[PASSED] Repeal "World Assembly Copyright Charter"

[Delegate Vinage]

I, Lothar Prolark, World Assembly Delegate of Europeia will be voting KEEP/NAY on this resolution after a 3/5 internal vote decided such action. We don't recognise the issues pointed out as being a huge worth and this Proposal is mealy holding up the discussions on more vital proposals that have reached quorum. Also the lack of interest on the author's behalf to either draft a replacement, or ask others to, simply highlights there to be a missing hole in the General Assembly's law books. The repeal's text highlights that this is wanted by the author but the author has shown no interest in doing such.

Because of these points, our vote has been cast.

[Damanucus]

I'm not going to comment on hard-coded time limits; I've debated once before regarding that on another resolution, and that writer and I agreed that it's necessary only as a means of defining a definite limit for an otherwise arbitrary time period.

CONCERNED that the wording of the resolution forces a system of guilt until proven innocence in the case of fair use, which runs contrary to the legal systems of many member nations;

This was interesting, though. I read the resolution, and, sure enough, the writer was right:

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

But we already knew; after all, he stated that himself. What was interesting, though, came above:

NOTES that such affirmation does not grant immunity to persons or institutions being held liable by foreign governments or copyright holders for the infringement of any copyrighted work or intellectual property, given that sufficient proof can establish a direct intent to infringe upon the rights of the owner of the copyrighted work or intellectual property;

Now, I may be reading this wrong, but this seems to contradict (in a manner) the paragraph given by the Ambassador from Embolalia, essentially making the charter somewhat unimplementable. (Again, I may be misreading; feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

I'll vote FOR the resolution; however, as far as a replacement goes, while copyright should be a worldwide/universe-wide concern, I don't think a replacement is necessarily required. I'll certainly support a decently written replacement, but if none appears, I will be equally okay with that situation.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Subgeniustan]

Repealing the WA copyright charter is a great idea! My own nation of Subgeniustan doesn't have any copyright laws because it is in a state of near-total anarchy right now, but I am the leader of a group trying to form a new government, and while we don't control very much territory, we recruit more people every day, and the amount of territory we control has been steadily increasing since we started out. Anyway, the people of my country are a freedom-loving bunch and don't take kindly to rules or laws, so I've made a lot of promises to people that we aren't going to have that many laws once we form a new government, and most things will be legal. I keep telling people, without a government, there's a power vacuum, and some local warlord could amass power and become an evil dictator, so we need to form a government that is just strong enough to PREVENT the creation of a stronger, more oppressive government. And that argument is working, and we are recruiting more people and controlling more territory. But we still have a civil war to fight against local warlords in some areas and diehard anarchists who refuse to submit to any authority in others. Anyway, once my group is able to gain control of the entire country and put in place the basics of a government again, we'll be able to get back into compliance with international copyright law. In the meantime, please cut us a little Slack... I gotta go... there's a gang of diehard anarchists walking by out my window, I gotta get out my machine gun and shoot at them... we're involved in some pretty intense urban combat right now, and I'm right on the front lines. Hopefully in a few weeks we'll have a government up and running again, and then I can break all my promises about passing hardly any laws, and put in place a nice big powerful government with lots of intrusive laws. Wish me luck!

*sounds of gunfire*

HAHA! I got 'em! One more street corner is under government control! But one of them is running away, I gotta chase 'em back to their hideout! See ya later!

[Embolalia]

I, Lothar Prolark, World Assembly Delegate of Europeia will be voting KEEP/NAY on this resolution after a 3/5 internal vote decided such action. We don't recognise the issues pointed out as being a huge worth and this Proposal is mealy holding up the discussions on more vital proposals that have reached quorum. Also the lack of interest on the author's behalf to either draft a replacement, or ask others to, simply highlights there to be a missing hole in the General Assembly's law books. The repeal's text highlights that this is wanted by the author but the author has shown no interest in doing such.

Because of these points, our vote has been cast.

OOC: Both I and Glen-Rhodes have drafted replacements. I have even said I would tentatively support GR's replacement in the form I last saw it. I'm growing quite tired of people accusing me of not wanting a replacement here. It's demonstrably false.

[Delegate Vinage]

At no point during this thread have you stated any inclination towards writing a replacement piece of legislation - let alone working with someone. How are we, the voters and Delegates, to know what you are planning if you do not reveal it to us. So if you are growing tired of it... perhaps revealing said information would help.

[Embolalia]

At no point during this thread have you stated any inclination towards writing a replacement piece of legislation - let alone working with someone. How are we, the voters and Delegates, to know what you are planning if you do not reveal it to us. So if you are growing tired of it... perhaps revealing said information would help.

Lord Raekevik smiled. "The Queendom agrees with the criticism so eloquently put forward here. Does Your Excellency intend to draft a replacement?"

I'll definitely consider it. If I get this to quorum, and nobody else has jumped on it in a way I consider satisfactory, I think I will.

-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia

Please read the minutes, m'colleague.

If you're interested, Dr. Castro's replacement draft can be found here, and my (now abandoned, as I have put my support behind Dr. Castro's draft for the time being) replacement draft can be found here.

[Delegate Vinage]

Key word in your statement being consider.

Also both of those examples have not been discussed for over a month. Personally I'd take that as an 'unlikely to be returned' - more-so would it not have been shrewd to link these at some point of this discussion instead of having to be asked?

[Embolalia]

Key word in your statement being consider.

Also both of those examples have not been discussed for over a month. Personally I'd take that as an 'unlikely to be returned' - more-so would it not have been shrewd to link these at some point of this discussion instead of having to be asked?

OOC: I can't speak for Glen-Rhodes specifically, but I know the primary reason I have not been commenting much on those proposals (or others, for that matter), is that I have been busy with an obnoxiously drawn out midterm season (my last being just last Tuesday, with finals next week). (While we are in different classes, GR and I do go to the same college. It's entirely likely the same is true of him.)
More importantly, this draft was not being discussed for a number of weeks, while I found the time to regain WA admission and endorsements to submit it. At the time, both replacements were on the front page of the forum. When that is the case, it is not at all uncommon for the repeal thread not to have a link.
It's one thing to claim I have some sinister ulterior motive not to put forth a replacement, even in spite of the evidence. I think it's completely absurd to make that claim of Glen-Rhodes. Have you not read his posts? Have you not seen how strongly he feels about the issue? If there were any reason why I would not put forth a replacement, it would be to avoid having to debate him over every detail.

In short, your claims are ridiculously unfounded. Feel free to restate them as much as you like, but anyone with sense will see them as false.

[Delegate Vinage]

Mmm... can't recall saying you had some ulterior motive or otherwise so I would prefer that statement to be taken off the record. Really you could just do yourself the grace of saying it is unlikely we are to see eye-to-eye on the issue and we would have nothing more to discuss. Instead you have decided to call into question my other comments. As I've previously stated, until directly pressured, there was no link to any replacement being discussed. If this was my own repeal then these links would have been provided in the 'yeahy I've reached quorum' notice.

Furthermore you'll notice I never did one state Glen-Rhodes' name or otherwise eluded to him. Taken from my initial Nay posting:

Also the lack of interest on the author's behalf to either draft a replacement

Author of this resolution being yourself. Really there is nothing more to say on this matter and I would prefer you did not turn to slights against my character again.

[Embolalia]

Mmm... can't recall saying you had some ulterior motive or otherwise so I would prefer that statement to be taken off the record. Really you could just do yourself the grace of saying it is unlikely we are to see eye-to-eye on the issue and we would have nothing more to discuss. Instead you have decided to call into question my other comments. As I've previously stated, until directly pressured, there was no link to any replacement being discussed. If this was my own repeal then these links would have been provided in the 'yeahy I've reached quorum' notice.

Furthermore you'll notice I never did one state Glen-Rhodes' name or otherwise eluded to him. Taken from my initial Nay posting:

Also the lack of interest on the author's behalf to either draft a replacement

Author of this resolution being yourself. Really there is nothing more to say on this matter and I would prefer you did not turn to slights against my character again.

I shall stop speaking against your character just as soon as you stop speaking against mine, and read my posts and your own. You said both examples had not been discussed, and that you thought neither was likely to be revived. One of those examples was written by Glen-Rhodes. So no, you never said his name. You did elude to him. And, as I have said before, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT I BE THE AUTHOR OF THE REPLACEMENT. I need not even intend to author a replacement though, as I stated, I would if there were no viable alternative. Glen-Rhodes has offered a draft. It should not be surprising that, since there was no discussion of the repeal, there was no discussion of the replacement. The entire crux of your argument here is that there is no viable replacement. There is a viable replacement. You are right that there is nothing further to discuss, except for your intransigence on the matter.

(As it happens, my reply to you was the first time I had been on the site since this reached quorum, save for casting my vote, which I did quickly before going to bed.)

[Noodly Appendage]

Has there ever been a month where we haven't repealed most of the resolutions that were passed in that month?

[Embolalia]

Has there ever been a month where we haven't repealed most of the resolutions that were passed in that month?

OOC: I know you're just trying to make a point, but this resolution has been around since 2009.

If you'll indulge me in disproving your statement, not because of anything personal or because I think it's truly serious, but because I'm going to claim this constitutes studying for my finals: what you're suggesting is mathematically impossible. If the first month of the assembly had three resolutions passed, the second would need two repeal resolutions to meet the criterion. The second month would also need at least three non-repeals, in order to create the majority to be repealed in the third month. Since the third month would have three repeals, it would need four non-repeals. The fourth month would need to have four repeals, to repeal the majority of the month before it, and five non-repeals, so that they could be repealed the next month. However, since voting takes 4 days, only 7 or 8 proposals can come up each month. The fourth month would need 9, thus it is impossible.
More simply, however, there have only been 29 repeals in the history of this assembly. (It seems like a lot more, doesn't it?) That's only about 16% of total resolutions. It would need to be over 33%.
Of course, it gets a bit more complicated if you count a replacement as a repeal of the repeal that allowed it.

May the flying spaghetti monster welcome you into the embrace of His Noodly Appendage,
-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia

[Knootoss]

With 81% support I think this repeal is pretty much home safe. I suggest that Ambassador Hywell sit back, open a can of Pink Bunny Cola and yield all his remaining time to the crazies who want to ramble against this well-written proposal.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Glen-Rhodes]

If you're interested, Dr. Castro's replacement draft can be found here, and my (now abandoned, as I have put my support behind Dr. Castro's draft for the time being) replacement draft can be found here.

I am glad that support has been given for my delegation's draft replacement. For the record, my delegation apologizes if any of our words have been used to accuse the Embolalian delegation of not intending to replace the Copyright Charter. The issue for us has never been on the prospects of a replacement; we haven't doubted that Embolalia wants a replacement. Our disagreement lies solely in different ideas about the reasonable use of copyrighted works by the public.

- Dr. B. Castro

OOC: Although, given the SOPA/PIPA thing, I'm not too optimistic about a replacement passing easily.

[Southern Patriots]

If the author has a superior replacement standing by then there is little reason to oppose.

For the repeal.

[Confederation of American States (Ancient)]

The Confederation of American States official stance on this is that we are for repealing the World Assembly Copyright Charter. We who reside and govern over the CAS think that we provide adaquit laws to protect the copyright holder and believe that in passing resolutions such as the World Assembly Copyright Charter, that the WA is intruding into the Sovereignty of our great nation. We believe that the WA has intruded far to much into our rights as a Sovereign nation to govern ourselves.

[Thatchland]

Thatchland approves of this repeal and votes "Yea".

Also, our President awaits the repeal so that he may sign into law the

DEFINES, for the purpose of this Act, “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, including its publication, distribution, and adaptation, after which time the work enters the public domain; “public domain” as the collection of works neither protected under copyright law nor under state ownership, available for free use by the public; “intellectual property” as intangible property that is the result of original artistic and commercial creativity, and that owners have been granted exclusive right over; “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;

DECLARES:

1. this Act shall grant the following rights and protections to the owners of any copyrighted work or intellectual property: the owner’s exclusive right over the work or intellectual property, including its publication, distribution, and adaptation; the right of immediate copyright protection abroad of a work following placement in tangible form, with no legal or statutory formalities required for protection; the protection of the work or intellectual property from the publication, distribution, adaptation, display, demonstration, reproduction, and storage in electronic form by any person or government entity without the consent of the owner, for a period of time extending to one year after the death of the creator, or twenty years from creation, if the work is of corporate authorship;
2. if the last-living author has already met their mortal demise, the current copyright status of the work shall stand until 8 March 2013 C.E. when the work(s) shall pass into the "public domain." If a corporate authored work is at 19 years or longer upon the repeal, it too shall remain in effect until 8 March 2013 C.E.;
3. this Act shall not discriminate in favor of domestic works over foreign, and Thatchland shall follow the Rule of Shorter Term when dealing with conflicting copywrite terms of foreign works;
4. all works under copyright in Thatchland, current and future, must allow “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. The aforementioned works must also allow free use for peer-to-peer free sharing, free lending and selling of second-hand "hard copy" copyrighted materials (such as, but not limited necessarily limited to: CDs, DVDs, and books);

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.

As passed by both Chambers of Congress and signed into law by


____________________________
T. Lane Williams
President of Thatchland
8 March 2012 C.E.

Upon repeal of WA General Assembly Resolution #61: WA Copyright Charter - all registered copyrights within Thatchland will be for a term of no more than one year past the death of the last-living author or 20 years from creation if the work is of corporate authorship.

Monopolies on creative thought are laborious and counter-productive to the free exchange of ideas and discoveries. However, an author should reserve the right of proper payments and premiums on their works. We believe a lifetime is quite sufficient an expectation. We add one year for the simple economic fact that once an author dies, there is a short period of time when their works spike in value and interest; therefore we are limiting the possibility of economic vultures looking for swift, unearned gain from besieging the market with works for sale with no remuneration paid to the author's estate.

[Malgrave]

The United Kingdom of Malgrave are in favour of repealing this legislation in favour of an enhanced copyright bill.

[Yelda]

Also the lack of interest on the author's behalf to either draft a replacement, or ask others to, simply highlights there to be a missing hole in the General Assembly's law books.

Oh dear, what will we do with a hole in our law books?

Repeal authors are in no way, shape, or form required to offer a replacement. If you want a replacement that bad write one yourself.

[Down With the World Assembly]

Also the lack of interest on the author's behalf to either draft a replacement, or ask others to, simply highlights there to be a missing hole in the General Assembly's law books.

Oh dear, what will we do with a hole in our law books?

Repeal authors are in no way, shape, or form required to offer a replacement. If you want a replacement that bad write one yourself.

But don't write one, because the world will be a better place when all the WA resolutions are repealed.

[Hirota]

Oh dear, what will we do with a hole in our law books?

Repeal authors are in no way, shape, or form required to offer a replacement. If you want a replacement that bad write one yourself.

But don't write one, because the world will be a better place when all the WA resolutions are repealed.

[Snefaldia]

OOC: Ahhhhh, oldie but a goodie... all this talk of copyright is making me nostalgic for Discoraversalism and the neverending parade of insanity that was copyright in the NSUN.

[Flibbleites]

OOC: Ahhhhh, oldie but a goodie... all this talk of copyright is making me nostalgic for Discoraversalism and the neverending parade of insanity that was copyright in the NSUN.

OOC: Only if I get to go Bastard NS Game Mod from Hell on him.