NationStates

OOC:
Sorry to keep bringing up these past-the-last-minute questions on legality, but it just occurred to me when considering whether or not to vote against purely for not liking the title... could the title be considered plagiarism and/or a real world reference because it is a real life title?

Thought another way, would it be legal to name a proposal "The Lord of the Rings"? How about "Digital Millennium Copyright Act"?

No, this title is not plagiarism.

Wrapper wrote:No, this title is not plagiarism.

So it would be legal to submit a proposal titled "The Lord of the Rings"? "Digital Millennium Copyright Act"?

Excidium Planetis wrote:OOC:
Sorry to keep bringing up these past-the-last-minute questions on legality, but it just occurred to me when considering whether or not to vote against purely for not liking the title... could the title be considered plagiarism and/or a real world reference because it is a real life title?

Thought another way, would it be legal to name a proposal "The Lord of the Rings"? How about "Digital Millennium Copyright Act"?

If you can actually find a way to make the title 'The Lord of the Rings' an appropriate match for the proposal's contents then I wouldn't object to that.
Copying the names of RL laws, however, would (in my opinion) be more problematical...

Bears Armed Mission wrote:If you can actually find a way to make the title 'The Lord of the Rings' an appropriate match for the proposal's contents then I wouldn't object to that.
Copying the names of RL laws, however, would (in my opinion) be more problematical...

But why? What is the distinction between using a book title versus a law title?

Past precedent on plagiarism is that even dictionary definitions can be considered plagiarized if used word for word. This means that even works which are not works of law can be considered plagiarized if used without permission on NS. If a law title can be plagiarized, a book title should be considered plagiarized as well.

I believe the plagiarism rule emerged from concerns about copyrighted material. If you read the legal section to the site, it states that the submitted content remains the copyright of the creator, with an assented lease provided to NationStates to host that content. That's a very simple standard. Things in the public domain should not count as plagiarism.

Bears Armed Mission wrote:

Excidium Planetis wrote:OOC:
Sorry to keep bringing up these past-the-last-minute questions on legality, but it just occurred to me when considering whether or not to vote against purely for not liking the title... could the title be considered plagiarism and/or a real world reference because it is a real life title?

Thought another way, would it be legal to name a proposal "The Lord of the Rings"? How about "Digital Millennium Copyright Act"?

If you can actually find a way to make the title 'The Lord of the Rings' an appropriate match for the proposal's contents then I wouldn't object to that.
Copying the names of RL laws, however, would (in my opinion) be more problematical...

This exactly.

Well, then, we have to do something! viewtopic.php?p=3123158#p3123158

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Well, then, we have to do something! viewtopic.php?p=3123158#p3123158

Yep, that's problematical, as Bears said, until you realize that "clean", "water", and "act" are extremely common words even a three year old would understand, so theoretically it wouldn't be unheard of for different nations or multi-national organizations to string those words together as the name of different pieces of legislation that do approximately the same thing: ensure that the populace is provided clean water.

Now stop the petty rules lawyering. This is legal. End of story.

Rules lawyering? (Spanish Inquisition diabolical laughter) Hah! I think the plagiarism 'rule', if it could be so termed, is inherently flawed. Public domain material should absolutely be permissible for use – copyright being the primary consideration vis-à-vis reuse. Reuse of say, legislation passed by the UK Parliament in 1967, ought be acceptable, since Parliamentary copyright has expired (though, of course, this may be different under the laws of Victoria, Australia, of which I am unfamiliar).

Take that argument elsewhere, it has absolutely nothing to do with this proposal. I suggest Moderation, since it has to do with more than just the GA.

Current Status

Approvals: 68 (Albithica, Ransium, Wrapper, Republic of British Russia, NovaTora, The soviet swamp of Srek, Wobbegong, Exalbuia, Omniabstracta, Ikrit, Riotania, Rophilus, Proreadem, Soroya, Laeral, Clow, Tarper, Stratovar, Dylan Murdoch, Gatito, Kingdom of Union, Rearlad, Dependants, Karamiko, New Porto Rico, Goolsbee, Malachor VIII, MalNyril, Lower Fobba Sirey, EXODS, Zaquardia, Solborg, Mew States, Vogfarax, NewTexas, Kronomia, Tengu Minor, Krioval, The most Peaceful Land of Paisland, Almira, SS Longclaw, Smiley Bob, Merma, Routcher, Matrov, The great Beaver, Romellan, Baptized Believers, Andromedian, Draconae, British Alban, Paged, Cute Black Cats, Astrum Nigrum, Libertarian North America, Abdoa, Brain Country, The Socialist Republic of Saian, Swaglavanya, Union of Caplis, Brokemia, Dubnia, Ucancallmequeenbee, Lepreland, Enlais, Rahul Raghuraman, Vanke, Thylacinus)

GenSec Status: LEGAL
Info
Legal (3): Christian Democrats, Sierra Lyricalia, Separatist Peoples

1 day 2 hours ago: Separatist Peoples: Legal
1 day 20 hours ago: Sierra Lyricalia: Legal
2 days 22 hours ago: Christian Democrats: Legal
Status: Lacking Support (requires 16 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 11 hours

OOC
I suspect that it's not going to make quorum.
Unfortunately I have to log off now, but I'd appreciate it if somebody who's online fairly shortly before this hits the deadline -- whether at quorum or not -- would post a copy of the approvals list from that time here for me to see...

Sorry, BA. Oversaturation I suspect. And sorry, I won't be around for the next update, otherwise I'd capture the list for you.

Urrna looks a bit sad... and maybeso a bit worried, too.
"I sent as many telegrams as you said to send, I did, for true," she remarks.

Artorrios replies: "It's hokay, I believe you. The response rate just seems to be down by a bit from the last occasion when this Mission was submitting proposals, that's all. Ah well, maybeso this was for the best: The Assembly doesn't seem verry keen on passing much except for Repeals, lately, and another defeat at the voting stage would have lowered our success rate to just fourEights-perYonkh..."


(OOC: 'fourEights-perYonkh' = thirty-two in sixty-four, i.e. 'fifty percent'.)

OOC: Is it just me or is it almost impossible to get something to vote via manual campaign nowadays?

States of Glory WA Office wrote:OOC: Is it just me or is it almost impossible to get something to vote via manual campaign nowadays?

OOC
I haven't attempted a manual campaign since GA#338 (It was the most difficult thing I've ever done on NS). So maybe times have changed and people are just less responsive.

You should really use stamps or an API. Stamps can get anything to vote. API usually works unless the API breaks halfway through the campaign.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:OOC: Is it just me or is it almost impossible to get something to vote via manual campaign nowadays?

Not just nowadays. My first shot at GAR#300 was a manual campaign and it fell short by one approval. I took the opportunity to improve the proposal and campaigned again with stamps (I think it cost about US $3). It made quorum very quickly.

And, SoG, I had a couple thousand stamps to blow on my PJWoW puppet; that's how I got your proposal into queue as well.

Wrapper wrote:Not just nowadays. My first shot at GAR#300 was a manual campaign and it fell short by one approval.

OOC: Ouch.

Resubmitting and resubmitting gets somewhat obnoxious for delegates, especially those who aren't familiar with the GA quorum requirements.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:OOC: Is it just me or is it almost impossible to get something to vote via manual campaign nowadays?

((OOC: I gave up a long time ago. I wrote one of the early telegram scripts (pre-telegram API) mainly to get stuff to vote. Once stamps were released I just started using those instead. Quick, easy, cheap.))

States of Glory WA Office wrote:OOC: Is it just me or is it almost impossible to get something to vote via manual campaign nowadays?

Not really. I still do it.

OOC: I think that it's harder than it used to be... and wonder whether the availability of the alternative methods has led to delegates receiving more campaign TGs than before, with that being a reason why they're less responsive. (I actually expressed concern about this possibility in the 'Technical' forum when stamps were being introduced.)

Christian Democrats wrote:

States of Glory WA Office wrote:OOC: Is it just me or is it almost impossible to get something to vote via manual campaign nowadays?

Not really. I still do it.

As did I for Commend CD and Repeal RF.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:OOC: Is it just me or is it almost impossible to get something to vote via manual campaign nowadays?

I got GA #371 to vote with a purely manual campaign in May of 2016, and that was when the quorum was at 124 approvals. Nearly killed me.

A new draft is now up, with an additional operative clause inserted between the previous second and third ones.