View Topic

Title
1. This act shall be cited as the Legislation Public Domain Act.

Legislation
2. All proposed legislation (including procedural rules and resolutions) introduced into and/or passed by the Storting shall henceforth be dedicated to the public domain worldwide under the conditions of CC0 1.0 Universal, with all copyright and related or neighboring rights waived to the extent possible under law.

3. By proposing, introducing, or modifying any proposed legislation (including procedural rules and resolutions), the author of said legislation agrees to introduce said work into the public domain under CC0, with all copyright and related or neighboring rights waived to the extent possible under law.

4. A web link to CC0 1.0 shall be provided here: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode

5. This act is not retroactive and only applies to legislation passed after this act, as well as itself.

It has come to my attention that a certain Skrifa has threatened another Skrifa with a potential DMCA lawsuit for introducing a modified version of their bill. That just seems silly to me, so I'm proposing this piece of legislation.

What the actual fuck. Really? Whoever this person is should be recalled.

What the actual fuck. Really? Whoever this person is should be recalled.

Since it's a matter of public matter, it was Chanku.

More specifically, Chanku didn't want a certain clause removed from the citizenship requirement exemption bill. When Crushita started drafting a version without it, Chanku said that he wouldn't allow his writing to be used in that way and pointed out that he has the copyright to the text under US law. There were then (somewhat humorous) talks of lawsuit under DMCA. The issue has since apparently been amicably resolved, and Crush's proposal is currently at vote after being expedited (and has reached the majority needed to pass to the OH already).

Honestly, though, recalling Chanku for this seems quite a bit of an overreaction...

More specifically, Chanku didn't want a certain clause removed from the bill. When Crushita started drafting a version without it, Chanku said that he wouldn't allow his writing to be used in that way and pointed out that he has the copyright to the text under US law. There were then (somewhat humorous) talks of lawsuit under DMCA. The issue has since apparently been amicably resolved, and Crush's proposal is currently at vote after being expedited (and has reached the majority needed to pass to the OH already).

Honestly, though, recalling Chanku for this seems quite a bit of an overreaction...

Legally @Chanku can't be recalled right now anyways. It's too close to election season.

Yeah, I was gonna say since campaigns are approaching in less than 3 weeks, it'd be pointless to do a recall anyways.

I'd like to point out that Speaker @Chanku has been absent from the forums for five days (and also appears to have departed from the Discord server). As a consequence, legislation including this one are languishing in the Underhusen forums as the term draws to a close.

I therefore suggest (unless Chanku returns, like, now) that the Underhusen empower Speaker pro tempore @Dawsinian to preside over the Underhusen until Chanku returns, or the term ends (under Section 12c of the Procedural Rules).

(Mostly want this done just so I can finish writing my Orendi article about the Storting, lol.)

I mean, with all that's been happening surrounding it, I'm expecting your Storting article to be a mini-novel.

@Chanku could you please explain why you believe this act to violate the Fundamental Laws?

To be fair, it's a moot point anyways since A) It's already passed, his vote is merely just for the record at this point, and B) :

By submitting content, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty free, perpetual, non-revocable license to use, modify, distribute, and/or produce derivative works of such content, and to authorize others to do so, for the limited purposes of displaying your content and allowing our users to interact with it.

Wintreath's Terms of Service trumps the Fundamental Laws, and at this point the bill is mainly just echoing what the ToS is saying (mainly that anything you submit is granting us the right to basically do what we want with it in the confines of Wintreath)...just in the area of legislature.

To be fair, it's a moot point anyways since A) It's already passed, his vote is merely just for the record at this point,

Right, I just wanted to hear his justification for it.

(I could see an argument being made for violation of freedom of speech, but that's why my wording in the legislation was careful not to compel people into doing something, but rather simply providing it as a condition for participating in a completely voluntary activity, i.e. drafting legislation.)

and B) :

By submitting content, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty free, perpetual, non-revocable license to use, modify, distribute, and/or produce derivative works of such content, and to authorize others to do so, for the limited purposes of displaying your content and allowing our users to interact with it.

Wintreath's Terms of Service trumps the Fundamental Laws, and at this point the bill is mainly just echoing what the ToS is saying (mainly that anything you submit is granting us the right to basically do what we want with it in the confines of Wintreath)...just in the area of legislature.

Not really, public domain/surrendering all rights to content is much greater in scope than simply giving Wintreath a right to display and interact with the content.

To be fair, it's a moot point anyways since A) It's already passed, his vote is merely just for the record at this point,

Right, I just wanted to hear his justification for it.

(I could see an argument being made for violation of freedom of speech, but that's why my wording in the legislation was careful not to compel people into doing something, but rather simply providing it as a condition for participating in a completely voluntary activity, i.e. drafting legislation.)

and B) :

By submitting content, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty free, perpetual, non-revocable license to use, modify, distribute, and/or produce derivative works of such content, and to authorize others to do so, for the limited purposes of displaying your content and allowing our users to interact with it.

Wintreath's Terms of Service trumps the Fundamental Laws, and at this point the bill is mainly just echoing what the ToS is saying (mainly that anything you submit is granting us the right to basically do what we want with it in the confines of Wintreath)...just in the area of legislature.

Not really, public domain/surrendering all rights to content is much greater in scope than simply giving Wintreath a right to display and interact with the content.

We're talking legislation though, not public works such as a novel or painting that you're intending to sell.  The fact that this even had to come into play in the first place is eye-roll worthy.

If this was widening to all content within Wintreath, then it'd be more problematic.

We're talking legislation though, not public works such as a novel or painting that you're intending to sell.  The fact that this even had to come into play in the first place is eye-roll worthy.

If this was widening to all content within Wintreath, then it'd be more problematic.

Right, but my thoughts were more on the ideals of the thing; that public documents should probably be made public domain, as they are in most real-life countries. The immediate situation has been (arguably) resolved, but that isn't a reason not to take a look at this issue separately.

We're talking legislation though, not public works such as a novel or painting that you're intending to sell.  The fact that this even had to come into play in the first place is eye-roll worthy.

If this was widening to all content within Wintreath, then it'd be more problematic.

Right, but my thoughts were more on the ideals of the thing; that public documents should probably be made public domain, as they are in most real-life countries. The immediate situation has been (arguably) resolved, but that isn't a reason not to take a look at this issue separately.

True.  I do agree with you on that front.

I think if a bill extended to include everything outside of legislature alone, I'd be more hesitant to support it in that case.  It's one thing when you're agreeing that what happens in Wintreath stays in Wintreath, but it's another when it extends out to "No, basically anything you submit is open game regardless of if it stays on Winreath or not."

I think if a bill extended to include everything outside of legislature alone, I'd be more hesitant to support it in that case.  It's one thing when you're agreeing that what happens in Wintreath stays in Wintreath, but it's another when it extends out to "No, basically anything you submit is open game regardless of if it stays on Winreath or not."

Yeah, I'd definitely think that that's a terrible idea. Wouldn't make sense for people to surrender copyright on stuff that they're just personally writing on here.