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: End Support of Freeloaders
Details
Submitted by[?]: Protectorate Party
Status[?]: passed
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: June 2051
Description[?]:
| As the terms of the CC have been outined to include retention of distribution to publishers or theathers there is no reason to support every would be musician and author. We propose keeping the CC but removing from the government payroll every Tom, Dick and Harry who call themselves artists. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Protection of original works of technology and arts.
Old value:: Technology and art are part of the commons and are not protected by copyright.
Current: Works of technology and art are protected by copyright.
Proposed: Works of techology and art have limited copy protection.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:58:13, May 11, 2005 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the End Support of Freeloaders |
| Message | Why do we spend millions on the support of would be "artists" with no respect for ability or merit. |
| Date | 02:29:55, May 11, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the End Support of Freeloaders |
| Message | Yeah, how dare we invest in the culture of our country. How dare we enable creative individuals to devote themselves to their art. Freeloaders? The PP has now fallen back on the reactionary rhetoric of the extremist ideology they truly represent. Only the fallacy of social atomism would call an artist a freeloader, and only a free market radical would consider the pittance we pay out to invest in the culture of our nation as a waste. Ability and merit are not for us to decide, and rather than turn away Van Gogh's, shouldn't we be encouraging them? Not everyone who goes to high school or college will use those skills in their job, so should we begin shutting off the 'unused' classes? Music and art, those aren't important, all they do is 'enrich' our lives, not make us money. The work we pay to artists is an investment, not a liability, and we should recognize it as such. |
| Date | 03:22:44, May 11, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the End Support of Freeloaders |
| Message | We never suggested cutting off funds to the arts, we did suggest not paying every person who walks up and asks for money. |
| Date | 03:40:12, May 11, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the End Support of Freeloaders |
| Message | And the normative difference is? |
| Date | 03:41:12, May 11, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the End Support of Freeloaders |
| Message | ooc: and if this bill intend to keep the CC, then it really should be a resolution, since you're not proposing changing our copyright law status. |
| Date | 04:21:28, May 11, 2005 CET | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the End Support of Freeloaders |
| Message | So, how would you differentiate between an artist or a beggar? |
| Date | 05:50:58, May 11, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the End Support of Freeloaders |
| Message | Exactly, the LevP is simply trying to control the argument so that no constructive debate takes place. The truth is that one cannot decide who is an artist and who is not, thus this opens up the potential for fraudulent behavior by people pretending to be artists. If The LevP is arguing that this is not a problem, then we must ask in turn where the money is going to come from to pay everyone to make art? The answer is that tax payers simply cannot support everyone. The CC and the open market are an incentive for artists to express themselves. Artists gain credibility when they show they have studied various art forms, or simply when people like what is produced. The days of patronage are over and artists no longer have to follow the rules set down by the patron, in today's world the patron is everybody who wants to buy a song, everyone who buys a book and everyone who watches a movie. There is more freedom to produce art. While there are still problems determining 'what art is,' it is still highly impractical and idealistic to say that anything can be art and that the tax payer should pay for it. Reactionary rhetoric to the LevP is what everyone else would call normal rationality. The CC is a wonderful way in which an artist can express himself/herself and get their art out into the world. As many of the parties have claimed, most artists are more concerned with getting their art seen/heard/used than with money. The CC lets people do that. Nevertheless, as we have established, there are people who innovate as a means of earning a living, without that option, those people will no longer innovate because there is not longer any incentive. Copyrights protect the CC and also allow those who wish to earn a living with their art to do so. |
| Date | 05:52:15, May 11, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the End Support of Freeloaders |
| Message | That would be up to the Ministry, but nations have been doing this for yrs. We admit there is no easy answer however, we do not think it justified to spend millions supporting everyone looking for a hand out just for the one needle in the haysack. Decrease the search space and fund those who are deserving in that they are creating art that 'enrich' our lives. This will be different things to different people but a balance must be maintained, or our entire treasury will go to this one program. |
| Date | 06:00:21, May 11, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the End Support of Freeloaders |
| Message | To summarize: Copyright provides an incentive for creative expression on a wide array of political, social, and aesthetic issues, thus bolstering the discursive foundations for democratic culture and civic association. The second function is structural. Copyright supports a sector of creative and communicative activity that is relatively free from reliance on state subsidy, elite patronage, and cultural hierarchy. More on this can be found by reading William Fisher. If you have the time to read the philosophy/theory behind intellectual property then read Kant, Hegel and Locke. They all outline ideas on property rights, those ideas are what drive most laws to this day, such as in Germany, the US and other European countries. |
| Date | 07:04:48, May 11, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the End Support of Freeloaders |
| Message | Before we launch into a long winded defense of how relatively inexpensive paying a stipend to artists is, we would like to point out that there is not even a national system for how to pay out these stipends. Perhaps the PP would like to take part in forming this policy rather than deconstruting it? A long shot, we admit, but we must try nonetheless. |
| Date | 07:07:51, May 11, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the End Support of Freeloaders |
| Message | We have asked that in the past. |
| Date | 07:20:47, May 11, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the End Support of Freeloaders |
| Message | Then perhaps the PP would like to open hearings to answer said question, now that they are in control of government. ooc: and recalling the spectacular turnout we had at the Et20 hearings... |
| Date | 16:11:12, May 11, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the End Support of Freeloaders |
| Message | Thus our proposal. Stipends are not granted to everyone rather we have fund the arts thru several national shows and museums across the country. Artist of all kind compete for representation in these venues. Open to other ideas of course. |
| Date | 05:18:03, May 12, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the End Support of Freeloaders |
| Message | Our mistake this bill was supposed to permit a short time copyright protection for the movie industry, until about 6 months from release, to allow the recovery of costs in this expensive art form. |
| Date | 16:29:13, May 12, 2005 CET | From | Radical Centrists | To | Debating the End Support of Freeloaders |
| Message | We will not support a bill that so brazenly stigmatises a section of our society. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 54 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 46 | |||||
| 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: "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight." - Barry Goldwater |