Quote:
Originally Posted by shalym
Your owning a house doesn't apply either, whether you built it or someone else did. Homeowners have to pay property tax. They don't pay this tax because they're making money on the property--if they were doing that, they would *also* have to pay income tax on that income. They have to pay taxes on that property every year, whether they're using it or not. As long as they own it, they have to pay those taxes, or the government gets to take it back. Why don't we apply the same rules to copyright? If we did, it would solve the orphan works problem immediately. (I know you think that everyone looking for copyright reform is looking for free stuff, but that's absolutely NOT true. I would absolutely pay for copies of some books that aren't available in digital form, if anyone were to make them available.)
Shari
|
Shari:
Do you think that people earning money from a copyright don't pay taxes?
Why on earth SHOULD they pay taxes on something that they created, they own, and for which they've already paid taxes on the income therefrom? Now you're proposing that they pay taxes on something that ISN'T earning income, presumably?
Man, you folks are tax-crazy. Gee, while we're at it, let's tax the heirs, too, just for inheriting this copyright, whether it's worth anything or not! That'll teach 'em!!! /sarcasm.
A house or any other type of real property, typically--aside from bubbles--is
increasing in value. It's not sitting idle. It can be sold, for an increased amount. Or, it can be rented or leased. During all that time, arguably, it's providing income, even if it's future income--simply by existing. The same is not true of a copyright. If a copyright sits idle, it earns nothing, and unless its a super-hot property, it's definitely NOT increasing in value.
An analogy would be: you buy a car. You pay the licensing/registration tax annually, while the car is running, and it has value to you. Sure, that makes sense. But, let's say it breaks down, and you have it up on blocks in your garage. Do you think that YOU should pay taxes, registration, licensing on it, while it's in the garage? Because it
MIGHT someday run again, or have value? Should we tax you, so that you put it back into circulation, and let someone
else have it, to cut down on the production of automobiles? Surely, giving your old crappy not-running car away to someone else, for nothing, would be in the public good too, right?
I'm truly shocked that so many of you feel that someone else's IP
"belongs" to you, rightfully. What's next? You start stormtrooping unpublished manuscripts? What about those that have copyright filed--that never saw the light of day? Do
those belong to you, too?
FWIW: I know several novelists--trade-pubbed, not "only" Indy pubbed--who see these discussions around the Net, and have told me that quite bluntly, this sort of attitude puts them off
ever writing another book. They don't think it's
YOUR property. They don't think you have a
RIGHT to it. After the current, legal copyright expiration? Sure and fine. But until then? No. So: the belief that somehow, this shorter copyright period, this "demanding" that a copyrighted book be put back into circulation, whill somehow BENEFIT the public good? Seems to be having the opposite effect, from what I see and from what I'm told by the very people you're talking about.
The point of a copyright was to ENCOURAGE the writing of books. Not to discourage authors from publishing them.
Hitch