NationStates Jolt Archive

Resolution text (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11771261&postcount=1)
"Safalra Hails Quorum For Proposal" (interview) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11831301&postcount=53)


The Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra has decided that it is time to propose another resolution. (OOC: I quit my job, so I have plenty of time to run telegram campaigns.)

United Nations Resolution #60, 'Public Domain' (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=59), is deeply flawed. The only parts of it with which we agree are now covered by United Nations Resolution #163, 'UN Copyright Convention' (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=162)

The General Assembly,

Noting the passage of United Nations Resolution #60, 'Public Domain',

Acknowledging that the establishment of the public domain and mechanisms to place a work into the public domain are important parts of copyright law,

Unconvinced of the case for requiring that member States place their government works into the public domain, when the use of liberal licences provide similar social benefits,

Deeply concerned that the resolution places freeware and shareware works into the public domain, when traditionally these licences allow authors to maintain copyright while permitting free distribution of their works,

Condemning the hardship the resolution has caused for shareware authors who had relied for their income on works published prior to the passage of the resolution,

Noting that clause 5 of United Nations Resolution #163, 'UN Copyright Convention', make the other provisions of the resolution redundant,

1. Repeals United Nations Resolution #60, 'Public Domain';

2. Urges delegates to consider existing definitions and usage when defining terms in future resolutions.

Ooh, I saw the title and, out of morbid curiosity, came in. But this looks good! I hadn't noticed the freeware/shareware thing before.

The freeware/shareware thing is the whole reason I opposed Public Domain and supported every half-assed repeal attempt made so far. I think you can figure out how I feel about this.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'm sure I'm supposed to really care about this, but I'm confused about the impact of the repeal.

Since copyright is now mandatory in all nations copyleft would seem to be the only defense. If the repeal we are discussing would help opponents of copyright defend themselves by constructing open source licenses I think I'd favor the repeal.

The current public domain resolution probably blocks something huh?

I really should work on a "Rights of the Author" proposal, but I'm running out of steam here.

Since copyright is now mandatory in all nations
Not entirely true:
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;
A nation can make it impossible for its own citizens to copyright their works.

copyleft would seem to be the only defense. If the repeal we are discussing would help opponents of copyright defend themselves by constructing open source licenses I think I'd favor the repeal.
The Public Domain resolution has no effect on 'copyleft' other than forcing the governments of UN member States to release their works into the public domain rather than under a 'copyleft' licence.

Not entirely true:

A nation can make it impossible for its own citizens to copyright their works.



Right... but every UN nation is still required to enforce copyright enforcement foisted upon them by citizens of other nations.

Let's get back to this proposal, are you saying repealing it would have no effect?

Right... but every UN nation is still required to enforce copyright enforcement foisted upon them by citizens of other nations.

Let's get back to this proposal, are you saying repealing it would have no effect?

Wait, what? Why shouldn't that happen? I'll be damned if people in your country are allowed to sell Allech-Atrean artist's work without their consent. I don't give a flying fuck if you outlaw copyright for your own people, but when you start screwing with other nation's laws and properties (including intellectualy material) you make a lot of enemies.

Repealing this is like cleaning house. "Public Domain" is unnecessary, because it is redundant. Therefore, we support this repeal.

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

I am also entirely in favor of this repeal, for a variety of reasons. However, I have to question the importance of the final clause in the repeal text. What is the context and reason for this urging?

Hellar Gray

However, I have to question the importance of the final clause in the repeal text. What is the context and reason for this urging?
The writer of the original resolution clearly didn't understand the concepts of 'freeware' and 'shareware' that they choose to define as being part of the public domain.

Let's get back to this proposal, are you saying repealing it would have no effect?
It would mean people could release their works as freeware or shareware without them being automatically placed into the public domain.

The writer of the original resolution clearly didn't understand the concepts of 'freeware' and 'shareware' that they choose to define as being part of the public domain.

Ah. It wasn't clear to me at first that it was the "shareware" and "freeware" terms that were being referenced. My apologies.

Hellar Gray

We wholeheartedly support repeal of this worthless and positively harmful resolution. The representative of Safalra is quite correct in his comment that the author was quite obviously not very familiar with intellectual property law. We do have some concerns and suggestions.


Acknowledging that the establishment of the public domain and mechanisms to place a work into the public domain are important parts of copyright law,

The first part of this clause is technically incorrect. Copyright law does not establish the public domain. The public domain is a term of art which describes the state of being unrestricted by intellectual property law. It is not established by copyright law. It would exist if there were no such thing. It should also be remembered that copyright law is not the only mechanism for restricting material from the public domain. Patent and trademark law does it as well.

Unconvinced of the case for requiring that member States place their government works into the public domain, when the use of liberal licences provide similar social benefits,

Agreed. The decision whether or not to place government-created or government-funded material in the public domain should be left to the individual governments to decide in specific circumstances.

Deeply concerned that the resolution places freeware and shareware works into the public domain, when traditionally these licences allow authors to maintain copyright while permitting free distribution of their works,

Absolutely correct, and this is the most objectionable part of the resolution.

Condemning the hardship the resolution has caused for shareware authors who had relied for their income on works published prior to the passage of the resolution,

We would suggest that a statement be added that this ridiculous requirement also harms the general public, in that software authors would be less likely to release their work as freeware or shareware.

Noting that clause 5 of United Nations Resolution #163, 'UN Copyright Convention', make the other provisions of the resolution redundant,

We don't see this as necessary and question its accuracy.

Some time ago, we drafted a repeal of this resolution, but did not submit it pending the passage of the UN Copyright Convention and pehaps legilslation on trademarks and service marks. We'll put a copy of the arguments from that draft here for whatever use the representative might care to make of them.

1. It is in fact meaningless in its general intent, since the public domain exists without any need for legislation on the national or international level. Intellectual property laws remove material from the public domain; no law is needed to create it.

2. It requires that works pass into the public domain when the term of copyright expires, ignoring other types of intellectual property law (for example, patent and trade secrets laws) that may apply.

3. It provides that works pass into the public domain when authors fail to satisfy statutory formalities to perfect the copyright when, in fact, there may be no such formalities.

4. It provides that all works of "a UN government" are automatically in the public domain. Assuming the Resolution meant works of the government of a UN-member nation, there is no reasonable justification for this. Governments should have the right to protect their investment in creation of intellectual property should they choose to do so.

5. Most importantly, it contains the completely unrealistic and damaging provision that intellectual property passes into the public domain when "deemed 'freeware' or 'shareware'." Many authors of freeware and shareware, for good reasons, maintain the copyrighted status of the software. Removing this ability would reduce the amount of such material made available for the benefit of the computing public.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Like Kedalfax, I never realized the freeware/shareware aspect of the argument against "Public Domain." Also, we want the right to control the materials our government distributes, so I support your efforts, and best wishes.

OOC: I've tried to repeal this before, and I really think it does need to be repealed, but I'd honestly prefer to wait till Disco stops playing NS before doing so.

Some time ago, we drafted a repeal of this resolution, but did not submit it pending the passage of the UN Copyright Convention and pehaps legilslation on trademarks and service marks. We'll put a copy of the arguments from that draft here for whatever use the representative might care to make of them.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

What happened to the Trademark resolution?

What happened to the Trademark resolution?

I was working on one but tabled it for a while due to some technical problems.

I was working on one but tabled it for a while due to some technical problems.

I had planned on writing a "Rights of Author" proposal, but it seemed likely you'd get Trademark finished first.

I'd like to see some real anti plagiarism protection. Artists depend on getting credit for their work. Many Freeware and Shareware licesenses exist just so that works can be freely distributed, but attribution remains mandatory.

Artists depend on getting credit for their work.

If they depend on it so much, they can utilize their rights under #163 to demand it.

This is a very important issue that needs to be defined. Best of luck with the proposal.

Looks good to me.

Congrats on becoming delegate by the way Saf.

Congrats on becoming delegate by the way Saf.
Thanks. If you ever get bored in such a tiny region, feel free to come back to England. ;-)

The proposal has now been submitted:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=public

I've telegrammed the delegates of the 300 largest regions (excluding those who say they don't want telegrams about proposals, and one who's blocked me for some reason).

Why would anyone want to block you? Here, have a flower!

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/graphics/taxonomy/plants/spermatophyta/angiosperms/dicotyledonae/papaveraceae/domestic%20poppy/DBF%209807%20Poppy%202.JPG

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

We must say we're surprised to see this proposal now submitted without the author even having the courtesy to respond to the constructive criticisms and suggestions we offered. We would be interested in knowing why he didn't consider them even worth a reply.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We must say we're surprised to see this proposal now submitted without the author even having the courtesy to respond to the constructive criticisms and suggestions we offered. We would be interested in knowing why he didn't consider them even worth a reply.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I understand, man, why that'd bug ya. But here, have a flower!

http://cleo.lcs.psu.edu/poppy.jpg

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

We must say we're surprised to see this proposal now submitted without the author even having the courtesy to respond to the constructive criticisms and suggestions we offered. We would be interested in knowing why he didn't consider them even worth a reply.
Actually, I wrote a reply but Jolt wouldn't post it at the time. I had intended to come back and try again, but forgot. Sorry about that. Anyway, it went something like this:

The first part of this clause is technically incorrect. Copyright law does not establish the public domain. The public domain is a term of art which describes the state of being unrestricted by intellectual property law. It is not established by copyright law. It would exist if there were no such thing. It should also be remembered that copyright law is not the only mechanism for restricting material from the public domain. Patent and trademark law does it as well.
In a copyright system that automatically grants copyright to the author, the public domain would need to be explicity established.

We would suggest that a statement be added that this ridiculous requirement also harms the general public, in that software authors would be less likely to release their work as freeware or shareware.
Freeware and shareware authors (at least those in The Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra) just invented new terms (libertyware and giveware) that were equivalent to the definitions of freeware and shareware before the resolution.

Why would anyone want to block you? Here, have a flower!

[snip image]

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Aw, thanks. *adds Sheik Larebil bin Cluich to Winter Solstice card list*

Actually, I wrote a reply but Jolt wouldn't post it at the time. I had intended to come back and try again, but forgot. Sorry about that. Anyway, it went something like this:

In a copyright system that automatically grants copyright to the author, the public domain would need to be explicity established.

We disagree. The public domain exists independent of legislation. Its bounds are set by legislation. They do not establish it. Further, the statement in the repeal ignores the fact that copyright law is not the only type of law which affects the public domain. Other types of intellectual property law, such as patent law and trademark law, do as well. Therefore, copyright law cannot, by itself, establish a public domain.


Freeware and shareware authors (at least those in The Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra) just invented new terms (libertyware and giveware) that were equivalent to the definitions of freeware and shareware before the resolution.

But your repeal makes the argument--with which we agree--that the resolution is harmful to authors of freeware and shareware. Are you saying now that it isn't, because they can just manipulate words around it? Are you contradicting the argument in the repeal? Anyway, our point was that the repeal argument could be strengthened by pointing out that the provisions of the resolution are also harmful to potential users of the products.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We disagree. The public domain exists independent of legislation. Its bounds are set by legislation. They do not establish it. Further, the statement in the repeal ignores the fact that copyright law is not the only type of law which affects the public domain. Other types of intellectual property law, such as patent law and trademark law, do as well. Therefore, copyright law cannot, by itself, establish a public domain.
You're even more pedantic than me...

But your repeal makes the argument--with which we agree--that the resolution is harmful to authors of freeware and shareware. Are you saying now that it isn't, because they can just manipulate words around it? Are you contradicting the argument in the repeal?
Not at all. Note the phrase 'works published prior to the passage of the resolution' - the author cannot 'unrelease' anything released as freeware or shareware prior to the passage of that resolution.

OOC:
2. Urges delegates to consider existing definitions and usage when defining terms in future resolutions.
Is this not MetaGaming?

OOC:
2. Urges delegates to consider existing definitions and usage when defining terms in future resolutions.
Is this not MetaGaming?
I don't see how. The Rules For UN Proposals say 'Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the UN itself.' I guess it could be argued that it's a game mechanics violations, but it doesn't actually require anything of future proposal, and a very similar clause in my last resolution (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=141) ('Urges delegates to consider the differing structures of legislatures in member States when proposing future resolutions.') didn't cause any problems.

I'm going to second the notion that it's not metagaming. It is assumed that "deligates" write resolutions on behalf of their nations. It's not breaking the fourth wall at all. Since it is an urges it is a non binding resolution and so doesn't establish game mechanics.

Dammit, for the 5,016th time, it's "delegates."

We like very much the concept of "Public Domain", that said we aknowledge the error of this resolution about "shareware", and it's why we support this repeal.

On a side note we would like to mention the following website:
http://www.bleedingobvious.org/bin/view/Main/WebHome
where anyone can register 'obvious' ideas so that if they later become the basis of frivolous patent applications this site can be used to demonstrate prior art.

On a side note we would like to mention the following website:
http://www.bleedingobvious.org/bin/view/Main/WebHome
where anyone can register 'obvious' ideas so that if they later become the basis of frivolous patent applications this site can be used to demonstrate prior art.
Nice idea.

The proposal has now been submitted:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=public

I've telegrammed the delegates of the 300 largest regions (excluding those who say they don't want telegrams about proposals, and one who's blocked me for some reason).
I've extended this to the 582 largest regions (all regions with over 20 members). Unfortunately it only has 50 approvals this morning, with voting ending tomorrow, so I suspect it won't reach quorum.

I've extended this to the 582 largest regions (all regions with over 20 members). Unfortunately it only has 50 approvals this morning, with voting ending tomorrow, so I suspect it won't reach quorum.

I cannot be certain, but your proposal may be deleted sunday morning, it depends of the time of the day you submitted it.
The best time of the day to submit a proposal, is just after the main reboot.
The main reboot take place in the morning (GMT), at the moment it seems between 8AM and 9AM GMT, but it can vary a lot, ie: several hours.
So to be certain, one has to check if that reboot took place, by checking if the first proposals in the list who didn't reach quorum had been deleted.


Also, if I may give you a piece of advice about telegramming, I'm not sure that delegates of large regions are those who will the more probably approve a proposal
According to me:
-delegates who approved a current proposal in the list are the more likely to approve another one, then,
-as was said in this forum by the former player "Powerhungry Chipmunks", delegates whom last activity is < 1 day or < several days are more likely to approve a proposal than others

And of course, delegates who already approved your proposal, for its previous submition, are above all others the most likely.

Also, if I may give you a piece of advice about telegramming, I'm not sure that delegates of large regions are those who will the more probably approve a proposal
According to me:
-delegates who approved a current proposal in the list are the more likely to approve another one, then,
-as was said in this forum by the former player "Powerhungry Chipmunks", delegates whom last activity is < 1 day or < several days are more likely to approve a proposal than others
Thanks for the advice. I telegrammed the delegates of the largest regions as I regarded them as likely to be active (generating a list of delegates active within some specific time frame would involve 15 times as many requests to NS server, which wouldn't make me very popular with the admins). I have now telegrammed the delegates who approved the repeal in the queue (although some are no longer delegate - for some reason their approval still stands).

(although some are no longer delegate - for some reason their approval still stands).

Not sure, but it seems that their approvals stands until the main reboot. Those approvals are withdrawn at the reboot.
It's why we had seen a proposal reaching quorum before being deleted at the reboot few hours later (I don't remember the said proposal) and it's why many proposal experiences a decrease of 1 or 2 of their approvals at the main reboot.

Not sure, but it seems that their approvals stands until the main reboot. Those approvals are withdrawn at the reboot.
It seems not - the delegateship of Peru changed two days ago, but the old delegate's approval is still listed.

It seems not - the delegateship of Peru changed two days ago, but the old delegate's approval is still listed.

You right, the approval of "Eastern Front", which is not a delegate anymore for 2 days, still stands for "Repeal "Sexual Freedom"". This is pretty strange indeed. A little smalll bug I suppose.

I believe that the 'UN Copyright Convention' is deeply flawed. There needs to be a better one written.



I would like to scrap the whole thing and start over...yet I would not start with this resolution.

Go after the Copyright and I'm behind you 100%.

About telegramming campaign, I donno if it may be usefull to any but here is what I do to avoid sending several TG's to a delegate:

For my first tg campaign ever, I added a delegate to "my dossier" after having sent his/her a TG.
This is a very easy way to check and avoid double TG, but it's pretty boring to empty the dossier after the campaign and also even if it was pretty easy to check, I was too fast and did some errors.

So now I use an excel sheet instead (I suppose some better techniques exists) before each second list of delegates of further list of my campaign:

In this excel sheet:
http://test256.free.fr/blank.xls
-I copy in column A, the list, sorted by alphabetic order, of already contacted delegates (in the previous parts of the campaign)+ the list of delegates who approved it already
-I copy in column B, the new list, sorted by alphabetic order, of the delegates I want to contact

Then, the Column E, give me the dedoublonned list with the html links, I just have to click in all (non 0) links on column E

PS: to copy in the excel sheet a list of delegates from an approval page:
-copy the list in word
-select all
-replace all ", " (, and a space) by "^l" (manual line jump)
-copy it in the right column ( A or B ) in the excel sheet
-sort the feed column alone by alphabetic order

PS2: to copy in the excel sheet a list of delegates from the UN vote:
(more complicated, but not very long)
-copy the list in word
-select all
-replace ", " (, and a space) by "^l" (manual line jump)
-replace " [" (space and [) by "["
-replace all “[^#^#^#]” by nothing (3 digits for the number of endorsments)
-replace all “[^#^#]” by nothing (2 digits for the number of endorsments)
-replace all “[^#]” by nothing (1 digits for the number of endorsments)
-copy it in the right column ( A or B ) in the excel sheet
-sort the feed column alone by alphabetic order

PS3:In order to send a 3rd list in a campaign (and so on):
-I add the delegates I contacted in the 2nd list (column B) to those of the 1st list (column A)
-Then, I sort the new column A, alone, by alphabetic order
-I copy the 3rd list in column B and sort it alone, by alphabetic order ...

Here is an example of how it works:
http://test256.free.fr/example.xls

You right, the approval of "Eastern Front", which is not a delegate anymore for 2 days, still stands for "Repeal "Sexual Freedom"". This is pretty strange indeed. A little smalll bug I suppose.The display is wrong, the internal counting is accurate. This is an old glitch and nothing to be concerned about.

The display is wrong, the internal counting is accurate. This is an old glitch and nothing to be concerned about.

Ok, thanks

Phew, it looks like it just avoided today's cut. It still needs another 36 approvals though. Being on the first page should help, but I suspect I'm going to have to resubmit it.

100 approvals, 22 needed. I rate the chance of reaching quorum at about 50%. I've saved the list of delegates who have approved it, and if it's gone when I wake up tomorrow I'll probably resubmit it.

I've saved the list of delegates who have approved it, and if it's gone when I wake up tomorrow I'll probably resubmit it.
Resubmitted:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=domain

I've telegrammed the 100 delegates who had approved it by the time I went to bed, and I'll now telegram a random 300 or so who I didn't telegram about the original submission.

Congratulations on reaching quorum.

We will support this proposal once it goes to vote.

~Iffne Hevan
Personal Assistant to the Ambassador

Congratulations on reaching quorum.
IC: Thank you. One of my nation's journalists has interviewed me about the proposal, amongst other issues, and I hope to share that interview with you all later.

OOC: I've generally made my posts OOC until now. I'm thinking of making future posts IC unless stated otherwise.

IC: Thank you. One of my nation's journalists has interviewed me about the proposal, amongst other issues, and I hope to share that interview with you all later.

OOC: I've generally made my posts OOC until now. I'm thinking of making future posts IC unless stated otherwise.

I look forward to reviewing the interview, and you have my support on this proposal.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

OOC: Sounds like a good idea to me.

Now you just have to wait the three or four weeks for it to get to vote. :p

Safalra hails quorum for proposal
But 'Repeal "Public Domain"' only just makes it

by Jeremy Colleton, Pankrantia News

Early this morning, Safalra's latest United Nations resolution proposal reached quorum. I travelled to Solenscree to ask the region's new delegate about the proposal and his opinion on a new poll showing 42% of Krants and 16% of Leaians are unhappy with his delegacy.

JC: Congratulations on your proposal reaching quorum.

S: Thanks very much. It was certainly very close.

JC: In fact, the proposal had to be resubmitted. You're losing your touch, aren't you?

S: I don't think that's fair. Repealing 'Public Domain' was always going to be difficult - as one delegate told me, he didn't see what was wrong with the resolution, and for someone who hasn't read my exposure of its flaws I think that's an understandable position.

JC: That sounds an arrogant position - that any delegate who had read your arguments would support your proposal.

S: I'm not saying that. There are legitimate arguments in favour of the resolution as it stands - there's a case to be made that State governments should release their works into the public domain, and those who oppose all copyright may be happy that freeware and shareware works are placed into the public domain as a result of the resolution.

JC: But you're no fan of copyright law - isn't repealing the resolution hypocritical?

S: You're right that I'm not happy with current copyright law. I believe that fair use is unreasonably restricted, and that many more uses should count as fair providing the original author is attributed. I don't however think that attacking freeware and shareware is the right way to go about achieving this aim - freeware is already freely distributable providing the author is credited, and placing it into the public domain just removes the right to attribution.

JC: Let's look at the resolution itself. You describe the establishment of the public domain as part of copyright law, when in fact the public domain consists of work not covered by copyright, patent or trademark law. Your counterargument to the representative from Ausserland was that he was being pedantic. I put it to you that this irrelevant and undiplomatic response harms our international relations.

S: Firstly, I'd like to apologise to Ausserland. I was frustrated that the argument over the resolution proposal was centred on a clause that was not part of the argument for repeal, but a pragmatic introductory clause whose sole purpose was to make it clear that the resolution wasn't attacking the concept of a public domain. Secondly, I believe it was clear that my response was not a serious comment intended to refute the representative's criticisms.

JC: You mention the social benefits of liberal licenses. The Coalition For Software Choice has criticised this as promotion of a view contrary to the interests of the Krants, and therefore a violation of the Treaty Of All Honesty. They are demanding that you be recalled as UN representative of the Krants, Leaians and Solenscree.

S: The Coalition For Software Choice is nothing of the sort - it is simply a front for K-Soft, and promotes proprietary software over open source software by arguing that the majority of Krants believe open source to be a threat to intellectual property law. No independent survey has shown this to be the case - while open source software is not as pervasive in Krantir as in Shinaslea or Solenscree, the majority of computers have some open source software installed. The Treaty Of All Honesty does require that I make the United Nations aware of the opinions of the differing peoples comprising FDOS, and that I do not propose resolutions that would benefit one nation while harming another, but it does not place restrictions on the arguments used in repeals.

JC: Nevertheless, a new poll from KPI-Pollster of over 2000 Krants and Leaians showed record disapproval levels. Do you accept that your position is in jeopardy?

S: No I don't. First of all, the poll surveyed opinions on my delegacy of the region, not opinions of my job performance in generally. Secondly, the poll still showed 76% of Leaians and 51% of Krants approved of my delegacy. Now I'm not pretending I'm happy with those figures, and I know that many Krants are concerned that I now vote in line with a poll of the region's nations, rather than based on the opinions of the Krants, Leaians and Solenscree. I should point out, however, that the required changes to the Treaty Of All Honesty were approved by all parties, including the government of Krantir. I made a detailed argument in favour my position, which has since been published online. I would encourage my detractors to read this document, and understand that this policy does indeed benefit all our peoples by increasing our influence within the region.

So as you can see, Safalra seems unconcerned about disappointing poll results and the poor performance of his proposal. Time will tell whether his confidence is justified. The resolution should come to the vote on 10th November (Autumn 49th).

We've just read with interest an interview conducted with Mr. Safalra. First, we'd like to state that his apology is fully accepted, with our thanks for his courtesy.

As Mr. Safalra knows, we are not completely happy with the repeal text. However, the effect of the repeal will far outweigh the possibility that it might perpetuate some misunderstanding of the technical aspects of the situation. We look forward to giving strong support to the repeal when it comes to a vote.

By Order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Now you just have to wait the three or four weeks for it to get to vote. :p

The time, she is flying.

The time, she is flying.

OOC:That she is.

Good luck with this Safalra!

You have the support of the Queendom.

Tana Petrov
Temperary UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

The Meddling Monk stands to speak, "Dear sirs. As the official representative of Tzorsland I have sworn on the Eye of Harmony that ..."

Suddenly his attention was interrupted by a messinger calling his name, "Yes I am the Meddling Monk of Tzorsland." Looking at the paper he just received he continues to speak, "'Dear Moron. If you continue to persist on voting down every repeal resolution just because you're personally peeved that you can't have sex with a werepenguin anymore and if you continue to personally defame the good name of Tzorsland while at the same time revealing certain state secrets I will personally come back to the UN and use my tissue compression eliminator on your sorry ass. Sincerely The Master.'"

"Did I just read that out loud? Anyway, Tzorsland strongly supports this repeal and is certanly glad that since I'm not a deligate, my vote is not in the public record. Thank you very much."

OOC I'm glad I'm not a delegate either. :p

Voted for. Regional loyalty and the fact I agree with the repeal are two reasons.

We've voted FOR as well, and wish to applaud the author on a well-written and well-reasoned repeal.

I have a question. when you vote FOR, does that mean you want it changed/repealed or not? :confused:

I have a question. when you vote FOR, does that mean you want it changed/repealed or not?
If you vote FOR, you vote FOR the repeal i.e. you want to see the resolution Public Domain removed.

Ausserland has voted FOR the repeal, and we respectfully urge our colleagues to do likewise.

NSUN Resolution #60 does positive harm to the computing public. There are a number of reasons why authors of freeware and shareware may want and need to maintain copyright protection on their products. The resolution's provision placing all such software in the public domain eliminates that possibility. Authors will simply refuse to release their work under these conditions, reducing the amount of no-cost and low-cost software available.

Further, the premise of NSUN Resolution #60 is based on lack of understanding of intellectual property law. There is no need whatever for legislation to establish a "public domain". The public domain exists, even if no intellectual property law says so. It is a term used to describe intellectual property that is not protected by law. A law "establishing" the public domain is like a law establishing the atmosphere. Completely meaningless.

We commend the author of this repeal for his efforts to rid the NSUN of this misguided and harmful resolution.

By order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I will be advising my region to vote against this repeal do to the fact I do not want to see nations copywriting policy that the UN is responsible for. By getting rid of the public domain resolution we will lose the protection it provides to UN policies. If you repeal the public domain resolution then you no longer can garantee that the policies that the UN writes will remain uncopywrited.

I will be advising my region to vote against this repeal do to the fact I do not want to see nations copywriting policy that the UN is responsible for. By getting rid of the public domain resolution we will lose the protection it provides to UN policies. If you repeal the public domain resolution then you no longer can garantee that the policies that the UN writes will remain uncopywrited.

*applauds*

Congratulations on the most boneheaded reason I've ever heard for voting against a resolution.

I will be advising my region to vote against this repeal do to the fact I do not want to see nations copywriting policy that the UN is responsible for. By getting rid of the public domain resolution we will lose the protection it provides to UN policies. If you repeal the public domain resolution then you no longer can garantee that the policies that the UN writes will remain uncopywrited.

Please -- can you explain in 50 words or less what Public Domain protects and how? Because the way I read your post, it seems that you believe that it copyrights UN documents...and that's just plain crazy.

I will be advising my region to vote against this repeal do to the fact I do not want to see nations copywriting policy that the UN is responsible for. By getting rid of the public domain resolution we will lose the protection it provides to UN policies. If you repeal the public domain resolution then you no longer can garantee that the policies that the UN writes will remain uncopywrited.

Srangely enough, this concern does make some sense, but we believe it's unfounded. The resolution provides that a work will automatically be in the public domain if "it is a work of a UN Government". Now, if you look closely, you'll see the article used is "a", not "the". The clause applies to works produced by the governments of member nations, not the NSUN itself. Badly written, but it seems to us the intent and effect are clear enough.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

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

The Bold and underlined part for the current resolusion makes it clear that anything worked on in the UN will automatically become pubic information NOT able to be copywrited. So if you repeal this resolusion this function even if unintended by the origanal author will no longer be there for the UN's protection.

The works of the UN already fall directly into public domain. Repealing this won't suddenly change that they are public goods.

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

The Bold and underlined part for the current resolusion makes it clear that anything worked on in the UN will automatically become pubic information NOT able to be copywrited. So if you repeal this resolusion this function even if unintended by the origanal author will no longer be there for the UN's protection.

Sigh. Did you bother paying attention to what we said earlier? Do you understand the difference between a definite article and an indefinite article?

Let's say this did apply to the NSUN itself.... Just how is prohibiting the organization from using copyright, etc., protecting it?

And if you end up accidentally double-posting, common courtesy requires that you go back and delete one of the posts. Try it sometime.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Let's say this did apply to the NSUN itself.... Just how is prohibiting the organization from using copyright, etc., protecting it?

I understand what you all are saying and you do not have to keep repeating the same things in different ways to me. Here is how I read it. Yes it refers to a work of a UN nation. So if for instance a nation works up a UN resolution or any other form of work from that government this resolution protects that work from the copywrite of any other nation or private person.

This is how my country reads that line it makes things that are created by government automatically in the public sector hence protecting the work from any further privatization. Hence is why Im voting no.

I understand what you all are saying and you do not have to keep repeating the same things in different ways to me. Here is how I read it. Yes it refers to a work of a UN nation. So if for instance a nation works up a UN resolution or any other form of work from that government this resolution protects that work from the copywrite of any other nation or private person.

This is how my country reads that line it makes things that are created by government automatically in the public sector hence protecting the work from any further privatization. Hence is why Im voting no.
Would you mind taking the time to punctuate your posts, please? Reading your run-on sentences, without anything like commas to indicate separation of thoughts and ideas, isaboutasdifficulttoreadasthissentence.

In a rare example of support for property rights, the delegation from the People's Republic of Community Property has decided to support this repeal.

Our opposition to UNR #60 (“Public Domain (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=59)”) is grounded primarily but not exclusively in its fourth clause. The removal of copyright protection from “shareware” and “freeware” is counterproductive and unfair. As for the third clause, while we generally hold that governments should release their works into the public domain, we do not think it fair to require this; it should be up to each nation's taxpayers.

Taking these two clauses away from UNR #60 leaves two unnecessary clauses; by definition expiration of copyright protection places a work in the public domain, which - as some have already stated - pre-existed UNR #60 and will follow its demise.

We are not certain if a replacement is needed; we would support one demanding international recognition of “copyleft” clauses and perhaps an insistence that all works of the United Nations (as an institution) be “copylefted” (as well as a call for nations to do the same), but that's about it.

I understand what you all are saying and you do not have to keep repeating the same things in different ways to me. Here is how I read it. Yes it refers to a work of a UN nation. So if for instance a nation works up a UN resolution or any other form of work from that government this resolution protects that work from the copywrite of any other nation or private person.

This is how my country reads that line it makes things that are created by government automatically in the public sector hence protecting the work from any further privatization. Hence is why Im voting no.
You are aware that you can't copyright something unless you created it yourself? Even if this law was repealed, no one but the government who created the laws or resolutions can copyright them. I don't know where you got the idea that some other party can come along and copyright your nation's laws.

As for my vote, well I've got to wait for some response from our Region. Seeing the voting turnout in the past, though, I do believe it's safe to say that we'll be voting For.

Ran Daverson
UN Representative

(OOC) I will try making my posts easier to read for you, however I didnt see any rules in these forums about run on sentences.

(OOC) I will try making my posts easier to read for you, however I didnt see any rules in these forums about run on sentences.

OOC: It's called common courtesy. We don't want to have to decipher a bunch of illiterate posts.

You are aware that you can't copyright something unless you created it yourself? Even if this law was repealed, no one but the government who created the laws or resolutions can copyright them.

Yes! I'm aware of that. However it is also stoping the nation that creates the resolution from copyrighting it, which is good. I would like to keep it that way. By repealing this resolution you will get rid of that protection.

(OOC) I just dont see the moderation of the other posts grammer by the moderators. So I will do my best to start making it easier to read, however I hope the same moderation of my posts is used on everyones.

Yes! I'm aware of that. However it is also stoping the nation that creates the resolution from copyrighting it, which is good. I would like to keep it that way. By repealing this resolution you will get rid of that protection.
It's not so much a protection as a restriction... But tell me, why is it good for a nation's governments to be prevented from copyrighting its own legislation?

Ran Daverson
UN Representative

(OOC) I just dont see the moderation of the other posts grammer by the moderators.
I didn't sign that post as a moderator, which means I was making a request as player-to-player. You're welcome to be as illiterate-looking as you want, but folks most likely won't respect your opinions or respond to you.

Since you appear to want to debate, you should debate in a fashion that allows you to be understood. Simple as that.

That my friend is a very good question. The way it currently is makes it so that all nations have the oppertunity to claim they had a part in the passing of the resolution. If the current resolution is repealed that may become a foregone conclution. You will now have a loophole where a nation can claim they where the only nation that has ownership of legislation.

This here is a very bad presidence to set.

(OOC) Like I have stated, I will try and be more clear in my posts. Hope it is getting easier for people to understand.

I trust you mean "precedent."

(OOC) I will try making my posts easier to read for you, however I didnt see any rules in these forums about run on sentences.

OOC: There is no rule against run-on sentences. You were just being given good advice. If you want people to pay proper attention to your ideas and arguments, you need to write so that they can be easily and clearly understood. That's just common sense. If I have to struggle to puzzle out the meaning of a run-on sentence, I'm not likely to have a positive attitude toward you and your ideas.

That my friend is a very good question. The way it currently is makes it so that all nations have the oppertunity to claim they had a part in the passing of the resolution. If the current resolution is repealed that may become a foregone conclution. You will now have a loophole where a nation can claim they where the only nation that has ownership of legislation.

This here is a very bad presidence to set.
Er... let me get this straight. Are you saying that currently, I can claim 'partial ownership' of a piece of UN legislation because I voted for it? Because that is, quite frankly, nonsense. Not to mention that it isn't what the law being repealed says. It states that the legislation passed by a UN Nation is forcibly placed in the public domain. In other words, the laws passed for that specific member Nation, by its own government. It doesn't affect the UN Resolutions at all.

Ran Daverson
UN Representative

(OOC) Cluichstan this will be the only time I respond to your grammer posts. If you have something to add on the topic of the thread feel free. However I have already heard about the grammer thing. So please drop it. Thank you.

(OOC) Cluichstan this will be the only time I respond to your grammer posts. If you have something to add on the topic of the thread feel free. However I have already heard about the grammer thing. So please drop it. Thank you.

OOC: It's "grammar," and I wasn't correcting your grammar. I was correcting the word you made up. :p

Is not a resolution a piece of legislation, brought up for a vote by a UN government nation? So is it a good idea to allow them to be able to copyright that legislation? If not then you dont want to repeal this resolution.

Are we seriously arguing about the copyright of UN resolutions? And whether or not a nation has a copyright over them?

By the gods, I never wanted to do this...

(he picks up a phone, and speaks)

Yes, that's right. L-a-b-o-r... Okay, okay. Fire I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannon!

(He hangs up)

Praise the gods, he's gone!

Is not a resolution a piece of legislation, brought up for a vote by a UN government nation? So is it a good idea to allow them to be able to copyright that legislation? If not then you dont want to repeal this resolution.
A UN Resolution is something created by the United Nations government itself, not a UN Nation's government. The clause in the Resolution being repealed applies to creations of the governments of individual nations, and not to the UN government itself.

I'm beginning to feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, here...

Ran Daverson
UN Representative.

Please note that there is nothing in UN Copyright Convention allowing governments to own copyrights.

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

Please note that there is nothing in UN Copyright Convention allowing governments to own copyrights.

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations
The Congressional Republic of Ceorana
And there you have it! Thank you, Ambassador, that clinches the whole thing.

Daverson bows to the Ambassador in question before resuming his seat.

Ran Daverson
UN Representative

Two questions:

Who would copyright UN legislation?
Why on earth would anybody want to?

Works pass into the public domain when:
(1) the term of copyright for the work has expired


Assuming we don't see a further extension of the NS copryight duration. That has been the trend in most nations with copyright durations of similar length.

I support the repeal, and hope for a genuine replacement. Let us know if our nation may in any way support a replacement.

On a sideways related note, there isn't anything prohibitting governments from owning copyrights, either. That, to me, is a good thing. While there is good argument to be made that a nation's citizens have some right to know what the gov't is doing, there is no real call for them to have access to the specific designs, schematics, etc, for every little thing that government agencies have created.

As an example, if a nation has developed a mobile station, designed to protect and transport visitting dignitaries in times of conflict, the public can know about it, but I don't see why they should have access to all of the details about its makeup, strengths, weaknesses, etc. Were the government able to copyright such things, there would be no concern over it. If such information is forced into public domain.....

Perhaps I am misinterpretting the whole situation, however. I will admit that my familiarity with the legalities in these areas are shaky, at best.

On a sideways related note, there isn't anything prohibitting governments from owning copyrights, either. That, to me, is a good thing. While there is good argument to be made that a nation's citizens have some right to know what the gov't is doing, there is no real call for them to have access to the specific designs, schematics, etc, for every little thing that government agencies have created.

As an example, if a nation has developed a mobile station, designed to protect and transport visitting dignitaries in times of conflict, the public can know about it, but I don't see why they should have access to all of the details about its makeup, strengths, weaknesses, etc. Were the government able to copyright such things, there would be no concern over it. If such information is forced into public domain.....

Perhaps I am misinterpretting the whole situation, however.
Yes, you're confusing two different issues. Copyright allows authors to place restrictions on the redistribution of works. Whether government works are in the public domain or not does not effect government disclosure policies. (OOC: In the US all government works are public domain, but this doesn't mean that they have to publish every document written by the CIA or FBI.)

Thanks for the clarification, sorry for my confusion. Already voted for the repeal, by the way. Nicely done.

Yes, you're confusing two different issues. Copyright allows authors to place restrictions on the redistribution of works. Whether government works are in the public domain or not does not effect government disclosure policies. (OOC: In the US all government works are public domain, but this doesn't mean that they have to publish every document written by the CIA or FBI.)

The representative is entirely correct.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I back this repeal completely. I am personnally opposed to anything that even resembles "Freedom" for my citizens. However free enterprise is essential to a strong economy and we should avoid passing resolutions that hinder this.


Gustav Brickilini
Supreme Ruler of Legoland.

I'm all for it. The original resolution was horrid, and does not deserve to be.

The people of Daverana agree that the original proposal is flawed and support this repeal, and will urge their Delegate to support it as well.

LAE voted for this repeal, in particular about shareware which don't have to be automatically in public domain.

Condemning the hardship the resolution has caused for shareware authors who had relied for their income on works published prior to the passage of the resolution,


Next you'll be writing a resolution to protect Unicorns?

Next you'll be writing a resolution to protect Unicorns?
I'm sure that's a very clever remark, but I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm sure that's a very clever remark, but I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about.

How many people rely on shareware for their income? I know a lot of successful shareware developers, but the shareware isn't their source of income. It's great resume padding though :) The shareware serves to increase the value of their brand.

Off the top of my head? I'd say Khaled Mardam-Bey, and Irfan Skiljan certainly did.

Off the top of my head? I'd say Khaled Mardam-Bey, and Irfan Skiljan certainly did.

2 people sounds about right.

(You know it's been difficult for me to avoid making a "Protectnig unicorns? I'm sure there is a point to that somewhere" remarks and well I've finally given in and done it by saying I wasn't going to do it. Anyway I think I had a point to make so I better get around to it.)

Considering that the general shareware movement was hardly a success in the first place and that the ability for anyone to open an internet store has resulted in a more general trial vesion / buy version model, it's hard to really show the numbers on people who depended on shareware for actual revenue.

I doubt it was enough to replace their day jobs, but it kept them from having to take two jobs. (Or perhaps it allowed them to see an occasional sportsgame or two.) Actually I have a number of sharware programs that I use at work, but I also have another of the trial version / buy version programs as well. Such is life.

(You know it's been difficult for me to avoid making a "Protectnig unicorns? I'm sure there is a point to that somewhere" remarks and well I've finally given in and done it by saying I wasn't going to do it. Anyway I think I had a point to make so I better get around to it.)

Considering that the general shareware movement was hardly a success in the first place and that the ability for anyone to open an internet store has resulted in a more general trial vesion / buy version model, it's hard to really show the numbers on people who depended on shareware for actual revenue.

I doubt it was enough to replace their day jobs, but it kept them from having to take two jobs. (Or perhaps it allowed them to see an occasional sportsgame or two.) Actually I have a number of sharware programs that I use at work, but I also have another of the trial version / buy version programs as well. Such is life.

I love the shareware model :) I've used a few dozen shareware products, and purchased licenses for a handful, as well as expensing the purchase of more.

But there is no need for hyperbole. Someone who is capable of creating shareware software that results in income is hardly dependent on that income. They have demonstrated valuable skills, that can be used to make money any number of ways.

What I like best about shareware is it often serves to work a lot like patronage, or donation. An artist creates some software, then freely distributes it. Those users who appreciate the product, and can afford to, donates to the artist. This encourages the artist to make more shareware products, and to improve existing ones. It also encourages others to create shareware.

It's wonderful for artists in smaller countries, who don't have access to the social machinery necessary to easily participate in some more immediately profitable endeavor. They can create valuable works, and release them to the world. They benefit from the economy of scale, (every computer user in the world with access to the web could potentially evaluate their product). I often see the model used by people first entering the professional market. They create something a lot more impressive then my senior project :)

2 people sounds about right.
OOC: The number of people in the real world relying on shareware for their income is irrelevant - it's the number in the NationStates IC world that matters.

IC: There were several dozen people in the Safalran land of Krantir who relied for their income on works published as shareware prior to the passage of this resolution. No doubt there are other in other nations, but even if there weren't the UN cannot justify, just because a group is very small, keeping on the books a resolution that discriminates against that group.

We believe the representative of Discoraversalism is generally correct in his basic assertion. We believe the number of software authors who rely on their shareware production for basic income is minimal, at best. However, authors of shareware do see it as a means of adding to their income, perhaps providing some money for discretionary spending. To place their products automatically in the public domain, allowing anyone to legally rip off the results of their efforts and request the fee, would reduce their expectations of income. It would reduce their incentive to produce such products.

The provision in the resolution concerning shareware and freeware is both nonsensical and a disservice to the computing public.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

On a sideways related note, there isn't anything prohibitting governments from owning copyrights, either. That, to me, is a good thing. While there is good argument to be made that a nation's citizens have some right to know what the gov't is doing, there is no real call for them to have access to the specific designs, schematics, etc, for every little thing that government agencies have created.

As an example, if a nation has developed a mobile station, designed to protect and transport visitting dignitaries in times of conflict, the public can know about it, but I don't see why they should have access to all of the details about its makeup, strengths, weaknesses, etc. Were the government able to copyright such things, there would be no concern over it. If such information is forced into public domain.....

Perhaps I am misinterpretting the whole situation, however. I will admit that my familiarity with the legalities in these areas are shaky, at best.

Forgive any perception of impertinence, but aren't you discussing something more along the lines of patent as opposed to copyright?

Congratulations on the vote tally so far, and best of luck for the repeal's continuation into law. Or anti-law. Or...whatever. I voted for the repeal.

It seems to me that public domain as a concept needs little more than definition as a place copyrighted works go when they're no longer copyrighted, or uncopyrightable as defined by, well, copyright law.

Subjecting the concept of public domain to legislation strikes me as being akin to not only crafting legislation to delineate "Law X", but crafting coaxial legislation to expressly delineate what constitutes every possible breach of "Law X." It seems inefficient. That and the shareware clause got my vote.

Forgive any perception of impertinence, but aren't you discussing something more along the lines of patent as opposed to copyright?

Patent would refer more to inventions and the like. You're right. My example was not apt to the point. A reference to written material would have been more appropriate. Say, a dissertation of governmental ideologies that the governement wished to publish for profit. They might wish to copyright it to ensure that it isn't reproduced and redistributed without their permission.

Forgive any perception of impertinence, but aren't you discussing something more along the lines of patent as opposed to copyright?

The confusion of the representative of Intangelon is quite understandable. As is often the case with discussion of intellectual property, apples have gotten mixed up with oranges. As a matter of fact, there are some fruits in the vegetable bin, too. Maybe a few points of information would help.

First, the term "public domain" does not only refer to copyright law. If I say that intellectual property is "in the public domain", it means that it is not protected by any intellectual property law: copyright, patent, trademark, etc.

Second, in the case cited, the design of the mobile station might well be patentable. Documents or other material relating strengths, weaknesses, etc., would not be. And you have to remember -- a patent does not hide the information about the design. In fact, it makes it available to the public. What it does is prevents use of the design without license.

Finally, we need to be sure we understand the difference between intellectual property law and other restrictions on dissemination of information. Just because material isn't protected by intellectual property law doesn't mean it has to be made available to the public. Other laws may prohibit that. An example from the mythical land of the US.... A government scientist writes a report on the efects of a nuclear weapon. Not patentable. No trademark involved. And the policy of the Federal Government is that it does not copyright material it produces. So, as far as intellectual property law is concerned, it's in the public domain. But the Atomic Energy Act classifies the information. The information is protected under that law.

Hope that helps.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Nothing should be taken as public domain enless its sold. Otherwise the government/group who took it becomes more of a dictatorship.

We do not feel that it is necessary for the UN to attempt to define what is in the "public domain" through legislation. In addition, we strongly oppose the reference to freeware/shareware contained in the original legislation. Therefore, Altanar supports this repeal.

Yawn. We support, yadda yadda yadda.

I'm going back to my office. To... do some... paperwork...


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

*A whole bunch of helpful stuff*

Both of you have my thanks. My perception of this issue is now immeasurably clearer.

OOC: The number of people in the real world relying on shareware for their income is irrelevant - it's the number in the NationStates IC world that matters.

So what, we just use made up numbers to prove our cases?

Well nobody in a socialist society uses publishing as their source of income. All left-wing countries should also realise that ideas are part of the human collective. One person's ideas most likely would not have been possible without the collective ideas of the people and generations before them. And moreover, if someone didn't invent an idea, someone else probably would of. Most ideas are achieved in groups (research groups, etc) and why should one person achieve more credit than another?

Here's a solar panel (http://alternativesolar.com/images/solar%20panel.jpg) to go play with: no need for your sub-Marxist shit here.

Dude, no need to go saying " sub-marxist shit ". People are entitled to opinions, we're not Mccarthyists here :)

"sub-Marxist?"

We all live in a red submarine; a red submarine; a red submarine!

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/11725682/171476604.jpg

http://www.safalra.com/hotlinkable/pankrantia-news-logo.png

Pankrantia News: Breaking News: Resolution passes

The United Nations has just announced that the resolution 'Repeal "Public Domain"' passed, with 10360 votes in favour and 2529 against. A small group of approximately one hundred freeware and shareware authors are celebrating in the central square of Drak. Later we hope to secure an interview with Safalra, the resolution's author.

Our heartiest congratulations to the representative of the Fleeting Daydream of Safalra on the overwhelming passage of this much-needed and long-overdue repeal.

By order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The Queendom of Karmicaria congratulates the Delegation of Safalra!

Good work!

Tana Petrov
Temperary UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

The Constitutional Monarchy of Islenska would also like to congratulate the UN Representative of Safalra!

We congratulate Safalra on the passage of this legislation!

Just wanted to add our congratulations to those of everyone else.

Sixthed.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

On behalf of The People's Democratic Republic of Yelda, I would like to congratulate The Fleeting Daydream of Safalra on the passage of this worthy repeal.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Attache, Yeldan Committee For State Security
Acting Ambassador

All left-wing countries should also realise that ideas are part of the human collective. One person's ideas most likely would not have been possible without the collective ideas of the people and generations before them. And moreover, if someone didn't invent an idea, someone else probably would of. Most ideas are achieved in groups (research groups, etc) and why should one person achieve more credit than another?

Great point, but this thread will be closed soon, so we won't really get a chance to discuss it here. Hope you stick around long enough to re make it during the next IP resolution discussion :)

Well nobody in a socialist society uses publishing as their source of income. All left-wing countries should also realise that ideas are part of the human collective.

Human collective? When did we become one with the Borg?

Human collective? When did we become one with the Borg?

You're right, we all unconnected and alone, so very alone.

You're right, we all unconnected and alone, so very alone.

Was that sarcasm? I think it might have been. That's kinda funny.

Some of the biggest leaps forward in human innovation, thought, and scientific discovery and been accomplished by single individuals, with minimal support from others where there's any outside support at all. Why should that single person not be creditted for their work? Because someone else would have eventually thought of it anyways? Good for that other person, but they didn't think of it first. Someone else was smarter, faster, more innovative, more creative, or simply more lucky, and got to the prize first. What's wrong with awarding excellence and accomplishment?

Belatedly, the New Cultural Revolution expresses its relief at the removal of this odious resolution from the UN statute.

Benedictions,

Belatedly, the New Cultural Revolution expresses its relief at the removal of this odious resolution from the UN statute.

Benedictions,

For a change, we are in agreement. Cluichstan is glad that this tripe is gone as well.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Was that sarcasm? I think it might have been. That's kinda funny.

Some of the biggest leaps forward in human innovation, thought, and scientific discovery and been accomplished by single individuals, with minimal support from others where there's any outside support at all. Why should that single person not be creditted for their work? Because someone else would have eventually thought of it anyways? Good for that other person, but they didn't think of it first. Someone else was smarter, faster, more innovative, more creative, or simply more lucky, and got to the prize first. What's wrong with awarding excellence and accomplishment?

Credit is verrrrrrrrrrry important. I'm a firm supporter of reputation based economies.

It was sarcasm.

I'm a firm supporter of reputation based economies.
Excellent - the currency of FDOS is the reputation, so we literally have a reputation-based economy. ;-)