Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Software companies etc would pay little tax with lvt

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... The increased supply of built space would reduce its price. ... Because they are producing and selling it more efficiently than competitors. ... Because
    Message 1 of 142 , Dec 4, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:

      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Ed" <ejdodson@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Ed Dodson here:
      > >
      > > All companies must operate somewhere, even if they lease space in a
      > > building. Thus, the owner of the building would be paying for the
      > > privilege of owning the land under the building. The savings in the
      > > cost of leasing space would be passed on through the entire economy.
      >
      > Ed what savings do you mean?

      The increased supply of built space would reduce its price.

      > > Now, this does not address the problem of
      > > monopoly rents created by patent and copyright
      > > laws, but ... that is another issue.
      >
      > We have those laws because

      ...the greedy will do anything and everything to get something for nothing.

      > if I invent something why should some company make million/billions out of it?

      Because they are producing and selling it more efficiently than competitors.

      > If I wrote a song why should others make millions from what I created.

      Because they are performing it enough better than competing performers.

      > Rod Stewart with another writer wrote "Maggie May" in 1971, 42 years ago. It makes both of them £25,000 each, each year in performing rights (radio & TV plays) and sales. The same can be said for the Beatles, etc. BTW, the song was differentiated by the mandolin through the song and the solo at the end, which was composed and played by Ray Jackson who paid a one-off fee of £15.
      >
      > In the above cases Rod Stewart and his co-writer are still alive, so IMO deserve that money.

      How on earth do they deserve £25,000/yr each, for doing nothing?

      Give your head a shake.

      > Maybe Ray was taken for a ride, I am not sure.

      We have all been taken for a ride.

      > In the Elvis case, he is not alive and a large company took the profits.

      By reducing people's opportunities to enjoy what would otherwise be in the public domain.

      > Say in both cases above they could not gain copyright, then the radio & TV stations would gain and they get music for nothing.

      The radio and TV stations wouldn't gain anything. They'd all have access to the same material, so any advantage would be competed away.

      > I believe there is a 60 years limit on films. I believe the publishers get around it somehow. Casablanca is still shown around the world, who get the profits?

      The producer's company.

      > If I invent and engine that is 95% efficient, as opposed to 20% as now, should some big corp'n make billions from my intellectual effort?

      If it can bring that benefit to consumers that much more efficiently than competitors, yes.

      You don't seem to understand that abolition of IP monopolies wouldn't mean companies would get them instead of creative people. Almost all IP rents ALREADY go to companies, and not the creative people who did the work.

      If you don't think people would be creative if they weren't granted IP monopolies, or wouldn't be able to make a living from their ideas, how do you explain the creativity and wealth of the fashion industry, where the only IP protection is on brand names and trademarks?

      Watch and learn:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0

      -- Roy Langston
    • roy_langston
      ... So you are in fact being paid multiple times for the same work, just as Shaw said. ... No, it is being produced by a publisher and sold by booksellers.
      Message 142 of 142 , Dec 10, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:

        > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@> wrote:
        > >
        > > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
        >
        > > > > > If I write a book and it sells well for
        > > > > > 5 years, where am I being paid many times?
        > > > >
        > > > > You are being paid each time someone buys one.
        > > > > Surely this is obvious.
        > > >
        > > > I am not. Over 5 years if the book
        > > > makes say £100,000 and then publication halts,
        > > > then I have been paid once for that book run.
        > >
        > > No. If you had been paid a flat fee,
        > > that would be one payment.
        >
        > Roy, so what!

        So you are in fact being paid multiple times for the same work, just as Shaw said.

        > If I get paid one fee at the end of a book run or drip fed each time a book is sold, it doesn't matter. One thing that is clear, it is MY book and MY work.

        No, it is being produced by a publisher and sold by booksellers. For whose work YOU are being paid multiple times.

        > The most recorded song in history, by countless artists, is "Yesterday" written by Paul McCartney. He gets a royalty for each record sold, or played on air, by those who copy.

        Getting paid millions of times for the same work, just as Shaw said.

        > Those who copy still make money as well.

        Some do, some don't. How would that be relevant?

        > I see nothing wrong with that. Paul McCartney has never stopped any of them recording his song.

        Then why would they pay him for doing nothing?

        > All the proceeds of his original go to him and rightly so..

        No, it is not just "his original," but all the other arrangements and versions as well.

        > > > He took someone else's effort.
        > >
        > > What do you mean, "took"? He made his
        > > OWN effort, creating a new product which
        > > others did not create.
        >
        > He did not.

        He indisputably did.

        > He took the efforts of other authors R&D and rolled it into one book.

        No, he did his own R&D, making one better book using ideas from worse books.

        > I have always thought of doing the same myself. Within a few weeks a "new" book can be knocked up by using other people's efforts. I am sure it happens all the time.

        And there is nothing wrong with it.

        > > > > > What about the case of a large company
        > > > > > making millions using your work and you get nothing?
        > > > >
        > > > > Good for them: it means they are more productive
        > > > > and efficient than their competitors, who have
        > > > > access to the same knowledge and ideas. If you
        > > > > want to get paid for your work, make an arrangement
        > > > > to get paid before it enters the public domain.
        > > >
        > > > That is pure naivety.
        > >
        > > It is fact.
        >
        > Many Socialists claim all the free market does is allow most money to gather with a few percent of the population.

        Because they refuse to know the facts about how land titles and other privileges, which are no part of a free market, steal from the productive and give to the privileged.

        > They claim a free for all does this so control, or state ownership is needed. We see it now with powerful corporations.

        I see powerful corporations enriching themselves through privilege, not the free market.

        > The right never thought through their ideal - the repercussions of when the free-market is rigged or monopolized.

        The right thinks freedom consists in the privileged being free to remove others' freedom with government's help.

        > Roy, you have this ideal of a free for all re: patents and copyright. I agree with it in principle. But when thought through it falls apart.

        No, it does not.

        > The money will rise to the top.

        <sigh> How much money do Paul McCartney, DisneyCorp, etc. have under the CURRENT system, John?

        > I know it is not right. I do not know the solution to the problem - because I have never thought it through.

        That's OK. I have.

        -- Roy Langston
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.