Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
Once again, from the top - Copyright is not property! It does not, nor ever have, followed the rules of property! I don't know how much more clear I can make this.
It is a right granted by the government for a limited term. Not forever. Not for your descendants. It is granted to creators to encourage creation. Dead people don't create!!!. Nobody makes you create. That's a choice, with rights and responsibilities, <and a time limit>. You know that going into the business. It's not magical power, it's just work and talent.
I'm a professional programmer. I have been for over 35 years. I get no royalties. I own no copyright from my professional work. What I did get was a paycheck, for services rendered. Right now I get paid very close to 6 figures a year for my skills. I also hold a few personal copyrights, because I was feeling brisk. they are effectively worthless. I could care less what happens to them.
If you want to play the copyright game, it's a free country. But the rules of the game are what they are. You got to work within them. And they shouldn't change after the fact, just to please you, while cheating somebody else.
Now, if despite everything I've said above, you expect copyright to be treated as property, then expect to get the bad side of property as well as the good side. And that means paying taxes on the property, and registering it with the government to be taxed. No register, no copyright. Just like a fallow piece of land. It produces no income, but it still get taxed (in most jurisdictions), and your ownership of the land must be registered to maintain your ownership! Your copyright can produce absolutely no income, but it would still be taxed. (How much would be determined by the government.) |
Ralph:
You know, if you don't want to enforce your own copyrights, that's YOUR CHOICE. That's my point. Moreover, you are obviously very well compensated, on a timely basis, and that is the payment you get. The work you do belongs to your employer. That's what paid JOBS are like, which is completely and utterly different than a gamble, effectively, on a manuscript.
For most of my 3+ decades of work, I worked in the Real Estate Development field. For a variety of projects, building everything from offices to resort hotels. It was common for me to earn money at one point in time, and receive it at another. For example--let's say that my compensation was a fixed wage of X, plus a percentage on a given job, based on how far UNDER budget the job came in, or other performance factors. The percentages, or bonuses, etc., were not--not remotely--insignificant in amount.
By your lights--"Dead people don't create!"--if I finished a hotel, in, say, this year, and then got hit by a bus, my spouse and my estate would NOT be entitled to receive the compensation that I was due. So: precisely, what's the difference, then, between MY deferred/delayed compensation, and that of an author? What, there's some argument that I'm somehow different than they? I'm not. I worked; I earned it; it came to pass that it wasn't payable to me until AFTER I died. I fail to see one iota of difference, other than--other people aren't trying to GET what I earned, away from me, for their own use/benefit.
What if I buy stocks? Ralph, if I buy stocks today, then kick the bucket, and they double in value, should my estate NOT be entitled to that money? Since "dead people don't create," should my spouse have to fork that over to some third party that had NOTHING to do with the earnings to buy it in the first place, etc.?
As far as taxes, oh,
PUHLEEZE. You're a smart person, and you know damned well that we most certainly
do not pay taxes on most of our personalty (personal property). I don't pay taxes on the thousands of books in my home, but that doesn't mean that they have zero value. I don't pay annual taxes on the value of jewelry, etc. YES, we pay RE Taxes. YES, we pay a "tax," effectively, on an automobile, in the form of an annual registration/licensing/emissions test. but other than that, personalty is not taxed the way RE is taxed, and you know it.
The value of a copyrighted item is in what it EARNS. And that, brother, is most certainly taxed, as you know well. The book isn't taxed on some imaginary value; it's taxed on what it earns--like any other bloody job. The author takes a risk; he writes a book. That book may earn well in year one, or year 10 or year 50. It may not. The risk is, the author puts X months, or Y years of his or her life into it--and it may do NOTHING. On the other hand, it may take off and light up the sky. He doesn't know that, not before it's published.
My point is, just because compensation of whatever kind is deferred doesn't mean it's UNEARNED. And the fact that people on this thread seem to feel justified in saying that so-and-so's heirs aren't "entitled" to that deferred income is just truly depressing to me. I spent most of my life, earning "deferred" income, and I fail, utterly, to see the difference between MY deferred earnings (in one job, I literally received those deferred earnings over a period of TEN YEARS) and an author's.
It's obvious to me that this is like any other position--may as well be political. Nobody will ever change their mind; you either think that someone who works--in whatever field--is entitled to what they've earned--or you don't. I don't have a problem with an author's kids getting the proceeds of HIS "deferred income." Obviously, many of you feel that the "copyright" entitles you to that person's work.
I give up. And, really, kind of like smashing your head into the wall, anyway--probably for you, too.
Hitch