NationStates Jolt Archive

IC:

We cleared off the old desk. It was mostly rotting documents, random pda's with archaic software, etc. The one thing we found worth preserving was an attempted submission of a draft protecting the rights of artists.

Basically it was supposed to clear up a few edge cases, where artists had somehow signed a right to their own likeness, name, and everything they'd ever done. The artist needed someone else's permission to eat breakfast outside, as it was construed as a live performance.

Mind you, it's been hard for our country to stay focused about much recently. The flood of cheap pharmaceuticals that are now available worldwide have greatly changed the social norms. A fair number of lives have been saved, but their worried about the affect this culture has on the youth.

So... do you have a proposal, or are you just jacking bandwidth again?

Being new to the United Nations I must ask if it is customary for delegations to initiate discussions such as this where no new legislation, or any other clear purpose, is evident?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Being new to the United Nations I must ask if it is customary for delegations to initiate discussions such as this where no new legislation, or any other clear purpose, is evident?

Nope. In fact it's something you usually get yelled at and insulted for.

While the concept here is rather interesting, I think it's far too limited (and unlikely) to constitute it's own resolution. And if it isn't already somehow dealt with in a resolution, it should be attached to another broader proposal...perhaps Abolition of Slavery....

Nope. In fact it's something you usually get yelled at and insulted for.

While the concept here is rather interesting, I think it's far too limited (and unlikely) to constitute it's own resolution. And if it isn't already somehow dealt with in a resolution, it should be attached to another broader proposal...perhaps Abolition of Slavery....

Perhaps our records on the tone of this hall weren't exagerating.

Being new to the United Nations I must ask if it is customary for delegations to initiate discussions such as this where no new legislation, or any other clear purpose, is evident?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

No, it is not customary. However, the representative of Discoraversalism has amply and repeatedly demonstrated that he has no respect whatever for the customs, traditions, or rules of this Assembly -- or for its members.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Flash Blonde: "Hey Red Hot, what's that dull thudding sound I'm hearing."
Red Hot Blonde: "That's the sound of IGNORE canons going off. Ignore it."

No, it is not customary. However, the representative of Discoraversalism has amply and repeatedly demonstrated that he has no respect whatever for the customs, traditions, or rules of this Assembly -- or for its members.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

I won't speak for any previous representative, but we don't have anything against the members of the UN, and while we are only 10 weeks through our extensive study of the rules, they seem fine too. As to customs and traditions, should they not change?

There has been report released by the highest authority, documenting "a disturbing slide in the debate around here, and people seem to be sniping more than usual, and we've had some borderline flames bandied about. This isn't acceptable, especially not in this forum, where you're supposed to be diplomatic."

As such I'm surprised to hear someone defend the customs and traditions that have resulted in such.

Well, it seems like it might be hard to comment on a proposal that doesn't seem to exist.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative
Delegate-elect, International Democratic Union

Well, it seems like it might be hard to comment on a proposal that doesn't seem to exist.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative
Delegate-elect, International Democratic Union

Oh I'll grant that completely. "Rights of the artist" is a legal term, I've seen it implemented in some countries, but I don't know that much about it. An ugly preliminary draft was left on my desk by my predecessor, and I'm just trying to complete the due diligance.

(rifles through papers)

Ah I see, it was misfiled, the supporting material was under Rights of the Author, not Rights of the Artist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_the_Author
"
It is an essential feature of authors' rights and of many copyright laws that the object which is protected must arise from the creativity of the author rather than from his or her simple effort or investment (see Feist v. Rural in the United States): both French and German copyright laws protect "works of the spirit" (oeuvres d'esprit). This has led civil law systems to adopt a strong link between the rights (at least initially) and the person of the author: the initial ownership rights by a corporation is severely restricted or even impossible (as in Germany[3]).
"

a strong distiniction is made between the inalienable rights of the author of a work, and the rights that may be acquired by others:

"Related (or neighbouring) rights

Related rights, often referred to as neighbouring rights as a more direct translation of the French droits voisins, are property rights which are granted to people who are not the "author" of the work in the creative sense of the term. Typically these include performers, producers of phonograms (records, CDs, etc.), producers of films (as opposed to directors or scriptwriters) and broadcasting organisations. Related rights are generally more restricted than author's rights in civil law countries, although they may be equivalent in common law countries where both fall under the same concept of "copyright". They not directly covered by the Berne Convention, but are internationally protected by other treaties such as the Rome Convention."

So, what are you proposing? Or are you just redirecting us to Wikipedia?

This is probably a waste of my time,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador

New Leicestershire and other new nations, please feel free to open polite and reasonable discussions that aren't about proposals at any time. Just remember that they must be relevant to the NS UN. (Discussions about real-world matters belong in General.)

Discoraversalism, I deleted one of your threads earlier. I've left this one open to give you a chance to state clearly the topic you want to discuss.

Real-world references aren't relevant at this stage. Please relate your subject directly to the NS multiverse.

Everyone else, please don't try to discuss the topic until you know what topic you're discussing.

Interesting idea. It seems too narrow in scope, however. I can't imagine it flying very well as a resolution, considering how many tightropes you'd need to walk to word it in such a way that wouldn't compete with copyright conventions or other UN legislation already in place...or indeed to get it to be a resolution without being somehow afoul of the rules governing their submission.

As for the bloke not haivng the right to eat food on his balcony because he sold the rights to his "works" in perpetuity, well, that's what you get for not reading the fine print. Is a contract like that even legal? It wouldn't be here.

Interesting idea. It seems too narrow in scope, however. I can't imagine it flying very well as a resolution, considering how many tightropes you'd need to walk to word it in such a way that wouldn't compete with copyright conventions or other UN legislation already in place...or indeed to get it to be a resolution without being somehow afoul of the rules governing their submission.

As for the bloke not haivng the right to eat food on his balcony because he sold the rights to his "works" in perpetuity, well, that's what you get for not reading the fine print. Is a contract like that even legal? It wouldn't be here.

I fear you hit the nail on the head, I don't have a concrete resoltuion yet because I'm trying to find something that would be legal giving the current UN laws.

Looking at UNCC:
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Copyright_Convention

Rereading, I think I over exagerated how easily an artist could be preyed upon.

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

The artist never loses the ability to "use" his work. I'm just not sure how to interprate "use" here. I'm betting they can't lose the ability to perform a song they wrote. Can they lose ability to repurpose a software algorithm want to include in a program they will sell to someone else?

I think a "Rights of the Author" legislation could still be written limiting the power corporations have to enforce copyright, but I can't yet find a legal way to do it. :)