[PASSED] Repeal "World Assembly Copyright Charter"

[Flibbleites]

OOC: As soon as you submitted this, I got a TG from the World Assembly about it. This is a great and terrible feature.

OOC: God, the TG spam Flib must get from NAPA...

OOC: Actually, most of the repeal attempts on the NAPA predate that feature, the CPA on the other hand...

[The Republic of Lanos]

TG feature? If your name is in a proposal...you get TGed? What TG feature?

[Ardchoille]

If you're the author of a resolution, and someone submits a repeal of it, you get a TG to let you know. Doesn't work until they submit, so resolution authors hoping to head repeals off at the pass have to keep an eye out for drafting threads.

[The Republic of Lanos]

If you're the author of a resolution, and someone submits a repeal of it, you get a TG to let you know. Doesn't work until they submit, so resolution authors hoping to head repeals off at the pass have to keep an eye out for drafting threads.

Ah ok...*moves on topic*

I would be for this since the idea of copyright is evolving. What to replace it with...up in the clowds.

[Embolalia]

24 hours left, 22 endorsements needed. I haven't been doing any TGing on this, so I think that's pretty decent. If need be, I'll resubmit with a campaign.

[Dukopolious]

Another Repeal!

Sounds good.

Support.

[Southron]

Always pleased to see a repeal, as it gives a chance for a superior replacement.

Supported.

[Embolalia]

This failed to reach quorum. I did no TG campaigning, and when I checked roughly 2 hours prior, it was short by about 13. I'll see if I'll have time to do a campaign tomorrow or Thursday, or maybe over the weekend.

[Embolalia]

I've finally found time to re-submit this. I'll be doing a little TGing today, and hopefully it'll make quorum this time.

[Khalite]

A repeal movement. Commissar Zytzev always likes an opportunity to topple a demagogue's hard-fought efforts at drafting a resolution.

Supported.

[Mousebumples]

I've finally found time to re-submit this. I'll be doing a little TGing today, and hopefully it'll make quorum this time.

And for Delegates looking for an easy link to approve, click here.

Yours in support,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Linux and the X]

I've finally found time to re-submit this. I'll be doing a little TGing today, and hopefully it'll make quorum this time.

And for Delegates looking for an easy link to approve, click here.

Yours in support,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

For an even easier link, approve from here. (Fair warning, clicking that link will automatically approve the proposal if you're a delegate. I don't know what happens for non-delegates.)

Link fixed.
I think I'm on my second unintentional site change.

[Mousebumples]

For an even easier link, approve from here. (Fair warning, clicking that link will automatically approve the proposal if you're a delegate. I don't know what happens for non-delegates.)

I'm not clicking, but it looks like that's targeting the wrong proposal - i.e. the one authored by Bears Armed. I presume that was an error on Your Excellency's part, yes?

Code: Select all

[url=http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal/start=0/proposal=bears_armed_mission_1330177952/council=1/vote=Approve]approve from here[/url]

The accurate code should have Embo's nation name in the proposal ID field.

[Glen-Rhodes]

For an even easier link, approve from here. [edit: link removed] (Fair warning, clicking that link will automatically approve the proposal if you're a delegate. I don't know what happens for non-delegates.)

Hm. We probably should not be doing this. This could so easily be abused. [violet] should probably sanitize that kind of URL. I'll make a thread about it in technical.

[Embolalia]

And for Delegates looking for an easy link to approve, click here.

Yours in support,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

For an even easier link, approve from here. (Fair warning, clicking that link will automatically approve the proposal if you're a delegate. I don't know what happens for non-delegates.)

For non-delegates, it just fails. It says non-delegates can't endorse. (As it should.)

[Linux and the X]

For an even easier link, approve from here. (Fair warning, clicking that link will automatically approve the proposal if you're a delegate. I don't know what happens for non-delegates.)

I'm not clicking, but it looks like that's targeting the wrong proposal - i.e. the one authored by Bears Armed. I presume that was an error on Your Excellency's part, yes?

Code: Select all

[url=http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal/start=0/proposal=bears_armed_mission_1330177952/council=1/vote=Approve]approve from here[/url]

The accurate code should have Embo's nation name in the proposal ID field.

Gah, yes. I was being lazy and just grabbing the field names out of the first proposal in the list but forgot to change the proposal ID.

[Embolalia]

24 approvals to go, with not much more than a day left. After I take this midterm, I might see if I can get some more TGs sent out.

[Embolalia]

Success! The proposal has reached quorum, and will be up next.

[Auralia]

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;

The onus should not be on the copyright holder to prove that illegal use of copyrighted material is not fair use. That would be akin to forcing the state to prove that a given murder was not in self-defense. Whenever a defendant makes an affirmative defense (which includes fair use and self-defense), they admit guilt while arguing that there were mitigating factors which justify their actions; therefore, they are not "guilty until proven innocent."

[Embolalia]

The onus should not be on the copyright holder to prove that illegal use of copyrighted material is not fair use. That would be akin to forcing the state to prove that a given murder was not in self-defense. Whenever a defendant makes an affirmative defense (which includes fair use and self-defense), they admit guilt while arguing that there were mitigating factors which justify their actions; therefore, they are not "guilty until proven innocent."

You, like Dr. Castro, assume that the reasonable use of copyright must always be an affirmative defense. This is not some universal truth. If you care to peruse the minutes, I'm sure you'll find quite a bit my arguing this point.

-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia

[Glen-Rhodes]

The onus should not be on the copyright holder to prove that illegal use of copyrighted material is not fair use. That would be akin to forcing the state to prove that a given murder was not in self-defense. Whenever a defendant makes an affirmative defense (which includes fair use and self-defense), they admit guilt while arguing that there were mitigating factors which justify their actions; therefore, they are not "guilty until proven innocent."

You, like Dr. Castro, assume that the reasonable use of copyright must always be an affirmative defense. This is not some universal truth. If you care to peruse the minutes, I'm sure you'll find quite a bit my arguing this point.

On the other hand, you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of copyright, in which you treat it as a privilege that is subject to some misconceived notion of common good. The reason why fair use and fair dealing are affirmative defenses is because they are, in their most basic nature, an infringement upon somebody's right duly granted to them by law.

There is a conflict of rights, here: ones right to have exclusive authority over their creative works, and ones right to use creative works in reasonable manners. Both are provided for under law. However, it is incredibly unethical to require the person whose rights are being infringed upon to defend their own rights against the infringing party. That is exactly what you are saying the World Assembly should enforce. It is exactly the same as if you were arguing that a shop-owner must prove he has a right to exclusively own the items in his shop, when somebody comes along and steals from him. Perhaps that is a world you would not mind living in. But it is not normal and it should it not be imposed upon member states.

In that case, you should just do what you really want to do: outlaw copyright. Because the system that you are seeking to impose upon the world would have the same effect. What you want to impose on every single member state is not copyright. It is, rather, giving people explicit permission to steal, and saying that they don't have to prove that what they did was okay. This is not a world Glen-Rhodes would like to be involved in.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Auralia]

You, like Dr. Castro, assume that the reasonable use of copyright must always be an affirmative defense. This is not some universal truth. If you care to peruse the minutes, I'm sure you'll find quite a bit my arguing this point.

On the other hand, you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of copyright, in which you treat it as a privilege that is subject to some misconceived notion of common good. The reason why fair use and fair dealing are affirmative defenses is because they are, in their most basic nature, an infringement upon somebody's right duly granted to them by law.

There is a conflict of rights, here: ones right to have exclusive authority over their creative works, and ones right to use creative works in reasonable manners. Both are provided for under law. However, it is incredibly unethical to require the person whose rights are being infringed upon to defend their own rights against the infringing party. That is exactly what you are saying the World Assembly should enforce. It is exactly the same as if you were arguing that a shop-owner must prove he has a right to exclusively own the items in his shop, when somebody comes along and steals from him. Perhaps that is a world you would not mind living in. But it is not normal and it should it not be imposed upon member states.

In that case, you should just do what you really want to do: outlaw copyright. Because the system that you are seeking to impose upon the world would have the same effect. What you want to impose on every single member state is not copyright. It is, rather, giving people explicit permission to steal, and saying that they don't have to prove that what they did was okay. This is not a world Glen-Rhodes would like to be involved in.

- Dr. B. Castro

Hear, hear!

[Knootoss]

I am happy to support our Embolalian friends with regards to this matter.


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

[United Celts]

"The Kingdom approved this repeal and will likely vote in its favor," Ambassador Finn Mac Lochlainn said, "but only because we agree that the Assembly should not impose such a long minimum term for copyright on member nations. At the end of the day a repeal is a repeal, and the only part that truly matters is 'hereby repeals.' We look forward to a replacement that corrects the minimum term for copyright flaw but we will not support a replacement that will essentially make it impossible to punish copyright violation. On that matter we agree entirely with Dr. Castro."

OOC: While I do support this repeal, I'm curious why it wasn't ruled illegal for NatSov. There's no real technical flaw mentioned in the repeal, except that member nations may not like the minimum term and the "system of guilt until proven innocence." Isn't that NatSov?

Edit, and still OOC: What I mean, I guess, is that I'm not sure those issues can really be considered technical flaws. Is a 25 year minimum term really a technical flaw? In the U.S., the minimum term for copyright is 70 years after death. One can argue that this term shouldn't be imposed on member nations but such an argument is NatSov. Ditto the "guilt until proven innocence." It seems to me that while these are dressed up to sound like flaws, what we're really seeing are NatSov arguments repackaged to look like technical flaws. You might say: If you support this repeal, why are you complaining? Well, my nation supports this repeal. But from an OOC standpoint I don't like NatSov repeals sneaking in through the back door.

[Tibberiria]

We're a bit reluctant, but we vote for in hopes that a replacement will be ready as soon as possible.