NationStates Jolt Archive

EDIT: SUPPORT IS NEEDED
http://www.nationstates.net/20054/page=UN_proposal/start=18

First off, I would have already submitted a repeal, but I can't, and I'm in a region of one. I'll gladly join any region willing to submit a repeal for UNCC :)

EDIT, got the edorsements.

This link will let you submit a repeal:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_repeal/repealid=162

Here is the text of UNCC.


UN Copyright Convention

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Ceorana

Description: The United Nations,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Co-authored by Ausserland.

Votes For: 8,227
Votes Against: 4,059

Implemented: Thu Jun 29 2006

(I accidentally let my spell checker correct the above text)

I submit this now, because I've been told the queue is relatively empty. We're currently wasting time repealing a resolution that does nothing but suggest nations support hemp. It's a do nothing resolution, and repealing it does even less.

UNCC has harmed many nations. Copyright may be a good thing, I can grant that possibility. The above resolution could be improved vastly merely by reducing it's duration. Such resolutions as the above, that extend copyright durations, are invariably funded by those trying not to encourage art, but instead by those who have purchased valuable IP, and they are trying to increase the value of their investment.

The above resolution does little to present why it has to exist. The closest thing I can find is this:
"BELIEVING that creators of intellectual property should be able to have control over the distribution and display of their work"

Why should they? Most copyright laws are constructed under the premise that copyright encourages art. That does not appear to be a stated goal of UNCC. That makes sense as UNCC ill serves to promote art. The first few years of copyright duration may very well encourage art. The last few years serve to line pocketbooks. Such copyright extensions must end, and in fact be reversed.

I have already attempted to start a conversation on a better resolution to improve copyright. I was shouted down. I encourage a replacement, with shorter durations.

Thank you for your time.

EDIT:
DRAFT: Repeal UNCC

NOTING: The traditional purpose of copyright is to promote art;

BELIEVING: UNCC was well written, and that it merely oversteps in detail;

AFFIRMING: Art is a public good, and society should support it;

NOTING: The last few years of an overlong copyright duration serve primarily to supress art, and that it is the early years that do the most to promote new art;

AFFIRMING: That this repeal paves the way for a more moderate copyright resolution, with a shorter duration,

CONCLUDING: It is necessary that we repeal UNCC, and begin work on it's replacement.

(The basic format of this repeal is based on the resolution it is attempting to repeal,


EDIT: I've submitted the repeal:
http://www.nationstates.net/20054/page=UN_proposal/start=20

-Brother Rail Gun of the Short Path (Disco U #6)
-Former UN Delegate, now disenfranchised firebrand

I guess one would be in favor of this sort of repeal, if one was in favor of wasting the UN's time. If one joined the UN just to watch the beast, that would make sense.

Many seem devoted to wasting the UN's time. There are world crisis going on, but instead of directing international attention towards matters of import we are wasting our time on this repeal?

Perhaps the original resolution wasted a miniscule amount of money. The cost of coducting this repeal process must be much higher.

Who funded this repeal? Who campaigned for it? Why?

After this repeal will more of the UN's time be wasted on a blocker so that the UN can never [support copyrights]? Hopefully it will be well written, afterall that is what is most important when discussing a resolution.

Bah!

[Hack]

I'm going to guess as to what point you were making.

What is different? UNCC does harm. The current resolution at vote is about repealing something innocuous.

Such resolutions as the above, that extend copyright durations, are invariably funded by those trying not to encourage art, but instead by those who have purchased valuable IP, and they are trying to increase the value of their investment.

And this is bad why, exactly? What's wrong with people who own the rights to stuff wanting to make money from that stuff?

And this is bad why, exactly? What's wrong with people who own the rights to stuff wanting to make money from that stuff?

Nothing wrong with wanting.

The first few years of copyright support art, the last few years suppress. As such shorter durations are better.

Dicey Riley grasps a moment from cowering under the shadow of the Cluichistani Death Star (as are we all) to comment:

Even given the obvious fact that all artists are alcoholic social misfits who smell, live in garrets, die young and occupy their non-artistic time having wonderfully unproductive, tempestuous, dramatic relationships with partners of the same sex, it's just possible that somehow, somewhere, some artist might have children.

It's also just distantly possible that he/she might provide for the future of such rugrats from copyright payments, laughable though they might be.

The more you cut the length of copyright, the less the artist is able to pass on to the brats.

While this would undoubtedly be good for their characters, ensuring that the children of artists would always be sterling, upright and valued citizens, it may not be quite what their papa or mama had planned.

The artist may even have intended that his or her kin live sybaritically off the proceeds of the artist's work, as the children of athletes, entrepreneurs, heads of state and bricklayers are allowed to do with the inherited proceeds of their parents' labour.

If you aim to prevent this, then the only way to achieve fairness seems to be the imposition of horrendous and inescapable death duties which will prevent any generation from profiting from the efforts of its predecessors.

While Ardchoille does not oppose this (in that we do not believe that the mewling spawn of bloated capitalists should be entitled to live off unearned riches tainted with the dead dreams of oppressed workers), we feel so strongly about the fairness issue that we could support a reduction in copyright duration only if it were firmly and inextricably tied to the previously described walloping death duties.

Which this is not.

Whether it could legally be is a matter into which we do not have the resources, the stamina or the expertise to venture.

Therefore, we are not in favour of repealing the existing copyright laws.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a burgeoning international crisis of my own to deal with.

I was thoroughly confused by that. We have no problem with passing wealth to children. Was that responsive or did I miss your point?

Bast, another member of the delegation, explains:

Shorn of its baroque and possibly inebriated verbiage, my Co-President's argument was:

A long copyright period allows the artist to pass on the fruits of his labour to his descendants.

Cut the copyright period and you cut the artists's chance to do so.

Other people who accumulate wealth in other fields are allowed to pass it on to their children.

So what have you got against artists? -- No, sorry, that was flippant -- so it's not fair to prevent artists from doing what everyone else is allowed to do.

Yes, your reply was responsive. Thank you. But we still reject the planned repeal.

Bast, another member of the delegation, explains:

Shorn of its baroque and possibly inebriated verbiage, my Co-President's argument was:

A long copyright period allows the artist to pass on the fruits of his labour to his descendants.

Cut the copyright period and you cut the artists's chance to do so.

Other people who accumulate wealth in other fields are allowed to pass it on to their children.

So what have you got against artists? -- No, sorry, that was flippant -- so it's not fair to prevent artists from doing what everyone else is allowed to do.

Yes, your reply was responsive. Thank you. But we still reject the planned repeal.

We encourage artists to pass on their wealth. I don't see how that is germaine. The purpose of copyright is not to make certain people wealthy, that's a by product, right? In theory the purpose is to encourage the creation of art. Wealth is the means, not the goal.

The purpose of Art itself is not to make certain people wealthy. Nevertheless, it does.

Copyright is one of the means by which at least some of that wealth goes to the person who did the work -- the artist. If his work becomes more popular as he gets older, more copyright payments roll in.

If the copyright is long enough, the artist can pass that continuing source of wealth on to his children. If it isn't, he can't.

The UN has said that this should be a long period. You're saying it shouldn't be; that is, that the UN should limit how much of their wealth artists can pass on.

But if artists are to be discriminated against in this way, so should everyone else be who has inheritable wealth.

Hence our (seemingly intransigent) demand that a repeal of the current law be linked to swingeing death duties.

But, as a repeal can't do anything but repeal a law, not make new ones, this can't happen.

Therefore, Ardchoille would prefer to see the current law left undisturbed.

Hmmm, it seems that you, Discoraversalism, are the one asserting that the only valid purpose for a copyright law is to stimulate energy in artistic endeavor:

"In theory the purpose is to encourage the creation of art."

Before you attempt to show that repeal of the UNCC in favor of a shorter period of copyright protection follows from your theory of copyright law purpose, perhaps you should argue the merits of that theory. The following FAQ type objections come to mind:


Who says that the theory states the purpose is only to encourage art production?
So what if that is "the" theory? How do we benefit by such a restriction?
Single-purpose social structures seem inherently weak versus a 'web of interests' multi-dimensional approach to social structures; why should copyright laws be an exception?
Apparently there are other theories as well, perhaps implicit, that disagree with the "only encourage art production"; why are they wrong?

You know maybe there is a reason you can't get the endorsments:p .

NO UN resolution is perfect. They all have some flaws. Some have more then others. UNCC is well written and made. I am sure you couldn't make a resolution that could even attempt to stand up to it. Give up trying to repeal this.

I'm in favor of a repeal of UNCC, but not for the reasons that Disco U has so eloquently made to look foolish.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/9771/notagainnr9.jpg

A long copyright period allows the artist to pass on the fruits of his labour to his descendants.

So what have you got against artists? -- No, sorry, that was flippant -- so it's not fair to prevent artists from doing what everyone else is allowed to do.


Copyright prevents art from being created. Artists are free to pass on wealth in the same fashion as everyone else.


But if artists are to be discriminated against in this way, so should everyone else be who has inheritable wealth.


Over long copyright duration puts the interest of some artists, ahead of the interests of art, and other artists.

Hmmm, it seems that you, Discoraversalism, are the one asserting that the only valid purpose for a copyright law is to stimulate energy in artistic endeavor:


I would suggest you do more research, a variety of legal documents would support my position. What other purpose do you see in copyright law? If you would like I can flood you with a series of links, or just provide you with a link to a series of links on the subject :)

You know maybe there is a reason you can't get the endorsments:p .


Until now we have not been involved in regional politics. For most of year now we've been in an isolated region, staying there after the founder had moved on. A regional functionary generously invited the Free Land of Discoraversalism to their coalition, and we will be shifting our focus soon.

I'm in favor of a repeal of UNCC, but not for the reasons that Disco U has so eloquently made to look foolish.


I would gladly give up the floor to another representive willing to put forward their arguments for repealing UNCC.

Foolishness I can admit to :)

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/9771/notagainnr9.jpg

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



Hmmm, I really wanted to keep my replies short, but this is a wonderful tangent :)

Hmmm, it seems that you, Discoraversalism, are the one asserting that the only valid purpose for a copyright law is to stimulate energy in artistic endeavor:

"In theory the purpose is to encourage the creation of art."

Before you attempt to show that repeal of the UNCC in favor of a shorter period of copyright protection follows from your theory of copyright law purpose, perhaps you should argue the merits of that theory. The following FAQ type objections come to mind:


Who says that the theory states the purpose is only to encourage art production?
So what if that is "the" theory? How do we benefit by such a restriction?
Single-purpose social structures seem inherently weak versus a 'web of interests' multi-dimensional approach to social structures; why should copyright laws be an exception?
Apparently there are other theories as well, perhaps implicit, that disagree with the "only encourage art production"; why are they wrong?


There are lots of reasons to support resolutions. If one's nation has a variety of apparatus and social constructs adapated to copyright, then it would be in that nations interest to promote copyright.

Many nations still do not have those apparatus, and instead have been minimally complying with UNCC, we can provide a series of press releases to that affect if you like. Other nations simply don't own a significant amount of valuabe IP, so UNCC has furthered their trade deficits.

Until now we have not been involved in regional politics. For most of year now we've been in an isolated region, staying there after the founder had moved on. A regional functionary generously invited the Free Land of Discoraversalism to their coalition, and we will be shifting our focus soon.

Do they know about the stuff you have said about copyright or not?

First off, I would have already submitted a repeal, but I can't, and I'm in a region of one. I'll gladly join any region willing to submit a repeal for UNCC :)

Excuses, excuses. That's no excuse. Anyone can write up a repeal text for everyone else to tear down. You can then, find a "co-author" who can actually be the author allowing you to be the co-author, or you can find a few people who will region hop and endorse you for purposes of submitting the resolution.

The repeal of the UNCC is your baby, and frankly I don't think anyone else is as interested as you are.

Frankly I think that the UNCC is mostly harmless, and if I had a choice the WHL would be a higher priority for resolutins that damage nations to be repealed. But as I wrote, this is your windmill to attack, take the lead!

Copyright prevents art from being created. Artists are free to pass on wealth in the same fashion as everyone else.

How does copyright prevent art from being created? If only by preventing other artists from making a profit off of another artist's work, then I can't see what the problem is.

Over long copyright duration puts the interest of some artists, ahead of the interests of art, and other artists.

No, copyright puts the interests of the orginal creator artist above other artists wishing to profit from that's artist's work. That's the entire point of copyrights. Unless, of course, there's some magical Disco Definition I'm unaware of.

Do they know about the stuff you have said about copyright or not?
I got my 2 endorsements, I'll submit a repeal in a bit. I probably should draft something first :) The nation who effectively recruited me, and provided me with the endorsements is also opposed to UNCC. I doubt anyone here is familiar with every argument I've put forward on the subject, or even every argument I've put forward to this assembly (I see a lot of empty chairs).

Excuses, excuses. That's no excuse. Anyone can write up a repeal text for everyone else to tear down. You can then, find a "co-author" who can actually be the author allowing you to be the co-author, or you can find a few people who will region hop and endorse you for purposes of submitting the resolution.

The repeal of the UNCC is your baby, and frankly I don't think anyone else is as interested as you are.

Frankly I think that the UNCC is mostly harmless, and if I had a choice the WHL would be a higher priority for resolutins that damage nations to be repealed. But as I wrote, this is your windmill to attack, take the lead!

Um I did start the process of constructing a draft. It was misconstrued.

How does copyright prevent art from being created? If only by preventing other artists from making a profit off of another artist's work, then I can't see what the problem is.


All art profits off the work of prior artists. We build upon the shoulders of giants.


No, copyright puts the interests of the orginal creator artist above other artists wishing to profit from that's artist's work. That's the entire point of copyrights. Unless, of course, there's some magical Disco Definition I'm unaware of.

Our nation would rather have no copyright laws at all. It is very easy for me to slip into arguing against any form of copyright law.

I think the NSUN wants some form of copyright.

You seem to be makign some point, about the "entire point of copyright" could you please elaborate? Why should society put "the interests of the orginal creator artist above other artists wishing to profit from that's artist's work."

Mind you, I'm not trying to argue against copyright here, but people have objected when I have described the point of copyright law. Could someone else please explain the point?

Bueler?

EDIT:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=500722&page=2

im in support of the repeal :D


the arts and all forms of media should be for all people of the world NOT JUST THE WEALTHY .

to this day there are still book publishers that want to do away with libraries
but as we all know letting people read books for free IS A GOOD THING and itd didnt kill the book publishing industrys.

all it did do was bring books to a larger portion of the world and boost sales of of books in general.


NO I THINK SHORTER COPYRIGHTS would be a good thing all the way around:D

Um I did start the process of constructing a draft. It was misconstrued.

Yes I sit corrected. Having seen your rough draft on another forum I'm quite impressed. I'll probably be mildly supporting it. Let me know when you put it on the queue and I'll give a kind word to my regional deligate.

Yes I sit corrected. Having seen your rough draft on another forum I'm quite impressed. I'll probably be mildly supporting it. Let me know when you put it on the queue and I'll give a kind word to my regional deligate.

Ummm, cool! Were you talking about the draft on the first page? My first attempt at writing any UN legislation failed miserably, it was construed as an intellectual property violation.

I figure I'll submit Monday night. Oh also, every word I type here, that I can, I put in the public domain. If someone else would rather submit a repeal, please do so, I will leave the link to do so on the first page. Feel free to use all of my text, change one word, change one letter, submit a parody (that's fair use anyway, but I encourage it :) ).

I would rather my name not be attached to an attempted repeal of UNCC (it's more likely to pass that way). I think I care more then most though, so here I am.

Oh also, I encourage anyone interested in replacing UNCC to post here. I'd be happy if Ceorona posted a version of UNCC identical, with lower durations. (No one else is allowed to do that, assuming I undertsand the precedent set).

If you want a more moderate replacement made why don't you make one. Such legislation is hard to make and I am unsure of wether people would do it. So why not make a suitable replacement. This way it will show that it might be improved. Not repealed blindly hoping it is replaced.

If you want a more moderate replacement made why don't you make one. Such legislation is hard to make and I am unsure of wether people would do it. So why not make a suitable replacement. This way it will show that it might be improved. Not repealed blindly hoping it is replaced.

I don't hope it will be replaced :) Our nation would rather there was no UN copyright law, we want the UN to stay out of our artistic endeavors.

However judging by how easily it passed I'm betting others do want some form of copyright duration.

Besides, I tried that already. I got shouted down.

Besides, I tried that already.

No you didn't. You just copied ours.

http://uncyclopedia.org/images/d/df/Bertmug.gif
Arlo Shongberri-Twiznacker
Ambassador to Discoraversalism

OOC: ;)

I got shouted down.


Hmm... I wonder why.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

I'd like to say this at the start just for some clarification:

Stealing objects and stealing ideas is the same they both steal peoples hard work


NOTING: The traditional purpose of copyright is to promote art;

Not true really. It is to protect intellectual property. That includes alot more then art. The purpose of copyright is to pay off peoples hard work. You know people need to eat.

NOTING: UNCC was well written, it merely oversteps in detail;

Isin't noting supposed to be for facts not opinions. This is a blatant opinion and maybe you should say that you belive it oversteps in details then go on to explain what details.

BELIEVING: Art is a public good, and society should support it;

Let's take a design of a car(that is intellectual property which is covered under copyright). This design takes years to make dosn't it? It takes lots of time and effort. So what is the differnce between stealing the design of a car which someone put alot of work into. And stealing a car that took alot of work to make.

NOTING: The last few years of an overlong copyright duration serve primarily to supress art, is the early years that do the most to promote new art;

But I thought you said you didn't want any copyright. So stop pretending you are just complaining about the last years. How long do you suggest it should be anyway? Maybe you should give a better suggestion on the amount of time.


AFFIRMING: That this repeal paves the way for a more moderate copyright resolution, with a shorter duration,

Which you don't want to pass

CONCLUDING: It is necessary that we repeal UNCC, and begin work on it's replacement.

You don't want to replace it so don't say "we"

No you didn't. You just copied ours.


I didn't just copy, I also amended, moderated, etc :) It probably would have gone over better though if I had just copied, and asked others how it could be improved rather then attempting to improve it myself.

I'd like to say this at the start just for some clarification:

Stealing objects and stealing ideas is the same they both steal peoples hard work


That is a similarity, except you are using stealing with 2 entirely different contexts. It's not stealing work unless it deprives someone of work... I'm not sure what that would even mean, somehow undoing their work so it hadn't been done?


Not true really. It is to protect intellectual property. That includes alot more then art. The purpose of copyright is to pay off peoples hard work. You know people need to eat.


You are confusing copyright with the plethora of IP law, such as patent law, trademark law, rights of the author, etc.. copyright is not some bizarre communistic equal work for equal pay scheme.



Isn't noting supposed to be for facts not opinions. This is a blatant opinion and maybe you should say that you belive it oversteps in details then go on to explain what details.


Agreed, I'll rework the wording.



Let's take a design of a car(that is intellectual property which is covered under copyright). This design takes years to make dosn't it? It takes lots of time and effort. So what is the differnce between stealing the design of a car which someone put alot of work into. And stealing a car that took alot of work to make.


That is a great example of a situation that doesn't need copyright at all. Trademark, and branding are useful in car production, so the consumer has some idea of what they are buying. The design doesn't need copyright at all. A great deal of the particular design of a car is dependent on the means of production used to produce this large, expensive, physical object. It is highly unlikely another company could produce the means of production necessary to make that specific design, and somehow build it cheap enough that they would outcompete the original company. If they somehow did achieve that feat (perhaps because the original was innefficiently produced, I have no problem with them being rewarded for their time and effort in producing this better cheaper version, as long as they didn't violate trademark law, (it should still be marketed as a different car.)



But I thought you said you didn't want any copyright. So stop pretending you are just complaining about the last years. How long do you suggest it should be anyway? Maybe you should give a better suggestion on the amount of time.


Our nation woudl rather have no copyright law at all. Given the current makeup of the UN, and how easily UNCC passed, that does not seem likely. Therefore we are proposing that the current law be moderated


Which you don't want to pass

But who's passage I find inevitable

You don't want to replace it so don't say "we"
But we will give assistance to any who seek it in authoring a replacement.

Originally Posted by Newfoundcanada
Not true really. It is to protect intellectual property. That includes alot more then art. The purpose of copyright is to pay off peoples hard work. You know people need to eat.

You are confusing copyright with the plethora of IP law, such as patent law, trademark law, rights of the author, etc.. copyright is not some bizarre communistic equal work for equal pay scheme.



The honorable representative of Newfoundcanada is not confused at all. It's you who are completely clueless on the subject of intellectual property law, as you so amply demonstrated in your never-ending attempts to defeat the resolution.

Copyright, as the representative of Newfoundcanada states, protects many types of intellectual property which could not be termed "art" under any rational definition of the term. Just a few of many, many examples: medical textbooks, computer software and manuals, dictionaries, literary studies, self-help books, maps, astronomical charts.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Bloody hell! I hereby leave any responses to the silly positions of the respresentative of Discoraversalism 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

Frankly, I can't be bothered with this shite.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

That is a great example of a situation that doesn't need copyright at all. Trademark, and branding are useful in car production, so the consumer has some idea of what they are buying. The design doesn't need copyright at all. A great deal of the particular design of a car is dependent on the means of production used to produce this large, expensive, physical object. It is highly unlikely another company could produce the means of production necessary to make that specific design, and somehow build it cheap enough that they would outcompete the original company. If they somehow did achieve that feat (perhaps because the original was innefficiently produced, I have no problem with them being rewarded for their time and effort in producing this better cheaper version, as long as they didn't violate trademark law, (it should still be marketed as a different car.)

Wait for a secod while I laugh... let's see you want to buy hmm an accord you have to options:

option 1 buy it from honda who designed it which is the "honourable thing" costs 20,000

Option 2 buy the exact same thing from another company for 10,000.
You'd be amazed how many people would pick option 2. I know I would. People don't do things just because it is the right thing they do it for a reason. If you want to argue that look at what we do to our enviroment everyone knows what they should do.

Actually it is valid, because the value of the Honda is in the production process itself. You can't "pirate" a car in the same way you can "pirate" an MP3. Let's remember also that the Japanese did a lot of reverse-engineering to produce the designs which would later kick everyone's ass.

That said, however, it's a disingenuous example because his main argument seems to hinge on the idea that artistic works should be free of charge.

Actually it is valid, because the value of the Honda is in the production process itself. You can't "pirate" a car in the same way you can "pirate" an MP3.

Not quite. You also have to take into account the effort and money invested in the development of the care

Disco, this is where you're wrong. It's not ingenuity if I can produce your car cheaper than you can, it's that I don't have to cover the costs of development.

Not quite. You also have to take into account the effort and money invested in the development of the care

Disco, this is where you're wrong. It's not ingenuity if I can produce your car cheaper than you can, it's that I don't have to cover the costs of development.

These costs you are discussing do not affect the unit price. To outcompete with you I will have to produce each of my copies of your car cheaper then each of yours. I will still have large development costs to be able to replicate your car, so there is still a large barrier to entry in the market. Unless I see a way I can improve upon your production process, I am unlikely to sink thoses costs in, knowing I would then still have trouble competing in unit cost.

Meanwhile you will already be in the market, building your brand, providing a further advantage.

And so the Copyright Convention should be repealed because...?

Not quite. You also have to take into account the effort and money invested in the development of the care

Actually what I was saying is that the Honda and the "pirated Honda" won't be the same thing in the sense that the $1 DVD from the streets of Hong Kong is the same as the $20 DVD in the video stores of the United States. Cars aren't the issue in copyright. In fact I doubt the design would be either, because all cars look basically the same and technology in the engine or whatever would fall under patents.

And so the Copyright Convention should be repealed because...?

Because Disco doesn't understand copyrights, obviously. :rolleyes:

And so the Copyright Convention should be repealed because...?

Perhaps you might try to read the repeal text?

The last few years of an overlong copyright duration serve primarily to supress art, and that it is the early years that do the most to promote new art.

Seems like a pretty obvious argument to me. Current UN Copyrights are too long. Free Steamboat Willie! And so forth.

Originally Posted by The Repeal Text
The last few years of an overlong copyright duration serve primarily to supress art, and that it is the early years that do the most to promote new art.

Seems like a pretty obvious argument to me. Current UN Copyrights are too long. Free Steamboat Willie! And so forth.

Seems like a pretty unsupported argument to me. The copyright durations specified in the resolution are considerably shorter than those of most nations in the mythical land of RL. So we're supposed to automatically accept that they're too long just because you and Discoraversalism think so? Sorry. We like logical arguments rather than opinions passed off as fact.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

I would suggest you do more research, a variety of legal documents would support my position. What other purpose do you see in copyright law? If you would like I can flood you with a series of links, or just provide you with a link to a series of links on the subject :)

A not so neat side-step of the question.

You misunderstand -- I don't care how many texts there are supporting your position, and I don't intend to do the research for you. I'm not fresh off the turnip truck, the "there are tons of research to show I'm right" Jedi mind trick only works in the movies. If you cannot state, in your own terms, the argument in support of your position, then your position is not worth researching.

You make the claim that the only purpose of the copyright law is stimulating more artistic energy / production, and you don't support that claim at all, other than to wave off stage to "all those texts that support you."

You claim to be able to discern what the appropriate length of protection is, but you don't tell us the mechanics of the algorithm for computing the appropriate length of protections -- so we cannot check you math, or determine if we agree with your assumptions.

Because, ultimately, that's what your argument comes down to -- the assumption that the sole purpose is to stimulate more artistic production, and a hunch that the NSUN periods are too long.

If you can prove me wrong, have at it ... but I won't be holding my breath.

Seems like a pretty unsupported argument to me.

Never said it was a good argument, just an obvious one.

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.

For purposes of this argument, I'm going to be lazy and use Wiki

The Berne Convention states that all works except photographic and cinematographic shall be protected for at least 50 years after the author's death, but parties are free to provide longer terms of protection, as the European Union did with the 1993 Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection. For photography the Berne Convention sets a minimum of 25 years protection from the year the photograph was created, and for cinematography the minimum is 50 years after first showing, or 50 years after creation if it hasn't been shown within 50 years after the creation. Countries under the older revisions of the treaty may choose to provide, and certain types of works (such as phonorecords and motion pictures) may be provided shorter terms.

Under Berne the answer is yes and no. UNCC is shorter for writing, but longer for photography and cinematography.

The length of the copyright term within the United States was extended by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act which made the copyright term the life of the author plus 70 years for works created after January 1, 1978. In the case of a work of corporate authorship (also known as "Work for Hire") the term will be 95 years from the date of first publication or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever expires first.

Both Berne and UNCC are significantly shorter than US law. :eek:

You seem to be makign some point, about the "entire point of copyright" could you please elaborate?

The entire point of the copyright is to ensure that the original creator can profit off of their work. Period. The copyright prevents someone who didn't create something to profit off of it anyway.

An example: Joe creates a cartoon character "Jack the Rabbit." Al didn't create "Jack the Rabbit." Joe's nation has no copyright laws. Al, seeing a good idea, makes copies of Joe's design and sells "Jack the Rabbit" coffee mugs, even though he didn't create "Jack the Rabbit." Joe makes no money off of his own creation, and Al gets the benefits from stealing Joe's work.

A copyright would prevent this.

Why should society put "the interests of the orginal creator artist above other artists wishing to profit from that's artist's work."

You're kidding, right? I'd rather see the original creator profit off of his work.

Granted, the UN definitions could be construed to prevent ANY use of copyrighted works outside their creator's intended usage, but that's not the way I read the law. And besides, in the Empire we allow for use of copyrighted works under the auspices of "humour, satire, and other," much like the RL United States.

NOTING: The traditional purpose of copyright is to promote art;

See, that's not what you said later. You don't want any copyrights at all. How very disingenuous of you.

BELIEVING: UNCC was well written, and that is merely oversteps in detail,

Not according to you. You states that copyrights are bad. Don't try to pull the wool over our eyes by couching this in fluffy terms.

AFFIRMING: Art is a public good, and society should support it;

Yeah, that's generally true. Artists are important too. That's why we need copyrights, to prevent people from profiting off of other's work.

NOTING: The last few years of an overlong copyright duration serve primarily to supress art, and that it is the early years that do the most to promote new art;

How, pray tell, did you come to that conclusion?

AFFIRMING: That this repeal paves the way for a more moderate copyright resolution, with a shorter duration,
Yeah, that'd never happen. And wait, what was it you said?

I don't hope it will be replaced. Our nation would rather there was no UN copyright law, we want the UN to stay out of our artistic endeavors.

Hmmm.

CONCLUDING: It is necessary that we repeal UNCC, and begin work on it's replacement.

See above.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

Under Berne the answer is yes and no. UNCC is shorter for writing, but longer for photography and cinematography.

You're correct that many copyright laws establish varying durations for various types of materials. We could have done that in UNCC if we had had another 5000 or so characters to work with.


Both Berne and UNCC are significantly shorter than US law. :eek:

Let's clear the air here on the standard durations. The implication that US copyright duration is somehow unusually long is not correct. For your information, here is a list (not guaranteed to be complete) of countries which have adopted the Life+70 standard:

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, The United Kingdom, The United States, Switzerland, Spain, Turkey, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Dominica, Ecuador, Iceland, Israel, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Romania.

There's a nice llist at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Copyright_Durations if you'd like to check my accuracy. And while you're at it, you might note that almost all of the countries listed that haven't adopted Life+70 use Life+50 (the old Berne standard).

So, we have most countries in the mythical world of RL providing copyright protection for life of the author plus 50 or 70 years. The UNCC sets a duration of life + 35 years. Yet you still want to assert that the resolution's term is "too long"? Sorry. Can't buy it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

<snip>Excellent post. To encourage further excellent posts, have a picture of my mother's cat, sitting in a box:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Smidge_in_Box.jpg

Holy Persia wishes to extend its support for this motion to repeal the UNCC.

Perhaps you might try to read the repeal text?


I was just indicating that what Disco said was out of point, he was going on about trademarks and cars which as I said had little to do with copyrights.

I was just indicating that what Disco said was out of point, he was going on about trademarks and cars which as I said had little to do with copyrights.


He tends to do that, since he really hasn't a bloody clue what he's talking about.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I was just indicating that what Disco said was out of point, he was going on about trademarks and cars which as I said had little to do with copyrights.

Oh that. I never read Disco's arguments. It's the text of the resolution that matters right? I consider this the broken clock argument. (A broken analogue clock still tells the correct time twice a day.)

The UNCC sets a duration of life + 35 years. Yet you still want to assert that the resolution's term is "too long"?

I'll remid you that I only claimed it was an argument. It's not an argument I'm willing to defend no matter what. I really don't know what to think of +35 years. I know that I personally think that +70 is extreeme. But +70 is not the issue here, +35 is. Pretty nice if you're a widdow, borderline if you are a child. Given that this is pretty much close to the BERNE convention and any changes would be minor, I think this argument, while being an argument is trumped by the fact that it's not worth the effort of this body to repeal and replace for such a minor change. That, of course is a counter argument.

Seems like a pretty unsupported argument to me. The copyright durations specified in the resolution are considerably shorter than those of most nations in the mythical land of RL.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

OOC: Alright well I'll discuss RL OOC then, towards the end of this post.


You make the claim that the only purpose of the copyright law is stimulating more artistic energy / production, and you don't support that claim at all, other than to wave off stage to "all those texts that support you."

You claim to be able to discern what the appropriate length of protection is, but you don't tell us the mechanics of the algorithm for computing the appropriate length of protections -- so we cannot check you math, or determine if we agree with your assumptions.


IC:
I don't claim to be able to discern what the appropriate copyright duration is for your nation, if your nation supports this I expect it had already set a duration before UNCC was passed. My nation doesn't want copyright at all, but I expect UNCC will get replaced given how easily it passed. Some other nation where the average lifespan is 27 years would probably favor a shorter duration.

The entire point of the copyright is to ensure that the original creator can profit off of their work.


Ok well what is the purpose of ensuring that this specific segment of the population can profit in this way from the specific activities copyright promotes?


See, that's not what you said later. You don't want any copyrights at all. How very disingenuous of you.


I will again state, my nation doesn't want any copyright at all. However it seems certain to me that UNCC will be replaced.



Not according to you. You states that copyrights are bad. Don't try to pull the wool over our eyes by couching this in fluffy terms.

I do feel UNCC was bad, I don't feel it was well written. Some nations are now dependent on copyright, they have complex social structures built around that framework. In those cases I wouldn't suggest we remove copyright, but repealing UNCC wouldn't do that. I would encourage said nations to wean themselves off copyright by gradually reducing copyright, but I wouldn't support a UN resolution that forced them to do so. This is outside the purview of the UN.


Yeah, that's generally true. Artists are important too. That's why we need copyrights, to prevent people from profiting off of other's work.


Art by it's very nature profits off prior art. Profiting isn't a bad thing. Building upon the works of those who came before you is not a bad thing. If artists needed copyright to make a good living I would likewise be in favor of copyright. The fact of the matter is they do not. In what nation were artists struggling before UNCC?


How, pray tell, did you come to that conclusion?

Yeah, that'd never happen. And wait, what was it you said?

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

What will never happen? UNCC won't be repealed? I fear you might be right. It won't be replaced? It seems certain to me it will be replaced if repealed. The repeal won't be more moderate? That is entirely possible. Perhaps 30 years from now I'll be wishing UNCC wasn't repealed, because it will have been replaced with a life of author +45 year replacement. Perhaps in in 45 years it will be replaced by a life +60 replacement.

OOC: That is what has been happening in real life. It comes down to corporate interests. Long copyright durations have given certain corporations a great deal of money. They have lobbied for continual increases in copyright duration. I bring up Disney, because that's the example I'm most familiar with. Every time Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain we get another Mickey Mouse Protection Act.

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

So there is strong money interest supporting copyright extension, and very little opposition. Fortunately that has been changing in recent years. We are beginning to see actual opposition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mickey_Mouse_Protection_Act#Opposition

The poster child for the opposition is Eric Eldred, a "noncommercial Internet publisher of public domain texts and derivative works. Eldred is joined by a group of commercial and non-commercial interests who rely on the public domain for their work. These include Dover Publications, a commercial publisher of paperback books; Luck's Music Library, Inc., and Edwin F. Kalmus & Co., Inc., publishers of orchestral sheet music; and a large number of amici including (but not limited to) the Free Software Foundation, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the College Art Association."

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

That something is happening in real life is not evidence it's a good idea. We're trying to create a Utopia here right? We aren't forced to cater to special interests :)

Anyway let me know if I've failed to respond to anything. Oh wait I thought of something.

What is the purpose of copyright? In the US we often look to the constitution for this sort of thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
"
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause (or the intellectual property clause) empowers the United States Congress:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
"

So admittedly, copyright is also used to promote Science. It is often used for purposes similar to patent. (and US patent law is justified based on this same clause).

So how does copyright promote the above? By encouraging innovation. Do the last 5 years of a 75 year copyright duration encourage innovation as much as the first 5? It would seem obvious to me that they don't, but people seem to be contesting that idea. Those last few years certainly do prevent someone from creating new works involving Mickey Mouse.

That something is happening in real life is not evidence it's a good idea. We're trying to create a Utopia here right? We aren't forced to cater to special interests

The fact that something is happening in the mythical world of RL is certainly not proof that it's a good idea. But we believe it may be duly considered as evidence. So let's weigh some evidence....

On the one hand, we have the legislative bodies of dozens of RL nations deciding that Life+70 is an appropriate duration of copyright. Dozens more have determined that Life+50 is proper.

On the other hand, we have Discoraversalism stating that Life+35 years is "overlong" copyright duration.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

On the one hand, we have the legislative bodies of dozens of RL nations deciding that Life+70 is an appropriate duration of copyright. Dozens more have determined that Life+50 is proper.

On the other hand, we have Discoraversalism stating that Life+35 years is "overlong" copyright duration.


I like this game!

On the one hand we have:

Dover Publications Luck's Music Library, Inc., and Edwin F. Kalmus & Co., Inc., publishers of orchestral sheet music; and a large number of amici including (but not limited to) the Free Software Foundation, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the College Art Association.

On the other hand we have:

Disney and other owners of valuable IP scheduled to enter the public domain.

Why do you support long copyright durations besides, "other people have longer?"

I like this game!

On the one hand we have:

Dover Publications Luck's Music Library, Inc., and Edwin F. Kalmus & Co., Inc., publishers of orchestral sheet music; and a large number of amici including (but not limited to) the Free Software Foundation, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the College Art Association.

On the other hand we have:

Disney and other owners of valuable IP scheduled to enter the public domain.

Why do you support long copyright durations besides, "other people have longer?"

Yes, the game is interesting. So are your debating tactics. You say we support "long" copyright durations and expect us to defend that. We do not. We support appropriate and reasonable copyright durations. Just because you characterize them as "long" doesn't make it so, even though you'd like the members of this Assembly to overlook that little fact. We believe that the Life+30 and 65 durations set by the UNCC are eminently reasonable and, in fact, err on the short side. It's a matter of judgment. The judgment was made by the author of the resolution and concurred in by a majority of the NSUN members who voted on the issue. You're certainly welcome to your opinion. Given your obvious and repeatedly demonstrated ignorance on the subject of intellectual property, we'll ignore it.

(As an aside, we must apologize to the members of the Assembly for misstating the UNCC's duration in at least two previous posts. It's life of the author plus 30 years, not 35. We must have had a brain burp.)

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We believe that the Life+30 and 65 durations set by the UNCC are eminently reasonable and, in fact, err on the short side.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

That's similar to answering my question. But I asked why, not how. Why do you support Life+30?

This thread needs more Krankor.

That's similar to answering my question. But I asked why, not how. Why do you support Life+30?

You do the croaky croaky. Thirty is a good number for one spouse outliving the other. So the author croaks and his or her spouse doesn't wind up with the royalty checks cut off. Yea, I'd probably do it differently, but apparently even the RL world disagrees with me.

That's the problem. Take the US time lines and I would strongly debate the length. Take the Bourne or NS time lines and I would quibble about them; but only for real life. I'm really starting to adopt your philosophy on this one. Why are you wasting the UN's time on this (repeal) resolution?

That's similar to answering my question. But I asked why, not how. Why do you support Life+30?

Are you being deliberately obtuse again, or are you unable to read or understand a simple sentence? It's not "similar to answering" your question, it's answering it. But we'll try again....

We support the Life+30 duration BECAUSE "We believe that the Life+30 and 65 durations set by the UNCC are eminently reasonable and, in fact, err on the short side."

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I don't claim to be able to discern what the appropriate copyright duration is for your nation, if your nation supports this I expect it had already set a duration before UNCC was passed. My nation doesn't want copyright at all, but I expect UNCC will get replaced given how easily it passed. Some other nation where the average lifespan is 27 years would probably favor a shorter duration.

Wait, are you trying to couch this in NatSov terms now? I don't expect the UNCC to be repealed at all, given the pointless arguments you've made. It is totally disingenous of you to state in repeal text that you support a repeal and then go about arguing in the debate that you don't want it repealed at all. I recall you arguing in another thread that you didn't want to repeal things unless there was a workable replacement.



Ok well what is the purpose of ensuring that this specific segment of the population can profit in this way from the specific activities copyright promotes?

I don't understand you at all. Please restate in clearer terms.



I will again state, my nation doesn't want any copyright at all. However it seems certain to me that UNCC will be replaced.

See above.


I do feel UNCC was bad, I don't feel it was well written. Some nations are now dependent on copyright, they have complex social structures built around that framework. In those cases I wouldn't suggest we remove copyright, but repealing UNCC wouldn't do that. I would encourage said nations to wean themselves off copyright by gradually reducing copyright, but I wouldn't support a UN resolution that forced them to do so. This is outside the purview of the UN.

The UNCC is much better written than many resolutions on the books now. Poor writing, except in some cases, is not reason enough to repeal a good resolution. And why would a nation want to wean itself off copyright? It seems like your nation is the only one in this thread that is arguing against any copyright. What makes you think that nations want to get rid of copyright?

Art by it's very nature profits off prior art. Profiting isn't a bad thing. Building upon the works of those who came before you is not a bad thing. If artists needed copyright to make a good living I would likewise be in favor of copyright. The fact of the matter is they do not. In what nation were artists struggling before UNCC?

You misunderstand the nature of art. Art is about creation first, and profit second. In the vast majority of nations, artists must profit from the work they create in order to create more art. They need supplies and equipment, and they need income to purchase food. That's where the term "starving artist" comes from; some artists can't sell their work, and thus are reduced to going hungry in order to make art.

The connection you are making between copyright and artistic creation is wrong. Art is fluid and dynamic, with the concepts of today's art building on the concepts of yesterday's art. If I made a copy of the Mona Lisa, it's not MY art because the Mona Lisa wasn't my idea, it was Da Vinci's.

You are missing the point of copyright: to protect living artists from plagiarism and to ensure they recieve royalties from their works. Copyrights do not prevent artists from taking inspiration from other artists, so long as they do not make and sell copies of that artist's work. THAT is the point of copyright.



What will never happen? UNCC won't be repealed? I fear you might be right. It won't be replaced? It seems certain to me it will be replaced if repealed. The repeal won't be more moderate? That is entirely possible. Perhaps 30 years from now I'll be wishing UNCC wasn't repealed, because it will have been replaced with a life of author +45 year replacement. Perhaps in in 45 years it will be replaced by a life +60 replacement.

Maybe, maybe not. In 30 years, I'll probably be dead. It's a good thing I have a degree in political science and not art, now I don't have to deal with silly copyrights!

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

I recall you arguing in another thread that you didn't want to repeal things unless there was a workable replacement.

Yes I've enshrined it into my sig. He can't run away from himself now!

Now the whole question of art and the artist is a complex one. Basically it boils down to the bizarre notion, that an artist, like the proverbial prophet is not accepted in his own land and his own time. Succeeding at ones art to the point of making a decent return is often considered "selling out." Writers tend to have more acceptance in making a living, and performers are expected to make a bundle. Art, however, is the best example where limited copies is the lifeblood of the worker. A person who sells ten times as many books makes roughly ten times the royalties. But an artist's work is highly dependant on limited runs so reproduction lowers the price for everything.

Wait, are you trying to couch this in NatSov terms now?


I had hoped not to, it just seemed the most appropriate response. I don't believe controlling art is within the purview of the United Nations. I believe the purpose of copyright is to promote art by helping artists profit. I don't see promoting art as within the purview of the United Nations. I also think the first few years of copyright duration do the most towards promoting art, and the last few years do the most damage.



I don't expect the UNCC to be repealed at all, given the pointless arguments you've made. It is totally disingenous of you to state in repeal text that you support a repeal and then go about arguing in the debate that you don't want it repealed at all.



Sheesh. I'm trying to support compromise! I would rather not have to compromise, but I don't run the UN, lead a faction within the UN, or indeed have any weight at all here. So, I'm trying to encourage the UN to take a more moderate position.



I recall you arguing in another thread that you didn't want to repeal things unless there was a workable replacement.



I don't hope for a replacement! I fear a replacement is inevitable. The best replacement I think will pass has identical text to UNCC, with a shorter duration. It would be illegal for anyone but Ceorona to submit such a resolution, so I haven't typed it out for you.

I'll construct a poll for this forum about what duration they think would be best for UNCC. I'd love for that thread to give us a sense of what duration UN members want. I hope it is less then the current duration specified by UNCC.


I don't understand you at all. Please restate in clearer terms.


You have described how you feel the purpose of copyright is to increase the profit of artists (my paraphrase of your words, feel free to correct them). Why do we want to do that? Is copyright a form of welfare. Are we encouraging artists to encourage art? Is there some other reason I don't see?


The UNCC is much better written than many resolutions on the books now. Poor writing, except in some cases, is not reason enough to repeal a good resolution. And why would a nation want to wean itself off copyright? It seems like your nation is the only one in this thread that is arguing against any copyright. What makes you think that nations want to get rid of copyright?


I'm the most active participant, but there has been at least one other poster opposed to copyright :)


You misunderstand the nature of art.

Oh I don't think anyone can ever understand the nature of art.

Art is about creation first, and profit second.

Agreed.

In the vast majority of nations, artists must profit from the work they create in order to create more art.

Agreed.

They need supplies and equipment, and they need income to purchase food.

Agreed.

That's where the term "starving artist" comes from; some artists can't sell their work, and thus are reduced to going hungry in order to make art.

Agreed.

The connection you are making between copyright and artistic creation is wrong.

Are you saying excessive copyright duration has no negative impact on artistic creation? What if the duration was life of the author + 200 years?

Art is fluid and dynamic, with the concepts of today's art building on the concepts of yesterday's art.

Agreed. I think that's my line actually.

If I made a copy of the Mona Lisa, it's not MY art because the Mona Lisa wasn't my idea, it was Da Vinci's.

Depends on what sort of copy. If you did it another medium, altered the color scheme etc. In fact very few people are skilled enough painters to simply duplicate it. Most will be forced to change it in some way, and thereby putting their artistic vision into the new version.

In our nation, artists don't own their art, if they choose to share it with someone. No one can copy the art they keep to themselves. They make a good living nonetheless. If you would like I can go into detail as to how artists make money without copyright. For purposes of this discussion though all I think that matters is that we show that artists can make a living off copyrights of shorter duration. I see no reason the copyright duration should be longer then the patent duration.

You are missing the point of copyright: to protect living artists from plagiarism and to ensure they recieve royalties from their works.

I am STROOOOOOOOOOOOOONGLY against plagiarism. My original battle plan was to propose a "Rights of the Author" resolution that directly addressed plagiarism, and some other fronts.
(
OOC: Something akin to what they have in france. This is what inspiried me to go on that track:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_copyright_law#A_brief_history_of_French_.22Right_of_the_Author.22
)
I submitted this because the quality of UN resolutions has gone sooooooooooo far downhill recently that repealing UNCC could hardly be complained about.

Copyrights do not prevent artists from taking inspiration from other artists, so long as they do not make and sell copies of that artist's work.

It merely prevents them from acting on said inspiration in a variety of ways. An artist inspired by a copyrighted work is prevented by law from creating broad categories of derivitive works. How long they are prevented is determined by the duration of said copyright.

THAT is the point of copyright.

SNIP:

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN


Explaining to me the point of copyright by example was helpful in clarifying your position, but I think if you answered the above questions we could make forward progress. We can also go in circles if you prefer.


Yes I've enshrined it into my sig. He can't run away from himself now!

Now the whole question of art and the artist is a complex one. Basically it boils down to the bizarre notion, that an artist, like the proverbial prophet is not accepted in his own land and his own time. Succeeding at ones art to the point of making a decent return is often considered "selling out." Writers tend to have more acceptance in making a living, and performers are expected to make a bundle. Art, however, is the best example where limited copies is the lifeblood of the worker. A person who sells ten times as many books makes roughly ten times the royalties. But an artist's work is highly dependant on limited runs so reproduction lowers the price for everything.

Reproduction raises the price of those things that haven't yet been duplicated. If someone sells a great many replicas of an artists work, it raises the value of all of the rests of that artists work, including their future works. If an artist is good enough, their reputation alone is enough to make their children celebrities.

Are you being deliberately obtuse again, or are you unable to read or understand a simple sentence? It's not "similar to answering" your question, it's answering it. But we'll try again....

We support the Life+30 duration BECAUSE "We believe that the Life+30 and 65 durations set by the UNCC are eminently reasonable and, in fact, err on the short side."

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Sigh.



You have just stated that it's your opinion that live+30 is reasonable. Did I expect too much when I thought you might be able to present an argument why? Even when the UNCC was being drafted I saw no better argument put forward then, "it's longer in the real world."

EDIT: Draft submitted, round one begins.
http://www.nationstates.net/20054/page=UN_proposal/start=20

I had hoped not to, it just seemed the most appropriate response. I don't believe controlling art is within the purview of the United Nations. I believe the purpose of copyright is to promote art by helping artists profit. I don't see promoting art as within the purview of the United Nations. I also think the first few years of copyright duration do the most towards promoting art, and the last few years do the most damage.

But it's not even about controlling art. This isn't putting artists on the government cheque, but rather about making sure that artists can profit from their work - that's all. In Allech-Atreus, we don't give subsidies for artists, they get no government support at all. Copyright laws ensure that they profit off of the work that the produce.


I don't hope for a replacement! I fear a replacement is inevitable. The best replacement I think will pass has identical text to UNCC, with a shorter duration. It would be illegal for anyone but Ceorona to submit such a resolution, so I haven't typed it out for you.

I know you don't want a replacement, that's what I'm saying! My point was that you have stated in SEVERAL other threads that you would rather keep pointless laws on the books, rather than repeal them with no hope of a replacement.

You have described how you feel the purpose of copyright is to increase the profit of artists (my paraphrase of your words, feel free to correct them). Why do we want to do that? Is copyright a form of welfare. Are we encouraging artists to encourage art? Is there some other reason I don't see?

Partially correct. ENSURE that an artist may profit from his own work. Many artists won't profit from their work because no one will buy it- that's fine, that's economics. Copyright ensures, though, that the original creator artists CAN profit from the work he creates. It doesn't stipulate that he MUST or WILL profit.


Oh I don't think anyone can ever understand the nature of art.

Then don't beg the question by declaring your idea of what art is and should be.

Are you saying excessive copyright duration has no negative impact on artistic creation? What if the duration was life of the author + 200 years?

And what if flying monkeys could paint? You'll get no argument from me that EXCESSIVE copyright harms art, but the UNCC isn't excessive. In fact, in the Empire, where life expectancy is somewhere around 200 years, it could be considered ineffective. But I won't go there.

Don't pulll strawmen.

Depends on what sort of copy. If you did it another medium, altered the color scheme etc. In fact very few people are skilled enough painters to simply duplicate it. Most will be forced to change it in some way, and thereby putting their artistic vision into the new version.

Whatever. Art is art, unless you're plagiarizing someone else.

In our nation, artists don't own their art, if they choose to share it with someone. No one can copy the art they keep to themselves. They make a good living nonetheless. If you would like I can go into detail as to how artists make money without copyright. For purposes of this discussion though all I think that matters is that we show that artists can make a living off copyrights of shorter duration. I see no reason the copyright duration should be longer then the patent duration.

I won't comment about your nation's view of art. I also won't comment about the livings your artists make. See, I don't think you can show that shorter copyrights will in any way increas the profit of artists anymore than you can show longer copyrights decrease it.

I submitted this because the quality of UN resolutions has gone sooooooooooo far downhill recently that repealing UNCC could hardly be complained about.

Well, guess what: people are complaining.

L Pendankr
Ambassador

Sigh.

You have just stated that it's your opinion that live+30 is reasonable. Did I expect too much when I thought you might be able to present an argument why? Even when the UNCC was being drafted I saw no better argument put forward then, "it's longer in the real world."


We have no intention of even trying to debate this issue with you. There are three extremely long threads on this forum in which this was discussed over and over again. You chose to reject or ignore every argument put forward. You'll do exactly the same thing again. Trying to pound common sense and understanding into a closed mind sheds no light on the subject and just breeds frustration. The members of this Assembly deserve better than to be subjected to continued beating of the dead horse.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

But it's not even about controlling art. This isn't putting artists on the government cheque, but rather about making sure that artists can profit from their work - that's all. In Allech-Atreus, we don't give subsidies for artists, they get no government support at all. Copyright laws ensure that they profit off of the work that the produce.


Copyright is not an attempt at government support of art?


Partially correct. ENSURE that an artist may profit from his own work. Many artists won't profit from their work because no one will buy it- that's fine, that's economics.


So if under copyright an artist has trouble profitting off his art it's ok because that's economics, but without copyright it's not economics?


Copyright ensures, though, that the original creator artists CAN profit from the work he creates. It doesn't stipulate that he MUST or WILL profit.


How does copyright do that? As far as I can tell over long copyright ensures an artist must sell control of his art to an anti competive coroporate entity. After that the artist has little control over whether his work profits or nto.

You seem to be suggesting that artists can't profit without copyright? Can you construct an example for me wherein that is true?

It seems to me that with copyright, some art is more profitable then other types, and without copyright some art is more profitable then other types. Why should we favor the arts that copyright helps and not those it hinders?


And what if flying monkeys could paint? You'll get no argument from me that EXCESSIVE copyright harms art, but the UNCC isn't excessive. In fact, in the Empire, where life expectancy is somewhere around 200 years, it could be considered ineffective.


It would appear your country has economic and cultural apparatus dependent on copyright, and very long lifespans. It would make sense then for your country to have longer copyright durations then others. However many countries have very short lifespans, for them UNCC would be excessive.


See, I don't think you can show that shorter copyrights will in any way increas the profit of artists anymore than you can show longer copyrights decrease it.

L Pendankr
Ambassador

Great point! Artificial government granted monopolies do increase profits. If we were to grant one person in each country a monopoly on water they could likely get more profit on selling water then the current water distributors.

Is the goal of copyright to maximize profit? It doesn't seem most of the profits from such artificial monopolies go to the artists. Too often the artist has little choice but to sell total control of their art to a distributor. Countries with long copyrights don't tend to produce systems that distribute art as cheaply as possible. The artists become dependent on distributors, promoters etc. If they don't play ball they don't get distributed.

In our country artists are not yet dependent on copyright. Our culture has rejected the institutions, and foreign firms attempting to enforce it are having trouble adapting to our legal system. UNCC has resulted in a government subsidy for laywers, but intellectual property law always does that. If it's goal was to subsidize intellectual property laywers it has succeeded.

Does anyone dispute that copyright tries to increase artists profit so as to promote art? The profits are a means to the end, not the end.

Before this digital age, copyrights did not egregiously raise the price of art. The cost to reproduce art was much higher, so the increase in unit cost due to copyright was not that high.

It should be obvious now that many forms of art could be distributed across most of the planet at a unit cost very near zero. When copyright is 100% of the unit cost it's much more obvious what it's impact is.

There are a great many artists who would love to take the characters, settings, etc. they were exposed to during their childhood, and create new works using those symbols. Excessive copyright durations prevents that. Others here seem to be stating the "right to control the art they've created," is paramount. I say that right is in conflict with the "right to freedom of artistic expression." A version of UNCC with a shorter duration would achieve a better compromise between those 2 conflicting rights.

Copyright is not an attempt at government support of art?
Copyright protects intellectual property not just art get that into your thick head.

Anyway the government is not supporting or subsidizing intelectual property with copyright. It is making it so people support the people that develop things they want. Not steal them.

So if under copyright an artist has trouble profitting off his art it's ok because that's economics, but without copyright it's not economics?
If you don't profit from your work while you have copyright the only reason is because people don't value it. That's your fault. Without copyright in many cases it is because people are stealing it.



Copyright ensures, though, that the original creator artists CAN profit from the work he creates. It doesn't stipulate that he MUST or WILL profit.

How does copyright do that? As far as I can tell over long copyright ensures an artist must sell control of his art to an anti competive coroporate entity. After that the artist has little control over whether his work profits or nto.

Are you joking me? Did you just say that people must sell there copyrighted thing to corperations? That's probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

You seem to be suggesting that artists can't profit without copyright? Can you construct an example for me wherein that is true?

Your just pretending Allech-Atreus said something else. Here's the quote again maybe on the second time around you might understand it

Copyright ensures, though, that the original creator artists CAN profit from the work he creates. It doesn't stipulate that he MUST or WILL profit.

It says the original creator CAN profit... where does it say that the orginal creator CAN'T profit.

It seems to me that with copyright, some art is more profitable then other types, and without copyright some art is more profitable then other types. Why should we favor the arts that copyright helps and not those it hinders?
All I can say is :p I never knew you where that dumb

*snip*

I was about to respond to your comments, but then I decided not to waste my time or my breath. You very clearly have no intention of changing your incomprehensible position on an issue you do not seem to understand. I have explained myself and the issue multiple times, and you still twist and turn and refuse to concede that you have no idea what you're talking about. Having reviewed the older debates on copyright, I see that you have nothing new to add to the debate. I will not waste my time debating a proposal that will not reach quorum.

Now, I will go back to my office, file a report with the Directorate, and nip out to the bar and have a drink. Or two.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

I'll givce this a really quick shot.

Uncopyrighted material, be it art, literature, or whatever, can be legally reproduced and used without the creators permission. Why? Because there is no legal document saying that they can't.

Copyrighted material cannot legally be used without creator permission. Why? Because there is a legal document declaring that permission must be acquired before use of the material.

Resultingly, the creator who copyrighted their material stands to make a profit as people pay them money to use what they created. The creator who did not copyright their work risks having their work simply stolen and being left with no legal recourse to seek compensation for use of their material.

Copyrighted=Protected
Uncopyrighted=Unprotected

I was about to respond to your comments, but then I decided not to waste my time or my breath. You very clearly have no intention of changing your incomprehensible position on an issue you do not seem to understand. I have explained myself and the issue multiple times, and you still twist and turn and refuse to concede that you have no idea what you're talking about. Having reviewed the older debates on copyright, I see that you have nothing new to add to the debate. I will not waste my time debating a proposal that will not reach quorum.

Now, I will go back to my office, file a report with the Directorate, and nip out to the bar and have a drink. Or two.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

Sigh. You have dragged us in circles. I have tried to move the discussion forward, by asking simple questions, and you haven't answered them. When you didn't answer them, I then posited what seemed to be your position, and other's have objected that it wasn't your position.

Ausserland has said that I "reject or ignore every argument put forward." Is there any argument I have not responded to yet?

Since that process has helped grind this thread to a halt, I'll provide links to other threads where I have had more progress.

http://capitalismforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=4929#4929

I'd like to prove a link to the discussion on the Accel board, but I'm not sure their policy on that. It could be like Outside.

To summarize what I have been trying to say on this thread:

I concede it's possible that some countries might need copyright. I think those countries would like all other countries to have copyright law too. My country does not need, nor want copyright law, we do not allow our government to have any say artistic or scientific processes. We allow our government to support these things by providing education.

UNCC passed overwhelmingly. I don't think most voters gave any thought to how long the duration should be, they would have had to read the fine print.

Copyright does the most to encourage innovation during its early years. It does the most to discourage innovation during its later years.

Artists do not need 60+ year copyright durations. Many artististic works cannot be sold because of such durations.

Copyright does have an impact on things some people wouldn't consider art. We could start discussing what is art here.

The traditional justification for copyright is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

In broad terms, copyright law applies more to art, and patent law applies more to invention.

In the NSUN patents have a significantly shorter duration then copyright. I would be happy with a NSUN copyright resolution, identical to UNCC, but with the same durations as our patent law.

Long durations are not necessary to promote either of these things. In our country Scientific progress has been the result of the reputation economy we call "academia." Our artists make a good living, etc.

Why do we need copyright durations over 30 years?

In the NSUN patents have a significantly shorter duration then copyright. I would be happy with a NSUN copyright resolution, identical to UNCC, but with the same durations as our patent law.

Why do we need copyright durations over 30 years?

The answer to the first question is that they are different because they are different. In the Real World patents have a significantly shorter duration than copyright. Here is something I picked up on the web, (US Law) "The most common type of patent is a utility patent. Utility patents have a duration of twenty years from the date of filing, but are not enforceable until the day of issuance." NS defines the term as 17 years.

The answer to the second question is that since these numbers are far less than the current numbers of both the US and the Berne convention, why should we even care? There are people in the world who would love to see the real world go to the durations of the NS UN. You might be picking a nit long enough for it to bleed, get infected and start to fester, but it's only a nit you're picking in the first place.

The answer to the first question is that they are different because they are different. In the Real World patents have a significantly shorter duration than copyright. Here is something I picked up on the web, (US Law) "The most common type of patent is a utility patent. Utility patents have a duration of twenty years from the date of filing, but are not enforceable until the day of issuance." NS defines the term as 17 years.

The answer to the second question is that since these numbers are far less than the current numbers of both the US and the Berne convention, why should we even care? There are people in the world who would love to see the real world go to the durations of the NS UN. You might be picking a nit long enough for it to bleed, get infected and start to fester, but it's only a nit you're picking in the first place.

I know why they are different in the "real world."

It's too long in the "real world" too.

Why are they different here? Is it just because people don't mind excessive copyright duration, but they mind excessive patent duration?

I have tried hard to explain why I think UNCC has excessive duration. Who here thinks we should raise it's durations, and why? Someone has to have a country with a higher copyright duration then UNCC.

Why are they different here? Is it just because people don't mind excessive copyright duration, but they mind excessive patent duration?

First of all, patents and copyrights are not the same thing. I know that seems obvious but bear with me. The differences are not always all that apparent, but they add up and as a result the economic model for patents and copyright are totally different from each other a variety of ways. As a result you can't really compare the two.

A patent gives the patent holder the exclusive rights to use the patent for a limited duration. In turn the patent holder can license his rights to others for a royalty fee, but often they implement the patent directly. Technology tends to improve over time and the value of a pattent actually declines over the course of the years. (Abraham Lincon had a number of patents for the railroad. Although they are no longer covered under patent law, they are no longer made by anyone because they are no longer needed.) A patent is only a stepping stone to the next patent.

A novel on the other hand does not deline over the years. Shakespere is as popular today as it was in the days when bear baiting was a popular spectator sport. Royalties for these works are often minor but can accumulate over time. (One generally unnoticed problem is the problem of the lost author/performer where companies have to keep growing royalty payments in special accounts because they can't find the person to give the money to. When they do, and this does happen, the check is often rather large.)

Moreover the patent represents a fundamental idea, while the copyright represents a specific instance of a fundamental idea. The "Lord of the Rings" did not stop people from writing about short people on quests. The Mona Lisa did not stop artists painting women with strange expressions. Furthermore there is no equivalent of parody law to patents. "Space Balls" came out while "Star Wars" was still under copyright, for example.

For these and a number of other reasons, patent law is fundamentally different from copyright law. Patent law can be easily abused as it is with even moderate durations. (Example is the current NiMH battery pattent held by Chevron/Texaco which effectively prevetns NiMH batteries from being used in electric cars, and can only be used in one brand of Hybrid.)

Besides all artists are poor and starving, while inventors are rich and famous. Everyone knows that. :p

Copyright is not for the benefit or detriment of the government at all, in any way. Copyright exists to protect the creator. The longer duration of protection is so that the creator can continue to benefit from such protection for a longer period of time. Were they to create something at the age of 8 and copyright it, they would be able to benefit from that copyright for most of their lives. And why shouldn't they be able to benefit from the fruits of their creative toils? It is their creation, and they should be granted some compensation if the world wishes to use it.

Copyright is not for the benefit or detriment of the government at all, in any way. Copyright exists to protect the creator. The longer duration of protection is so that the creator can continue to benefit from such protection for a longer period of time. Were they to create something at the age of 8 and copyright it, they would be able to benefit from that copyright for most of their lives. And why shouldn't they be able to benefit from the fruits of their creative toils? It is their creation, and they should be granted some compensation if the world wishes to use it.

Bullshit. If you don't see how big money monopolies interact with the government (special interest groups) it's going to be difficult for us to discuss politics.

Nothing involving a Copyright violation harms the creator. At best it robs him of possible future profit. If we were to legislate against everything that might harm artists future profits... well Copyright also harms artists future artists when they sell of control of their art. Should we ban the selling of copy rights? Should we ban corporations from owning ideas?

Meanwhile a great many copyright violations are... victimless crimes. Often the copyright violation leads DIRECTLY to future profit of the artist.

All good artists benefit from creating good art. Do you not see the many benefits they reap even without copyright?

The Governments of most countries will pay for your education for a limited duration. Why should it not do so through the course of your life?

Artists are as free as everyone else to profit monetarily from the fruits of their creative toils. They don't need excessive copyright duration to do so. Artists should not be on the dole their whole lives. Copyright is a simple extension of the welfare state, interference by the Government in the artistic process, and interference by the Government in the Economy. Do none of these 3 things raise a flag with anyone?

I don't particularly have a problem with welfare states, some of my best friends are communists (Can I get a shout out to my man Comrade Martin). :) I just sort of assumed most of the nations participating in this debate were somewhat Capitalist. I do have a problem with Government interference in Art. I do have a problem with government interference in the Economy. I will accept both only when absolutely necessary.

A good discussion on a conservative, capitalist, or libertarian opposition to copyright can naturally be found on the Accel forum:

http://www.accel.jactivism.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1764

In your nations Copyright may be necessary. But why would you want copyright durations that were one year longer the necesary to achieve the goals of Copyright (whatever you believe them to be)?

OOC:

I guess Sweden beat me to it.

"
The Pirate Party (Swedish: Piratpartiet) is a political party in Sweden. The party strives to reform laws regarding intellectual property, including copyright, patent and the protection of design. The agenda also includes support for a strengthening of the right to privacy (such as private property and private information), both on the Internet and in everyday life. Since it does not have an agenda on any other issues, the party claims it is not possible to place it anywhere on the left-right scale.
"

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

For the love of Zarquon, if you hate it that much just go exploit some loopholes instead, as I did, of banging on and on about it, because the case against copyright itself (as opposed to certain aspects of it which may be being abused) just isn't all that convincing and you're just annoying everyone with your constant gravedigging.

OOC:

I guess Sweden beat me to it.Totally and utterly irrelevent. There's a Nameless Cabal party where I live. How do I know? Because I'm the only member of the Nameless Cabal, and I say I'm a political party. Bet I could even get myself on the wiki. Nevermind that the Nameless Cabal doesn't have a chance in hell of winning anything, or ever getting a majority, but dammit, we exist. And we're strongly against music piracy.

Who cares?

If you have something relevent to add, like, say, A DRAFT, then add it. Pointless wikiwhoring is just spam.

Totally and utterly irrelevent. There's a Nameless Cabal party where I live. How do I know? Because I'm the only member of the Nameless Cabal, and I say I'm a political party. Bet I could even get myself on the wiki. Nevermind that the Nameless Cabal doesn't have a chance in hell of winning anything, or ever getting a majority, but dammit, we exist. And we're strongly against music piracy.

Who cares?

If you have something relevent to add, like, say, A DRAFT, then add it. Pointless wikiwhoring is just spam.

I was asked for examples of opposition in the real world, and I have provided it. If you had read the article, you would have noticed that the Pirate Party holds parliamentary seats. If you have a grudge against wikipedia you could have just done what many do and used it as directory of links, it provided links to 13+ external sources.

I don't think anyone has suggested any improvements to my last draft, I'll just resubmit it.

Nothing involving a Copyright violation harms the creator.

That's exceptionally hard to prove. The world is a very bizzare and crazy place you know. What's to say that some illegal coppies of a work ... to make it more nasty some ilegal adulterated coppies of a work ... doesn't get to the hands of some radical extreemists who in turn set out to kill the original author of the now coppied and adulterated work?

Stealing a person's future royalty payments, is no different from stealing the dividend payments of someone's investment account. It still harms the person none the less.

Writers deserve their royalties! Think of the struggling writer forced to burn his manuscripts to keep warm in the cold winter while poor Mimi dies of that horrid disease because she could not afford a doctor. (Yes I'm dragging opera plots into this debate ... )

That's exceptionally hard to prove. The world is a very bizzare and crazy place you know. What's to say that some illegal coppies of a work ... to make it more nasty some ilegal adulterated coppies of a work ... doesn't get to the hands of some radical extreemists who in turn set out to kill the original author of the now coppied and adulterated work?

Stealing a person's future royalty payments, is no different from stealing the dividend payments of someone's investment account. It still harms the person none the less.

Writers deserve their royalties! Think of the struggling writer forced to burn his manuscripts to keep warm in the cold winter while poor Mimi dies of that horrid disease because she could not afford a doctor. (Yes I'm dragging opera plots into this debate ... )

No you are right, I paraphrased a previously argument, to it's detriment. I should have said copyright violation does not necessarily harm the original creator. We can discuss each specific case where the creator is harmed, and the best way to remedy that, or whether any remedy is worth it's cost.

You don't own your possible future earnings. There are a great many legal ways to make it hard for someone else to earn a living. In a Capitalist society we encourage such competition. Only if someone illegally deprives someone else of future earnings can they seek damages.

Were discussing the state of the law here, I hope you're not going to argue a Copyright violation is bad because it's illegal.

Writers do deserve compensation, but royalties are an inefficient and costly way to provide compensation. If the bulk of the proceeds went to the writers I wouldn't be complaining.

That which is illegal isn't always bad and that which is legal isn't always good.

It's probably not a good idea to think of royalty as future income. Income is, typically given for work rendered, so the lack of guarentee of future income is in fact a lack of guarentee of the ability to perform future work.

It is better to think of royalties as a return on an investment, the cornerstone of the capitalistic system. A good example is the classic bond in which one gives a portion of capital to someone in exchange for it's return plus an interest at the end of the period of the exchange. This "future income" as it were, that reuturn on the investment is something that the law has a vested interest in enforcing. Those who cannot guarentee such a return often have to promise to pay a greater return as a result.

The writer has in turn invested a large portion of his time and talent, for the equal promise of reuturns on a periodic basis. Of course in his case it is more market driven, so a better example is that of an equity stock and dividends. Of course in an equity stock lasts for as long as the company does which in theory is forever while the copyright royalties have a fixed duration which is why the bond metaphore was more appropriate.

As I know of several people who make a living by writing, the notion of royalty payments is something that can help pay the daily bills for many. Unlike some industries like the record industry, the capitalistic system is working fine in the publishing field, large, small and even self publishing compete side by side and writers today have more options than they have had in the history of the printed page.

Don't give the copyright system credit for the success of writers in this day and age. Technology has played a far greater role. Writers can now write to a global audience.

I like the idea of treating royalties like returns on investment a lot more then I like the idea of treating them like physical property.

The problem is, those most invested in the royalties are rarely the artists. The IP lawyer who works for the corporation that owns the royalties is the one most personally invested, in most cases he has spent the most time working towards proffiting off of copyright law.

Copyright is a scheme to allow writers to profit of of their work. The problem is writers will always be able to profit of their work, they don't need copyright law. Individual writers may have chosen to rely solely on copyright law, but it's a choice they could unmake at any time.

The problem is writers will always be able to profit of their work, they don't need copyright law.

Right up until some knucklehead comes along, takes a copy of the author's/creator's work, passes it off as his own, has legal protections placed upon it, and proceeds to make a killing off of someone else's work, while the originator of the newly copyrighted work is left with nothing but grumblings about how they made the piece that someone else is benefiting from.

Yes, there are people other than the creator of the work involved in the copyright process, and all of them are entitled to a piece of the pie. After all, you wouldn't expect them to work for free, would you?

Right up until some knucklehead comes along, takes a copy of the author's/creator's work, passes it off as his own, has legal protections placed upon it, and proceeds to make a killing off of someone else's work, while the originator of the newly copyrighted work is left with nothing but grumblings about how they made the piece that someone else is benefiting from.

Yes, there are people other than the creator of the work involved in the copyright process, and all of them are entitled to a piece of the pie. After all, you wouldn't expect them to work for free, would you?

I don't expect the work of IP lawyers to be necessary at all.

How does someone else selling an artists work prevent an artist from making money? Seems like it would increase the worlds exposre to said artists work, and allow them to profit even further off of their next piece.

How does someone else selling an artists work prevent an artist from making money? Seems like it would increase the worlds exposre to said artists work, and allow them to profit even further off of their next piece.

OK. I'm going to sell your work for 1 dollar a pop without your permission, while you need at least 10 dollars per book to pay all your expenses of writing it (and pay your bills, food, profit, etc.). Yay! You benefit because your work gets exposure! You don't get any money, but that's OK. So now, you go and write your next book, and everyone wants to read it. But I come back in and sell that one for 1 dollar each as well. (You now need 20 dollars per book to come out even.)

Why on earth are people continuing to debate with this individual? He's completely oblivious to the realities of marketing. He pays no attention to logical argument. He just keeps on bleating the same nonsense over and over and over again. Why not just let him post his drivel unanswered? Maybe he'll get tired of this and stop pummeling the poor dead horse.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Maybe he'll get tired of this and stop pummeling the poor dead horse.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Ambassador, the only way we're going to get him to shut up is to pass a resolution outlawing sadistic necrophilliac beastiality. Either that or if that guy from Redneck Mechanics actually manages to shoot him.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA (who's filling in while Bob takes a nap)

That's a bit of an oversimplification, Ceo, since you assume that all the guy does is write books which, for someone just starting out, is not always the case. But frankly I am sick to death of this topic too.

That's a bit of an oversimplification, Ceo, since you assume that all the guy does is write books which, for someone just starting out, is not always the case. But frankly I am sick to death of this topic too.

If Ceo is oversimplifying, then what the hell is Disco doing?

As for the continuing the subject, someone else has submitted Disco's arguments as a repeal for UNCC. They actually plagiarized his works. Irony at its finest.

If Ceo is oversimplifying, then what the hell is Disco doing?

As for the continuing the subject, someone else has submitted Disco's arguments as a repeal for UNCC. They actually plagiarized his works. Irony at its finest.

I laughed my ass off when I saw that, man, nearly fell off my chair. And that was before I'd even smoked my first joint of the day.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I laughed my ass off when I saw that, man, nearly fell off my chair. And that was before I'd even smoked my first joint of the day.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Um, yeah if you hadn't noticed, I was hoping anyone else would work on a repeal. The first post on this thread read "I'll gladly join any region willing to submit a repeal for UNCC."

OK. I'm going to sell your work for 1 dollar a pop without your permission, while you need at least 10 dollars per book to pay all your expenses of writing it (and pay your bills, food, profit, etc.). Yay! You benefit because your work gets exposure! You don't get any money, but that's OK. So now, you go and write your next book, and everyone wants to read it. But I come back in and sell that one for 1 dollar each as well. (You now need 20 dollars per book to come out even.)

You are trying to pick a unit price based on your up front expenses, in an attempt to offset costs? You should be picking a unit price that maximizes profit per unit. Since the up front costs don't translate to unit costs it's a mistake to use up front costs to determine unit price.

You don't even understand the point Ceo is trying to make.

You don't even understand the point Ceo is trying to make.

What does he understand, though?

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

You don't even understand the point Ceo is trying to make.

He and I have had this exact discussion before. How about you rephrase his point then?

He and I have had this exact discussion before. How about you rephrase his point then?

As if it'd make a bleedin' difference to you.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I guess one would be in favor of this sort of repeal, if one was in favor of wasting the UN's time. If one joined the UN just to watch the beast, that would make sense.

Many seem devoted to wasting the UN's time. There are world crisis going on, but instead of directing international attention towards matters of import we are wasting our time on this repeal?

Perhaps the original resolution wasted a miniscule amount of money. The cost of coducting this repeal process must be much higher.

Who funded this repeal? Who campaigned for it? Why?

After this repeal will more of the UN's time be wasted on a blocker so that the UN can never [support copyrights]? Hopefully it will be well written, afterall that is what is most important when discussing a resolution.

Bah!

[Hack]

Why was such a useless proposition raised in the first place. Copyright causes countries NOT to be able to produce much needed medicines cheaper than the more advanced countries will. Look at the case with India trying to make Aids medication for half the world; the US tries to restrict this because its companies own the copyright for Aids medication.

It's not just art that needs to be freed to all, it's medicine, ideas, etc. that are restricted to those who need it most.

And somebody mentioned why this sort of greed is good. Well when you value money more than life, this is clearly why it is bad...such pigheaded comments like that show people's true characters. I would support this repeal more if it mentioned the other consequences of copyrights and not just it's effect on art (which is rather dismal in the big scheme of things).

Why was such a useless proposition raised in the first place. Copyright causes countries NOT to be able to produce much needed medicines cheaper than the more advanced countries will. Look at the case with India trying to make Aids medication for half the world; the US tries to restrict this because its companies own the copyright for Aids medication.

It's not just art that needs to be freed to all, it's medicine, ideas, etc. that are restricted to those who need it most.

And somebody mentioned why this sort of greed is good. Well when you value money more than life, this is clearly why it is bad...such pigheaded comments like that show people's true characters. I would support this repeal more if it mentioned the other consequences of copyrights and not just it's effect on art (which is rather dismal in the big scheme of things).

We'd suggest the representative check out the difference between patents and copyrights. We think he has the two confused.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We'd suggest the representative check out the difference between patents and copyrights. We think he has the two confused.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

As usual you ignore the thrust of his argument, and quibble about a detail. If he had limited his discussion of copyright to art you probably would have quibbled about that too?

As usual you ignore the thrust of his argument, and quibble about a detail. If he had limited his discussion of copyright to art you probably would have quibbled about that too?

A detail?! He's blaming copyright for an adverse effect of patents and you call that a detail?! Of course, you don't want people to understand the subject, do you? It's much easier for you to pass off your unsubstantiated opinions as fact that way.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

A detail?! He's blaming copyright for an adverse effect of patents and you call that a detail?! Of course, you don't want people to understand the subject, do you? It's much easier for you to pass off your unsubstantiated opinions as fact that way.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Patent and copyright are VERY similar issues. They are the same sort of rule, applied to different subjects.

What we are discussing is intellectual property law. It so happens that intellectual property law is broken up into a jigsaw of different little segments, patent, copyright, trademark, etc.

It is common to confuse them.

And his point remains, intellectual property laws are often used as tools whereby nations who, by whatever method, have acquired the most valuable intellectual property, extract money from nations that have less valuable intellectual property.

So countries somehow bought a series of IDEAS and are charging other countries to use those, IDEAS. Usually to the detriment of the intellectual propertarily disadvantaged nation.

What goals does this serve? Are they even the goals of the people that support UNCC?

Why was such a useless proposition raised in the first place.You're confused.

It took me a minute to remember what's going on, because I didn't remember writting that, and I certainly don't sign my posts with [Hack]. Now I remember why it seemed to weird. I didn't write it; Disco did. Right before he posted this draft, he wrote those exact words (save the alterations in brackets) in another thread.

So... yeah... you were responding to a two month old joke.

So silly that one should spend so much time trying to change laws in order to steal other people's intellectual property when they could be using that time making their own...

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations
The Congressional Republic of Ceorana

So silly that one should spend so much time trying to change laws in order to steal other people's intellectual property when they could be using that time making their own...
Ah, the influence of the great Tom Lehrer (http://maths.dur.ac.uk/Ug/projects/resources/lobachev.htm) appears to be waning ...
I am never forget the day I first meet the great Lobachevsky.
In one word he told me secret of success in mathematics:
Plagiarize!

Plagiarize,
Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize -

Only be sure always to call it please ... 'research'.

Ah, the influence of the great Tom Lehrer (http://maths.dur.ac.uk/Ug/projects/resources/lobachev.htm) appears to be waning ...

Plagiarism is an important subject, closely related to intellectual property discussions :) I had hoped to write an anti plagiarism resolution but I've had trouble deciding on it's content.

What would you say the lesson of the song is?

I guess one would be in favor of this sort of repeal, if one was in favor of wasting the UN's time. If one joined the UN just to watch the beast, that would make sense.

Many seem devoted to wasting the UN's time. There are world crisis going on, but instead of directing international attention towards matters of import we are wasting our time on this repeal?

Perhaps the original resolution wasted a miniscule amount of money. The cost of coducting this repeal process must be much higher.

Who funded this repeal? Who campaigned for it? Why?

After this repeal will more of the UN's time be wasted on a blocker so that the UN can never [support copyrights]? Hopefully it will be well written, afterall that is what is most important when discussing a resolution.

Bah!

[Hack]

Wait let me get this straight, you didn't actually say these words, you're just plagiarizing my words?

Wait let me get this straight, you didn't actually say these words, you're just plagiarizing my words?It was a joke, Disco. One might say satire.

Then again, you didn't get it the first time, so...

It was a joke, Disco. One might say satire.

Then again, you didn't get it the first time, so...

So the answer is yes, it was plagiarism? Or are you saying there is an exception to plagiarism specifically for satire?

We'd suggest the representative check out the difference between patents and copyrights. We think he has the two confused.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Alright, maybe it is limited to artistic endeavours. My mistake (although the two words are technically synonymous). But in my post I wanted to see this extended to all forms of intellectual ownership and production ownership as well (patents).

You're confused.

It took me a minute to remember what's going on, because I didn't remember writting that, and I certainly don't sign my posts with [Hack]. Now I remember why it seemed to weird. I didn't write it; Disco did. Right before he posted this draft, he wrote those exact words (save the alterations in brackets) in another thread.

So... yeah... you were responding to a two month old joke.

I didn't realise your "jokes" had an expiry date :rolleyes: . Regardless, why bother wasting people's time on the original Patent resolution if it's such a trivial issue? Not to mention, it was an indirect quote...I don't even remember WHO I was quoting, just the IDEA (much like I want to see ideas become communal anyway).

Alright, maybe it is limited to artistic endeavours. My mistake (although the two words are technically synonymous). But in my post I wanted to see this extended to all forms of intellectual ownership and production ownership as well (patents).



I didn't realise your "jokes" had an expiry date :rolleyes: . Regardless, why bother wasting people's time on the original Patent resolution if it's such a trivial issue? Not to mention, it was an indirect quote...I don't even remember WHO I was quoting, just the IDEA (much like I want to see ideas become communal anyway).

It was a complicated inside joke, performed by Hack.

I don't think this is a trivial issue. Criminalizing the worlds youth is hardly a trivial issue. (There just aren't that many people that grew up before the internet that regularly violate copyright).

I didn't realise your jokes [snear quotes snipped] had an expiry date [irritating emoticon removed]When the joke deals with the timing of a pair of posts, it certainly expires. The post I modified and this thread were posted within minutes of each other. It was an amusing juxtaposition, which is lost two months down the road.

Regardless, why bother wasting people's time on the original Patent resolution if it's such a trivial issue?You fail at reading comprehension. I support patents. The purpose of my post was to poke fun at the timing of Disco's posts. It doesn't represent my views.

You fail at reading comprehension. I support patents. The purpose of my post was to poke fun at the timing of Disco's posts. It doesn't represent my views.

Then why not post a response based on your like for patents and not just a stupid joke that's only funny within a day of reading it :rolleyes: (i.e. "irritating emoticon" to indicate sarcasm)?

Then why not post a response based on your like for patents and not just a stupid joke that's only funny within a day of reading it?I'm so terribly sorry, oh great and mighty Grantsburg. A pox upon me for my failure to realise that a humorless troll such as yourself would stumble upon my post, two months hence, and not get the joke. I shall strive to write my posts with future, hypothetical humorless trolls in mind, as opposed to those who would read the post in the spirit it was intended and at the time it was written.

Preemptive apology to all humorless trolls who read this in late January: I am so horribly sorry that you won't find the humor in this. Please accept this act of preemptive contrition. Hopefully, I will have gotten the seppaku kit I asked for for Christmas, and I will be able to promptly spill my bowels for you.

Hopefully, I will have gotten the seppaku kit I asked for for Christmas, and I will be able to promptly spill my bowels for you.
It's already there. It's duct-taped to the bottom of the Grandstand Elevator in Wrigley Field a code-key container. Simultaneously press the Terrace and Upper Deck buttons while standing on your head and whistling the piccolo solo from The Stars And Stripes By John Philip Sousa, and it'll open right up.

Sorry to spoil your Christmas surprise, but the timing seemed ripe.

Your pendulous thorax makes cellists envious of the rotund sounds emanating from your nose in D minor.

Cry for the stiffness of the earlobe. The turtles are fallen and the rain stands still. How long must I suffer with your undergarments?

http://www.p0stwh0res.com/images/smoking.gif

Since nobody seems to have anything of substance to add here, and are just performing random bumps (seriously, quoting my sig?), I'm going to go ahead and lock it.

If Disco actually plans to do something about a Repeal, he can post a new draft.