What about a contract like this: the copyright holder declares the value of the copyright (on the quarter; on the year; but the declared value may only increase); we then tax them on that value---say 1%. The flip side is that the copyright may be purchased 'into the public domain' by simply paying the full amount of the copyright to the owner of the copyright. (The owner has no right of refusal; however, they may increase the value of the copyright by paying the difference in taxes.)
For patents, have the tax be $300 for each year of the age of the patent. Surely, a patent is worth $300 in its first year; and, any patent that is still 'interesting' after 10 years is worth at least $3000?
Multinational patents/copyrights are payed to the originating country, so that there's no multiple payment issue.
This is a bad idea. You want to impose a tax on people when they create something? Penalizing people for innovation is the exact opposite of what copyright protection is intended to do.
If I create something, and a corporation with deep pockets wants to take it from me, they can just keep upping their bid until the tax for me to keep it would bankrupt me, forcing me to give it up? No thanks.
A 1% tax is a little bit steep. But what if the tax was only .1%? Or maybe you make it a 0% tax for the first ten years, .1% tax for the next twenty years, and 1% a year after that?
If the tax was only .1%, the corporation with big pockets would have to raise their bid to millions of dollars in order to bankrupt you. And in that case, just take their bid and walk away with the millions!
It seems fair to me. If you want something protected by the long arm of the state, if you want to impose a burden of DMCA compliance across all of industry, you should have to pay some tax to pay for that service.
> You want to impose a tax on people when they create something?
The proposal seems to suggest the tax applies to those who want the government to help them exclude others from using their creations, which isn't quite the same thing.
I like the idea of an exponential increase. $1 for the first year, then double it for each subsequent year. If you don't want to pay a $1 then it probably doesn't deserve protection. If you can't afford $2047 over ten years then maybe you don't need a decade of protection. You don't even need to put in an explicit limit, since the available money on the planet will present a natural one eventually.
Yes, though the overhead of requiring annual extensions might be a bit much.
The pre-1976 scheme required a filing and fee, though it was relatively modest. All non-registered works were public domain, and the circle-C symbol (or phonogram cicle-P) and notice were required.
I really wish we'd go back to something more like that.
It could be adjusted pretty easily. For example, do it every five years, and multiply by 100 each time, or whatever seems to make sense. Heck, if you're worried about people who aren't aware of the requirements getting screwed, have automagic and free copyright for the first five or ten years, then start requiring filing.
Interesting. I feel that "intellectual property" already penalizes people for innovating. It supports the original creator directly, but it prevents all the other innovators from creating more work in the same direction that is inspired by the first. Perhaps the tax helps balance this value?
What we're talking about is a system in which individuals and small startups are at a disadvantage by design. The closer you are to missing your rent, the easier it will be for me to take your work.
I agree that IP law is harmful. But I don't think the solution is to penalize innovation while further tilting the playing field toward large corporations.
I don't know - it seems to make sense to me. The copyright holder is paying a tax so that the state protects the monopoly that's granted with copyright. Seems fair to me. Otherwise, we've got the current situation where some corporations get a huge benefit by getting free monopoly-enforcement from the state.
> You want to impose a tax on people when they create something?
Interesting reaction. So you're against taxing the idea guy (or girl), but not against taxing the working people that make the idea become real?
If the copyright has value and is being protected, the copyright owner ought to pay the state for this protection in a proportional way to his work's worth.
I've never heard of the idea posited by the OP before and I must say as someone that doesn't believe in intellectual property laws (because it's not real property and ultimately unenforceable), it is a good idea that makes sense.
The idea reifies the value of the work by putting a bounty on it. If the bounty is paid the work is released. Until the bounty is paid the author of the work will subsidize its protection by paying a fraction of what they make from profits from that work. OP, where did you read this idea? It's very interesting.
What if the author can't afford to pay? Does being poor mean you don't deserve to own the work you've created?
How can (s)he not afford to pay, if it's "a fraction of what they make from profits from that work"? In any case, that sounds like a poor objection to the general idea of a tax - it could simply have a minimal cutoff, like many taxes.
If you're more interested in replying with Wikipedia links than understanding what I'm trying to ask, I don't think we can have a productive conversation.
How am I supposed to respond? Here is what you said:
So you're against the income tax?
Control + f, "income tax"
Arguing a straw man is precisely what you did. I said I think it's a bad idea to tax copyright ownership, and you responded by claiming I'm against income taxes.
I'm sorry, but that's just an absurd way to argue. In no way did I make any statement remotely close to arguing against income taxes. That doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.
If you're truly interested in a public conversation, then respond to what I actually said.
I said I think it's a bad idea to tax copyright ownership, and you responded by claiming I'm against income taxes.
I wasn't actually claiming anything. I was just asking based on your reply to innguest's post. It wasn't supposed to be an argument related to the tax on copyright. But fair enough, I apologize.
In any case, I still think you've stopped reading the second part of my post too soon. I wasn't saying you were arguing against the general idea of taxes, but against a tax [on copyright]. All I meant is, even if the tax is bad for poor people, you can simply make it only apply for people with higher incomes and corporations. It's not actually a good argument against a tax [on copyright].
> What about a contract like this: the copyright holder declares the value of the copyright (on the quarter; on the year; but the declared value may only increase)
Why? With the right of public purchase, a declared value decrease means its cheaper for the public to buy. And, realistically, the value of copyrights does decline.
Or is this intended to not only allow purchase into the public domain, but to quickly de facto compel surrender to the public domain for most works to avoid paying more in taxes than the work is worth?
For patents, have the tax be $300 for each year of the age of the patent. Surely, a patent is worth $300 in its first year; and, any patent that is still 'interesting' after 10 years is worth at least $3000?
Multinational patents/copyrights are payed to the originating country, so that there's no multiple payment issue.