Re: [LandCafe] Re: Software companies etc would pay little tax with lvt
- I am, as you would probably expect, completely opposed to the whole gamut of "intellectual monopoly".
I think it was that other advocate of Henry George's work, George Bernard-Shaw, who described copyright, paraphrasing, as a man demanding to be paid many times for the same work.
As to your constitution, I believe that Art 1 s8 c8 does not justify the section of IP we call copyright. The "Arts" here are arts as in "artifice" or "skills": technology, not "cultural art". Ben Franklin had, of course, been a fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) in London which was established, like its institutional "mother" the Royal Society, as a "patent sharing" system to prevent the monopolisation of ideas. In their case the RSA took the view that the way to encourage innovation without granting a monopoly would be to award prizes, "premiums" or bounties to "buy" new ideas into the public domain.
I simply fail to see how creating an artificial monopoly in something encourages competition. It's an oxymoron. Historically most industries have been at their most innovative when they are the least well protected, and then, when mature and wanting to live in perpetuity off the fat of the land they once fertilised turn to intellectual property protections to ensure they can waddle along less dynamic and innovative.
On the other hand, protecting something can deeply deeply harm the common-wealth. When James Watt held his patent on the condensing cylinder steam engine, the entire country was held back at the start of the Industrial Revolution because he couldn't, or wouldn't meet the demand. The year his patent ran out production of steam engine capacity quadrupled and continued growing from there. Equally the condensing cylinder steam engine could not be improved upon while he held the monopoly, and several major improvements quickly followed the ending of the patent.
And in the cultural creative arts I just think it results in less diversity, fewer people able to make something out of their passion in favour of a few picked up by global promotional companies and turned into billionaires.
Presumably Henry George was against intellectual monopoly, as were the mutualists and anarchists?
On 8 Dec 2012, at 14:50, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
> Right, that is why copyrights and patents are not really the same thing.
> How we promote invention and the arts and secure knowledge for posterity is a complex thing. So important that we put it in our US constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8).
> But it is a complex question.
> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:56 AM, walto <calhorn@...> wrote:
> But you don't even have to bother to change the name, the title or any of it. You simply (in five seconds and with no cost to you at all) copy it and upload it to a publicly available site on the internet. It's now effectively worthless to Roy and his publisher. A version in every significant way identical to the original is now available for free.
> That's not really much like (i) figuring out how to make fake Uggs so they can be sold for less than the originals go for, (ii) getting the materials together and producing a few pairs of boots, and (iii) getting them distributed widely enough so that enough people buy them or at least know about them that there is harm to the Uggs sellers.
Warden's Flat 1e, J Block Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0FF
m: 07769 695767 skype:jock.coats?call
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:So you are in fact being paid multiple times for the same work, just as Shaw said.
> > --- 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!
> 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.He indisputably did.
> > What do you mean, "took"? He made his
> > OWN effort, creating a new product which
> > others did not create.
> He did not.
> 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 companyBecause 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.
> > > > > 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.
> 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