RSS FeedsCopyrights
Where should we draw the line between illegal copyright infringement and valuable public access? Discuss today's Blowback.
Comments will close after two weeks.
1.
The discussion of this at Slashdot has produced a very interesting working method for the IP tax.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/27/0018224
2. I like the idea of a property tax on intellectual property, but who gets to set the value? Is the tax only only to be levied on sold licenses for the use of, or does it also apply to the sales of real items that use the "intellectual property"? If an item makes use of several "intellectual properties" how is the tax to be levied to each of its contributing parts?
3. That is a very interesting idea. In france we distinguish "propretary/patrimonial" rights from "morality" rights. Morality ones are not about royalties, and permit to the author to protect his works from modifications... "les droits moraux et les droits patrimoniaux" I think only patrimonial royalities rights should be taxed. Like this people using FREE(as liberty) LICENCES like GPL, LAL, BSD.. wouldn't be taxed as they contribute to "progress" without making causing dangerous side effects.
4. Great idea. Sounds similar to "copyleft," which I've come across before. But, whereas copyleft remains free, this could serve as that nice middle ground of something that could actually happen. How, though? Try to pass it through Congress? Wait for Obama, then write up a bill. Or, have a massive social movement that forces them to change.
5. But the number of products that a person/company makes are countless. A magazine interviews several people everyday and produces a magazine every week. Should they have to copyright every interview and every article in each magazine? Won't the number of copyrights run into the thousands every month? What about professional photographers? They take thousands of photos every week. Should they be forced to pay copyright for every photo they take? And won't the need to obtain copyrights for everything practically cripple the efficiency of the copyright office? Remember each copyright has to be verified by a human before it can be rubber stamped.
6. Many musicians would never have any hope of reaping any benefit from their compositions because they would not be able to afford the taxes on their works while they awaited the works to be worth something. Their lapsed property could then be freely used by record companies, other artists, film producers, or anyone with more means than the creator to make money the originator of the idea would never see.
7. I like the current system of automatic copyright, but it should be limited to the original term of 14 years. After that, you'd have to register the work with the Library of Congress and pay an escalating fee, say $150 for the 15th year, $160 for the 16th, etc. Allow prepayments, so that $50,500 would buy 100 years of coverage (and protect you against future fee increases).
8. Dallas's comments are ill-informed - he should be educating himself about intellectual property before writing about it. Firstly, Dallas uses the term 'copyright' when he means 'patent' (a fundamental error) and secondly he overlooks the fact that patents have a limited (20 year) monopoly and that you can't patent for yourself something that is already known, like a a mixture of salt sugar and water! Lucky, opinions don't count for anything.
9. Dallas Weaver's piece is wrong on both the law and the facts. The comment by oren correctly states the law as it exists in the United States. Further, the Weaver piece suggests some kind of tax which would likely have a greater chilling effect on "the progress of science and the useful arts" than the copyright law does, even if Weaver's incorrect hypothesis were correct.
10. You've confused property rights with property, and patents with copyrights. "Progress of science" refers to patents. Formulae like rehydration cannot be copyrighted. Online articles are copyrighted; it is paper that keeps youth out. Lack of "carrying costs" does not preserve copyrights, legislation does. Why assume patents are not taxed? You distinguish "social value" from market value, but the price is the most accurate measure of value to society. A right to a scientific process will be on paper (a patent or license) that is real. After all, one who "owns" land has nothing more than a right to exclude others – on paper.
Submitted by: armareum
2. I like the idea of a property tax on intellectual property, but who gets to set the value? Is the tax only only to be levied on sold licenses for the use of, or does it also apply to the sales of real items that use the "intellectual property"? If an item makes use of several "intellectual properties" how is the tax to be levied to each of its contributing parts?
Submitted by: David
3. That is a very interesting idea. In france we distinguish "propretary/patrimonial" rights from "morality" rights. Morality ones are not about royalties, and permit to the author to protect his works from modifications... "les droits moraux et les droits patrimoniaux" I think only patrimonial royalities rights should be taxed. Like this people using FREE(as liberty) LICENCES like GPL, LAL, BSD.. wouldn't be taxed as they contribute to "progress" without making causing dangerous side effects.
Submitted by: Fievet Lucile
4. Great idea. Sounds similar to "copyleft," which I've come across before. But, whereas copyleft remains free, this could serve as that nice middle ground of something that could actually happen. How, though? Try to pass it through Congress? Wait for Obama, then write up a bill. Or, have a massive social movement that forces them to change.
Submitted by: Zack
5. But the number of products that a person/company makes are countless. A magazine interviews several people everyday and produces a magazine every week. Should they have to copyright every interview and every article in each magazine? Won't the number of copyrights run into the thousands every month? What about professional photographers? They take thousands of photos every week. Should they be forced to pay copyright for every photo they take? And won't the need to obtain copyrights for everything practically cripple the efficiency of the copyright office? Remember each copyright has to be verified by a human before it can be rubber stamped.
Submitted by: Oliver Clevont
6. Many musicians would never have any hope of reaping any benefit from their compositions because they would not be able to afford the taxes on their works while they awaited the works to be worth something. Their lapsed property could then be freely used by record companies, other artists, film producers, or anyone with more means than the creator to make money the originator of the idea would never see.
Submitted by: Concerned Artist
7. I like the current system of automatic copyright, but it should be limited to the original term of 14 years. After that, you'd have to register the work with the Library of Congress and pay an escalating fee, say $150 for the 15th year, $160 for the 16th, etc. Allow prepayments, so that $50,500 would buy 100 years of coverage (and protect you against future fee increases).
Submitted by: Samwyse
8. Dallas's comments are ill-informed - he should be educating himself about intellectual property before writing about it. Firstly, Dallas uses the term 'copyright' when he means 'patent' (a fundamental error) and secondly he overlooks the fact that patents have a limited (20 year) monopoly and that you can't patent for yourself something that is already known, like a a mixture of salt sugar and water! Lucky, opinions don't count for anything.
Submitted by: Nadia
9. Dallas Weaver's piece is wrong on both the law and the facts. The comment by oren correctly states the law as it exists in the United States. Further, the Weaver piece suggests some kind of tax which would likely have a greater chilling effect on "the progress of science and the useful arts" than the copyright law does, even if Weaver's incorrect hypothesis were correct.
Submitted by: Leonard DuBoff
10. You've confused property rights with property, and patents with copyrights. "Progress of science" refers to patents. Formulae like rehydration cannot be copyrighted. Online articles are copyrighted; it is paper that keeps youth out. Lack of "carrying costs" does not preserve copyrights, legislation does. Why assume patents are not taxed? You distinguish "social value" from market value, but the price is the most accurate measure of value to society. A right to a scientific process will be on paper (a patent or license) that is real. After all, one who "owns" land has nothing more than a right to exclude others – on paper.
Submitted by: Rightsist
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT