141–150 of 171 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the regime this thread is discussing (in observationist's post upthread), 2037. This seems more than fair to me.
Of course it seems fair to you, it's not your IP that's being stolen before you were able to extract all it's worth from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IP is next to impossible to appraise, unlike land. It’s pretty easy to ballpark what a lot of house or office building is worth based on comparables that sold recently. IP doesn’t sell that much and comparisons are harder.
Copyright is easy to appraise. Estimate the stream of payments it will generate; take the net present value using an appropriate estimate of a safe interest rate. Will it always match the actual value? No, of course not. Sometimes popularity changes a lot, or interest rates change a lot. I'm not sure you really need a proprerty tax on copyrights though. They generate taxable income until they expire. It seems more fa…
Like what is the McDonalds tradework worth? What is tbe stream of payments?
I read "The duration of the U.S. protection for all other works… was for 70 years from the artist’s date of death" and thought wow, did Mondrian really live into the 1960s or so? Next paragraph: "Mondrian died in 1944. Any of his works subject to a life-plus-70 regime would have entered the public domain" 10 years ago. Who even thought of including that in a legal argument??
based on your comment (the site is unresponsive, so I cannot check what exactly it says) I think the article is incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St... : “For works published or registered before 1978, the maximum copyright duration is 95 years from the date of publication, if copyright was renewed during the 28th year following publication. Copyright renewal has been automatic sinc…
So I wasn't doing a legal analysis of which rule is the correct one, but rather observing how their arguments are ridiculous.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/musicians-algorithmically-ge...
Germany didn't have patent laws in the 1800s. Their economy rapidly industrialized and boomed. I don't believe on balance that patents would be a net improvement. Are companies really going to stop making things better if they couldn't patent it? Note that Tesla open sources its patents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright is easy to appraise. Estimate the stream of payments it will generate; take the net present value using an appropriate estimate of a safe interest rate. Will it always match the actual value? No, of course not. Sometimes popularity changes a lot, or interest rates change a lot. I'm not sure you really need a proprerty tax on copyrights though. They generate taxable income until they expire. It seems more fa…
“Estimate the stream of payments”… how? Like what is the McDonalds tradework worth? What is tbe stream of payments?
For a copyrighted work, you would examine the work, find similar works, what were the stream of payments for similar works. Take into account age of the work, the artist's other works, etc.
McDonald's does hold copyright in many things. But many of those are unlikely to produce significant income; training videos, promotional materials, etc don't tend to sell for much if at all.
If you needed to appraise a new song by a popular artist, you could do a reasonable job by looking at the stream of payments generated by their average song, and projecting future payments based on the general trends of payments for songs over time. You might also consider current popularity of the artist/song and how that impacts longevity; songs don't acheive many sales initially often hit zero sales and never come back, whereas songs that chart tend to have continued, if meager, sales for a long time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright is easy to appraise. Estimate the stream of payments it will generate; take the net present value using an appropriate estimate of a safe interest rate. Will it always match the actual value? No, of course not. Sometimes popularity changes a lot, or interest rates change a lot. I'm not sure you really need a proprerty tax on copyrights though. They generate taxable income until they expire. It seems more fa…
So of I write a novel and never publish it, how should its value be calculated? If what matters is actually revenue, well, revenue is already taxed when it’s incurred. Suppose there is no future revenue, do I get the tax back eventually?
With no offense to you or your novel; I would appraise an unpublished novel by an unknown author at something like $100, which might be too high. Some turn out to be worth much more, but most will be produce $0 or less for the author's estate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No I do not think it's an original concept of the US, more that it was the US that conditioned many other countries to adopt similar laws as a condition for trade deals / investments. As a concept it existed in one way or the other pretty much ever since the printing press.
It is not difficult to find that the "US conditioning other countries in the 1970's" actually started in 1886 at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention when 10 european countries agreed on legal principles to protect original works. Among these 10, France, Germany, Italy, France and UK, so in practice the whole Western Europe. US didn't join until 1989. The original treaty, if I am not misunderstanding he…
You're not contradicting anything I'm saying, you're just saying the same thing with more words because you don't understand where my argument comes from. What I don't understand is why you would even want to take credit for such a broken system to begin with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all, your timeline is off: A Game of Thrones was published in 1996, and the Game of Thrones series premiered in 2011. Second of all, even if you were correct, that would only apply to the first book, not the subsequent ones, which were spread out across 1999-2011 (indeed, A Dance with Dragons came out the same year as the TV series premiered). So perhaps you'd like to pick a different copyright maximalist st…
Even if the timeline in the question is off, do you agree with the premise? If Stephen King puts out a novel in 2026, when should I be able to sell photocopies of the novel without paying royalties. 2027?
The vast majority of works make the vast majority of their money during that time frame. Indeed, for some works (like software), it's still probably much too long!
Citing a few wildly extreme outliers as evidence that we should stick with anything remotely resembling the current scheme a) is either disingenuous or betrays a deep misunderstanding of statistics, and b) can only work based on an appeal to emotion derived from growing up under the current scheme and seeing a creator's work as indelibly theirs forever, rather than something that should, once they have been allowed to make a living from it for a reasonable time, become the collective property of all humanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
0-5 years commercial copyright - the author/creator has total say on any and all commercial use, fair use doctrine applies. Years 6-10, extended fair use: mandatory attribution and 15% royalty but otherwise unlimited for public use in any context, for any reason. Years 11+, goes to public domain. Simple system. Encourages creativity, 99% of all money made on media (books, music, movies,etc) gets made during the first…
Wait! Are you talking about the history or the future aspiration? I thought that the IP laws were initially like what you described here, until the greedy class stuffed the politicians' mouths with cash (aka lobbying).