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: Intellectual Property Amendment Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Judicial Union Party
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 2538
Description[?]:
| An act to remove terms on copyright. |
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: Works of techology and art have limited copy protection.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The patenting of software techniques.
Old value:: Software patents can be obtained from the patent office.
Current: Software patents can be obtained from the patent office.
Proposed: Software designs, techniques, formulae and algorithms cannot be patented.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:16:46, February 25, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Intellectual Property Amendment Act |
| Message | Limited copy protection simply means introducing some fair use provisions. Surely educational institutions should be able to use technology for research purposes? Indeed, any non-commercial use should be allowed, since the purpose of copyrights is to protect a person's commercial interest in the copyrighted item. Formulas are natural. You wouldn't be able to patent a particular type of rock, since it naturally occurs. You wouldn't be able to patent a sheep for the same reason. It stands to reason that natural phenomena, such as formulas, should not be patentable. |
| Date | 23:57:55, February 25, 2008 CET | From | Tukarali Graenix Party | To | Debating the Intellectual Property Amendment Act |
| Message | I don't really get why this is so important to you, therefore we don't know how we are gonna vote. So, if you would like to ever so graciously break it down to a "Patents for Dummies" version, we'd gladly support with our massive 19 votes. |
| Date | 00:08:51, February 26, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Intellectual Property Amendment Act |
| Message | Ultimately, the reason for all intellectual property is to encourage innovation - if people see their ideas will be protected from commercial competition, they will be more likely to create more ideas, produce more, new goods and make everyone better off. This is a good thing. However, intellectual property is often abused. People can get patents on things which really aren't innovation. (OOC: Amazon got a patent on one-click ordering, for instance, forcing their competitors to introduce an extra click). The extent of intellectual property means that even non-commercial and educational use can be criminalised. (OOC: Like recording industries suing individuals for downloading songs.) This goes far beyond the ambit of the purpose of intellectual property. In addition, if a particular work of art or technology retains copyright for a long term, it will actually decrease innovation: a person can just sit on their one product, one song, one movie, and get enough profits off that for their life without having to create more. Patents and copyrights require constant legal battles to uphold. If a person holding a copyright fails to take an infringer to court, they can be held to have lost the copyright (it's more complicated than that, but that's the basic idea). Only large companies and people with a lot of money behind them can fight these battles. Intellectual property (OOC: at least in the way it's implemented in most countries) is inherently biased against ordinary people without a lot of monetary resources. |
| Date | 02:33:28, February 26, 2008 CET | From | Tukarali Popular Party | To | Debating the Intellectual Property Amendment Act |
| Message | Wasnt it you saying not two articles in the same bill... well well. |
| Date | 03:41:20, February 26, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Intellectual Property Amendment Act |
| Message | I know. JUP is the biggest hypocrit in Tukarali. opposed. |
| Date | 04:12:12, February 26, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Intellectual Property Amendment Act |
| Message | These two are of a similar matter. If a party wants to vote on the two matters differently, then we'd be more than happy to split them up. |
| Date | 17:22:05, February 26, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Intellectual Property Amendment Act |
| Message | I oppose both so it makes no difference to me. |
| Date | 00:54:56, February 27, 2008 CET | From | Tukarali Popular Party | To | Debating the Intellectual Property Amendment Act |
| Message | Plenty of mine was simlar as well, but not to you, you do not know if they are similar to all, some might oppose one and support another, it is not up to you to decide that. I can only support RP's comment about the Judicial Union Party. We do support these proposals, but are still strongly opposed to the hypocritical attitude from the JUP. |
| Date | 07:48:43, February 27, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Intellectual Property Amendment Act |
| Message | Proposals can be in the same bill if they are split up when parties request it. You didn't allow this. |
| Date | 14:36:29, February 27, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Intellectual Property Amendment Act |
| Message | Except that you moved this to a vote before people could comment. It's little wonder you are being called out. |
| Date | 15:57:23, February 27, 2008 CET | From | Tukarali Popular Party | To | Debating the Intellectual Property Amendment Act |
| Message | Well at least I know how the minds in the Judicial Union Party works now. |
| Date | 22:43:32, February 27, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Intellectual Property Amendment Act |
| Message | Everyone had more than enough time to comment. |
| Date | 23:29:14, February 27, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Intellectual Property Amendment Act |
| Message | defeated |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 231 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 269 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: When you join the game, you will find yourself with only zero seats. That's because your party's representatives haven't been elected yet. You need to establish your party's position on issues by proposing several bills that your party wants passed and sending them to vote. This raises your visibility and if you do it enough, you will win seats at the next election. |
| Random quote: "Most politicians hold their fingers to the wind, and if we win we'll be showing them a lot of wind." - Ralph Nader |