Re: Software companies etc would pay little tax with lvt
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Jock Coats <jock.coats@...>wrote:I agree: Art 1 s8 c8 explicitly mentions authors and writings.
> > 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.
> 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,Not so. There was a great deal of publishing going on. In fact, the revolution had been built partially on publication of large numbers of pamphlets by agitators, none of which had any copyright protection, for obvious reasons.
> so they changed there mind to allow copyrights thoughThe revolutionary French don't seem to have given the publishing industry time to adapt to the absence of copyright. Publishing was on the increase, but the publishers put intense pressure on the National Assembly to bring back copyright. Eckard Hoffner compared the publishing industry in England in the early 19th C with that in Germany, which had not yet introduced copyrights, and found that not only was there more publishing in Germany, but authors typically made more money.
> death of author or maybe a bit long to handle minor orphaned children of writers.
> The question is how does the artist (writer, composer, make a living).Did no artist, writer or composer ever make a living before copyright?
> I play_STOP_THIEF_!!!!
> 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
- --- 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