Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
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 You start stormtrooping unpublished manuscripts?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
|
You must have missed the part where I talk about the difference between income tax and property tax. I pay property tax on my house whether it makes me money or not. If I use my house to make money, I ALSO pay income tax, on top of the property tax.
I wasn't actually recommending a "tax" be paid on copyrighted books (or music, or art). I was just addressing the fact that even if you design and build a house yourself, you STILL have to pay property tax on it in order to keep it. Therefore, "intellectual property" is NOT like real property.
As to your car analogy, again...legally, I would still have to pay property tax on that car...at least in my state. I also pay for the place that I'm storing it, either through rental fees or property tax. So again...no. The analogy doesn't apply.
As to the part where I say "why don't we apply the same rules to copyright"? That would actually just be going back to how it used to be, except that if someone wanted to keep the copyright forever, they could. Imagine...pay $20/year (or even every 5 years) and you and your heirs can keep the right to your "intellectual property" forever--no more expiring 75 years after the death of the creator.
Shari