We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Creative Commons
Details
Submitted by[?]: Kundrati Revolutionary Movement
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 2039
Description[?]:
| The current system of patents and copyrights stifles innovation and scientific advancement, by allowing the rich and powerful to maintain monopolies on information and critical technologies - slowing down further innovation. In place of this system, a fund will be created to give a stipend to scientists and inventors and artists who release their work under a Creative Commons license that allows free distribution of it. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Protection of original works of technology and arts.
Old value:: Works of technology and art are protected by copyright.
Current: Works of technology and art are protected by copyright.
Proposed: Technology and art are part of the commons and are not protected by copyright.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | not recorded | From | To | Debating the Creative Commons |
| Message | So basically if a corporation invests millions of dollars in labs, personnel etc they get nothing in return? This bill will make the corporations leave and it will ruin our research because most of the money invested in research comes from the private sector. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Kundrati Revolutionary Movement | To | Debating the Creative Commons |
| Message | No. They get sell the any products that come from the research, same as anyone else. But the way that patent and copyright law works currently, the people who do the actual creative work - the ones that are driven to innovate - are not the ones benefiting most from the system. The current system amounts to a government-backed monopoly in favor of large corporations, that locks up knowledge and technology for increasing lengths of time, depriving humanity of their full benefit. This knowledge itself was not created from nothing, but was itself the continuation of work and ideas held as common property. The proposed rule change would change the way the game is played, but if there is money to be made, somebody will try to make it. Only now the field will be level, without the government subsidizing the profits of the rich. In fact, the increased competiton would increase the rate of discovery, as there would be much more knowledge available to use and any company that slacked off with its research would be pushed out in favor of more innovative firms. For a fuller discussion of the MfM's position on this point see the following - http://www.mutualist.org/id74.html |
| Date | not recorded | From | To | Debating the Creative Commons |
| Message | “But the way that patent and copyright law works currently, the people who do the actual creative work - the ones that are driven to innovate - are not the ones benefiting most from the system.” Nor should they. The ones that do the work as you say, didn’t invest million, didn’t assume the risk that all the invested might be for nothing or that another corporation will get there fist. Furthermore the scientists get international recognition through Nobel prizes and such, while the companies get the money , money that will later be invested in research that will later result in breakthroughs etc. |
| Date | not recorded | From | To | Debating the Creative Commons |
| Message | "In fact, the increased competiton would increase the rate of discovery, as there would be much more knowledge available to use and any company that slacked off with its research would be pushed out in favor of more innovative firms" Just like it is now . |
| Date | not recorded | From | Kundrati Revolutionary Movement | To | Debating the Creative Commons |
| Message | And why should the government grant companies a monopoly for x number of years (giving them an unfair advantage over their competitors and therefore dramatically increasing prices and slowing down innovation)? You acknowledge that it is not necessary to do so in order to have people engage in research. And it is clearly not necessary for businesses to make money - otherwise companies would immediately fold when their patents and copyrights expired. All that is left is that we have the government enforcing copyrights and patents in order to subsidize the incomes of the rich whose companies own the majority of them. It's nothing but yet another unjust state intrusion into the market on behalf of the big capitalists. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Free Market Party | To | Debating the Creative Commons |
| Message | Copyrights protect individuals and corporations who have huge sunk costs in a project that cannot otherwise be protected. For example, if a corporation buys a large factory it is given exclusive use of that factory. However, if a corporation invests in a new technology they have no way of acquiring exclusive use of their investment except through copyright laws. Such exclusive use of the technology is not unjust. The creator of the technology is under no obligation to give away the use of his product, especially when the costs are high and the reason for its creation was for his own use. Also, copyright laws don't outlaw the sharing of technology and arts. Those who wish to share their products may do so under the current law. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Kundrati Revolutionary Movement | To | Debating the Creative Commons |
| Message | If something is created solely for internal use, then the only way others could have gotten it is through independent creation or theft. And theft is already illegal. But once you put it out into the public, it takes special government enforcement to make sure nobody else uses it in any way. This skews the market in very dramatic ways, almost entirely in favor of the largest firms. Enforcing copyright laws prevents people from making peaceful use of the information they possess. If a person has acquired the information legitimately, then on what grounds can they be prevented from using it, reproducing it, trading it? This is fundamentally about ownership over the contents of the inside of one's own head. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 39 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 98 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Characters are considered to be "owned" by the player who first mentioned or created them. In practice, players may share responsibility for role-playing a character, but ultimate authority rests with the owner. |
| Random quote: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead |