issue in their eyes.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

I have to admit, I have an almost mypopic focus on UNCC. However I don't really consider what you said responsive. UNCC was an attempt to force a domestic policy on an international level. I could write a law requiring my citizens to pay the creator of a particular dance style money every time they did the dance. I might see it as an international problem that people in your country dance our dances without paying us. By that logic every sovereignty violation by the UN is an international issue.

I find it incredible NSO members completely disregard national sovereignty arguments with the argument that some people consider something an international issue.

I have to admit, I have an almost mypopic focus on UNCC. However I don't really consider what you said responsive. UNCC was an attempt to force a domestic policy on an international level. I could write a law requiring my citizens to pay the creator of a particular dance style money every time they did the dance. I might see it as an international problem that people in your country dance our dances without paying us.
Actually, something a lot like that (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Patent_Law) came up in the UN and evidently, no one in the NSO raised any concerns about it not being an international issue (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?showtopic=260). Admittedly, your example is a bit silly, but they would most likely oppose it on the grounds of common sense, not sovereignity. (I think. If anyone who knows better wishes to contradict me, feel free to.)

Actually, something a lot like that (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Patent_Law) came up in the UN and evidently, no one in the NSO raised any concerns about it not being an international issue (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?showtopic=260). Admittedly, your example is a bit silly, but they would most likely oppose it on the grounds of common sense, not sovereignity. (I think. If anyone who knows better wishes to contradict me, feel free to.)

How did the authors of our recent patent and copyright legislation decide on a duration of 3 + 17 years for patents, and such an exorbitantly large duration for copyrights?

(OOC: I know for a fact more people would have raised concerns on that thread if they had permission to reply to that topic).

Kuraurisand Government Considers Artistic Enjoyment Tax
by Enn P. Cee

In the latest sign that the government of Kuraurisand is moving towards entering the world stage, Chancellor Eric R. Funston announced today that he was presenting a new bill before the Council of the Electorate, the purpose of which would be "to ensure that our citizens continue to enjoy the free reprodcution of music on national peer-to-peer file sharing networks while recognizing the copyright concerns presented by foreign artists and complying with international law." The proposed bill, if passed through the Council, would establish a flat 10€ tax on all electrical devices used for the playback of recorded audio and video stimulus, including car stereos, CD, DVD and MP3 players, computers, speakers, cell phones with specialized ring tone capabilities, televisions, and other similar devices. The proceeds of the tax would be funneled to a national committee which would negotiate with foreign artists and corporations to establish compensation for the distribution of their materials within Kuraurisand's national borders.

Under current Kuraurisand law, intellectual property rights are designed only to prevent someone from claiming authorship of an artistic work that is not his or her own, and require a rather steep royalty to be paid to the original artist in the event of a "remake". Financial compensation for the work itself is handled through the taxation system, in a way similar to that proposed by the new bill.

"In a lot of ways, our system has been described as capitalism with a communist base-line," financial analyst Benjamin Beerglass explained during an interview. "The government and private organizations offer grants to artists to get the music they want to hear, the citizens 'vote' by checking the work out of their local library or distribution provider, the bureaucrats tally up the data and they empty that portion of the year's tax budget accordingly, with the best compensation going to the artists that generated the most repeat interest."

Mister Beerglass suggested that the new legislation would be considered an extension of that policy. "In a way, the Chancellor's proposal is just a way of aligning foreign markets onto our playing field. "Instead of going to a p2p program like Pirates of Ishtar to get their foreign music, they'll be able to go to the same sites they get domestic music from. I imagine some foreign artists will want to be paid a flat royalty, like they're used to, while others, the more popular ones, will want to have us tally up the votes and send 'em their yearly check. Either way, everyone will end up happy, especially the poor distribution providers. Who's gonna pay 50 onyx worth of tarriff and markup to get a foreign CD when they can get local stuff for the standard 2 onyx CD-burning fee?"

Distribution provider Frank Walcott, regional manager for the CD-Mart chain, agreed wholeheartedly. "This would be wonderful if it went through. I love foreign music... have you ever heard a Compadrian waltz? Great stuff. But with those peer-to-peer programs, and, well, the huge price difference we have to charge in order to make any money, I admit, we were gonna take 'em off the shelves. What a shame it would have been to lose all that exposure to foreign cultures. We're so ethnocentric already even without losing access to other cultures' forms of expression." But will the tax generate enough revenue to satisfy an international market? "I'm confident they'll reach an arrangment," Mister Beerglass declared. "Right now they're getting zero - anything's gotta be better than that."

Not all voices were so optimistic about the idea. Angela Bartlett, 62, founder of Tout Misuse of Information, has long celebrated the arrival of peer-to-peer systems. "I've never been comfortable with the government tallying up information about what I'm reading or listening to. How do I know what other ways they're using that information? With peer-to-peer, I can finally pick music I like without Big Brother making a mark with a pencil. I even use it to get local music, and will continue to do so even if the new bill passes."

Government spokesman Carl Rulter considered such remarks paranoid. "The Checks and Balances Act prevents government agencies, with the exception of the Internal Revenue Service, from sharing information with one another. The government is made up of people just like Miss Bartlett, and believe me - we'd rat on each other if something below board was happening." When asked about how Miss Bartlett's viewpoint would affect the bill, Mister Rutler vehemently replied, "Not at all. The majority continues to use the system set in place to compensate their favorite artists, and the compensation plans we intend to offer to other nations should be able to take into account even undocumented downloads like Miss Bartlett's."

How did the authors of our recent patent and copyright legislation decide on a duration of 3 + 17 years for patents, and such an exorbitantly large duration for copyrights?
Ahem. I feel that real-life IP terms are fairly appropriate. Both are slightly, in the first case, or significantly, in the second cases, lower than the RL durations.

(OOC: I know for a fact more people would have raised concerns on that thread if they had permission to reply to that topic).
I know. I was merely illustrating that the NSO probably would deem your example an international issue.

First off, I line item vetoed the trade embargo, however we still want your nation to either shut the site down or rewrite the software to prevent copyrighted works from being traded on it.
As already established by Ishtar local case law, the PiratesOfIshtar.com website and its software is entirely legal under our laws and our interpretation and implementation of UN law. We do not appreciate other nations ordering us how to manage our internal affairs. If the Flibbeleitites States has an issue, we require you to file a formal diplomatic protest, not simply make demands in public.


It wasn't the government of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites who discovered that Flibbleite citizens were using your software, it was the Flibbleite Musicians Guild, and furthermore they didn't violate that resolution either. When they found out that copyrighted works be Flibbleite artists were being traded they started searching your site and any time they found a user with qualifing songs available they took down the IP address and looked up which ISP is belongs to. What your citizens do or do not do is not our business. If you choose to repress your citizens' freedom, that is an internal matter for your own secret police.


First off don't even thing you can out do us when it comes to sovereignty, my brother's the fucking Don of the NSO.
Since the Flibbleite State is unable to communicate in a professional, diplomatic matter, we will hereby cease all communications with your State until you recall this foul-mouthed, obnoxious UN ambassador and replace him/her with someone schooled in the arts of diplomacy.

The Island of Ishtar is absolutely unimpressed by you or your relatives membership in some mafia. Frankly we find it rather embarassing that a UN Member State would admit ties to an underground criminal organization. We abjure you to cease with your empty threats. You will not influence our national policy by threats of violence.


I assure you that we are in complete compliance with all UN resolution currently in effect to the letter.
Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites.

In light of your recent outrageous and threatening remarks, we find that difficult to believe. We have pointed out in our previous communication several points where your nation is clearly in violation. Your assurance, in light of your belligerent comments, are hardly reassuring.


Her Serene Grace
UN Ambassador for the Most Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar
Lady Galadriel McGee

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/flibbleites.jpg
From the office of the Grand Poobah of
The Rogue Nation of FlibbleitesAs already established by Ishtar local case law, the PiratesOfIshtar.com website and its software is entirely legal under our laws and our interpretation and implementation of UN law. We do not appreciate other nations ordering us how to manage our internal affairs. If the Flibbeleitites States has an issue, we require you to file a formal diplomatic protest, not simply make demands in public.You know something, I don't give a rat's ass what you think, you either get that site shut down or convince the owners to rewrite the software to prevent the trading of copywritten music or else I will enact that trade embargo against your nation. Oh and it's "The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites" not "Flibbeleitites States," get it right next time.


What your citizens do or do not do is not our business. If you choose to repress your citizens' freedom, that is an internal matter for your own secret police.I'm sure that the Flibbleite Musicians Guild will so pleased to hear that you equate them to being "secret police," I'll have you know that they're not even affilaited with the government of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites in any way, shape or form.

In light of your recent outrageous and threatening remarks, we find that difficult to believe. We have pointed out in our previous communication several points where your nation is clearly in violation. Your assurance, in light of your belligerent comments, are hardly reassuring.Oh really, you claim we're not in compliance the UN's resolutions huh. Well, let's go through your "claims" and see how we in actuallity are in complete compliance with the letter of the law.

We remind the Flibbleite government of UN Resolution #10 regarding PRIVACY, which states categorically:"All personal communication, including, but not limited to face-to-face conversations, mail, telephone, radio, LAN and Internet shall NOT be intercepted by the government, unless there is serious evidence of a planned or committed crime."Ishtar argues that the Flibbleite's government's spying upon its own citizens to see who accesses our websites, if proven, would put Flibbelite in contravention of UN law.First off, as I stated previously, the organization that first discovered this is not affaliated with the government of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites and as a result is not bound by UN resolution #10. However once they turned that information in to the Flibbleite Investigative Bureau it was in the hands of a government agency, but since they had evidence of a committed crime (i.e. copyright violation) the FIB was able to obtain further evidence without running afoul of Resolution #10. Secondly, the evidence obtained by the FMG was not obtained by intercepting any personal communications, it was all publicly available to anyone who knew what to look for.

We remind the Flibbelite government also of UN Resolution #48 regarding SOVEREIGNTY, which states:"Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.
Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.
Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.Ishtar argues that Flibbelite's attempt to censure and embargo Ishtar violates the letter and the spirit of Resolution #48, in contravention of UN law.Please, that resolution was primarily written to explain the interaction between the UN and it's members, besides we're using the second clause you qouted there, "Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law." You see Flibbleite citizens have been using the software that was created in your nation to break our laws. Since we have no jurisdiction over your people, we're pressuring you to do something about it.

And finally to the most ludicrious claim of all.
We remind the Flibbelite government of UN Resolution #60 "PUBLIC DOMAIN", which states:UN nations resolve to establish a public domain. If something is 'in the public domain' then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the exclusive rights that apply to a copyrighted work.

Works pass into the public domain when:
(1) the term of copyright for the work has expired
(2) the author failed to satisfy statutory formalities to perfect the copyright
3) it is a work of a UN Government
4) it is deemed "freeware" or "shareware"Ishtar argues that the Flibbelite government, backed by multinational media conglomerates who profit off of the creative works of deceased artists, are blatantly and willingly contravening UN Resolution #60, which in common law interpretation places the shared cultural works of humanity in the public domain.The works in question are copywritten ergo they are not Public Domain and do not fall under the protection of UN Resolution #60.

Her Serene Grace
UN Ambassador for the Most Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar
Lady Galadriel McGeeNow, you got any other complaints, Lady.

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites


http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/flibbleites.jpg
From the office of Robert Flibble
UN Representative of The Rogue Nation of FlibbleitesSince the Flibbleite State is unable to communicate in a professional, diplomatic matter, we will hereby cease all communications with your State until you recall this foul-mouthed, obnoxious UN ambassador and replace him/her with someone schooled in the arts of diplomacy.I object to these allegations that I'm foul mouthed and obnoxious, especially since you have me confused with my brother who is not an ambassador he is the Grand Poobah, the leader of our glorious nation, hell I'm not even an ambassador, I'm just a Representative.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The Island of Ishtar is absolutely unimpressed by you or your relatives membership in some mafia. Frankly we find it rather embarassing that a UN Member State would admit ties to an underground criminal organization. We abjure you to cease with your empty threats. You will not influence our national policy by threats of violence. OOC: Actually the whole "NSO Mafia Don" thing is kind of a running joke that started several months ago when someone referred to the NatSovs as a mafia as I'm one of the NSO's leaders, I adopted the title of Don and ran with it, and besides the most violence Bob Flibble's ever done is occasionally whack someone with a trout.

Ahem. I feel that real-life IP terms are fairly appropriate. Both are slightly, in the first case, or significantly, in the second cases, lower than the RL durations.


I know. I was merely illustrating that the NSO probably would deem your example an international issue.

So now in the NSUN we have copyright law whose duration was decided by Disney?

I can believe the NSO wouldn't take up the national sovereignty argument here. That is my point, that I have never seen anyone from the NSO make a national soveregnty argument, but I have seen people use NSO membership to try and discourage others from making national sovereignty arguments.

I have never seen anyone from the NSO make a national soveregnty argumentYou must not be looking very hard. Of course, it helps to look at Resolutions that aren't international in nature.

I can believe the NSO wouldn't take up the national sovereignty argument here. That is my point, that I have never seen anyone from the NSO make a national soveregnty argument, but I have seen people use NSO membership to try and discourage others from making national sovereignty arguments.

Here's a National Sovereignty Argument (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430907) for you. Can you see that? I pulled that link from the stickies.

Regardless, I've been making national sovereignty arguments for a couple years and some change in the UN forum, both with this nation and Texan Hotrodders. And many members have made national sovereignty arguments in discussions here. The fact that you haven't noticed it could imply a lot of things, but primarily it means that you haven't noticed it. Read a hundred pages or so of the threads in this forum and I have no doubt you'll see plenty of national sovereignty arguments by NSO members.

So now in the NSUN we have copyright law whose duration was decided by Disney?
Actually, much of it was modeled after the Berne Convention, which actually required a change in US copyright laws (no statuatory formalities). And this is a full 40 years shorter than US copyright law, the one that you say was "decided by Disney".

And if you post that one more time, even though I understand what you mean, I'm going to make a card that says Disney =/= Governments all around the world. ;)

To the Rogue Nation of the Flibbelites

This diplomatic note expresses our deep disappointment with the Rogue Nation of the Flibbleites and conveys our ongoing dissatisfaction with your government's hostile and belligerent position. We implore your government to adhere to international standards, remain reasonable, and attempt to address our concerns in a civil, UN-like manner, despite your "Rogue State" status.

In regards to your threatened trade embargo, while we regret such drastic measures, we do not believe it will have any material effect. The Serene Republic has a strong, vibrant economy, little dependent on international trade. We certainly do not need Flibbelite exports, which primarily seems to consist of apallingly unsafe beef products and grandiose pronouncements from foul-mouthed politicians.

To your second point: Whether you regard your "Flibbleite Musicians Guild" as a government entity or not, it is clearly an organization supported and coddled by your rogue state regime, the mouthpiece of a global media conglomerate punishing your own citizens with absurdly overpriced media products in order to enrich your own cartels, all at the expense of actual artists and to the detriment of your own impoverished people.

And while we sympathize with the plight of ordinary Flibbleite citizens, we must regard your confiscatory abuse of your own citizens an internal matter. However we will continue to allow all Flibbleites with an Internet connection to access websites on our national top level domain (*.ish) so that they may freely enjoy the shared cultural works of humanity, free of vituperative corporate abuse.

We also find it ironic that in one note you threaten us with your putative "mafia connections" and in the next note declare it a "running joke." Regardless, our internal security forces take this matter seriously, and all three Flibbelites we have found on our island have been briefly detained and questioned by the Serene Police. Since they are harmless tourists and businessmen, they have been released, but we warn the Rogue Nation that any Flibbleite mafioso found will be dealt with strictly.

In regards to your putative defense of your own nation's blatant and obvious contravention of prior UN Resolutions, we feel your logic is abysmal and lacking, at best. However as this is a diplomatic exchange and not a World Court adjudication, we feel no need to publicly rebut your arguments. We are confident not only in the rightness of our initial position but also in the quality of our international law administrators.

In closing, the Most Serene Republic of Ishtar notes with satisfaction that its women's football team has just won its first international match. We invite all UN participants to bask in the glow of this astounding victory, and we are making digital copies of this match available publicly on a number of sites, including PiratesOfIshtar.com.


Her Serene Grace
UN Ambassador for the Most Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar
Lady Galadriel McGee

Actually, much of it was modeled after the Berne Convention, which actually required a change in US copyright laws (no statuatory formalities). And this is a full 40 years shorter than US copyright law, the one that you say was "decided by Disney".

And if you post that one more time, even though I understand what you mean, I'm going to make a card that says Disney =/= Governments all around the world. ;)

OOC

I should have looked up the Berne Convention earlier:

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

it led me to a description of the French Rights of the Author that had such an impact on it:

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

That has some good material for any future copyright legislation :) I like the term, Rights of the Author.

Anyway, I think you do know what I mean :) I'm not certain what influence Disney or other megacorps had on international copyright law, but it's easy to trace their influence on US law.

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

I especially like this section:

"Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever," but that since she was "informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution", Congress might consider Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA) then-president Jack Valenti's proposal of a copyright term of "forever less one day."

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

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/flibbleites.jpg
From the office of the Grand Poobah of
The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites
Pardon my using my husband's letterhead, I don't have one of my own. And right now he's so apoplectic with rage at your most recent communication that I thought it best that he not reply to this one.
To the Rogue Nation of the Flibbelites

This diplomatic note expresses our deep disappointment with the Rogue Nation of the Flibbleites and conveys our ongoing dissatisfaction with your government's hostile and belligerent position. We implore your government to adhere to international standards, remain reasonable, and attempt to address our concerns in a civil, UN-like manner, despite your "Rogue State" status.You implore us to adhere to internation standards? That's amusing coming from a nation who is blatently violating the UN Copyright Convention by allowing PiratesOfIshtar.com to facilitate the illicit trade of copywritten works. (OOC: and for crying out loud, could you please get the name right it's "The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites")

In regards to your threatened trade embargo, while we regret such drastic measures, we do not believe it will have any material effect. The Serene Republic has a strong, vibrant economy, little dependent on international trade. We certainly do not need Flibbelite exports, which primarily seems to consist of apallingly unsafe beef products and grandiose pronouncements from foul-mouthed politicians.And this is why I decided to not let my husband reply to this, he absolutly abhors being called a "politician." And furthermore the Flibbleite Department of Agriculture (which in this case is a government organization) insures that all agricultural products produced for sale both inside and outside of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites are of the highest quality and are most assuradly not "unsafe."

To your second point: Whether you regard your "Flibbleite Musicians Guild" as a government entity or not, it is clearly an organization supported and coddled by your rogue state regime, the mouthpiece of a global media conglomerate punishing your own citizens with absurdly overpriced media products in order to enrich your own cartels, all at the expense of actual artists and to the detriment of your own impoverished people. And here you apparently are woefully misinformed, you see the Flibbleite Musicians Guild was actually founded by the musicians themselves in order to protect themselves from those unscruplous people who would exploit their hard work to line their own pockets. (OOC: I'll admit that this might be partially my fault as the Flibbleite Musicians Guild doesn't have a wiki page yet)

In regards to your putative defense of your own nation's blatant and obvious contravention of prior UN Resolutions, we feel your logic is abysmal and lacking, at best. However as this is a diplomatic exchange and not a World Court adjudication, we feel no need to publicly rebut your arguments. We are confident not only in the rightness of our initial position but also in the quality of our international law administrators.While I'm not as much of an expert on international law as my brother-in-law, I am fairly sertain that there is no way for this to be a "World Court adjudication" as you put it as there is no World Court established. And as to your claims about our logic, believe me if we don't like a particular UN resolution and we can find a loophole to use to get around it, we'll use it. As a result we may not always be in compliance with the spirit of a resolution but we are always in compliance with the letter of the resolutions, and that's what the Gnomes care about.

We also find it ironic that in one note you threaten us with your putative "mafia connections" and in the next note declare it a "running joke." Regardless, our internal security forces take this matter seriously, and all three Flibbelites we have found on our island have been briefly detained and questioned by the Serene Police. Since they are harmless tourists and businessmen, they have been released, but we warn the Rogue Nation that any Flibbleite mafioso found will be dealt with strictly.OOC: You know, I'm beginning to think that you have not quite grasped the difference between In-Character (IC) and Out of Character (OOC) comments yet, which I'll admit can be confusing especially in this forum as the line between the two can get really blurry. To expound upon my earlier statements about a year ago a nation called Enlightened Aardvarks referred to the Sovereigntists in the UN as a mafia Link here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9100217&postcount=9) (I actually managed to find the post). At this point in time the National Sovereignty Organization (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx) (NSO) was still in it's infancy, since I found the idea of us being thought of as a mafia amusing, when I was selected to be one of the leaders I adopted the title of NSO Mafia Don. However this in no way, shape or form means the the character of Bob Flibble or any of my other characters is in fact a member of any mafia whatsoever. It is simply a joke that I've been using for over a year now and any UN forum regular can confirm this. Furthermore my first post my forst mention of Bob Flibble being the "Don" of the NSO basically meant that since I'm a leader of the NSO, the most successful National Sovereignty group in the UN ever, you shouldn't try to debate sovereignty with me as I will chew you up and spit you out.

IC: Yes, we heard from those individuals who you questioned, all three filed greviences with us about their being detained without being charged with any crime. And by the way, should you find any Flibbleite mafiosos please send them to us once your done with them, we've been having a problem with them running sleazy back-alley euthanasia clinics, which is not a crime in and of itself (damn UN euthanasia laws) however they occasionally don't always deal with the bodies properly which tends to leave a bit of a mess.

In closing, the Most Serene Republic of Ishtar notes with satisfaction that its women's football team has just won its first international match. We invite all UN participants to bask in the glow of this astounding victory, and we are making digital copies of this match available publicly on a number of sites, including PiratesOfIshtar.com.


Her Serene Grace
UN Ambassador for the Most Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar
Lady Galadriel McGee
While I'm not sure what your women's football team's success has to do with the rest of you communique, they have my congratulations.

Samantha Flibble
First Lady of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Furthermore my first post my forst mention of Bob Flibble being the "Don" of the NSO basically meant that since I'm a leader of the NSO, the most successful National Sovereignty group in the UN ever, you shouldn't try to debate sovereignty with me as I will chew you up and spit you out.


OOC: This is exactly what I'm talking about, trying to use NSO membership to stifle National Sovereignty discussions.

OOC: This is exactly what I'm talking about, trying to use NSO membership to stifle National Sovereignty discussions.


IC/OOC (doesn't really matter which): Actually it's simply a matter of the leader of the NSO having a much greater understanding of National Sovereignty issues than yourself. This is very well demonstrated by your complete failure to comprehend that international issues being addressed by international law is perrfectly appropriate from a Nat/Sov standpoint.

In matters of international law attempting to dictate matters that are entirely internal to individual nations, the NSO will get involved to oppose.

UNCC deals with matters that are international in flavour and deals with them in an international way.

Realistically speaking, it looks very much like you are attempting to turn this into a Nat/Sov issue (when it isn't one) in the hopes that members of the NSO will back your opposition to it. It's insulting to our intelligence as well as your own.

If you need to oppose UNCC, feel free to do so. Oppose it as strongly as you wish. But do try to use arguments that are valid. This is not a Nat/Sov issue. Don't drag the Nat/Sov/Org into a debate over Nat/Sov. You will lose.

I'm leaving this discussion to my assistant, Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel.

http://www.montypython.art.pl/obrazki/lcmp19-15.jpg

IC/OOC (doesn't really matter which): Actually it's simply a matter of the leader of the NSO having a much greater understanding of National Sovereignty issues than yourself. This is very well demonstrated by your complete failure to comprehend that international issues being addressed by international law is perrfectly appropriate from a Nat/Sov standpoint.

In matters of international law attempting to dictate matters that are entirely internal to individual nations, the NSO will get involved to oppose.

UNCC deals with matters that are international in flavour and deals with them in an international way.

Realistically speaking, it looks very much like you are attempting to turn this into a Nat/Sov issue (when it isn't one) in the hopes that members of the NSO will back your opposition to it. It's insulting to our intelligence as well as your own.

If you need to oppose UNCC, feel free to do so. Oppose it as strongly as you wish. But do try to use arguments that are valid. This is not a Nat/Sov issue. Don't drag the Nat/Sov/Org into a debate over Nat/Sov. You will lose.

It's entirely possible someone has a greater understanding of national sovereignty then me. I don't mind losing debates, I would love for any NSO member to educate me on Nat Sov issues. That nice Texan fellow provided some great links on the subject, which I promptly read, and then went on to read what wiki articles on the issue I could find.

My current understanding is that Nat Sov means at least 10 different things.

No one seems to be disputing my premise that members of the NSO are stifling Nat Sov discussions. I do not understand how someone could find that appropriate.

No one seems to be disputing my premise that members of the NSO are stifling Nat Sov discussions. I do not understand how someone could find that appropriate.Enough.

Once again, you are hopelessly derailing a thread with your myoptic obsession with one tiny aspect of the UN. I'm sick of the hijacks, and I'm sick of you being unable to post without going bonkers over copyright law.

This is an in character thread. Take your rants about the NSO elsewhere. I'll even let you start a thread in this forum about it as long as you quit flogging this long deceased equine.

The OOC hijacks about NatSov theory will end. Now.


-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/flibbleites.jpg
From the office of the Grand Poobah of
The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites
Pardon my using my husband's letterhead, I don't have one of my own. And right now he's so apoplectic with rage at your most recent communication that I thought it best that he not reply to this one.
You implore us to adhere to internation standards? That's amusing coming from a nation who is blatently violating the UN Copyright Convention by allowing PiratesOfIshtar.com to facilitate the illicit trade of copywritten works.

Click HERE to go to our FREE mirror of PiratesOfIshtar.com!

(Random SPAM Mail advertising a mirror, sent from servers operated by BootLegsBringCash)

I will try to give it a new home here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11442725