Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

locusmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–126 of 126 posts

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#121

Post by anilgulecha »

kstrauser wrote: post #52

I think intellectual property should be taxed as are other properties and assets. This would seem to have the nice side effect of setting a monetary value in IP lawsuits. If you declare that your property is worth $X when you file taxes, you couldn’t really argue that it’s worth $10X when suing over violations of it. And frankly, I think IP should be taxed since holders rely on the government to protect it. If I have…

Your comment is a once-in-a-while one of incredible insight. Indeed, this seems a great way of framing the cost of applying copyright laws in society.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#122

Post by sriku »

grishka wrote: post #108
sriku wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it the case that the use of IP generates wealth which is taxed anyway? So wouldn't that amount to a kind of double taxation?

If you own a house and rent it to someone, you would pay both the property tax on the house itself and the income tax on the rent. Seems normal to me.

The comparison seems fair .. in the sense that property tax serves to cover the cost to society of the property existing, just as "IP tax" would be to cover the cost to society of protecting the "IP". Looks like such a tax would also separate the concern of protection, from the concern of exploitation of the IP. But I can't imagine how one would tax created IP .. at least in property, there is some sense of "market value", which is anybody's guess when it comes to IP.

edit: Maybe IP can be assigned "shares" in wealth injected into the market?

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#123

Post by grishka »

sriku wrote: post #122
grishka wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you own a house and rent it to someone, you would pay both the property tax on the house itself and the income tax on the rent. Seems normal to me.

The comparison seems fair .. in the sense that property tax serves to cover the cost to society of the property existing, just as "IP tax" would be to cover the cost to society of protecting the "IP". Looks like such a tax would also separate the concern of protection, from the concern of exploitation of the IP. But I can't imagine how one would tax created IP .. at least in property, there is some sense of "market v…

There is "market value" of IP in the sense that there are prices consumers are supposed to pay for it. The price of a movie ticket, the price of a music album, the price of a video game. The tax can be calculated based on that and the popularity of the creative work in question.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#124

Post by dllthomas »

RobertKerans wrote: post #120
dllthomas wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bit you quoted said "generate money from investors", which is quite a different thing than "generate money for investors."

Yes, I assumed it was a mistake and poster had meant to write "for", it doesn't make sense as "from"

It absolutely makes sense as "from" - imagine I go to investors and say "I have this great scheme, and it will make a bunch of money", and they give me a bunch of money, and I pocket it. My company existed to "generate money from investors", for myself.

It's also, obviously, fraud. You can make it less obvious by actually spending the money on a scheme that looks busy and looks like it has potential to generate returns. If I realistically believe that it has the potential to generate the returns I'm promising the investors, then I'm doing the usual thing of trying to generate money for investors. If I'm selling $2 bills for $1, I'll get a lot of customers and build a big business but all the actual value flowing into the system is the cash from the investors and I don't have any real prospect of turning that around.

Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between those.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#125

Post by dllthomas »

dllthomas wrote: post #124
RobertKerans wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I assumed it was a mistake and poster had meant to write "for", it doesn't make sense as "from"

It absolutely makes sense as "from" - imagine I go to investors and say "I have this great scheme, and it will make a bunch of money", and they give me a bunch of money, and I pocket it. My company existed to "generate money from investors", for myself. It's also, obviously, fraud. You can make it less obvious by actually spending the money on a scheme that looks busy and looks like it has potential to generate retur…

Ah, but the original context seems to have been a attempted restatement of something you'd said, and "from" wouldn't fit.

I agree it was likely a mistake, but I think much of the talking past each other in the comments following comes from others not realizing that you had made that determination and were responding as if it said "to". People attempting to make money from investors is a pretty common topic around here.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#126

Post by zelphirkalt »

LexGray wrote: post #62
pdonis wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's effectively the same concept, just extended. No, it isn't, because ordinary physical property can't be copied the way digital "property" can be. And the whole scheme of property rights with regard to ordinary physical property only makes sense because ordinary physical property can't be copied. If I steal your car, you are deprived of the car; that's why it's a crime for me to do it. But if I make a digital co…

So any information... Say human DNA, is free to copy if you shed your hair somewhere?

A great idea for a science-fiction novel.

Just imagine if that happened to become true one day. Some people would have to come up with secrets they exchange, as to make themselves unique to the other person, because there might be clones running around. And all the art and music would either not exist or be somehow supported by society. Society would have to learn, that we need to support what we like, or else the makers of it could not live from it. Would the system of money still work? Would we have different forms for economies unlike capitalism? How would greed work?

Post reply on HN