Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: April 5461
Next month in: 02:00:03
Server time: 05:59:56, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): Ahmad | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Repeal of IIL

Details

Submitted by[?]: Protectorate Party

Status[?]: defeated

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: October 2044

Description[?]:

Due to the decrease in favorable international relations created by the IIL we request it be repealed.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date10:32:36, April 28, 2005 CET
From Free Reform Coalition (FRP)
ToDebating the Repeal of IIL
MessageWe agree.

Date18:20:46, April 28, 2005 CET
FromLeviathan Party
ToDebating the Repeal of IIL
MessageThis decrease is currently the unilateral actions of one party, whose platform is that of a confrimed libertarian, whose objections are distinctly abstract in nature. Our policy is against the spirit of the IPT? How? The SLP doesn't seem to mind if our nation doesn't enforce copyrights, it only minds that we've stated explicitly. This is simply insane.

We respectfully disagree with the positions of our national parties that want copyrights restored to Malivia, but the SLP has not objected to our lack of copyrights. They only thing they've objected to is, again, that our government has made explicit what was already understood by everyone involved. The PP itself called our lack of copyrights 'wholesale plagarism,' so why didn't the SLP denounce our position back when it was de facto policy?

Furthermore, the SLP's response, and its intent to create another treaty that is substantively identical to the IPT, is utterly childish. Their actions amount to a international temper tantrum. Remember, they have no problem with our non-recognition of copyrights, they only want us to stop talking about it.

Understanding that there is disagreement in the parliament regarding the copyright issue, if we can put that aside for a moment, ask yourself this question: what changes if we repeap the IIP, and only the IIP? We wouldn't begin recognizing international copyrights; if we did there would be no need for the IPT, would there? So what changes, in material reality, if we repeal the IIP? Nothing, except now we are taking orders from a foreign party on issues that should be solely in our control. That is a poor precedent to set.

If the PP and FRP can stop thinking of their partisan interest in seeing copyrights restored to Malivia, the question here should be the protection of Malivian interests. Though you do not agree with our current policy with regards to intellectual property, it is law, and unless things change radically in the upcoming election, that law is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. In the mean time, are you willing to have the information products of Malivian citizens used without permission in other nations, used for profit by foreign businesses, without giving one cent to the people who toiled to create that product? Are you willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of this nation so that you can make a point?

We can disagree and debate this issue, but we should be able to agree that having Malivian inforation used without permission in foreign countries is not in our nation's best interest. If you don't agree with the IIP, propose an alternate method of protecting our intellectual products. And before you say that bringing back copyrights will protect anything, ask yourselves who will enforce those copyrights overseas? Do you trust every tinpot dictatorship to respect our national law because it's the right thing to do? You've already seen one nation's leaders come to power with no intention of respecting the copyrights of other nations: our own. How would you stop us?

International law must rule, and those that don't respect or opt into international law do not deserve its protection. The IPT is that law, it is a good law, and if the leaders of Beluzia are too petty to join that law because they don't like how we conduct ourselves, that is their loss. Our IIP is good for Malivia, and if you disagree then give us an alternative. In the mean time, your objections are just empty complaints of people who don't have a better idea.

Date20:52:59, April 28, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Repeal of IIL
MessageThough we do object to to the lack of copyrights in this country, we must remind the LevP that we voted in favor of the IPT.
We simply do not feel that the best method of diplomacy is state santioned theft of property. The IIP simply states that unless you agree to our terms we will steal your copyrights/patents, which we must remind the body are not owned by the governement but by individuals who have invested time and energy in developing the material. These individuals do not receive a stipend from the government as the citizens of our nation do. We are taking the bread of the plates of families by acting in this manner. How can a writer expect to receive money from their work produced in their nation, if the people of Malivia can take the work, reproduce it without fear and resell it for less, without any of the funds going to the creator?
We suggest that Malivia can lead the way, as we had started by creating the IPT toward an international environment where cooperation is the norm not threats and punishments. Other nations do not react well when under a threat. In short the IPT was a good move and was spreading to other nations until the weight of the IIP was used to hold up other nations at swordpoint until they agree to our demands. As the IPT gains strength in numbers other modes of disipline can be used other then theft.

Date21:31:10, April 28, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Repeal of IIL
MessageA final point (I hope): the IIP does not even require our information to have been used for commecial gain before we plunder the copyrights of another nation.
Mearly not having signed the IPT means their work is fair game, even if our work has remained untouched. Is this our plan to launch a preemptive strike against other nations?
Perhaps the LevP did not intend this but under our law any individual in Malivia is permitted, even encouraged, to behave in this way. At last count the LevP does not represent the entire population of Malivia.

Date23:36:04, April 28, 2005 CET
FromLeviathan Party
ToDebating the Repeal of IIL
MessageOther nations do not react well to threat? Ikradon just ratified the IPT in the face of the Beluzian foolishness, and Kudrati is now debating it. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill; one extremist libertarian party has chosen to throw a fit. THis is hardly an international incident, and is unlikely to become one. The PP is, again, pandering to their constituents rather than putting the best interests of Malivia at the fore of their decision making. The IPT will be succesful, no thanks to you, and Malivia's information commons will be protected, again no thanks to you.

Date00:48:01, April 29, 2005 CET
FromLabour Party
ToDebating the Repeal of IIL
MessageThe LP stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the LevP in this matter.

Date04:54:58, April 29, 2005 CET
FromRadical Centrists
ToDebating the Repeal of IIL
MessageWe are following international events very closely. Should this diplomatic tete-a-tete simmer down, then we will not support the repeal. If it escalates, we may be forced to support as a conciliatory gesture.

Date05:05:26, April 29, 2005 CET
FromLeviathan Party
ToDebating the Repeal of IIL
MessageYou mean escalates beyond the one lone voice screaming foul? Please, let's get some perspective.

Date07:26:16, April 29, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Repeal of IIL
MessageWe fail to see how voting to repeal a law that sanctions theft pandering to our constituents.
This bill has no effect on the IPT, which again, since the LevP seems to forget, we voted in favor of.
Again we feel we should not be preemptive in the theft of materials. If our materials are being poached we should deal with the situation on a case by case basis, not start stealing others work before they can grab ours.

Date17:39:05, April 29, 2005 CET
FromLibCom Party
ToDebating the Repeal of IIL
MessageIt's worth noting that a number of Beluzian politicians have been implicated in bribery scandals.

http://aiglesrv.no-ip.info:8080/particracy/main/viewnews.php?newsid=1515

http://aiglesrv.no-ip.info:8080/particracy/main/viewnews.php?newsid=1506

It is entirely conceivable that the position of certain Beluzian parties regarding the IIP is motivated by their apparent close ties to big business.

Date17:53:09, April 29, 2005 CET
FromRadical Centrists
ToDebating the Repeal of IIL
MessageYep, seems to be a storm in a teacup.

Date20:53:21, April 29, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Repeal of IIL
MessageWe would like to ask any supporters to the IIP to kindly present some evidence where it played a favorable role in a nation passing the IPT. We cannot follow the debates of all the nations and if suport is provided we could reconsider our attempts.

Date07:20:18, April 30, 2005 CET
FromSocial Republican Party
ToDebating the Repeal of IIL
MessageThe bill title is IIL, not IIP as it should be.

Date07:35:02, April 30, 2005 CET
FromSocial Republican Party
ToDebating the Repeal of IIL
MessageAs it was, no person would be prosecuted for copyright infringement (as it is, they don't exist). IIP just stated that for everyone. Repealing it doesn't change our stance, just makes us look silly.

"You can do whatever with Intellectual property. But don't tell anyone that we won't get mad."

That sounds like a rational idea.

Date08:26:16, April 30, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Repeal of IIL
Messagesorry for title.
--Vote to repeal the IIL we will keep the IIP.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 33

no
      

Total Seats: 67

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: Players are expected to behave in a courteous, co-operative manner and make a reasonable effort to act with the consent of all players involved, even where the rules do not make consent strictly necessary. In particular, players have a responsibility to take reasonable care that other players are not misinformed either about the role-play or the Game Rules.

    Random quote: "A son can bear with equanimity the loss of his father, but the loss of his inheritance may drive him to despair." - Niccolo Machiavelli

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 81