4 ms·

who pays this tax? the person that forks the github repo?

unabst 10y ago
This is just one scenario, but you can imagine a system where the person who profits over any IP would pay IP tax, which would then get distributed upstream to previous registered contributors. IP producers would need to be tracked, but this is something that systems such as github already do extremely well, and credit card companies already run systems that process fees for every single transaction. Producers will announce themselves anyway, in hopes that their content will generate as much value as possible. Contributors would announce themselves in exchange for the right to use any IP. So say DJ Foo remixes a Michael Jackson song and uploads it to YouTube. YouTube will withhold the IP tax from the ad revenue paid out, and hand it over to the IP revenue service with the copyright profile. Michael Jackson will get paid for DJ Foo's remix automatically. Say DJ Foo does an original song and uploads it to YouTube. The same thing will happen, but DJ Foo will get paid from the IP revenue service since the IP is tied to DJ Foo as the originator. And imagine if all this information was open and public. We could lookup any product or work and see all of its activity and history as if it were open source code on github. In exchange for everyone paying an IP tax, anyone creating anything or adding something will be guaranteed to get paid for their contributions based on the maximum value society can generate from it. Violators will be shamed just by manipulating the system because they'd be doing it in public, and it would be in the IP creators best interest to police their work and report violations. Violations don't even need to be criminal. They just need to be fines that disincentivise those actions enough, much like parking tickets. An example violation would be uploading someone else's song without changing it or false claims regarding ownership.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  Okay, now one more paragraph about how anyone is incentivized to create anything in this system
  - rickycook 10y ago
    not that i'm necessarily agreeing, because it's complex but pay what you want entertainment works quite well so people are willing to support when they don't have to. also people create plenty of FOSS and creative commons software, so the incentives to create don't have to be monetary and the incentives to support don't have to be legal plus... does anyone except the rich celebrities really think they're worth as much as they make? they could afford to have a bit less anyway ;) and they'd still keep creating
  - unabst 10y ago
    Ah... You miss an important point. There doesn't need to be an incentive to create anything. Creation is the reward. Creative minds will create no matter what. The trick is to create a society where creators get fed, and that still remains compatible with capitalism because we are in love with capitalism.
    - unabst 10y ago
      Just to add, this is the creator's side. You can imagine a consumer side where everyone decides to put in X dollars like public radio, but watch their donation get equally distributed based on the content they consume. For both sides, the idea is to remove the profit motive from the platform itself, make it as automated and hands free as possible, make it fair, make it as open and data driven as possible, and to let creators focus on creating and nothing else. And maybe just anyone who wants to join is good enough. By joining, creators will get paid automatically just by publishing content that generates income for themselves or anyone else.

This is just one scenario, but you can imagine a system where the person who profits over any IP would pay IP tax, which would then get distributed upstream to previous registered contributors. IP producers would need to be tracked, but this is something that systems such as github already do extremely well, and credit card companies already run systems that process fees for every single transaction. Producers will announce themselves anyway, in hopes that their content will generate as much value as possible. Contributors would announce themselves in exchange for the right to use any IP. So say DJ Foo remixes a Michael Jackson song and uploads it to YouTube. YouTube will withhold the IP tax from the ad revenue paid out, and hand it over to the IP revenue service with the copyright profile. Michael Jackson will get paid for DJ Foo's remix automatically. Say DJ Foo does an original song and uploads it to YouTube. The same thing will happen, but DJ Foo will get paid from the IP revenue service since the IP is tied to DJ Foo as the originator. And imagine if all this information was open and public. We could lookup any product or work and see all of its activity and history as if it were open source code on github. In exchange for everyone paying an IP tax, anyone creating anything or adding something will be guaranteed to get paid for their contributions based on the maximum value society can generate from it. Violators will be shamed just by manipulating the system because they'd be doing it in public, and it would be in the IP creators best interest to police their work and report violations. Violations don't even need to be criminal. They just need to be fines that disincentivise those actions enough, much like parking tickets. An example violation would be uploading someone else's song without changing it or false claims regarding ownership.

cloudjacker 10y ago
Okay, now one more paragraph about how anyone is incentivized to create anything in this system
- rickycook 10y ago
  not that i'm necessarily agreeing, because it's complex but pay what you want entertainment works quite well so people are willing to support when they don't have to. also people create plenty of FOSS and creative commons software, so the incentives to create don't have to be monetary and the incentives to support don't have to be legal plus... does anyone except the rich celebrities really think they're worth as much as they make? they could afford to have a bit less anyway ;) and they'd still keep creating
- unabst 10y ago
  Ah... You miss an important point. There doesn't need to be an incentive to create anything. Creation is the reward. Creative minds will create no matter what. The trick is to create a society where creators get fed, and that still remains compatible with capitalism because we are in love with capitalism.
  - unabst 10y ago
    Just to add, this is the creator's side. You can imagine a consumer side where everyone decides to put in X dollars like public radio, but watch their donation get equally distributed based on the content they consume. For both sides, the idea is to remove the profit motive from the platform itself, make it as automated and hands free as possible, make it fair, make it as open and data driven as possible, and to let creators focus on creating and nothing else. And maybe just anyone who wants to join is good enough. By joining, creators will get paid automatically just by publishing content that generates income for themselves or anyone else.