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

Re: Software companies etc would pay little tax with lvt

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... Well, there is not much correlation between quality and time spent, because the best writers tend to be the most fluent. Many extremely popular artists
    Message 1 of 142 , Dec 6, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:

      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
      > >
      > > OTC, there would be MORE time spent on revisions, because anyone who produced a better version could make money from it. The average quality of revisions might be lower, but the quality of the best version would be higher.
      >
      > I was talking about revisions by the original writer/composer prior to publication. I agree there might be more "revisions" of the text or music by others. That's a different sense of the word. If you need to put out 10 books to make what you now make with one, I'm guessing you might not want to spend as much time on each.

      Well, there is not much correlation between quality and time spent, because the best writers tend to be the most fluent. Many extremely popular artists are also extremely prolific. And one of the reasons there are editors is that one set of revisions by an outside expert can do more for the work than another ten revisions by the author.

      > In any case, I'd expect there to still be high quality work out there--I don't think Shakespeare benefited from copyright protection

      Indeed, he (and we) benefitted from the ABSENCE of the copyright "protection" racket from Elizabethan England: a number of his works drew extensively on contemporaneous writers such as Christopher Marlowe, and could not have been written if those writers had enjoyed today's level of copyright "protection."

      > --but (for good or ill) it might be necessary for currently successful writers/composers to do other things for a living.

      And not getting rich from a one-hit wonder might stimulate them to do more and better work. Financial success has been fatal to many an artist's work.

      > Beethoven was highly regarded, but he didn't make the sort of living J.K. Rowling does. Should he have? Or, OTOH, should she make only what her publisher can get for her in a world without copyright protections--I don't know.

      I do: yes, she should make only what she can make in a world without the monopoly copyright "protection" racket. Are fashion designers really so ill-paid because they have no patent or copyright monopolies?

      -- 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
      View Source
      • 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.