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: Ratification of the Information Purchase Treaty
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Libertarian Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 2049
Description[?]:
| Upon passing, this bill will reflect that the Beluzian Republic has ratified to Information Purchase Treaty. The following are the terms of the treaty: A. Information held in the commons of one or more of the signatory nations shall not be used for profit outside of their nations. B. Information copyrighted in one or more of the signatory nations shall not be used without permission of the copyright holders. C. Information held in the commons of one or more nations may be licensed or purchased by citizens of other signatories, as legislated by the nation the information originated in. D. The signatories agree to enforce laws to prevent the illegal use of information within their nation. (Treaty may be found at http://www.takeforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=392&mforum=particracy) |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | not recorded | From | To | Debating the Ratification of the Information Purchase Treaty |
| Message | We wish to know what other nations have already signed this and which are likely to do so? |
| Date | not recorded | From | Social Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Information Purchase Treaty |
| Message | As of yet, only Malivia, Dundorf, and Hutori have ratified it. The fact is, however, that regardless of how few nations have ratified it, we will have our copyright protections enforced in those nations. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Social Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Information Purchase Treaty |
| Message | Could someone please give a general account about how they feel about this? |
| Date | 06:18:49, April 27, 2005 CET | From |  Progressive Evolution Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Information Purchase Treaty |
| Message | OOC: Ok, enough with the crying foul in regards to the "foreign affairs cabinet position" nonsense. If you knew jack about the legislative process, you'd know the senate as a whole approves a treaty ratification and it's not at the behest of the state department here in the US. Stop going on about it. IC: Not many nations have stopped to investigate the opportunities offered with the treaties that have been proposed, and to date Beluzia has begun consideration of the IPT and is initially favoring it, and there were also originally two signatories, not three, on the IPT. The SDP’s argument is simply a fallacy, and also doesn't test the utility of the claims behind the treaty. The SDP indicates there's a reason behind why other countries haven’t signed, yet fails to provide any inkling of what that reason might be. This vacuous strawman argumentation is easily ignored. It is more likely that nations simply haven’t taken the opportunity yet because they haven’t come across the IPT or considered its implications. Additionally, there is no need to "author our own treaty" when an existing framework is already in place that serves the purposes needed to be filled that has already been endorsed by three, and possibly soon, four nations. The SDP claims on and on about how this treaty will “benefit collectivist countries” and yet doesn’t manage to indicate how that could happen. The fact is that this is simply not true, and here are all the reasons why: • The treaty requires that any copyrighted information from other countries be protected by all signatories to the IPT. This means that information held privately in this nation cannot be reproduced in signatory countries without being appropriately purchased from its holder. Until Ikradon signs this treaty, they are under no such obligation to do so. That makes Ikradonian copyright laws universally impotent. Our innovators aren’t getting paid for their work because foreign companies can import similar products that may have very well been lifted from Ikradonian designs and then the government would be forced to retroactively enforce tariffs to protect Ikradon’s economy. That’s simply not sensible economic policy. • The treaty protects the right of countries to hold information in the commons without fear of illegal appropriation of that material for profit. In all fairness, a country that holds information in the commons should not have to fear theft by foreign entities because of the accessibility of that data. That common information is a keystone to economic integrity and that nation’s ability to produce a unique commodifiable good for marketing in the world marketplace. Theft by a foreign third-party corporation could prove disastrous and destabilizing for that nation’s economy, especially in major industry, and as such, we should be encouraging a healthier global marketplace. Theft could only serve to stifle competition, and that certainly won’t bode well for healthy trade activity. That information is still accessible for a price to foreign companies, but should only be sold willingly, not fraudulently appropriated. The bill is nothing but good news for Ikradon and the SDP is standing in the way of protecting Ikradon’s economic interests, both domestically and abroad. There’s no substantial reason that’s actually been tendered to oppose the treaty, and the PEP calls on the SDP to realize it’s not really a bad thing to be initially mistaken about an initiative. The opportunity still exists for the SDP to change its vote, and the crucial time to do so is now, so that the flow of vital industry information out of Ikradon stops today, and the healthiest marketplace of the future is secured for tomorrow. |
| Date | 06:19:04, April 27, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Evolution Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Information Purchase Treaty |
| Message | crap... apologies, wrong window *huge blush* |
| Date | 14:54:49, April 27, 2005 CET | From | Front for a Solidarian Country | To | Debating the Ratification of the Information Purchase Treaty |
| Message | Our party is in agreement with this treaty. It is important to secure the creative rights of our citizens, and the non-profit nature of information held in the commons. |
| Date | 20:33:25, April 27, 2005 CET | From | Social Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Information Purchase Treaty |
| Message | Actually, information held in the commons is often of a for-profit nature (like expired patents). But yes, we're glad you agree, and we'll probably put this up for a vote after the elections. |
| Date | 05:29:59, May 02, 2005 CET | From | Front for a Solidarian Country | To | Debating the Ratification of the Information Purchase Treaty |
| Message | Despite the ongoing discussion with Malivian parties, we would like the voting of this bill to begin. The ratification of the IPT can no longer be delayed, as we see it. |
| Date | 06:22:42, May 02, 2005 CET | From | Social Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Information Purchase Treaty |
| Message | While we understand and share your desire for this matter to be concluded, we do not believe it to be appropriate if we were to bring this to a vote before the IPCN is. Our support for the IPT is contingent upon Malivia's support of the IPCN, as we are not inclined to join in a treaty with a nation unwilling to make even a small concilatory gesture. |
| Date | 02:50:52, May 09, 2005 CET | From | Social Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Information Purchase Treaty |
| Message | With the new policy put forth by the Malivians, we now feel confident that their government may be trusted, and shall put this motion to a vote. |
| Date | 04:54:33, May 09, 2005 CET | From | Front for a Solidarian Country | To | Debating the Ratification of the Information Purchase Treaty |
| Message | We rejoice that the crisis with the Malivian government is over, and encourage all parties to endorse the ratification of the IPT, for the benefit of both our nation and the international community. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 191 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 64 |
| Random fact: "Kubrk" is a Jelbic word that has the colloquial meaning "old man" or "geezer". |
| Random quote: "I'm the motherfucking Premier of Kalistan. It don't get more full time than that!" - Omar Al-Khali, former Kalistani politician |