[DRAFT] Repeal "WA Copyright Charter"

[New Augustgrad]

Greetings!

So I'm still a noob here at NS and 10KI, but I got the idea to draft my first WA Proposal. I don't really know anything about drafting proposals (so far it's been just watch and learn) but I want to give it a shot. I haven't submitted this to the WA since I want to make sure it's nice and solid before I submit it, and to make sure nothing about it is illegal. Honestly I don't expect it to go anywhere, since it's my first proposal and all, but hey you never know.

Any comments, criticisms, feedback, and suggestions would be very helpful.

Repeal "WA Copyright Charter"

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA #61
Proposed by: New Augustgrad

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #61: WA Copyright Charter (Category: Education and Creativity; Area of Effect: Artistic) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: SEEKING to protect cultural diversity amongst member nations,

CONCEDING mandates in Education can be beneficial to preserving the diversity of culture in member nations,

ACKNOWLEDGING the usefulness and creative impact of fair use of copyrighted works in Education,

REALIZING while the purpose of copyright law is to protect the intellectual property of the authors of original works, the inherent overall result of said works is the shaping of culture within the borders of individual nations, since a culture's creative output characterizes it in comparison to other cultures,

CONCERNED that a comprehensive copyright mandate, while protecting authors internationally, will yield long-term adverse effects on the cultural diversity, and development, of individual member nations,

BELIEVING deregulation of international copyright law will allow individual cultures to retain their uniqueness and infinite variety of creative output without interference of the World Assembly,

INSISTING doing so will promote progress and evolution in the arts of each member nation's individual culture,

The World Assembly hereby repeals "WA Copyright Charter".

[Jesioneka]

Very diplomatically written -- I have no suggestions for improvement on the overall content. Well done!

I do have one point of clarity. In the "Realizing" clause, I feel like the word "copyright" is vaguely defined. You might consider using "copyright law."

[New Augustgrad]

I've modified with the change. I also implemented the same change on the "Believing" clause because, after making the previous change, it feels like that reads better and clearer. What do you think?

[Anime Daisuki]

I suggest replacing one of the 'conceding' with 'acknowledging'. Conceding is a very strong word and connotes defeat, repeating it in two lines doubles the effect. I think a more neutral word like acknowledge (for the second line) would be better.

FURTHER CONCEDING the usefulness and creative impact of fair use of copyrighted works in Education,

change to

ACKNOWLEDGING the usefulness...

Also this line:

CONCERNED a comprehensive copyright mandate, while protecting authors internationally, will yield long-term adverse effects on the cultural diversity, and development, of individual member nations,

I would add 'that' after CONCERNED.

Also the last line, the repeat use of the word "BELIEVING".... Believe is a very weak word. It expresses hope on a personal level. I suggest replacing that with a more assertive word.

[New Augustgrad]

How about "INSISTING" in place of the second "BELIEVING"? If so, do you think it would be better if I replaced the first "BELIEVING" as well? Or do you think "insist" is too assertive?

Suggested modifications thus far implemented accordingly.

[Glen-Rhodes]

As the author of the WA Copyright Charter, I hope there isn't a problem with me commenting on this. I saw when I stopped by to see why Ananke II withdrew their vote from the current repeal of "A Promotion of Basic Education".

I'm having trouble understanding the argument put forth in this repeal draft. From what I gather, you are arguing that copyright inhibit national cultures. That may be true for many nations. I may not agree with it, but I made sure that the WA Copyright Charter didn't force nations to throw away their principles. If nations do not agree with the idea of copyrights, then they do not have to have copyrights within their nation. The Charter does only two things:

- Establishes minimum rights for nations that do allow copyrights;
- Allows for the prosecution of individuals for copyright infringement, no matter where they live. For example, a guy in Glen-Rhodes, John, could be sued for infringing on the copyright of a girl in Anime Daisuki. Say the girl, Jane, wrote a book. The Charter allows for John to prosecuted by Jane, if John steals Janes book and sells it for a profit.

Based on how I've read this repeal draft, I think there's a little misunderstanding of what the Charter does. Again, the Charter does not force nations to allow copyrights in their own lands.

If there are any questions that I could answer, as the author of the Charter, I'd be glad to do that for you.

[New Augustgrad]

First of all I would like to say that your input is more than welcome here. In fact I was rather hoping you'd comment since you're the author of the Charter. I would like to underline that this is only a first draft, and I have no intention of submitting any draft until I'm satisfied with it. As of now I'm not satisfied with this draft, which is why I've left it open to comment and suggestion. Thank you for taking the time to offer your comments.

Please do not misunderstand the goal behind this proposal. By no means do I have any ill sentiment towards the spirit of the current Charter, but I feel as though its overall intent was not to mandate protection of rights of individual works within nations, but rather to mandate international fair use of copyrighted material. Please correct me if this interpretation is misunderstood.

I will do my best to offer my concerns regarding the Charter's first function.

The basic purpose of copyright law is to protect the rights of authors of creative and literary works, which make up the creative output. However, the creative output of a nation has significant impact when characterizing that nation's culture. In the example of Glen-Rhodes for instance, all of the creative output within its borders directly impact the characterization of Glen-Rhodes' culture in comparison to, let's say, the culture of Anime Daisuki, which is impacted by its own creative output. Evening infringing works on the international level, once released to the public, will impact the culture of a nation. It is because of this direct impact the creative output has on a culture that I'm concerned an international mandate establishing even a minimum of rights to be protected will hinder cultural development.

Another consideration should be economy. Some nations may be implementing a system where the author of a copyrighted work receives monetary compensation whenever their work is exploited to the public. The minimum rights established by the current Charter include publishing and demonstration (I presume the latter refers to performance - songs, poems, stories, etc. - and display - paintings, sculptures, etc. - perhaps even broadcasting). Essentially the Chater seems to be mandating legal oversight of all possible copyright related income streams in these nations. Surely this will affect the dynamic of these nations' economy, thereby also impacting their culture.

As I've previously stated, though, my understanding of the Charter does not lead me to think the overall intent was to establish the specific rights to be protected.

That being said, I find the second function, which you've summed up, to be more in line with what the Charter intended to mandate: international fair use. If John takes Jane's work and sells it for a profit in Glen-Rhodes, I can see justification for Jane seeking to bring international lawsuit against John. The main thing is that too little emphasis was put here, while too much emphasis was put on the established rights, even though this function seems to be at the heart of the Charter.

Should this repeal be successful, I have no intention of doing away with a copyright themed Resolution. Rather my intent is to rewrite the Chater as an International Fair Use Charter. I can see a mandate on international fair use being drafted in such a way that it doesn't risk inhibiting, but could enhance, cultural development within nations.

Again I would like to express my gratitude for your commenting on this idea; as I've said your comments are more than welcome. Writing this response has forced me to contemplate my current repeal argument, and what I truly intended to convey. As of now I will begin hammering out a new draft. However, if anyone would like to offer any comments, criticisms, feedback, or suggestions regarding the current draft, please do.