[DRAFT] Repeal: "Museums Of Musical Heritage"

[Daarwyrth]

CURRENT DRAFT:

Repeal: "Museums Of Musical Heritage"
Category: Repeal

---

The World Assembly,

While recognising and applauding the efforts of this august body to preserve and promote the cultural and societal value of music for the benefit of posterity, and to ensure that access to music as a cultural and societal expression is open and readily available across the honourable member nations of this illustrious organisation,

Realises that extant legislation in the form of GAR #86 "Museums Of Musical Heritage" executes its intention in a flawed and detrimental manner, namely for the following reasons:

1. GAR #86 supplies no definition of what it considers to be music, and imposes no form of sensible curation of the material submitted to the Museums of Musical Heritage (MoMH) for preservation and compilation, meaning that any being or entity that has produced a sound that could be remotely construed as musical - regardless of how whimsical, irrelevant or culturally insignificant it is - can be submitted to the MoMH and will have to be stored and preserved for posterity, even if the submission were to solely consist of rhythmically composed flatulence accompanied by echoing eructation;
   
   
2. The target resolution puts no security measures into effect so as to ensure that the music that is collected and compiled by the MoMH is stored and preserved in a responsible and secure manner either physically or digitally, and so freely enables malicious entities to access the stored music - especially in digital form - and to use those works for ill-intended purposes, such as for unauthorised duplication or cultural defamation, and thus endangers its intent to lead to better appreciation and understanding of other nations' cultures through music;
   
   
3. "Museums Of Musical Heritage" liberally offers pecuniary compensation without stipulating what it considers to be "necessary", and under what conditions it would be required to offer remuneration for the donation of music. In addition, no clarity or direction is given over who or what the "impartial arbitrator" is supposed to be, what their duties would entail, or how far their competencies would stretch in administering the MoMH's funds. Such a lack of oversight and direction means that WA funds are irresponsibly spent, for example in the event a donor of music would decide they require remuneration for their submission simply because they desire such financial compensation;

And thus, repeals GAR #86 "Museums Of Musical Heritage".

[Daarwyrth]

[Reserved]

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: At least say it as it is. You wish to strip nations of music heritage in a quest of cultural imperialism and homogenisation. A list of petty, minutiae concerns with very little impact. Strongly opposed.

[Minskiev]

Link to the target somewhere, please.

It's plausible but these arguments aren't strong.

1) The target "requests with [sic] earnest that nations, musicians, composers, recording studios, and music publishing companies" submit musical stuff. I find it pretty unlikely that the number of non-music recordings submitted is significant compared to the number of musical recordings because it'd only be from good-faith interested parties. If your argument is that it may not be...why not? Where in the text does it actually say every submission must be stored in the database? It doesn't. I would say the MoMH has a great deal of discretion as to what really is music, or what is worth preserving, so I disagree with your argument here. Because, frankly, music needn't be defined, and is somewhat subjective anyway. The MoMH's responsibility is to store *music* and its hard-working gnomes will store music, not rhythmically composed flatulence.

2) The target states that "musical recordings, sheet music, and documents regarding music can be easily accessed by interested parties, be they in government, academia, or otherwise interested in music." I may argue that "interested parties...or [those] otherwise interested in music" excludes malicious entities. The target doesn't state that it has to be easily accessible to *everyone*. This counterargument of mine is pretty weak though, admittedly.

3) The target states that "While voluntary donations are strongly suggested, pecuniary compensation (if necessary) will be arranged by an impartial arbitrator." The most natural reading of "if necessary" to me is "if necessary for the sharing to continue". I also don't see what's wrong with the impartial arbitrator is. Your who/what question seems irrelevant, and their duties are outlined in "will be arranged by an impartial arbitrator," plus an arbitrator by definition is just someone who negotiates between both parties (here the donor and the MoMH). I'll grant you their competency, and overall it probably does need elaboration. This might be your strongest argument.

[Daarwyrth]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: At least say it as it is. You wish to strip nations of music heritage in a quest of cultural imperialism and homogenisation. A list of petty, minutiae concerns with very little impact. Strongly opposed.

The Royal State's new WA Representative, Dame Kalina Wentapelloven, smiles benignly at Dr Justin Obama as she folds her hands in front of her. "My dear Ambassador, I am delighted that you feel confident enough to express your concerns candidly and without hesitation," she begins. "Yet, your line of thinking consists of baseless speculation and an assumption that is not merely miles off, but lightyears. Because I ask you, dear Ambassador, where in this repeal proposal does our delegation hint at a desire to strip nations from their musical heritage? Where do we seek to impose - as you put it - "cultural imperialism and homogenisation"? The text of our proposal is quite clear in its intent, namely to relieve the WA of legislation that doesn't fulfil its intention effectively. We are all for the preservation of musical and cultural heritage, we are all in favour of nations expressing their identity. But the target resolution is not an example of that." The Daarwyrthian representative then proceeds to spread her empty hands, palms facing forwards, as her smile teeters between benign and condescending. "And lastly, Ambassador, do you see a proposal in my hands to strip nations of musical heritage? To impose some cultural homogeneity across the WA? I think not, and neither shall you see one in the future."

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Dame Wentapelloven, just because your intentions aren't explicit, doesn't mean they arent implicit. Voicing obvious support for cultural homogenisation would be a bad look for you and your proposal and will cause defeat. However, subtly doing it though a repeal based on weaksauce arguments is the way to go - and that's what you've done. Trust me, I've done this before, see my repeal of 'Prevention of Torture', I myself am no stranger to trying to push through agendas this way.

Anyhow, in addition to Ambassador Russell's concerns, I'd like to point out that firstly - what may be significant to others nation may not seem culturally significant to you, and that's where I deduced your motives for this repeal. Fart noises from others may be important to them - bureaucrats from the WA shouldn't throw that away because they don't understand it either. Also, with regards to point two, pirating and parodying music will happen regardless of this resolution. It is so easy nowadays to do those two actions that a museum with supposedly no security (by the way, nothing says the MoMH can't enact basic security measures on their own) wouldn't significantly facilitate that. Lastly, impartial arbitrator is a very well established term. The whole clause reads robustly to me. If necessary could be construed by nations or the WA as covering the costs lost by the donation, not random unspecified corrupt invoices. Combining these with Mr Russell's points, your proposal has little basis whatsoever.

OOC: Not sure if this needed clarification, but I'm not really thinking you're an imperialist

[The Orwell Society]

Opposed. The target resolution has very weak flaws that aren't strong enough to justify a repeal. I mean, who can give a solid definition to music? I varies from person to person. Some may not consider a two year gold's piano piece "music", but the two year old composer in question, the "not music" they have produced is the most brilliant thing they've ever heard.

[Separatist Peoples]

"We support this repeal. We don't see much reason to keep this resolution on the books to justify tolerating even mild flaws."

[Daarwyrth]

Link to the target somewhere, please.

It's plausible but these arguments aren't strong.

1) The target "requests with [sic] earnest that nations, musicians, composers, recording studios, and music publishing companies" submit musical stuff. I find it pretty unlikely that the number of non-music recordings submitted is significant compared to the number of musical recordings because it'd only be from good-faith interested parties. If your argument is that it may not be...why not? Where in the text does it actually say every submission must be stored in the database? It doesn't. I would say the MoMH has a great deal of discretion as to what really is music, or what is worth preserving, so I disagree with your argument here. Because, frankly, music needn't be defined, and is somewhat subjective anyway. The MoMH's responsibility is to store *music* and its hard-working gnomes will store music, not rhythmically composed flatulence.

2) The target states that "musical recordings, sheet music, and documents regarding music can be easily accessed by interested parties, be they in government, academia, or otherwise interested in music." I may argue that "interested parties...or [those] otherwise interested in music" excludes malicious entities. The target doesn't state that it has to be easily accessible to *everyone*. This counterargument of mine is pretty weak though, admittedly.

3) The target states that "While voluntary donations are strongly suggested, pecuniary compensation (if necessary) will be arranged by an impartial arbitrator." The most natural reading of "if necessary" to me is "if necessary for the sharing to continue". I also don't see what's wrong with the impartial arbitrator is. Your who/what question seems irrelevant, and their duties are outlined in "will be arranged by an impartial arbitrator," plus an arbitrator by definition is just someone who negotiates between both parties (here the donor and the MoMH). I'll grant you their competency, and overall it probably does need elaboration. This might be your strongest argument.

The link has been posted! Apologies, it's been a while and my drafting got a bit rusty in the meanwhile.

1) But that is the very point of the issue here. Because curation is not defined within the clause, it only says that the MoMH can compile, organise and present. It doesn't state "curate" or "judge its merit", or that it has a competency of declining a submission if it is sent to the MoMH. I agree, defining music is difficult if not impossible. However, in its current form, it appears as if anyone - even you or I - can send a recording of their voices with some accompanying music in the background. I'm not a good singer, terrible even, and I assure you that my singing and music won't have much cultural impact or meaning to help someone understand the culture of my nation any better. Yet, the current text of the proposal states that if it is sent to the MoMH, it needs to be stored. Because the MoMH attends to the "compilation, organization, and presentation of music and music related materials", but not curation of the submitted material. In other words, the databases of the MoMH can be clogged with whimsical and unimportant things, such as rhythmically composed flatulence for example. Because nowhere does it say in the target resolution that the MoMH can curate what they receive.

2) Why would that exclude malicious entities? Someone interested in music may still have malicious intents, to use their interest in music in a harmful way. As it stands in the target resolution, there appears to be no protection or security of the material that is submitted. Sure, it should be open to all, but there has to be some form of oversight to ensure that the knowledge and material used isn't spread recklessly and without consideration for the culture or nation that submitted it. Sure, it doesn't state that is has to be readily available to everyone, but it does give unrestricted access to anyone with a musical interest, whatever their intentions with the material may be, benign or malevolent.

3) But that ties in with the first argument - albeit I'll agree that it needs some more work to connect those two - namely that someone who submits a whimsical submission can then proceed to claim that compensation is "necessary for the sharing to continue". In essence, if anyone can submit anything that is musical, then anyone can also demand pecuniary compensation for it. Those are unnecessary costs that the WA will have to make, and as I have been often reminded, the WA is not a bottomless pit. Those funds could be better spent elsewhere. I do agree that there might be merit in expanding upon the arbitrator's competencies, so I'll keep that in mind for the next draft.

[Daarwyrth]

Opposed. The target resolution has very weak flaws that aren't strong enough to justify a repeal. I mean, who can give a solid definition to music? I varies from person to person. Some may not consider a two year gold's piano piece "music", but the two year old composer in question, the "not music" they have produced is the most brilliant thing they've ever heard.

Representative Wentapelloven: "We aren't suggesting that a definition of music is necessary, so perhaps we will rephrase that part of our repeal proposal. However, the MoMH has no powers of curation to ensure that only real music is submitted for compilation and preservation. As we have stated in the proposal, someone can send a file with only flatulence and claim it is music. Because the MoMH is unable to curate the material they receive, and can only compile, organise and present it, it will have to be stored in its databanks. Tell me, Ambassador, what cultural merit can a recording of flatulence have? And in its current form, GAR #86 doesn't prevent the WA storage space or the digital databanks from being clogged with just that."

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Dame Wentapelloven, just because your intentions aren't explicit, doesn't mean they arent implicit. Voicing obvious support for cultural homogenisation would be a bad look for you and your proposal and will cause defeat. However, subtly doing it though a repeal based on weaksauce arguments is the way to go - and that's what you've done. Trust me, I've done this before, see my repeal of 'Prevention of Torture', I myself am no stranger to trying to push through agendas this way.

Representative Wentapelloven: "Ambassador, you're judging us and our intentions by the reflection of your own image, while our nation is entirely different from yours. You seem to be viewing our proposal through the lens of your own actions, cultural values and intentions. Is that not the very thing that you accuse us of doing? Are you not projecting your own identity onto our nation, one that is culturally and societally different from yours? If your delegation has ulterior motives to your proposals, Ambassador, then that is your prerogative. Yet, you shouldn't project your own intentions onto the delegations of other member nations. After all, we are all to be unique, and not culturally homogenous, are we not?

As to the other points you have made, I refer to the response I gave to Ambassador Russell."

OOC: Not sure if this needed clarification, but I'm not really thinking you're an imperialist

OOC: No worries, it's not my first time here

[Comfed]

Your arguments are bad. You should focus on why the target is unnecessary and a waste of funds and labour rather than nitpicking on minor non-issues.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

“Ambassador, this is an okay start. The arguments are valid and the implications of a repeal on the target shouldn’t be too worrying. However, I would suggest using a different example at the end of your first clause. You don’t want your proposal to lose support due to ambassadors being appalled by the current example, after all. Furthermore, in accordance with the point of the ambassador from Comfed, this proposal does need some less nitpicking arguments and more major arguments.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

To Representative Wentapelloven et al:

Our delegation sees some merit to the repeal effort, but not as much as you perceive. Because repeal resolutions are permanent, we can only support a repeal when all of its clauses are acceptable.

GAR #86 supplies no definition of what it considers to be music, and imposes no form of sensible curation of the material submitted to the Museums of Musical Heritage (MoMH) for preservation and compilation, meaning that any being or entity that has produced a sound that could be remotely construed as musical - regardless of how whimsical, irrelevant or culturally insignificant it is - can be submitted to the MoMH and will have to be stored and preserved for posterity, even if the submission were to solely consist of rhythmically composed flatulence accompanied by echoing eructation;

We cannot agree with the logic behind this proposed "flaw" in GAR #86. Music is so ubiquitous and universal across all cultures that we do not think it really needs an international definition in order to be reasonably understood. Particularly in a resolution like GAR #86, which does not purport to outlaw or legalize any particular form of music but merely exists to preserve the cultural heritage of member nations.

Furthermore, your criticism of "whimsical, irrelevant or culturally insignificant" music is nothing more than sharp rhetoric. Putting aside whether it is even fair for the World Assembly to make pronouncements about a particular piece of music being or not being "culturally significant" to a nation, the criticism is simply bad. It marginalizes musical diversity and fails to comprehend the artistic merit behind musical experimentation - without which we would have never discovered jazz, techno, or the electric guitar. Your extreme example illustrates the lack of appreciation for experimental artistry in music. While such music may not be aesthetically pleasing to you that does not mean it has no artistic value and should be excluded from the conversation about the culture (and perhaps the strangeness) of the nation that created it.

Put simply, the Princess cannot agree to repeal on these stated grounds.

The target resolution puts no security measures into effect so as to ensure that the music that is collected and compiled by the MoMH is stored and preserved in a responsible and secure manner either physically or digitally, and so freely enables malicious entities to access the stored music - especially in digital form - and to use those works for ill-intended purposes, such as for unauthorised duplication or cultural defamation, and thus endangers its intent to lead to better appreciation and understanding of other nations' cultures through music

This strikes us as a red herring. The law does not compel anyone to turn over their music. Anyone submitting their music to an international museum must understand that they are making their music available to the public. To the extent that risks the music being misappropriated, the submitter (1) simply needs to weigh that possibility before deciding whether submission is right, and (2) can always seek remedies for such misappropriations in due course of law.

Put simply, such risks can never be fully mitigated in any case where the World Assembly collects data, information, art, or whatever. Our delegation agrees that when people are compelled to give to the World Assembly a lack of security provisions provides a good basis to repeal. Where giving is optional, however, we will assume that World Assembly agencies will try to keep things as secure as they can, in large part because people will freely choose not to give if they feel sufficient security is lacking. We do not support this basis for repeal.

"Museums Of Musical Heritage" liberally offers pecuniary compensation without stipulating what it considers to be "necessary", and under what conditions it would be required to offer remuneration for the donation of music. In addition, no clarity or direction is given over who or what the "impartial arbitrator" is supposed to be, what their duties would entail, or how far their competencies would stretch in administering the MoMH's funds. Such a lack of oversight and direction means that WA funds are irresponsibly spent, for example in the event a donor of music would decide they require remuneration for their submission simply because they desire such financial compensation;

But here we do agree with you that this is a sound basis to repeal. GAR #86 claims to promote free donation of music to the museum, but it's compensation provision would actually disincentivize musicians from donating. Who in their right mind would donate when "pecuniary compensation (if necessary) will be arranged by an impartial arbitrator"? Under such a law, nearly every musician would find pecuniary compensation "necessary" and there are no guidelines telling the arbitrator when they may decline payment, or how to evaluate the amount of compensation. This creates a substantial risk that preferred musicians will take large sums from the public dole while others are offered comparatively little for their work; all based on the unknown criteria that might ultimately come down to the personal preferences of the arbitrator.

If the World Assembly is going to be subsidizing music by paying compensation to anyone who submits their music to the MoMH, there really should be some oversight (or at least criteria) to avoid corrupt dealings and ensure public money is well spent. Granting individual actors a broad right to payment from the General Fund in a single, extremely-general line of the resolution text was a very bad policy for GAR #86 to pursue.

Good luck.

Yours Truely,
Roweina of Prancerville
International Liaison, Class Five
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Hulldom]

Freshly sobered up, and finally entrusted with some modicum of work by his boss, Casper Dolbund walks into the committee room where the draft is being presented.

“A welcome return to the drafting halls, Your Excellency. We are so pleased that the Daarwyrthian Delegation has returned to drafting.”

“We concur, but not wholly agree with the other Delegations. The arguments for repeal could be stronger, but we find that the fist argument is just fine and the only one we’d dispense with entirely is the second.”

[Tinhampton]

Welcome back to the GA, Daar.

Tentative support.

[Minskiev]

Oh yeah welcome back lol

[Imperium Anglorum]

C Marcius Blythe. I concur with the ambassador for PRS' remarks.

[Mesogiria]

[i]But here we do agree with you that this is a sound basis to repeal. GAR #86 claims to promote free donation of music to the museum, but it's compensation provision would actually disincentivize musicians from donating. Who in their right mind would donate when "pecuniary compensation (if necessary) will be arranged by an impartial arbitrator"? Under such a law, nearly every musician would find pecuniary compensation "necessary" and there are no guidelines telling the arbitrator when they may decline payment, or how to evaluate the amount of compensation. This creates a substantial risk that preferred musicians will take large sums from the public dole while others are offered comparatively little for their work; all based on the unknown criteria that might ultimately come down to the personal preferences of the arbitrator.

If the World Assembly is going to be subsidizing music by paying compensation to anyone who submits their music to the MoMH, there really should be some oversight (or at least criteria) to avoid corrupt dealings and ensure public money is well spent. Granting individual actors a broad right to payment from the General Fund in a single, extremely-general line of the resolution text was a very bad policy for GAR #86 to pursue.

If the resolution were to be replaced, it would probably be problematic in general for the museum to actually remunerate donors at all, even if it were a simple fixed fee or honorarium. There might still be a reasonable provision of reimbursing costs associated with donations to facilitate them, such as repaying the expenses of transportation and restoration of unique collections of physical media, or the processing of uncatalogued recordings from a studio's archives. Likely this would need to be specified as occurring only after the museum has expressed interest in and approved the project.

[Fachumonn]

Ambassador The People: "I support a repeal of the rather week resolution, but I concur with the above ambassadors that these arguments need to be refined."