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: IPCN
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Republican 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: March 2047
Description[?]:
| We think that the IIP is too harsh on nations that don't allow their nationals to obtain copyrights on our citizens works. Thus we consider this "Information Policy for Copyright Nations/IPCN" to balance our new position. ****** 1 - Malivia recognises that having an information commons makes it so that the labour of their citizens could be copyrighted by other greedy persons in non-IPT nations that recognise copyrights. 2 - Seeing the impracticality of obtaining a copyright for a citizens works in every non-IPT nation that has copyrights, we need to think of a new legal passage. 3 - In addition, we realize obtaining a copyright is against the spirit of having a Commons. 4 - We realize that some nations do not allow persons to copyright/patent works by citizens/residents of another country. 5 - Should a non-IPT nation allow their residents to obtain copyrights on residents of a Commons Nation, we will have no choice but to completely disregard their copyrights/patents. 6 - Should a nation not allow their residents to obtain copyrights on residents of a Commons Nation, we will encourage them to join the IPT so that thier work can be protected. 7 - The Malivian government, in an effort to promote international unity, does not encourage the unfair use of other nations' information despite its necessary legality, unless they have violated clause 5. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:34:15, April 30, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | This bill would be totally ineffective against de facto state sanction and a black market in information. Our worry is not someone filing for a copyright using information from our commons, but the use of said information without permission of the creator. After all, if a creative commons license has already been issued in Malivia we can prove our citizen had the idea first. This issue isn't copyright, it's use. It would be a simple matter, under this proposed bill, for a government to refuse to allow their citizens to copyright information from our commons, but still allow the free use of that information. End result: our commons are still pilfered by profiteers abroad and we've given up reciprocity. Not only is there no compelling reason for us to change the IIP, but this proposal does not adequately address the problem. Our time is better spent on promoting the ITP rather than debating non-issues such as this. |
| Date | 23:18:43, April 30, 2005 CET | From |  Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | Participation towards a common ground in the international arena is important. we are willing to see where this goes for the time being. |
| Date | 23:29:33, April 30, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | Perhaps a change in 5 stating in effect: any nations who permit the use of material held in the commons of another nation can expect punitive actions including the invalidation of their copyrights within Malavia. adding another point: Malavia will respect the copyrights of other nations except as mentioned above. |
| Date | 23:30:34, April 30, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | (of course that's Malivia) |
| Date | 04:37:52, May 01, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | Respect is not the issue, it's enforcement, and we'd have a hard time proving that a nation is permitting piracy. If we have prove a nation is permitting the piracy of information from our commons, rather than simply being unable to catch the responsible individuals, we'll have to spend millions on investigations for each nation, and then keep these investigations ongoing to make sure the intelligence is current. And then, each time our investigations conclude a nation is, in fact, permitting the illegal use ofinformation from our commons, we'll see the same kind of whining and accusation hurling we're seeing from the SLP now. We'll have a pitched battle in the international arena to prove that our case is, in fact, legitimate, and that we didn't just make a mistake. After all that, then, we have to hope the world agrees that our investigation was legitimate or we're back at square one. Is this reasonable? Not in the least. The IIP remains our best choice for policy. |
| Date | 05:14:48, May 01, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | We are confused on the point of the investigations. Does the LevP claim that proving piracy is occuring within another state of the materials produced by Malivians is expensive or even impossible. If so what is to stop a nation from signing the treaties and then ignoring them. We still must identify the infractions. We request the LevP to clarify these points. |
| Date | 05:50:34, May 01, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | It's not that signing the IPT will make it the problems go away, but it will make it far more difficult for governments to get away with negligence. If a signatory nation is outed as allowing piracy, they endanger their copyrights in all IPT nations. The loss of revenues for the local corporations would be enormous. That's a strong motivtor. It's this motivator that requires we keep the IIP. The SRP's proposal gives equivalent protection to non-IPT signatories as we give to IPT signatories until we can prove the non-signatory is allowing piracy. This puts us at such a disadvantage as to make our position untenable. IPT signatories are required by the treaty to enforce foreign copyrights, and will face all other IPT signatories if suspicion falls upon them. If a non-IPT signatory is suspected of piracy, and Malivia has to prove that piracy is happening before we can refuse to recognize the foreign copyrights, they will only face Malivia. We will, eventually, be forced into unilateral action, and this would be after how many months or years of the illegal use of information from our commons? The IIP is the only reasonable policy for our nation. Once a majority of nations have signed the IPT this controversy will become the non-issue it should have always been. |
| Date | 05:52:12, May 01, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | Upon review of the transcripts, we believe the LevP is stating that the difficulty lies in proving that a nation is permitting piracy, rather then just being unable to control its population's actions. We understand this point but feel that the result should be the same in either case, punitive actions from Malivia. A nation is responsible for the actions of its citizens, and must take sufficient action to prevent such crimes. We refer to wide spread piracy, we are not expecting each nation to be jailing every person who downloads a song for 40 yrs. What we would like to see adapted as our policy toward creative works is fairly simple: We expect nations to not exploit our commons, work used in other countries should be done with the consent of the Malivia government. In return we will respect the regulations on their materials as created by these governments and will seek access to said material through channels according to the wishes of these governments. Only when a nation is exploiting the work in our commons do we seek methods of compensation and/or punitive actions. Those disagreeing with this position please respond. We hope to close this debate in a manner where we can all agree. |
| Date | 09:47:56, May 01, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | How, then, will you establish that a nation is, in fact, 'exploiting' our commons? In essence, you want other nations to be presumed innocent, leaving the burden of proof on us to show that our commons are being raided. We much prefer to presume that there will be piracy simply because, especially when dealing with digital media, that's simply a fact of life. In that light, it is actually unreasonable to presume any nation innocent. Is the PP prepared to raise taxes to fund these constant investigations? To constantly deal with the haranguing comments of trouble makers lik the SLP each time we do investigate a country? We'd prefer to avoid that trouble and start off on the very rational and reasonable assumption that, unless direct measures are taken, our information is being used without permission. This is, you see, how we arrived at the IIP. |
| Date | 09:52:36, May 01, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | Also, Kunkdrati has just ratified the IPT. If the continued support of new nations for the IPT is not proof enough that the SLP's objections are the exception to the rule, and not worth even considering as a factor with regards to our information policy, then we don't know what is. |
| Date | 17:29:06, May 01, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | We are unconfortable with the LevP of assuming guilt and are curious if this policy extends to the citizens of our nation. |
| Date | 19:08:08, May 01, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | When dealing with invididuals, and the pursuit of justice through the police, a presumption of innocence is both necessary and wise to prevent state abuse. However, as stated amost ad nauseum at this point, that presumption essentially cripples our ability to protect our national information commons. And it's not as if we're making this statement in a vacuum; the presumption of guilt is only applied to non-signatories of the IPT. Read the IPT, and ask yourself what possible reason there is not to sign it; it's not unreasonable to be suspicious of nations unwilling to abide by its terms. |
| Date | 20:35:28, May 01, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | Though we do not pretend to understand the reasons why a nation has not ratified the IPT we will give a few hypothetical examples: The have not gotten around to dealing with international issues as they are still more concerned with internal issues, or have not yet heard of the IPT. They are a corporate run state which dislikes the idea of not being able to sell information, and would like to develop a different treaty with us or others which will allow them to purchase the info produce from IPT nations for sale within their nation. They are isolationist and do not want to share ideas between nations, or participate in the global market. They have broken off diplomatic relations with one of the signatories of the IPT and therefore for political reasons cannot sign the IPT, but would like to maintain relations with the others and develop a similiar treaty. None of these imply they will poach ideas from the nations in the IPT, yet they are punished by having their works taken by us. |
| Date | 22:26:49, May 01, 2005 CET | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | 7) The Malivian government, in an effort to promote international unity, does not encourage the unfair use of other nations' information despite its necessary legality, unless they have violated clause 5. This is an amendment that I argree with, that was submitted by a third party. |
| Date | 23:20:48, May 01, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | We believe we can support such a bill. We will be looking it over more completely over the next months, and formalize our position then. |
| Date | 01:38:24, May 02, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | This is a waste of our time; why are we concerned with the complaints of one, isolated, party? Why are we compromising our information policy for one squeaking wheel? |
| Date | 03:10:59, May 02, 2005 CET | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | Why are we comprimising our status with other nations for one silly bill? |
| Date | 04:45:35, May 02, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | We're not. The IPT is on its way to becoming an international standard, and once this happens Beluzia will sign. In fact, there's a good chance Beluzia will sign over the objections of the SLP, since, as we've noted several times, they are still the only party speaking out against the IPT. |
| Date | 07:17:46, May 02, 2005 CET | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | I am talking about the IIP, not the IPT, which is perfectly sound policy. |
| Date | 07:36:07, May 02, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | The only reason we care about the SLP's whining is because they're trying to block the IPT; the fact that their efforts to block the IPT, a most juvenille and petty act, aren't working should tell us to press ahead and ignore the SLP's complaints. |
| Date | 01:07:21, May 03, 2005 CET | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | Move to vote? |
| Date | 03:29:41, May 04, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the IPCN |
| Message | ok by us. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 43 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 57 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow official national flags of real-life nations or flags which are very prominent and recognisable (eg. the flags of the European Union, the United Nations, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or the Confederate States of America). |
| Random quote: "Judge me all you want, just keep the verdict to yourself." - From a Winston advertisement |