[PASSED] Repeal "Foreign Copyright Recognition"

[Heidgaudr]

An intern wheels a television stand into the Assembly. After several minutes of fumbling with wires, he manages to turn the television on and connect to a video chat program. Janus Vilvotr's face suddenly filled the screen, showing an uncomfortably high level of zoom. He was obviously using a cell phone of some sort, and not too proficiently either: the right side of his face was entirely cut off and an EKG machine could be seen in the background.

"As promised when I first brought Repeal International Patent Agreement to the floor, I've drafted a repeal for the next intellectual property resolution. I'm about to head into surgery for a formerly patented artificial liver, so I'm not going to be able to debate the bill, but Asgeir will be. He's assured me he'll do an adequate job replacing me."

Amb. Trelstad walked towards the podium. "I lost a bet, so not only will I be the one representing the Associated Communities, but I'm also obligated to act like Janus." From his jacket, he pulls out a fake beard, which he puts on, and a flask which he opens. The Ambassador clears his throat. "Relax," he says in an imitation growl, " 'tis just water. Anyhoo, here's our new proposal."

Repeal "Foreign Copyright Recognition"

---

Category: Repeal || Resolution: GAR #232 || Proposed by: Heidgaudr

---

The General Assembly,

Believing that freedom of artistic expression is a cornerstone of a healthy society;

Recognizing the need for artists to receive due compensation for their work; however,

Contending that GA#232 "Foreign Copyright Recognition" works contrary to these fundamental beliefs;

Aggrieved that member nations are permitted to institute policies that are destructive to both artists and member nations alike;

Finds the following:

1. Article 3's minimum length requirement and lack of any maximum length requirement leads to nonsensical outcomes. For the former, domestic copyright may lapse long before the foreign copyright has. In the latter, a work can remain copyrighted long after the artist and their immediate family are deceased. In either extreme, members are disadvantaged with no justification for doing so.
2. Article 3 is furthermore troublesome as a nation may change its copyright laws for the express purpose of economically damaging other member nations. Such a form of economic warfare is antithetical to the World Assembly's mission and as such should not be tolerated.
3. Article 4's limitations and exceptions to copyright when doing so "are clearly in the public interest" are incredibly vague, creating a chilling effect wherein people who might be entitled to use the work under these exceptions refrain from doing so out of fear of litigation.

For these reasons, hereby repeals GA#232 "Foreign Copyright Recognition".

[Heidgaudr]

-=Works entered into the public domain=-

The General Assembly,

Believing that freedom of artistic expression is a cornerstone of a healthy society;

Recognizing the need for artists to receive due compensation for their work; however,

Contending that GA#232 "Foreign Copyright Recognition" works contrary to these fundamental beliefs;

Aggrieved that GA#232 actively enriches large corporations at the expense of independent artists, the very same group of people most in need of protection;

Finds the following:

1. Enforcing intellectual property rights in many jurisdictions requires hiring legal counsel - a privilege small, independent artists are often unable to afford. This leads to an inequity wherein large corporations who are able to afford counsel may infringe on smaller artists' works so long as said artists have little or no financial ability to bring an infringement complaint, while independent artists are very likely to be sued if their works even vaguely resemble those produced by a large corporation.
2. Article 3's minimum and maximum length mandates lead to nonsensical outcomes. For the former, domestic copyright may lapse long before the foreign copyright has. In the latter, a work can remain copyrighted long after the artist and their immediate family are deceased. In either extreme, members are disadvantaged with no justification for doing so.
3. Article 3 is furthermore troublesome as a nation may change its copyright laws for the express purpose of economically damaging other member nations. Such a situation necessarily leads to the reduction of artistic expression both domestically and abroad.
4. Article 4's limitations and exceptions to copyright when doing so "are clearly in the public interest" create a chilling effect, wherein people who might be entitled to use the work under these exceptions refrain from doing so out of fear of litigation.

For these reasons, hereby repeals GA#232 "Foreign Copyright Recognition".

The General Assembly,

Believing that freedom of artistic expression is a cornerstone of a healthy society;

Recognizing the need for artists to receive due compensation for their work; however,

Contending that GA#232 "Foreign Copyright Recognition" works contrary to these fundamental beliefs;

Aggrieved that GA#232 actively enriches large corporations at the expense of independent artists, the very same group of people most in need of protection;

Finds the following:

1. Article 3's minimum length requirement and lack of any maximum length requirement leads to nonsensical outcomes. For the former, domestic copyright may lapse long before the foreign copyright has. In the latter, a work can remain copyrighted long after the artist and their immediate family are deceased. In either extreme, members are disadvantaged with no justification for doing so.
2. Article 3 is furthermore troublesome as a nation may change its copyright laws for the express purpose of economically damaging other member nations. Such a situation necessarily leads to the reduction of artistic expression both domestically and abroad.
3. Article 4's limitations and exceptions to copyright when doing so "are clearly in the public interest" are incredibly vague, creating a chilling effect wherein people who might be entitled to use the work under these exceptions refrain from doing so out of fear of litigation.

For these reasons, hereby repeals GA#232 "Foreign Copyright Recognition".

[Second Sovereignty]

"One point, Ambassador," said Raxes, "We would like to see language attacking Copyright itself; the notion that such things as research papers must be restricted only to inaccessible journals rather than being open for use and further research, for example. Regardless, beyond that, we find the draft quite agreeable. The Sovereignty wholly supports the effort."

OOC:
Admittedly copyright abolition is something I could use a better understanding of, but I know enough to know where I stand.

[Kenmoria]

Lewitt reads the proposal, sighing as he does so. Sure, he has turned his back on capitalism, but that doesn’t mean that he needs to start waving red flags. “I will support this, very reluctantly, for clause two only. Maybe even clause three might qualify, if your delegation is lucky.” He briefly glances towards the Sovereignty’s delegation. “Anything attacking the very concept of copyright itself, which supports the livelihoods of those artists whom this repeal aims to protect, will render any support of this repeal far more difficult.”

[Heidgaudr]

"One point, Ambassador," said Raxes, "We would like to see language attacking Copyright itself; the notion that such things as research papers must be restricted only to inaccessible journals rather than being open for use and further research, for example. Regardless, beyond that, we find the draft quite agreeable. The Sovereignty wholly supports the effort."

"A fair point, though it might be covered already by clause 4 of our proposal. Research might be something potentially "clearly in the public interest" but it's rather ambiguous whether it actually does qualify. In any case, we'll consider your suggestion when we next edit it. It could prove to be quite persuasive to voters."

OOC:
Admittedly copyright abolition is something I could use a better understanding of, but I know enough to know where I stand.

OOC: As an abolitionist myself, I also don't want the WA to have any IP laws. But it's probably not politically expedient to attempt. I did try a far more ideological approach in my first draft of Repeal IPA if you want to go back and read it and see people's reactions.

Lewitt reads the proposal, sighing as he does so. Sure, he has turned his back on capitalism, but that doesn’t mean that he needs to start waving red flags. “I will support this, very reluctantly, for clause two only. Maybe even clause three might qualify, if your delegation is lucky.” He briefly glances towards the Sovereignty’s delegation. “Anything attacking the very concept of copyright itself, which supports the livelihoods of those artists whom this repeal aims to protect, will render any support of this repeal far more difficult.”

"I always appreciate your non-commital support, Sir Lewitt."

[Second Sovereignty]

Lewitt reads the proposal, sighing as he does so. Sure, he has turned his back on capitalism, but that doesn’t mean that he needs to start waving red flags. “I will support this, very reluctantly, for clause two only. Maybe even clause three might qualify, if your delegation is lucky.” He briefly glances towards the Sovereignty’s delegation. “Anything attacking the very concept of copyright itself, which supports the livelihoods of those artists whom this repeal aims to protect, will render any support of this repeal far more difficult.”

"Oh no, quite the contrary, really," said Raxes cheerfully, "Do consider, the nature of copyright is inevitably to centralize ownership of works, visual art, music, research, - anything copyrightable, really - in publishing conglomerates. To borrow an observation from our," he waved a hand in tight circles as he searched for a reasonably polite word, "Counterparts, in the Consortium territories, any property with substantial reach or value is near-universally owned by such a corporation, rather than by the artists, - singular or various as needed to realize a given work. With regards to smaller artists, those without reach or funding, copyright provides only the illusion of protection; as stated in the draft's first finding, the same large corporations or conglomerates which own the majority of artistic properties are effectively free to loot from smaller artists, as retaining legal counsel and hoping that a court will be genuinely unbiased between a large, economically valuable corporation and an individual creator, is beyond the means of many artists."

He paused for a breath, clicking his mandibles in thought, "As, a final point, Ambassador, gaining access to publishing or promulgation resources - or even aid in the realization of a complete work, for such things as film or theater, - near-universally bears the expectation of transferring the copyrights to the aforementioned large publishing bodies, leaving the artists with, at best, paltry leavings from the sale of their art. Copyright does not, and cannot, truly, protect artists; it's simply not in its nature."

[Heidgaudr]

Asgeir absentmindedly knocks a pen off his desk. It makes a loud *bump* when it hits the floor.

"Oops."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Gaius Marcius Blythe. We support repeal in principle, largely due to the lengths specified in the resolution. Empirical research shows causal estimates for copyright introduction under relatively liberal terms as increasing the output works, both on the extensive (numbers) and intensive (here quality) margins. (OOC. Michela Giorcelli and Petra Moser, Copyright and creativity: evidence from Italian opera during the Napoleonic age, NBER working paper 26885 (2020), https://www.nber.org/papers/w26885.)

That strong and long term copyrights reduce creativity is well documented. We think delegations should refrain from bringing foolish arguments alleging such causal claims. (OOC. Eg Barbara Biasi and Petra Moser, Effects of copyrights on science: evidence from the WWII book republication program, 13 Am Econ J: Microecon 218 (2021), https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mic.20190113.)

[Heidgaudr]

"The draft has been updated. We've removed the point of the "Finds..." list as, while we fully believe in it, its inclusion may dissuade some of our more economically conservative members from supporting the proposal."

[Tinhampton]

Article 3 lays no "maximum length mandates." Otherwise, support.

[Republic of Mesque]

Support. Copyrights stall innovation.

[Heidgaudr]

Article 3 lays no "maximum length mandates." Otherwise, support.

"Yes well, uh, I suppose that's true. Uh, I believe that should be fixed. Would 'Article 3's minimum length requirement and lack of any maximum length requirement...' be an acceptable edit to the offending section?"

[Tinhampton]

Article 3 lays no "maximum length mandates." Otherwise, support.

"Yes well, uh, I suppose that's true. Uh, I believe that should be fixed. Would 'Article 3's minimum length requirement and lack of any maximum length requirement...' be an acceptable edit to the offending section?"

quite possibly

[Heidgaudr]

"Yes well, uh, I suppose that's true. Uh, I believe that should be fixed. Would 'Article 3's minimum length requirement and lack of any maximum length requirement...' be an acceptable edit to the offending section?"

quite possibly

"Consider it done."

[Heidgaudr]

Made some tweaks in the "Aggrieved" line and Point 2 of the list.

Barring substantive objections, I'll be looking to submit this in the not-too-distant future.

[Heidgaudr]

Speak now or forever hold your peace.

[The Ice States]

Speak now or forever hold your peace.

"I speak."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Heidgaudr]

This has been submitted. You can find it at the following link: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1675372940

[Simone Republic]

This has been submitted. You can find it at the following link: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1675372940

I speak. And no. And by the way this won't go to vote until late March anyway if everything else makes quorum.

[Heidgaudr]

Bumping this up to the front page to make it easier for the mods to find.

[Kenmoria]

“Following an alteration in the political orientation of Kenmoria, now the People’s Republic of Kenmoria, this delegation has nothing less than full support for this proposal.”

[Goobergunchia]

Bumping this up to the front page to make it easier for the mods to find.

Thank you!

[Eastern Wolon]

"We must disagree with this as it seems to be anti copyright and not just a repeal, we fear it may lead to more repeals like it thus causing us to vote against." - ambassador Jakob Ozoliņš

[Office of WA Legislation]

The South Pacific recommends that you vote $FOR$ Repeal "Foreign Copyright Recognition", by Heidgaudr.

Please find the Office of WA Legislation's analysis of this repeal below, and make sure to upvote the OWL's recommendation dispatch.

This proposal aims to repeal GA#232 "Foreign Copyright Recognition" based on flaws in Articles 3 and 4 of the target resolution.

The proposal first argues Article 3 of GA#232 operates poorly on both ends of the copyright length spectrum. On the one hand, the minimum copyright recognition length of twenty years risks both foreign copyrights lasting longer than domestic ones, causing immense confusion. On the other hand, foreign copyrights could potentially last long after those who would benefit from them are deceased, creating a void concerning the copyright. The proposal also argues Article 3 is worrisome due to its allowing of member nations to wage "economic warfare" on other member nations by manipulating their domestic copyright laws.

Finally, the proposal asserts Article 4 of the target creates a dangerous mandate where a foreign copyright could potentially be rendered null by a member nation if it determines the copyright goes against the "public interest." This incredibly vague terminology creates a large loophole that the repeal rightfully addresses.

While OWL supports the endeavor of ensuring artistic integrity across the multiverse, the proposal makes compelling arguments concerning the flaws of the target resolution. GA#232 does more harm than good as long as it remains on the books for the reasons described above.

Thus, OWL recommends a vote FOR the at-vote resolution, "Repeal: 'Foreign Copyright Recognition".

This resolution will be at vote between midnight EDT on March 21st 2023 and midnight EDT on March 25th 2023.

[Heidgaudr]

Bumping this up to the front page to make it easier for the mods to find.

Thank you!

I saw your post on Discord about having to find the previous at vote thread

---

"We must disagree with this as it seems to be anti copyright and not just a repeal, we fear it may lead to more repeals like it thus causing us to vote against." - ambassador Jakob Ozoliņš

"You're correct that the Associated Communities take an anti-copyright stance. I'm curious though what you think this will lead to. International Patent Agreement was already repealed, after all, so there isn't much intellectual property law remaining to go after."