PASSED: WA Copyright Charter

[Glomeland]

I don't really see what you're trying to get at.

That has become apparent, Doctor.

Eyðvør Eilifsdóttir
World Assembly Ambassador
The Republic of Glomeland

[Qumkent]

snip

It seems the Good Doctor has become prey to some outlandish philosophy which has warped not only his sense of decency and logic, but of reality also. That is a pity.


Yours,

[Gobbannium]

To pick on a minor point, since others are quite capably demonstrating the inadequacy of the principle argument:

I note that nobody yet has touched on any rights to reassign these rights post mortem that the creator might possess if they should return in spiritual form (i.e. as a ghost) for this purpose...

Bears Armed is free to write those laws itself.

After the passage of this resolution, Bears Armed is not free to do any such thing. The resolution is entirely absolute on this point; should the copyright owner fail to have explicitly disbursed ownership in his or her will, it remains with them and may not be reassigned by any legal mechanism. The only question is as to whether the ghost is legally a person, and thus able to excercise the rights they still have.

Why does the absolute nature of your own words continue to elude you, Dr Castro?

[Glen-Rhodes]

It seems the Good Doctor has become prey to some outlandish philosophy which has warped not only his sense of decency and logic, but of reality also. That is a pity.

Now that you've finished insulting my intelligence, do mind answering my question? If there's no logical or moral reason for the copyright to be transferred to the family, why is it logical or moral for the copyright to transferred to everybody else? Why do you insist that copyright law discriminate against the next-of-kin, the traditional party that unallocated assets transfer to after death?

After the passage of this resolution, Bears Armed is not free to do any such thing. The resolution is entirely absolute on this point; should the copyright owner fail to have explicitly disbursed ownership in his or her will, it remains with them and may not be reassigned by any legal mechanism. The only question is as to whether the ghost is legally a person, and thus able to excercise the rights they still have.

Citations, if you will? I'm pretty certain that (a) the details in question apply to owners (different, mind you, from authors), and (b) the resolution does not restrict how nations determine the owner. Nothing in the resolution states "ownership may not be transferred" or "owner may only be transferred via legal will". If an owner dies and the copyright is transferred to some other party... and then the owner miraculously reappears, national law would dictate who then owns the copyright. I apparently cannot stress enough that this resolution does not write national copyright law. It merely mandates certain rights and legitimatizes national copyright law on an international scope.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Qumkent]

It seems the Good Doctor has become prey to some outlandish philosophy which has warped not only his sense of decency and logic, but of reality also. That is a pity.

Now that you've finished insulting my intelligence, do mind answering my question? If there's no logical or moral reason for the copyright to be transferred to the family, why is it logical or moral for the copyright to transferred to everybody else? Why do you insist that copyright law discriminate against the next-of-kin, the traditional party that unallocated assets transfer to after death?

Dr Castro governments should act in the interests of as many of those they govern as possible, indeed if possible they should act in the interests of the entirety of those they govern. The presumption that unwilled copyright should be simply passed in to the hands of one or small number of familial heirs clearly does not work for the greater good, on the contrary it works for the benefit of the smallest number of person possible.

Yours,

[Glen-Rhodes]

Dr Castro governments should act in the interests of as many of those they govern as possible, indeed if possible they should act in the interests of the entirety of those they govern. The presumption that unwilled copyright should be simply passed in to the hands of one or small number of familial heirs clearly does not work for the greater good, on the contrary it works for the benefit of the smallest number of person possible.

By this rationale, Your Excellency, should governments be releasing homes, heirlooms -- the entirety of the deceased's estate, to the general public? Auction everything off to the highest bidder and pay down the national debt? Hardly seem fair, to me.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Charlotte Ryberg]

These are the basic fundamentals of copyright laws, honoured ambassador. Member states may honour copyrights being transferred between owners or being inherited.

[Qumkent]

By this rationale, Your Excellency, should governments be releasing homes, heirlooms -- the entirety of the deceased's estate, to the general public? Auction everything off to the highest bidder and pay down the national debt? Hardly seem fair, to me.

Dr Castro we will direct you to our earlier explanation of this rationale.

if the government of the Principality of Qumkent bulldozed a legally willed dwelling then it would naturally be sued. However if a copyright holder dies intestate their intellectual property may be contested by anyone with a legitimate legal claim on them, our civil courts decide which claim is the most legally substantial.

If no claims on the intellectual property of a deceased intestate person exist or can be substantiated these rights may be dissolved and the intellectual property freely used by whom ever wishes to do so.

Dead people do not have rights your Excellency, pretending that the state should act as the intellectual property rights executor of a dead person with no will is absurd and pointless.

Yours,

[Qumkent]

These are the basic fundamentals of copyright laws, honoured ambassador. Member states may honour copyrights being transferred between owners or being inherited.

Exactly what does your Excellency imagine was edifying or contributory about this comment ? What does your Excellency mean ? Who is your Excellency directing their comments to ?



Yours,

[Glomeland]

These are the basic fundamentals of copyright laws, honoured ambassador. Member states may honour copyrights being transferred between owners or being inherited.

Exactly what does your Excellency imagine was edifying or contributory about this comment ? What does your Excellency mean ? Who is your Excellency directing their comments to ?



Yours,

I believe they may have been directed at Dr. Castro, to what purpose I can't imagine.

Eyðvør Eilifsdóttir
World Assembly Ambassador
The Republic of Glomeland

[Qumkent]

I believe they may have been directed at Dr. Castro, to what purpose I can't imagine.

We did ask in earnest and not in spite, we were interested genuinely. Thank you your Excellency.


Yours,

[Glen-Rhodes]

Yours,

What is that supposed to do for me? I was not asking about intellectual property. Your Excellency seems to think that next-of-kin inheritance of intellectual property is illogical. I am asking if Your Excellency thinks that next-of-kin inheritance of any property is likewise illogical, and if not, then why the discrimination against intellectual property?

Furthermore, if Your Excellency truly believes that it is "absurd" for the "state [to] act as the intellectual property rights executor", why is Your Excellency advocating the state-enforced transfer of unwilled intellectual property in to the public domain?

I also question why Your Excellency believes that Big Publishing, Inc. profiting off of the work of John Doe, and the Doe family (to keep the scenario of next-of-kin inheritance) not seeing a penny is working "for the common good". Especially considering that Big Publishing, Inc. did not have to invest anything, since they snatched the book from the public domain. Especially considering that the Doe family is.. well, family; I can't believe that Your Excellency would fine no worth in that fact.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Qumkent]

What is that supposed to do for me? I was not asking about intellectual property. Your Excellency seems to think that next-of-kin inheritance of intellectual property is illogical. I am asking if Your Excellency thinks that next-of-kin inheritance of any property is likewise illogical, and if not, then why the discrimination against intellectual property?

The law in the CSKU treats intellectual property differently because in fact it is different to physical and financial property. By it's very nature it cannot be treated in the same way.

Furthermore, if Your Excellency truly believes that it is "absurd" for the "state [to] act as the intellectual property rights executor", why is Your Excellency advocating the state-enforced transfer of unwilled intellectual property in to the public domain?

Dr Castro you are deliberately conflating two different kinds of dispersal of a dead person's property to contend a position which does not make sense.

Big Publishing, Inc. profiting[...]

...from free dispersal of some kinds of intellectual property is enabled to employ hundreds of thousands of people who otherwise would not have had a job and would have lived in penury. It is a simple equation Dr Castro.



Yours,

[Apollyon1976]

The Nation of Apollyon1976 supports this measure and will vote in favor of it.

[Wencee]

My region must abstain due to a massive deadlock on this resolution.

[Gobbannium]

After the passage of this resolution, Bears Armed is not free to do any such thing. The resolution is entirely absolute on this point; should the copyright owner fail to have explicitly disbursed ownership in his or her will, it remains with them and may not be reassigned by any legal mechanism. The only question is as to whether the ghost is legally a person, and thus able to excercise the rights they still have.

Citations, if you will?

Certainly.

PROTECTS the right of a copyright holder or intellectual property owner to sell, trade, or otherwise transfer their exclusive right to another party; to release the copyrighted work or intellectual property in to the public domain; and to license the use of copyrighted work or intellectual property to any person or institution, under any reasonable terms they so wish.

I'm pretty certain that (a) the details in question apply to owners (different, mind you, from authors),

At what point, Dr Castro, did we refer to authors above?

and (b) the resolution does not restrict how nations determine the owner.

Quite incorrect. The definition states:

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, “copyright law” as any law that grants the author of an original work of creative artistic or literary value exclusive right for a certain period of time in relation to that work,[snip]

Thereby clearly the author of a work is its initial owner, and the previously cited section leaves transfer of ownership definitively in the current owner's hands.

[Glen-Rhodes]

PROTECTS the right of a copyright holder or intellectual property owner to sell, trade, or otherwise transfer their exclusive right to another party; to release the copyrighted work or intellectual property in to the public domain; and to license the use of copyrighted work or intellectual property to any person or institution, under any reasonable terms they so wish.

And where in that paragraph is the protection from the government transferring ownership from one party to another? I most certainly would not have prevented this; I find value in judicial systems deciding who the legal owner is, including in eminent domain cases.

Quite incorrect. The definition states:

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, “copyright law” as any law that grants the author of an original work of creative artistic or literary value exclusive right for a certain period of time in relation to that work,[snip]

Thereby clearly the author of a work is its initial owner, and the previously cited section leaves transfer of ownership definitively in the current owner's hands.

Yes, but refer to the above.

The law in the CSKU treats intellectual property differently because in fact it is different to physical and financial property. By it's very nature it cannot be treated in the same way.

And that is where our two nations are divided: Glen-Rhodes does not find that intellectual property is inherently separate from other assets.

Dr Castro you are deliberately conflating two different kinds of dispersal of a dead person's property to contend a position which does not make sense.

How so?

...from free dispersal of some kinds of intellectual property is enabled to employ hundreds of thousands of people who otherwise would not have had a job and would have lived in penury. It is a simple equation Dr Castro.

Really, Mongkha? You expect me to entertain the idea that "hundreds of thousands of people" rely on publishing companies all but stealing a dead author's work? If that's how it is in the CSKU, then I think your economic policymakers should be reevaluating their marketplace. True, some companies would benefit from publishing such material, but a sound company would not rely on public domain materials. Either way, the works would enter the public domain after so many years. In this scenario, I'm sure CSKU's public domain publishers have enough material to keep them solvent until the initial wave of public domain transfers, if the authors in CSKU don't already take the initiative to release their works in the public domain after their death.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]