[PASSED] Repeal "World Assembly Copyright Charter"

[Alqania]

UNDERSTANDING that the primary purpose of copyright is to promote the creation of new works;

NOTING that it is very difficult to motivate people who have been dead for a quarter century;

PUZZLED why the World Assembly nonetheless insists upon this as the minimum term for copyright;

“You don't think that knowing that even if you die the day after your book is published your family (or other designated heirs) will still get to enjoy the royalties from it for 25 years after that could help to provide motivation? If you make copyrights 'lifetime-only' instead then anybody who's elderly and/or seriously ill might feel a reduced motivation to spend some of what might be their final days writing...”

"A good point", Lord Raekevik said and nodded, "but given the diversity of species and cultures within the WA and vast differences in lifespan, it would seem to me that 25 years may have very different significance in different member states; to some 25 years may feel like an eternity while to others it may seem like a fleeting moment. Is it not rather crude to mandate that so diverse member states all have the same minimum term for copyright?"

[Embolalia]

UNDERSTANDING that the primary purpose of copyright is to promote the creation of new works;

NOTING that it is very difficult to motivate people who have been dead for a quarter century;

PUZZLED why the World Assembly nonetheless insists upon this as the minimum term for copyright;

“You don't think that knowing that even if you die the day after your book is published your family (or other designated heirs) will still get to enjoy the royalties from it for 25 years after that could help to provide motivation? If you make copyrights 'lifetime-only' instead then anybody who's elderly and/or seriously ill might feel a reduced motivation to spend some of what might be their final days writing...”

I'm not suggesting making copyright lifetime-only. I'm suggesting leaving the determination of the term of copyright up to individual nations. (For what it's worth, I would personally like, but not mandate at the WA level, a term of 10, maybe 20 years or the life of the author, whichever is greater.)

[Goobergunchia]

We would prefer a fixed term of copyright, which would not depend on the author's lifetime. If the author was sick and dying, the fixed term would naturally protect the author's heirs until it expired.

We are of course open to arguments that the diverse nature of World Assembly species makes mandating such a term of copyright at the World Assembly level inappropriate.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador
Citizen of the Rejected Realms

[Glen-Rhodes]

That how fair use works, though. It's an affirmative defense. You're taking somebody's copyrighted work and using it without their permission. Fair use isn't meant to act as a safe haven in hopes that the accuser won't be able to convince a judge or jury. Artists and authors have their rights duly provided to them by law. If you're going to use their works for free, without permission, the onus is generally on you to prove that it's fair use if a case ever arises.

What you're saying here is, I am correct about the way that fair use is laid out in the resolution, yes? Even if you think I'm wrong in objecting to it, you do agree with me about how fair use works under this resolution?

So long as you are not insinuating that people must prove fair use before utilizing copyrighted works, yes, you're correct. Fair use is an affirmative defense. The onus is upon the person claiming fair use, not the person seeking to have their legal rights not infringed upon. Affirmative defense also does not mean what you think it means. Has the Embolalian delegation even done a cursory study of fair use? Because it doesn't seem so.

Well established in your jurisdiction, m'colleague. And frankly, m'colleague, I don't give a damn what the established precedent is. The right to free speech comes first. Period. Copyright is a concession.

Since you clearly hate it, just go ahead and write a screed against copyright. Don't say, "Well, this is how it's supposed to work, but I'm going to criticize it for being faulty anyways." At least we'll have an honest debate.

And stop with this "in your nation" crap. If that's now how fair use works in Embolalia, then Embolalia is doing it wrong.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Linux and the X]

And stop with this "in your nation" crap. If that's now how fair use works in Embolalia, then Embolalia is doing it wrong.

Yes of course, Dr. Castro. Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. We understand.

[Snefaldia]

And stop with this "in your nation" crap. If that's now how fair use works in Embolalia, then Embolalia is doing it wrong.

- Dr. B. Castro

How is the view, Dr. Castro, all the way up on there on your high horse?

My government is persuaded by the language in this repeal, and will tenuously support it given further review.

N. Taranton
Minister of W.A. Affairs

[Glen-Rhodes]

And stop with this "in your nation" crap. If that's now how fair use works in Embolalia, then Embolalia is doing it wrong.

- Dr. B. Castro

How is the view, Dr. Castro, all the way up on there on your high horse?

Excellent. I can see past all of the gas blowing out the heads of the little folk.

- Dr. B. Castro

By the way, Embolalia really would be doing it wrong.

[Sionis Prioratus]

By the way, Embolalia really would be doing it wrong.

OOC: Of course he would, American laws are like the Laws of Physics, they apply all over the Universe!

[The Most Glorious Hack]

[I]t would seem to me that 25 years may have very different significance in different member states; [...] to others it may seem like a fleeting moment.

You can say that again.



Vermithrax Pejorative
WA Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

[The Solarian Isles]

Though twenty-five years is clearly a human-centric figure, it stands to reason that if a limit is to be defined, then it would be difficult to make it fit for everyone. What we could do instead, however, is define twenty-five years as a minimum with the option for longer periods as may be appropriate for species of near-human status. That probably isn't within the scope of this particular proposal, though.

His Radiance Cleric Joran Kell
Solarian Delegate to the WA

[Glen-Rhodes]

By the way, Embolalia really would be doing it wrong.

OOC: Of course he would, American laws are like the Laws of Physics, they apply all over the Universe!

OOC: "Fair use" is an American legal concept... There is no other type of fair use, which is what I assumed everybody here already knew. But apparently we're not all debating with the same set of facts.

[Alqania]

OOC: Of course he would, American laws are like the Laws of Physics, they apply all over the Universe!

OOC: "Fair use" is an American legal concept... There is no other type of fair use, which is what I assumed everybody here already knew. But apparently we're not all debating with the same set of facts.

OOC: Perhaps some of us would be more interested in creating another type of fair use, one that would suit our RP'ed legal systems, rather than carbon-copy the RL American type.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: "Fair use" is an American legal concept... There is no other type of fair use, which is what I assumed everybody here already knew. But apparently we're not all debating with the same set of facts.

OOC: Perhaps some of us would be more interested in creating another type of fair use, one that would suit our RP'ed legal systems, rather than carbon-copy the RL American type.

OOC: Okay, that would be fine, I guess. But it's erroneous to complain that the resolution constructs the wrong legal process for fair use. It's also erroneous to claim that fair use is a guilty-until-proven-innocent doctrine, which is what Embolalia is doing. That's a misunderstanding of the legal process of fair use and the meaning of affirmative defense.

I don't think a treatise on a new fair use legal principle belongs in the repeal, if this is the case. It's a disservice to voters, who won't be receiving any kind of information on what this new fair use system will be. As the clause stands, it's misleading voters into thinking that fair use is something else than what it really is, that the resolution's deployment of fair use is incorrect, and, like I said earlier, that the resolution institutes a guilty-until-proven-innocent system.

[Alqania]

OOC: Perhaps some of us would be more interested in creating another type of fair use, one that would suit our RP'ed legal systems, rather than carbon-copy the RL American type.

OOC: Okay, that would be fine, I guess. But it's erroneous to complain that the resolution constructs the wrong legal process for fair use. It's also erroneous to claim that fair use is a guilty-until-proven-innocent doctrine, which is what Embolalia is doing. That's a misunderstanding of the legal process of fair use and the meaning of affirmative defense.

I don't think a treatise on a new fair use legal principle belongs in the repeal, if this is the case. It's a disservice to voters, who won't be receiving any kind of information on what this new fair use system will be. As the clause stands, it's misleading voters into thinking that fair use is something else than what it really is, that the resolution's deployment of fair use is incorrect, and, like I said earlier, that the resolution institutes a guilty-until-proven-innocent system.

OOC

The resolution defines, for the purpose of the resolution, "fair use":

“fair use” as the use of any copyrighted work or intellectual property for educational, personal, private, critical, or satirical purposes, provided that such use does not excessively infringe on the exclusive right or profits of the owner;

and the operative clause is:

ALSO AFFIRMS that copyrighted works may be used freely and legally, if such use can be proven to be legitimate fair use;

Now, if the resolution hadn't defined "fair use", then the (RL) legal definition may have applied, but the resolution defines "fair use" and therefore "fair use" is what the resolution says it is, because the law does what the law says. The operative clause places a burden of proof on the defendant. The burden of proof in an affirmative defence is on the defendant, but an affirmative defence only becomes relevant, and thus needs to be proved, after the plaintiff has shown, or the defendant conceded, a "prima facie" case of copyright infringement. The burden of proof is first on the plaintiff to show a "prima facie" case. The resolution makes no mention of affirmative defence or this initial burden of proof placed on the plaintiff, so the operative clause could very well be construed as not describing affirmative defence, but rather a guilty-until-proven-innocent system.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: That's what fair use is. Full stop. I don't know what's so difficult to grasp about that. There is no single definition of fair use anybody can cite to you. What's in the resolution is what the general idea of fair use is. It's up to national courts, or whatever system a nation wishes to employ, to fill in the details.

And if you need the text to spell out that fair use is an affirmative defense, then I don't know what to tell you. I expect people to be able to find these things about for themselves. Go do a little reading on what fair use is and what the legal process entails. Then go back and read the resolution. If you've come to same conclusion, I don't know what to tell you. I realize I'm coming off as an elitist prick, but there's come a point when the onus is on you to educate yourself.

[Alqania]

OOC

I understand, to the best of my ability as neither a lawyer nor an American, how fair use works in the application of US copyright law, given the legal precedents set by the US Supreme Court and so on. Our disagreement is not over how it works in RL America.

My OOC position is that however fair use works in RL America is completely irrelevant to the WA. The resolution does what the resolution says and where it leaves something open, it is up to member states to decide on that. RL legal precedent from the US Supreme Court does not exist in the reality in which the Queendom of Alqania is located, and you can't make me ICly recognise such legal precedent any more than you can make me ICly recognise RP'ed legal precedent from Glen-Rhodes.

[Glen-Rhodes]

My OOC position is that however fair use works in RL America is completely irrelevant to the WA.

Which is ridiculous, of course, because there is no other "fair use." Calling a completely different copyright policy "fair use" doesn't make it actual fair use.

[Sanctaria]

My OOC position is that however fair use works in RL America is completely irrelevant to the WA.

Which is ridiculous, of course, because there is no other "fair use." Calling a completely different copyright policy "fair use" doesn't make it actual fair use.

Actually, you're wrong. It's called fair dealing over here, and in the UK I imagine, and different meanings apply.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Which is ridiculous, of course, because there is no other "fair use." Calling a completely different copyright policy "fair use" doesn't make it actual fair use.

Actually, you're wrong. It's called fair dealing over here, and in the UK I imagine, and different meanings apply.

I am aware of fair dealing. It's a somewhat similar concept, less lenient in its application. But fair use has a particular meaning and is distinctly American in origin; fair dealing and fair use are two different legal concepts. So, it doesn't make any sense at all to say that "American precedent" for fair use isn't relevant to NationStates. That's like saying Albert Einstein's theory of relativity isn't relevant to nuclear weapons in NationStates because Albert Einstein is a RL figure.

[Sanctaria]

Actually, you're wrong. It's called fair dealing over here, and in the UK I imagine, and different meanings apply.

I am aware of fair dealing. It's a somewhat similar concept. But fair use has a particular meaning and is distinctly American in origin. So, it doesn't make any sense at all to say that "American precedent" for fair use isn't relevant to NationStates. That's like saying Albert Einstein's theory of relativity isn't relevant to nuclear weapons in NationStates because Albert Einstein is a RL figure.

I'm not getting involved in that discussion, but I'm just saying that a different policy exists and if an author/nation wanted to call that policy "fair use", there's nothing stopping them.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm not getting involved in that discussion, but I'm just saying that a different policy exists and if an author/nation wanted to call that policy "fair use", there's nothing stopping them.

No, there's not. There's nothing to step them from calling file-sharing fair use, either. That doesn't make it fair use, though. Words have meanings.

[Sanctaria]

I'm not getting involved in that discussion, but I'm just saying that a different policy exists and if an author/nation wanted to call that policy "fair use", there's nothing stopping them.

No, there's not. There's nothing to step them from calling file-sharing fair use, either. That doesn't make it fair use, though. Words have meanings.

In the RL universe, yes. But not in the WA universe. In the WA universe we have to base fair use off of what you defined it in the previous resolution.

[Goobergunchia]

In fact, the redefinition of legal terms of art is a fairly standard practice by our Joint Committee on the World Assembly when its members are crafting World Assembly Implementation Acts for resolutions that they strongly disagree with. For further reference, please see the Report of the Joint Committee on the United Nations on the "Common Sense Act II" Implementation Act, in which the Committee made a distinction between terms of fact and terms of law when applying resolutions to Goobergunchian law.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador
Citizen of the Rejected Realms

[Glen-Rhodes]

No, there's not. There's nothing to step them from calling file-sharing fair use, either. That doesn't make it fair use, though. Words have meanings.

In the RL universe, yes. But not in the WA universe. In the WA universe we have to base fair use off of what you defined it in the previous resolution.

Okay, whatever. Be unreasonable. Embolalia can repeal the resolution if they like. Have fun writing a resolution about fair use in 3,500 characters. He's going to need every single one of them.

[Sanctaria]

In the RL universe, yes. But not in the WA universe. In the WA universe we have to base fair use off of what you defined it in the previous resolution.

Okay, whatever. Be unreasonable. Embolalia can repeal the resolution if they like. Have fun writing a resolution about fair use in 3,500 characters. He's going to need every single one of them.

We're not being unreasonable. You seem to be the one opting to be unreasonable.

I'm not criticising your resolution. You yourself have said that fair use and fair dealings are, while similar, different concepts. You defined "fair use" in a certain way in your resolution, but you can't say that because "fair use" is this in one country in the real words, it must be this in the NS world.