Copyright holding tax
Offlined) so-called "intellectual property" will be treated as real property, including the levy of "property tax" on the fair market value of the so-called "intellectual property". This would encourage artists and companies to maximize the value of productive property and abandon property that is not productive.
OMG. This is one of the most insightful ideas concerning copyright since its conception. If anything, this would be a huge leap towards more balance between those that create and those that use that creation, either to consume it or to create something new out of it.
I wouldn't do a "property tax", I'd rather have IP [sic] holders pay an annual fee for their creations to "keep" them. That would immediately eliminate all discussions about whether copyright should be 10 years, 20, 50, 70 or infinitly. The IP holder himself could determine how long his property is valuable to him, and release it into public domain as soon as it becomes "worthless". There is so much IP lying around, because it's "worthless", but cannot be used sensibly by anyone because it is still kept under lock by the one holding the rights to it. It could be reused, recycled, in art as collages or music as remixes, and new art could arise out of old. A new art form could emerge out of it.
You, sir, single handedly shaped an idea that could revolutionize the way we handle IP. Please write to your congressman (or whatever similar entity exists in your country)!
This idea sounds like it has potential. I think a tax on holding copyright would prevent works that really have no use being copyrighted (like Picasa) from being copyrighted.
idontknowctmwhatsthepointofcapitallettersorspacesorpunctuation
Copyright © 2004 - 2008 Libervis Network - Some Rights Reserved :: Advertise :: Privacy Policy :: Contact :: Search Engine Optimisation by Blogstorm
That's a terrible idea.
If you have a GPL'd software project, you probably don't want to put it in the public domain because that would allow creators of non-free software to reuse your code. But as long as you keep the copyrights to ensure your code stays free, you have to pay "IP" tax over something you're quite likely not making as much money from as it is thought to be worth.
Now if such a law would be combined with another that forbids non-free software, that would be interesting. Although I still don't like it.
reply quote
I don't like the idea. To me it doesn't seem compatible with freedom and liberty.
I absolutely don't like the idea of all these corporations copyrighting and "Slogan marking" every conceivable phrase that they happen to print on their french fry packs. Most corporations these days are doing it. It sucks to think that you cannot utter a phrase that hasn't been copyright.
The solution to this isn't a tax on copyright. In order to change the world you must change the thinking of people.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution states that "congress shall pass no law.. abridging the right to free speech" Having the right to own your speech is inherent. Having to pay a tax to maintain the ability to publish your speech is in my mind against the principle.
Set the example if you want to exact the change. Make it commonplace for people to give up their copyright after a few years and make it well known. Don't sign contracts that put your work into perpetual copyright with a corporate book publisher. Sell the amount you think it takes to pay you back for your time and relinquish it yourself. Remember you set the example just as GPL set the example for how software should be written and has proven to be priceless.
This is our land. Lets start building it right.
reply quote
I absolutely don't like the idea of all these corporations copyrighting and "Slogan marking" every conceivable phrase that they happen to print on their french fry packs. Most corporations these days are doing it. It sucks to think that you cannot utter a phrase that hasn't been copyright.
You are confusing copyrights and trade marks.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution states that "congress shall pass no law.. abridging the right to free speech" Having the right to own your speech is inherent. Having to pay a tax to maintain the ability to publish your speech is in my mind against the principle.
You would still have the ability to publish your speech; no one is forced to copyright any work.
idontknowctmwhatsthepointofcapitallettersorspacesorpunctuation
reply quote
I don't like it either, and I agree with constitutional1. Passing more laws to "solve" certain issues is just forcing the circumstances that fit your own ideas and beliefs on others who might not share them. Instead we should try to spread our own idea and let the people decide individually for themselves whether they want to act in one particular way or another.
That said, I don't believe in copyright at all, nor intellectual property. But if you ask me, I wouldn't enforce that idea on others. Unfortunately, with government forcing itself as the sole arbiter of what is right and what is wrong, we can't have that, right? Either it's going to be my way or someone elses way. It can't be both at once.
My Memeverse | My Music | Libervis promo video | Help spread the word
reply quote
Post new comment