Copyfraud - public domain's fate?

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

It was just an example. I could just as easily have picked some other form of property.

As to property tax; no. It should be treated as income.

You mean, no income over the copyrighted work, no tax?

I would disagree with such an implementation. If you want ownership there should be responsibility as well. Regardless whether it is land, a car, a patent or a copyright. Especially if you expect governments to enforce the copyright, a contribution to the enforcing apparatus doesn't seem inappropriate. Doesn't need to be a lot, say $100 or $200 a year.

[Worldwalker]

If I take your land, you don't have it anymore.

If I take your idea, you still have it.

Where would we be, I wonder, if Shakespeare's heirs owned a legal lock on "The Tempest"? We would definitely be poorer for it.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Soldim

You mean, no income over the copyrighted work, no tax?

I would disagree with such an implementation. If you want ownership there should be responsibility as well. Regardless whether it is land, a car, a patent or a copyright. Especially if you expect governments to enforce the copyright, a contribution to the enforcing apparatus doesn't seem inappropriate. Doesn't need to be a lot, say $100 or $200 a year.

Taxes based upon sales.

Do you pay taxes on your jewelry and other valuables to provide police protection?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

If I take your land, you don't have it anymore.

If I take your idea, you still have it.

Where would we be, I wonder, if Shakespeare's heirs owned a legal lock on "The Tempest"? We would definitely be poorer for it.

If you take my movie and sell it for $7 per copy while I'm still selling it for $12 per copy, then I no longer have it.

I don't care if we're the poorer for it, it wasn't our work to begin with. And society certainly has no right to arbitrarily place a time limit on someone's possessions (but we do it anyway).

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Taxes based upon sales.

Do you pay taxes on your jewelry and other valuables to provide police protection?

As a matter of fact, I do.

A yield of 4% of the total value of the estate is added to my income, regardless of the realized yield.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

They already are copyrighted.

Not for eternity. Currently it's just a supposed incentive to make authors produce more works - if it was removed, the works would become public domain at the moment at which they're published.

[Sil_liS]

Tubemonkey, I get the impression that you don't pay many taxes. Take land for example, as you seem to be very fond of comparing books to it: there are taxes on owning the land, there are extra taxes is you have an income out of selling things that grow on that land, there are extra taxes is you build a house on that land.

And you are not God on your land. The land is still part of a village/city/state and ultimately a country. If you have certain types of trees on your land you can't just cut them at will. If the house that you own is old enough you are not allowed to demolish it, nor are you allowed to renovate it any way you like. In many ways you don't own the land, the country does, you just pay for the right to live on it, and to decide who lives on it after you die.

And the idea of free access to public domain is somewhat different in the case of books. A park can be part of the public domain, but we pay taxes so the elected officials can designate someone to take care of them. Paintings are part of the public domain, but we pay the entrance to the museum so they can take care of them.

Intellectual property for books will eventually fall on it's ass. There is a limit to all the possible permutations of words that can express a basic idea. One of the things that I find most annoying about the vampire/werewolf/zombie book and films, is that there is always someone saying something along the lines of "Oh, I thought they were just a story". And while I'm sure that every author can bring one unique twist to the story, ultimately there will be very little left to require copyright.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Soldim

As a matter of fact, I do.

A yield of 4% of the total value of the estate is added to my income, regardless of the realized yield.

Then your copyright would be included in that. It shouldn't be singled out.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

Not for eternity.

And that's the problem with current copyright law - it should be forever.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Tubemonkey, I get the impression that you don't pay many taxes. Take land for example, as you seem to be very fond of comparing books to it: there are taxes on owning the land, there are extra taxes is you have an income out of selling things that grow on that land, there are extra taxes is you build a house on that land.

Of course I pay taxes; too many in fact (but that's a topic for another thread).

As to copyrights, I have no problem with paying taxes on any income derived from them.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Of course I pay taxes; too many in fact (but that's a topic for another thread).

As to copyrights, I have no problem with paying taxes on any income derived from them.

But with land for example you pay taxes if you *own* the land. You don't have to live there, you don't have to have an income out of it, but you pay to own it. If you don't pay for long enough, you might not even own it anymore.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

But with land for example you pay taxes if you *own* the land. You don't have to live there, you don't have to have an income out of it, but you pay to own it. If you don't pay for long enough, you might not even own it anymore.

We're getting off topic now, but I will say that I disagree with property taxes. I favor consumption taxes and less government spending.

I won't make any further comments on the issue of taxes.

[charonme]

no surprise, many other wicked things are legal thanks to the copyright laws

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Blue Tyson

I actually know the person who runs PGA, and have chatted about this. They did try the dumb letter thing, and no, it didn't work ever.

The person in question clearly was not conversant with Australian law.

A good thing to point out to American lawyers in cases like this is loser pays the lot, too. So they'd lose, have to pay opposition costs, probably get made to pay extra for being idiots and wasting the court's time, etc...

Well, then they were not so dumb after all. They just tried the only thing that might work, and it didn't.

"Loser pays" is not the rule in the US, but any competent lawyer should be aware that it's not the case in other Anglo countries - it's called "the English Rule" & covered in first year procedure. Or at least, it was when I was in law school, way back when. "Kids these days..."

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I am a little puzzled by these "copyright lasts forever" posts. In virtually every country in the world, new material enters the public domain every year (eg, in "life+70" countries, all those books whose authors died during 1940 will enter the public domain on 1st Jan 2011).

Copyright terms are long, but certainly not "eternal".

As a practical matter, any novel published today will not go out of copyright until everyone who is alive today, dies. That's not "eternal," but it might as well be.