DRAFT: Repeal UNCC

[Discoraversalism]

EDIT: SUPPORT IS NEEDED
http://www.nationstates.net/20054/pa...posal/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/pa...posal/start=20

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

[The Most Glorious Hack]

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]

[Discoraversalism]

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.

[GMC Military Arms]

Originally Posted by Discoraversalism

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?

[Discoraversalism]

Originally Posted by GMC Military Arms

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.

[Ardchoille]

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.

[Discoraversalism]

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

[Ardchoille]

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.

[Discoraversalism]

Originally Posted by Ardchoille

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.

[Ardchoille]

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.

[The Realm of The Realm]

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 .

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.

[HotRodia]

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

[Flibbleites]

[Discoraversalism]

Originally Posted by Ardchoille

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.

Originally Posted by Ardchoille

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.

Originally Posted by The Realm of The Realm

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

Originally Posted by Newfoundcanada

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

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.

Originally Posted by HotRodia

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

Originally Posted by Flibbleites

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

Originally Posted by The Realm of The Realm

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.