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: Restrict the Commons
Details
Submitted by[?]: Protectorate 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: December 2057
Description[?]:
| Due to the costs associated with the CC/stipend system we propose that: Stipends are not given to every individual artist, rather the government supports artists through grants, festivals, shows and museums. The money for these will be granted to artists via a competitive process, thus assuring the money goes to those practicing the arts. Furthermore the artists retains a limited time copyright, not to exceed 6 months to allow the recovery of costs associated with the creation of the work. This allows the movie industry to produce expensive films, the authors to afford editing of their work, etc. |
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 | 21:00:52, May 18, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Restrict the Commons |
| Message | Once again, the plutocratic interest of the PP is revealed. By removing the stipend would lead to artists being forced to sell off their rights to backers with sufficient money to fund further art or research. And why is the PP so interested in eliminating the stipend when they haven't even taken the time to establish measures for paying out the stipend? Their interest is not that of the common good, or they'd put a little more time into preserving one of our oldest institutions. Rather than voting to restore copy protection, why don't we spend time determining and, if necessary, reforming the stipend process? Clearly that would be a reasonable first step, and then if that fails to meet the 'interests' of certain parties, we can move from there. |
| Date | 01:25:29, May 19, 2005 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Restrict the Commons |
| Message | Just because it is one of our oldest institutions, that does not make it worthy of remaining the law. We have established many problems with our current system and we have yet to hear a solution. This debate has gone on for years without any progress toward repair. We have made suggestions only to have them thrown in our face without discussion or effort by the opposition toward working for a solution. It is time to remove the force that is bankrupting our nation. How much is lost by granting a maximum of 6 months for copy protection, compared to the gain? We again refer to a movie costing millions which cannot be recovered under our current system, thus our movie industry has failed to reach its potential. Authors spend their stipends on editors instead of food. Thus we have those who produce the best works of art moving out of our nation, to where they can be rewarded for their work. Should we raise the stipend, nationalize yet another industry in an effort to plug up the problems of the system, or realize that perhaps there is another way which can provide the freedom of access without the cost. A six month copyright will provide the artist a means of support without the need to sell their soul. The artists want it, the nation needs it, perhaps its time for a fresh look. |
| Date | 14:56:25, May 19, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Restrict the Commons |
| Message | yes yes, plutcratic etc. fascists blah blah. Basic protection of property is a right that everyone should have. |
| Date | 14:58:12, May 19, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Restrict the Commons |
| Message | copyrights protect the author and the poducer/distributer from suffering from major losses after producing a product. Considering we are essentially a welfare state, where do you think the tax money will come from to pay for all our departments if we prevent people from making money with copyrights? |
| Date | 21:50:06, May 19, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Restrict the Commons |
| Message | ooc: our movie industry has failed to reach its potential? bankrupting the country? assuming facts not in evidence much? so if i start making up statistics showing how the commons and stipends helps the economy, will you accept those as fact? |
| Date | 22:35:14, May 19, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Restrict the Commons |
| Message | ooc: I feel they are a justified extrapolation from the current situation and the PP will definitely feel that way. For reasons stated in previous debates. Feel free to argue another aspect. But if we pay a stipend to everyone who produces art for release(as the law states) I see nothing to stop everyone from releasing art/songs/books/etc thus we are paying alot of people without money coming in. |
| Date | 04:37:51, May 20, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Restrict the Commons |
| Message | Follow the Money: How Creative Commons Won’t Collapse an Economy The traditional defense for copyrights, the creation of exclusive property rights over information, has been that private property is a natural right that must be defended in order for individuals to profit from the fruits of their labor. Ignoring the huge logical fallacies involved in the traditional defense of private property, how have copyrights worked in terms of material economic production? And what are the ramifications for replacing copyrights with creative commons? Contrary to conventional wisdom, eliminating exclusive copyrights doesn’t spell economic disaster because copyrights don’t actually produce any material goods. What copyrights do is allow the owner of a copyright, which is an exclusive claim on any use of a piece of information, to prevent anyone else from using that information without paying a licensing fee. This is, by definition, a monopoly, which is highly uncompetitive. Proponents of copyrights argue that copyrights are necessary for individuals to recoup the expenses incurred during the creation of said information, and while they are right on this count, they are wrong when they claim that creators cannot recoup expenses when using a creative commons license. An oft ignored fact about creative commons is the ‘share alike’ clause of the license; the information can only be used for free if the user is not making any money with said information. This is important because, de facto, this already exists under copyright law because of the wonders of the internet. If you have a broadband connection, or know someone who does, you can find virtually any song, any movie, any book or any game, free to download at any time. And yet, though the CEO’s of publishing companies complain about lost revenue, they continue to post profits year after year. Despite this information already being available for free to anyone with the ability to run a simple piece of software, people still go out and pay for cd’s, games and music. Why is it, then, that people think that creative commons will destroy these industries? It’s also worth noting that numerous artists, software coders and musicians are the key proponents of creative commons. Why is this? Because these creators of intellectual property aren’t the ones profiting from copyrights; that position belongs to the stock owners of the publishing companies that buy the rights to books, music, games and movies. So consider the oft used movie industry, which is constantly complaining about pirated copies of dvd’s being produced in foreign companies. If a nation were to replace copyrights with creative commons licenses, what happens? Do people get to go to the movies for free? Not unless someone opens up a movie theater and runs it for a loss, since while the movie might be free, maintenance is not. Movie studios will still be able to charge theaters for the right to screen the movie for profit, and movie theaters will then be able to charge you for being able to watch a movie on the big screen with Dolby surround sound. Normatively, this is no different from how information is disseminated under copyright law, except that it doesn’t require people pay someone for information they aren’t making any money off of. What changes is who makes money off of the sale of information; businesses will no longer be able to profit off of the monopoly they have on copyrighted information, and will instead have to turn a profit by providing the consumers with something they can’t provide themselves. Take, for instance, compact discs. For many years the technology to create your own compact discs was too expensive for individual citizens to afford, so music companies were the only ones able to put information onto a compact disc. The same was true of dvd’s until relatively recent advances have made the technology available to anyone. Now, we have Super Audio CD’s, which offer even better sound quality, and again businesses are the only ones able to put information into a certain format. By eliminating the monopoly on a piece of information, we force businesses to innovate at least at the pace that technology becomes available to the general public. Free market advocates typical argue in favor of forcing businesses to innovate and compete, so why do we see free marketeers protecting copyrights? If you go back to Adam Smith, the most well known advocate of the market as a method for determining production and prices, you’ll note that he never saw factory owners are growing that wealthy from their enterprises because, while they would reap the profits of the factory, they would also constantly have to lower prices as they are forced into competition with other firms producing the same goods. Copyrights have retarded, if not outright reversed, that process by giving businesses monopolies on individual pieces of information. If you want to buy a particular album, there is only one business producing those albums, and so no incentive for that company to cut costs other than to further increase their profit margin. How does this help the consumer? It doesn’t. Under a creative commons license, those businesses will now have to offer consumers something they can’t get by downloading an mp3, and do so at a price low enough to be enticing. So how will replacing copyrights with creative commons affect the economy? It will increase competition by forcing businesses to do more than simply sell you copied information while preserving the rights of creators to be paid for the right to make money off their creation. It will expand the ability of individuals to obtain and use information for free while preserving the ability of distributors to make money by providing consumers with services they cannot provide for themselves, such as seeing a movie on the big screen or a band in concert. Businesses will still be able to make money, creators can still sell the exclusive distribution rights, the only difference is that businesses have to give you more than just a copy you could get off the internet. If that’s bad for the economy, that so are generic drugs and competition. |
| Date | 05:21:21, May 20, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Restrict the Commons |
| Message | not to hard to screen movies for free and still make a profit. http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/08/smbusiness/q_movies/ Up to 80% of the ticket sales go back to the movie rights. Cut out the money the audience pays on that and consession sales will make up for that since people would be more willing to buy them. What the LevP fails to take into account is that the transfer of copyrighted info across the internet or by other means is still illegal. Many people will break the law but most still do not. |
| Date | 07:08:22, May 20, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Restrict the Commons |
| Message | What an idiotic argument; if profit is being turned in the commission of showing a movie, then that party is turning a profit by showing a movie. Regardless of whether that money comes from ticket sales or concessions, how hard is it for us to legislate against that behavior? Our mistake, we forgot the PP doesn't want to find solutions, it wants to push its own agenda at all costs. And what is the PP trying to prove by saying that most people don't illegally download music? That record companies should be allowed to extort money from children through legal suits? That monopolies on information are good? What exactly is the purpose to keeping the private use of information for free illegal? And don't lie and say it's to protect the creators of music, because all it does is protect the owners of publishing companies who, rather than compete on a level field, seek to preserve a monopoly on information. |
| Date | 11:07:09, May 20, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Restrict the Commons |
| Message | LevP's statements are ever so slightly reactionary and also false. The recording industry makes profit on a very small number of the musicians that it supports, those musicians beign the heavy hitters like madonna, and other pop and rock stars. Like, the publishing industry, the music industry takes a risk on less well known artists and often take a loss from publishing their work. Also once again we reiterate our appreciation for the creative commons, which appears to be a fair balance between people who want to distribute their art and are not necessarily trying to make money and those that do need and want to make money from their work. It is important to understand, by all parties, that creative commons requires the author to have copyright over his or her work in the first place. without that copyright his property is not creative commons its up for grabs for anybody. this is a serious dissincentive for people who need to make money, they won't invent, produce or develop technology and art becuase they can't earn a living from it. |
| Date | 11:09:24, May 20, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Restrict the Commons |
| Message | By forbidding the allowance of copyrights we are effectively destroying the infrastructure that supports industries, corporations and small businesses that employ the people of this country. If people cannot make money by inventing and creating new things, then the country will be doomed to poverty. |
| Date | 11:12:28, May 20, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Restrict the Commons |
| Message | Considering our situation as a welfare state, which is not necessarily a bad thing, we need to seriously consider where the money for all of these administrative duties will come from. the answer is taxes. the richer the population, the more money will come in from taxes. we must work to increase the wealth of our country's citizens, this will help both rich and poor alike. the answer is not to make the rich poorer, but to make the poor richer. |
| Date | 11:05:19, May 25, 2005 CET | From | Radical Centrists | To | Debating the Restrict the Commons |
| Message | ooc: Heh, I've been trying to sift through the countless proposals on this matter in order to work out the most consistent way of voting for the RC. As far as I can make out, we always vote no, regardless of whether or not the proposal is for or against the LevP's interpretation! And I wonder why I do so badly... |
| Date | 11:08:28, May 25, 2005 CET | From | Radical Centrists | To | Debating the Restrict the Commons |
| Message | ooc: That said, we voted against the PP's last proposal only because of the use of the term 'freeloader'. Ach, I think I'll eschew being decisive in favour of some luxuriant procrastination. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 40 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 51 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 9 |
| Random fact: If you have a question, post it on the forum. Game Moderators and other players will be happy to help you. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "We must show that liberty is not merely one particular value but that it is the source and condition of most moral values. What a free society offers to the individual is much more than what he would be able to do if only he were free. We can therefore not fully appreciate the value of freedom until we know how a society of free men as a whole differs from one in which unfreedom prevails." - Friedrich August Hayek |