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

Re: [LandCafe] Re: Software companies etc would pay little tax with lvt

Expand Messages
  • John David Kromkowski
    ... Well, you d be wrong. See Federalist No. 43. Ben Franklin, though, I think was notorious copier without permission of British works. The first copyright
    Message 1 of 142 , Dec 8, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Jock Coats <jock.coats@...> wrote:
      As to your constitution, I believe that Art 1 s8 c8 does not justify the section of IP we call copyright.

      Well, you'd be wrong.  See Federalist No. 43.  

      Ben Franklin, though, I think was notorious copier without permission of British works.  The first copyright law in the US only applied to US residents, so American publishers would reprint British works very quickly and tell the Brit authors to pound sand.

      The French after their revolution went a different way initially as I recall and got rid of copyrights but then there was a problem nobody would publish anything, so they changed there mind to allow copyrights though death of author or maybe a bit long to handle minor orphaned children of writers. I don't totally remember the history, maybe I have it wrong. I thought when then did about face and brought back copyrights there was a requirement that you had to give a copy of work to National Library.  

      Of course, the visual arts and musical arts didn't have much of problem because there was no means to copy things.  Although there was still forgery.

      The question is how does the artist (writer, composer, make a living).  It is a double edge sword.  I could live without patents or copyrights, and I certainly think they should have a shorter duration so that they are only protecting the inventor, writer, composer during his or her life.  On the other hand, there is something to be said for the free exchange.  I play music in bars for fun (and beer and gin money), but if I had to pay a royalty for ever tune I've played I would not pay, of course I'd have a defense because I improvise and substitute chords and change rhythms. And I'm making something new every time, in a folk tradition.

    • 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.