[PASSED] Repeal "World Assembly Copyright Charter"

[Goobergunchia]

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.
Since, apparently, there has suddenly and without notice become a requirement that I post links immediately upon reaching quorum, my need for sleep not withstanding, I do sincerely apologize that these links were not posted a few hours sooner.

BELIEVING the people have a right to partake in their own culture

UNDERSTANDING that the primary purpose of copyright is to promote the creation of new works;

NOTING that it is very difficult to motivate people who have been dead for a quarter century;

PUZZLED why the World Assembly nonetheless insists upon this as the minimum term for copyright;

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;

WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVING that, other than the aforementioned flaws, the resolution is well written and strikes a decent balance between the rights of the people and the promotion of creativity;

HOPING a similar resolution will be promptly passed, with the aforementioned flaws addressed;

The World Assembly hereby repeals Resolution #61, “World Assembly Copyright Charter”.

Resolution 61

Previous attempts to repeal this have been derided as just being anti-copyright rants (and many were). I'm fine with the WA legislating copyright to some level, but I've always had a problem with how GR wrote it. (And not just because it's a massive wall of text with the terms tucked away.) He claims there's nothing in here that requires nations to have copyright laws. I'm sure he'll bring that up, so I think I need some way to say just how ridiculous it is that it's fine to have no copyright laws at all, but not to have laws which only apply for 24 years after the author's death (and address how incredibly unclear that is made in the resolution).

GR TGd me, after having seen me post this on a regional forum, with some arguments. I'd like to address them now. To start, I have removed the line "WORRIED that the World Assembly does not clearly and adequately protect the use of copyrighted works in the reporting of news and non-critical comment on the work in question;" because, while I think it's true, it's not particularly strong, and it's just one more thing to bicker over.

I will not, however, remove the "CONCERNED" line. The resolution says, in relevant part, that "...copyrighted works may be used freely and legally, if such use can be proven to be legitimate fair use;" This fairly clearly says that the use must be proven to be fair, not that it must be proven to be unfair. It is a subtle difference, and I understand the implication was unintended, but it is the difference between guilty until proven innocent and innocent until proven guilty. I understand the latter is not explicitly protected in the WA. While I think it ought to be, I won't insist upon it here. I would recommend a replacement pass this decision of process to the court system of the member nation.

[Alqania]

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

[Goobergunchia]

While we are also not opposed to some form of copyright harmonization resolution, we agree that the length of copyright required by the "World Assembly Copyright Charter" is excessive. We support the draft proposal, and would be willing to support an appropriate replacement should the repeal pass.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador
Citizen of the Rejected Realms

[Embolalia]

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

[Glen-Rhodes]

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;

As mentioned in private communications, this is baffling. I could understand if the resolution said something along the lines of "fair use is such and such, so long as the use is first proven to not excessively infringe on the exclusive right or profits of the owner." But it doesn't. I do not think there's any way to read the language as a kind of guilty-until-proven-innocent policy. In fact, the language says the exact opposite.

How else should fair use work? You get to claim it's fair use, and never have to stand in court to prove it when the copyright owner challenges your fair use claim? That's patently absurd. The language very clearly sets out a process, as far as I can see: you can use something under fair use, until it's proven that it's not fair use. In most cases, that means going to court and presenting your arguments. (However, for all the claims that the resolution runs contrary to many states' legal systems, you yourself have mistakenly assumed that courts are the only means of settling intellectual property disputes.) But nowhere does the resolution place the onus upon a person claiming fair use to prove first that fair use applies.

I think you've constructed a convoluted reasoning in your mind that relies upon grammar, and came to the conclusion that word order or something other causes the clauses to mean something other than what any reasonable person would come to understand. I don't care to get into yet another technical fight with somebody. But this repeal would be just as strong without splitting hairs on fair use, so why not remove it? Why invite accusations of petty over-attention to detail?

- Dr. B. Castro

[Embolalia]

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;

As mentioned in private communications, this is baffling. I could understand if the resolution said something along the lines of "fair use is such and such, so long as the use is first proven to not excessively infringe on the exclusive right or profits of the owner." But it doesn't. I do not think there's any way to read the language as a kind of guilty-until-proven-innocent policy. In fact, the language says the exact opposite.

How else should fair use work? You get to claim it's fair use, and never have to stand in court to prove it when the copyright owner challenges your fair use claim? That's patently absurd. The language very clearly sets out a process, as far as I can see: you can use something under fair use, until it's proven that it's not fair use. In most cases, that means going to court and presenting your arguments. But nowhere does the resolution place the onus upon a person claiming fair use to prove first that fair use applies.

I think you've constructed a convoluted reasoning in your mind that relies upon grammar, and came to the conclusion that word order or something other causes the clauses to mean something other than what any reasonable person would come to understand. I don't care to get into yet another technical fight with somebody. But this repeal would be just as strong without splitting hairs on fair use, so why not remove it? Why invite accusations of petty over-attention to detail?

- Dr. B. Castro

It says "if it can be proven that it is fair use." If the defense can be proven, it's okay. Not if the accusation can be proven, it's not okay. The fact is that the law, as written, places the burden of proof on the accused. To say that the flaw is merely grammatical is completely ridiculous. Grammar matters. A panda eats, shoots, and leaves. Let's eat grandma. My computer turned me on.

Furthermore, I don't think the repeal is as strong without it. Many nations do, somehow, justify having copyright terms longer than the life of the creator. Embolalia is (and was prior to this resolution) among them, sadly. I imagine a fair number of people would look at that single justification and say "it works for us, so who cares", and vote against.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I don't understand how fair use should work. I do. It should follow whatever the legal precedent is for any other tort in the nation in question. In your nation and mine, this means a use should be considered fair until proven otherwise. The resolution does not set out a process. It defines fair use, and then states that a work can be used if the use is proven to be fair. It does not say that the use is infringement if it is provably unfair. It does not say that the use is acceptable unless it is proven not to fall under the fair use definition. It requires proof of fairness in order for it to be considered fair.

Lastly, if you're okay with the repeal on the central point, why bother bringing up accusations of paying attention to the actual text of the resolution? I don't see how "attention to detail" is in any way a bad thing, so I'll continue having this fight as long as necessary. You've said yourself you don't wish to have a technical fight. So don't.

-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia

[The Solarian Isles]

After reviewing the resolution in question, we can find no reason to support a repeal. The twenty-five year period allows for the copyright holder's next of kin to profit from the work in a manner akin to an inheritance. Besides, I fail to see how the resolution inhibits creativity, anyway. A dead artist isn't creating new work regardless of who's cashing the royalty checks.

His Radiance Cleric Joran Kell
Solarian Delegate to the WA

[Linux and the X]

He claims there's nothing in here that requires nations to have copyright laws

An interesting interpretation. I'd like to hear his defence of it.

[Glen-Rhodes]

He claims there's nothing in here that requires nations to have copyright laws

An interesting interpretation. I'd like to hear his defence of it.

You are free to look for the requirement in the law yourself, Ambassador.

It says "if it can be proven that it is fair use." If the defense can be proven, it's okay. Not if the accusation can be proven, it's not okay. The fact is that the law, as written, places the burden of proof on the accused. To say that the flaw is merely grammatical is completely ridiculous. Grammar matters. A panda eats, shoots, and leaves. Let's eat grandma. My computer turned me on.

I still don't understand the problem, here, and believe that it's a case of misunderstanding. Fair use, as understood in its most common deployment, is an affirmative defense: the onus is always on the defendant to prove fair use. All the accuser needs is a prima facie case of infringement.

However, none of this is directly related to your claim. You are claiming the the Copyright Charter places the onus upon a person to prove fair use before ever using a copyrighted work. In terms of practicality, it is always a good idea to explain how the use of a copyrighted work falls under fair use, regardless of any infringement claim. The Charter does not require that, but it's good advice regardless.

In terms of legal procedures, your argument is suggesting some kind of formal proceeding is required to use a copyrighted work under fair use. That is plainly false and is not supported by the text. Even the construction of the clause does not suggest doing that. Any belief that it does is imagined and can just as easily be imagined and interpreted away, if a member state happens to come to your same conclusion.

Lastly, if you're okay with the repeal on the central point, why bother bringing up accusations of paying attention to the actual text of the resolution? I don't see how "attention to detail" is in any way a bad thing, so I'll continue having this fight as long as necessary. You've said yourself you don't wish to have a technical fight. So don't.

The Copyright Charter is still a project of Glen-Rhodes, and we will defend it against misguided and misleading claims. Your "attention to detail" is not beneficial, because you've begun splitting hairs and seeing things that are not true according to the plain language. This can be done with any law. Authors are not infallible, but they'll always be utterly and totally inept if one insists on inventing policies that are induced by a microscopic level of unnecessary attention.

Yes, I do not want to have a technical fight. But the Embolalian delegation seems intent on having one by not doing everybody a favor a removing an unnecessary clause in their repeal. Intellectual property is not exactly a popular idea right now. A repeal could pass on the term arguments alone, and if you don't think so, then you must not be paying attention to the internet lately.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Linux and the X]

It says "if it can be proven that it is fair use." If the defense can be proven, it's okay. Not if the accusation can be proven, it's not okay. The fact is that the law, as written, places the burden of proof on the accused. To say that the flaw is merely grammatical is completely ridiculous. Grammar matters. A panda eats, shoots, and leaves. Let's eat grandma. My computer turned me on.

I still don't understand the problem, here, and believe that it's a case of misunderstanding. Fair use, as understood in its most common deployment, is an affirmative defense: the onus is always on the defendant to prove fair use. All the accuser needs is a prima facie case of infringement.

Such usage is not universal, however. Prior to the Copyright Charter, we required an accusers to demonstrate that a claim of fair use could be justifiably opposed; we would not demand a fair user waste time proving a case the accuser had no chance of disproving.

We also ask for a clarification of the argument that the Charter does not require having copyright.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I still don't understand the problem, here, and believe that it's a case of misunderstanding. Fair use, as understood in its most common deployment, is an affirmative defense: the onus is always on the defendant to prove fair use. All the accuser needs is a prima facie case of infringement.

Such usage is not universal, however. Prior to the Copyright Charter, we required an accusers to demonstrate that a claim of fair use could be justifiably opposed; we would not demand a fair user waste time proving a case the accuser had no chance of disproving.

We also ask for a clarification of the argument that the Charter does not require having copyright.

If that's the case, then your nation's concept of fair use was not the normal one, and particularly contrary to the entire purpose of fair use.

As for your second question, I cannot prove a negative. There is nothing in the resolution requiring a member state to grant copyrights. Like I said, you can look for yourself to see if there is any copyright-mandating provision.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Linux and the X]

If that's the case, then your nation's concept of fair use was not the normal one, and particularly contrary to the entire purpose of fair use.

Dr. Castro, your nation's purposes are not the same as all nations' purposes. However, there is no point in having this argument again; neither of us will be convinced.

As for your second question, I cannot prove a negative. There is nothing in the resolution requiring a member state to grant copyrights. Like I said, you can look for yourself to see if there is any copyright-mandating provision.

That would be the "DECLARES that national copyright laws must grant the following rights and protections..." clause, unless you have an argument that copyright law need not exist to be able grant rights and protections.

[Zaxton Archipelago]

Open Letter to World Assembly Delegates,

With regard to the first draft of the act for W.A. consideration, working title of Repeal "World Assembly Copyright Charter", it is within my authority to assure that, as presented, my nation is prepared to vote for repeal.

We suggest that the author of the repeal act should be lead author on the copyright accord to follow it.

Sincerely:
Erasmus Le Cruset
Zaxtonian Ambassadorial Agent for the World Assembly

[Glen-Rhodes]

If that's the case, then your nation's concept of fair use was not the normal one, and particularly contrary to the entire purpose of fair use.

Dr. Castro, your nation's purposes are not the same as all nations' purposes. However, there is no point in having this argument again; neither of us will be convinced.

I'm not declaring that Glen-Rhodes Fair Use Doctrine is supreme. I'm not even claiming that there is a specific Glen-Rhodes Fair Use Doctrine. Saying that the fair use legal procedures you've described are outside the norm is a factual statement. It's not a matter of "my nation's purposes are not the same as all nations' purposes." Despite what some might believe, facts do exist. Not everything is subjective to individual member states.

You might as well argue that before the resolution, your fair use doctrine required accusers to supply purple hippos for the entertainment of a circus jury. That doesn't mean what you had can in any way be called "fair use." It's a legal concept and has a specific legal meaning.

As for your second question, I cannot prove a negative. There is nothing in the resolution requiring a member state to grant copyrights. Like I said, you can look for yourself to see if there is any copyright-mandating provision.

That would be the "DECLARES that national copyright laws must grant the following rights and protections..." clause, unless you have an argument that copyright law need not exist to be able grant rights and protections.

Nowhere in that clause does there exist a mandate to establish copyright laws. Just read the text. If there are copyright laws, then they must have x and y. If the Charter wanted to mandate copyright laws, it would have said so, and not used language specifically written to avoid such a mandate.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

The twenty-five year period allows for the copyright holder's next of kin to profit from the work in a manner akin to an inheritance.

The Solarian delegate raises a good point here, although the exact time period may not be appropriate for some species. However, despite the defence of Glen-Rhodes, we are very concerned about the grammar.

Also, we would strongly prefer a Copyright Charter that clearly and indisputably enforces copyright. Therefore we are in favour of the repeal.

[Linux and the X]

I'm not declaring that Glen-Rhodes Fair Use Doctrine is supreme. I'm not even claiming that there is a specific Glen-Rhodes Fair Use Doctrine. Saying that the fair use legal procedures you've described are outside the norm is a factual statement. It's not a matter of "my nation's purposes are not the same as all nations' purposes." Despite what some might believe, facts do exist. Not everything is subjective to individual member states.

Norms surely exist. However, that is irrelevant to your claim that our former fair use standard is "contrary to the purposes of fair use". That a standard is the norm does not demonstrate a universality of purpose.

Nowhere in that clause does there exist a mandate to establish copyright laws. Just read the text. If there are copyright laws, then they must have x and y. If the Charter wanted to mandate copyright laws, it would have said so, and not used language specifically written to avoid such a mandate.

If the language used was "specifically written to avoid such a mandate", it was written quite poorly. The clause, as written, requires that copyright law (indeed, national copyright law) grant certain rights and protections. If there is no national copyright law, it clearly does not grant those rights and protections. As such, a lack of law does not meet the requirements of the Charter.

[Sionis Prioratus]

About time someone would remove this foetid, slimy, oozing, mutagenic trash from the books!

Yours in hygiene,

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm not declaring that Glen-Rhodes Fair Use Doctrine is supreme. I'm not even claiming that there is a specific Glen-Rhodes Fair Use Doctrine. Saying that the fair use legal procedures you've described are outside the norm is a factual statement. It's not a matter of "my nation's purposes are not the same as all nations' purposes." Despite what some might believe, facts do exist. Not everything is subjective to individual member states.

Norms surely exist. However, that is irrelevant to your claim that our former fair use standard is "contrary to the purposes of fair use". That a standard is the norm does not demonstrate a universality of purpose.

Okay, you have something totally different from what fair use is. Feel free to call it fair use, then. I don't particularly care what you call it. It still isn't real fair use and isn't in line with the purposes of real fair use. Instead, I'll just call it the Purple Hippos Doctrine, to avoid confusion from here on out.

If the language used was "specifically written to avoid such a mandate", it was written quite poorly. The clause, as written, requires that copyright law (indeed, national copyright law) grant certain rights and protections. If there is no national copyright law, it clearly does not grant those rights and protections. As such, a lack of law does not meet the requirements of the Charter.

If I were to say the following:

All books must have white pages with black text.

Would you say that I'm mandating the existence (or printing) of books? Or merely that I'm mandating that, where books actually exist, those books must have white pages with black text?

- Dr. B. Castro

[Linux and the X]

Okay, you have something totally different from what fair use is. Feel free to call it fair use, then. I don't particularly care what you call it. It still isn't real fair use and isn't in line with the purposes of real fair use. Instead, I'll just call it the Purple Hippos Doctrine, to avoid confusion from here on out.

Sure, Dr. Castro. You do that.

If I were to say the following:

All books must have white pages with black text.

Would you say that I'm mandating the existence (or printing) of books? Or merely that I'm mandating that, where books actually exist, those books must have white pages with black text?

That's not entirely relevant. A closer analogy would be saying that "books must be sold on white paper in black text", in which case you would certainly be saying that books must be printed (yes, yes, ebooks, we know).

[Glen-Rhodes]

That's not entirely relevant. A closer analogy would be saying that "books must be sold on white paper in black text", in which case you would certainly be saying that books must be printed (yes, yes, ebooks, we know).

Well, no, that's not a closer analogy at all. Here's the structure of the clause:

DECLARES that national copyright laws must grant the following rights and protections ...

Declares that books must have white pages with black text.

[Thing] must have [requirements].

It's not, "The following rights and protections must be granted, through national copyright laws, ..."

This is an open-and-shut case. If you don't think that the aforementioned phrase mandates the existence of books, then there's no reason for you to think that the clause in the resolution mandates the existence of national copyright laws.

[Linux and the X]

Well, no, that's not a closer analogy at all. Here's the structure of the clause:

DECLARES that national copyright laws must grant the following rights and protections ...

Declares that books must have white pages with black text.

[Thing] must have [requirements].

Your skeleton only matches one of those. Attempt at trickery noted, discussion terminated.

[Embolalia]

I still don't understand the problem, here, and believe that it's a case of misunderstanding. Fair use, as understood in its most common deployment, is an affirmative defense: the onus is always on the defendant to prove fair use. All the accuser needs is a prima facie case of infringement.

However, none of this is directly related to your claim. You are claiming the the Copyright Charter places the onus upon a person to prove fair use before ever using a copyrighted work. In terms of practicality, it is always a good idea to explain how the use of a copyrighted work falls under fair use, regardless of any infringement claim. The Charter does not require that, but it's good advice regardless.

In terms of legal procedures, your argument is suggesting some kind of formal proceeding is required to use a copyrighted work under fair use. That is plainly false and is not supported by the text. Even the construction of the clause does not suggest doing that. Any belief that it does is imagined and can just as easily be imagined and interpreted away, if a member state happens to come to your same conclusion.

There is certainly a misunderstanding here - you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I have said nothing of a pre-use hearing. I have not said that fairness of use must be proven prior to use. I have merely stated that it places the burden of proof on the accused. That is to say, were a case to be raised, one would be assumed guilty unless they could provide sufficient evidence to the contrary. I know you have an aversion to attention to detail, but please take the time to read what I'm writing before you make assumptions about what I'm saying.

The Copyright Charter is still a project of Glen-Rhodes, and we will defend it against misguided and misleading claims. Your "attention to detail" is not beneficial, because you've begun splitting hairs and seeing things that are not true according to the plain language. This can be done with any law. Authors are not infallible, but they'll always be utterly and totally inept if one insists on inventing policies that are induced by a microscopic level of unnecessary attention.

Yes, I do not want to have a technical fight. But the Embolalian delegation seems intent on having one by not doing everybody a favor a removing an unnecessary clause in their repeal. Intellectual property is not exactly a popular idea right now. A repeal could pass on the term arguments alone, and if you don't think so, then you must not be paying attention to the internet lately.

In other words, you're too proud of a work you've admitted to be imperfect to allow a point you don't agree with to be on the record. Your objections are noted, m'colleague.

If I were to say the following:

All books must have white pages with black text.

Would you say that I'm mandating the existence (or printing) of books? Or merely that I'm mandating that, where books actually exist, those books must have white pages with black text?

That's not entirely relevant. A closer analogy would be saying that "books must be sold on white paper in black text", in which case you would certainly be saying that books must be printed (yes, yes, ebooks, we know).

Neither of these are quite perfect analogies. Sticking with books, "Books must be printed on white paper with black text" would be closer, but perhaps a more apt analogy would be "Parking permits must be displayed in the rear window of the vehicle." For the sake of argument, you can consider the phrase "in order to be compliant with the law" to be perpended to these examples. In my example, while the words themselves do not say "you must have a parking permit", it does not make sense that they would have to be displayed in a specific place if thy were not required. In the same vein, the words "(in order to be compliant with the law) national copyright laws must do x" do not explicitly say "a nation must have copyright laws", but that wording does imply that national copyright laws must exist. If the laws don't exist, they don't do x. If they don't do x, they are not compliant. Therefore they must exist. There are ways to word it that would avoid this. But in the same vein as we are already debating with the fair use issue, the proposal's attention to detail in its syntax is sub-par.

-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia

[Glen-Rhodes]

There is certainly a misunderstanding here - you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I have said nothing of a pre-use hearing. I have not said that fairness of use must be proven prior to use. I have merely stated that it places the burden of proof on the accused. That is to say, were a case to be raised, one would be assumed guilty unless they could provide sufficient evidence to the contrary. I know you have an aversion to attention to detail, but please take the time to read what I'm writing before you make assumptions about what I'm saying.

That how fair use works, though. It's an affirmative defense. You're taking somebody's copyrighted work and using it without their permission. Fair use isn't meant to act as a safe haven in hopes that the accuser won't be able to convince a judge or jury. Artists and authors have their rights duly provided to them by law. If you're going to use their works for free, without permission, the onus is generally on you to prove that it's fair use if a case ever arises.

What you're suggesting is that we essentially change the entire concept of copyright. You're requesting that we say, "You can have exclusive rights over this work, except here, here, here and under these conditions." That would place the burden of proof on the copyright owner and goes contrary to well-established legal precedent of fair use. Not even fair dealing places the burden of proof on the copyright owner. That's because both concepts are about infringing on a legal right.

In other words, you're too proud of a work you've admitted to be imperfect to allow a point you don't agree with to be on the record. Your objections are noted, m'colleague.

Don't be disingenuous. We both discussed this in private, where I said I generally supported the repeal. To try and paint me a prideful hag clinging on to long-abandoned principles is insulting and a downright lie. I would support the repeal fully, but I refuse to do so when one of the argument is so blatantly wrong and misleading.

Neither of these are quite perfect analogies. Sticking with books, "Books must be printed on white paper with black text" would be closer, but perhaps a more apt analogy would be "Parking permits must be displayed in the rear window of the vehicle."

Yes, "more apt." But let's be honest, here. It's "more apt" to prove your point, rather than "more apt" to reflect the actual wording and meaning of the clause. Don't be so ridiculous. If you don't think "Books must be printed on white paper with black text" mandates the printing of books, then you shouldn't think "Copyright laws must provide these rights and protections" mandates the existence of copyright law. Stop changing the wording, and you'll stop arriving at wrong conclusions.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Embolalia]

That how fair use works, though. It's an affirmative defense. You're taking somebody's copyrighted work and using it without their permission. Fair use isn't meant to act as a safe haven in hopes that the accuser won't be able to convince a judge or jury. Artists and authors have their rights duly provided to them by law. If you're going to use their works for free, without permission, the onus is generally on you to prove that it's fair use if a case ever arises.

What you're saying here is, I am correct about the way that fair use is laid out in the resolution, yes? Even if you think I'm wrong in objecting to it, you do agree with me about how fair use works under this resolution?

What you're suggesting is that we essentially change the entire concept of copyright. You're requesting that we say, "You can have exclusive rights over this work, except here, here, here and under these conditions." That would place the burden of proof on the copyright owner and goes contrary to well-established legal precedent of fair use. Not even fair dealing places the burden of proof on the copyright owner. That's because both concepts are about infringing on a legal right.

Well established in your jurisdiction, m'colleague. And frankly, m'colleague, I don't give a damn what the established precedent is. The right to free speech comes first. Period. Copyright is a concession. It is a recognition that, in order to pursue a societal goal, a restriction of free speech must be made. Similar to restricting hate speech, or yelling fire in a crowded theater. Fair use is not, or at least should not be, an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense is one in which an admission is made that the crime was committed, but that there is a reason why it should not be punished. In the same way that the plaintiff must prove that speech was libelous, or endangered the public, so must one prove that a use caused an undue harm to the copyright holder. If you want to restrict free speech in your nation and assume that people are guilty, fine. Were I to write a replacement, I would certainly allow for that. But I do not think it is okay to foist such a restriction, and such an assumption of guilt, on to other nations simply because that's the way it's always worked in your nation.


I will be blunt. The fair use clause is not being removed. You have made your argument. I am not convinced. You may continue to talk about it; that is your right. It is also my right to ignore you. It's staying in.

-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia

[Bears Armed]

UNDERSTANDING that the primary purpose of copyright is to promote the creation of new works;

NOTING that it is very difficult to motivate people who have been dead for a quarter century;

PUZZLED why the World Assembly nonetheless insists upon this as the minimum term for copyright;

“You don't think that knowing that even if you die the day after your book is published your family (or other designated heirs) will still get to enjoy the royalties from it for 25 years after that could help to provide motivation? If you make copyrights 'lifetime-only' instead then anybody who's elderly and/or seriously ill might feel a reduced motivation to spend some of what might be their final days writing...”