6 ms·

I have a proposal that allows for indefinite copyright, but also with a tax regime that would require someone to pay for this right handsomely. 1. 14 years aut

by zdw 5y ago

I have a proposal that allows for indefinite copyright, but also with a tax regime that would require someone to pay for this right handsomely. 1. 14 years automatic copyright (enough time for anyone to file registration paperwork) 2. Free 14 year renewal, to 28 years on formal registration. 3. After that, taxing it like regular property - a valuation must be created on which it is taxed like other real property at a reasonable rate, and with the caveat that anyone can buy the rights for that valuation, and then either keep paying tax or let it lapse into public domain. This is like the government buying a piece of land at assessed value if they need to build a public work. 4. Tax in 4 goes up over time, starting at say 1% of valuation yearly up to 10% of valuation yearly after 100 years. Don't pay the tax, copyright lapses and enters public domain. Value too low, someone buys your copyright out. The end result would be that most normal copyrights last 28 years, before the tax comes into effect. Also, Mickey Mouse can be held in copyright for perpetuity, but Disney has to pay a lot for this right and continually increase the valuation/tax if someone wants to buy it from them.

Zak 5y ago
That's an interesting way to do it. When you write "up to 10% of valuation yearly after 100 years", do you mean there should be a cap? I like the idea of no cap, and a fairly aggressive schedule that would make keeping a copyright longer than a human lifetime almost universally unprofitable.
- iso1631 5y ago
  Even without an escalating charge it's interesting - as if you put the value too high you're paying more than you want, put it low and a competitor will buy you out. Take the entire Star Wars canon for example, say they put the value at $10b, netflix could buy it relatively easily, but a 1% tax would mean Disney have to pay $1b a decade just to keep it registered. Bump that to $50b though and it will cost $5b a decade to register. Drop it to $100m and some individuals might buy it just for shits and giggles.
rileymat2 5y ago
If the tax is 10% of value, won’t it always be worth renewing as when it gets less valuable the tax goes down towards 0?
- zdw 5y ago
  Add in a minimum processing fee of $20, or a minimum valuation. The point is to make the cost of retaining a copyright over time non-zero and subject to tax, so people aren't incentivized to retain copyright on everything for no cost.
  - rileymat2 5y ago
    Maybe, but it seems like these kind of things mutate into protection rackets for the big guys to get all benefit out of the system. By requiring a minimum for protection. Works at first then they shift the laws and make it legally complicated and require scale.
y7 5y ago
One problem with a tax (morally speaking, as the world continues to globalize) is that it mostly benefits citizens of the copyright holder's country of origin, whereas the value of the public domain is global (assuming copyright treaties). Also, buying out copyright against the valuation seems like a good market incentive to have an accurate valuation, but I'd argue that the original creator should at least retain some license (e.g. to create derived works).
- zdw 5y ago
  The valuation idea was to make implementation simple. Another option would be a revenue-based approach where any money earned through copyright ownership would be subject to a licensing tax. This could be more easily spread around to multiple countries taxing within their jurisdiction, but would also get into hairy issues when multiple copyright applied to a single piece of media - how would a movie or game full of 3rd party characters like Kingdom Hearts, Wreck it Ralph, or Ready Player One split the value of each individual IP works within it for tax purposes?
- nybble41 5y ago
  > I'd argue that the original creator should at least retain some license… I'd argue that the buyout should always be for the public domain. The buyer gets the right to use it (as a member of the public) but not exclusivity. Then again, I'd also argue that copyright should not be granted in the first place… It is important to note that buyout terms like this do not necessarily result in accurate valuations. Consider the chaos that would ensue if anyone could buy your home simply by paying the going rate for similar homes in your area—it may be just another house to them, but to you it's your home and an unplanned move would be a major inconvenience and expense, not to mention the emotional cost. People would naturally tend to set a buyout price well above the market price on their primary residence to avoid having their home bought out from under them, and to an extent the same would apply to other items such as copyright privileges. The end result is that 10% of the buyout price will generally be much more than 10% of the price the item would be likely to sell for on the open market, and may even exceed the market price of the good. You can compensate for that somewhat by lowering the tax rate, but since the degree of attachment varies from one individual to another it would be difficult to set a uniform rate that would be considered fair for everyone. There are good reasons why eminent domain is not an option available to just anyone, and in most cases is only used where there is an overriding public interest in that specific property such as being in the path of a road or other infrastructure project which cannot simply be diverted elsewhere. Even then I would disagree with it as applied to regular property where there are natural rights involved. Copyright is a different matter, however, as an artificial creation of government. They can revoke those privileges at any time, without giving any justification or compensation. The buyout option allows them to continue using copyright as an incentive while reducing the impact to the public—hopefully as a first step toward phasing it out altogether.
riskable 5y ago
To amend this a bit: * In order to sue for any copyright violation it must be both registered and the current owner kept up-to-date in a publicly-accessible registry. That way if you want to know who owns the copyright to any given thing you can do a quick search. Incorrect ownership records should result in the forfeit of the copyright. * Provide a central notification system for all copyright claims. So to file the equivalent of a DMCA takedown notice a copyright holder would have to file the claim in the government-run system (i.e. not some unregulated 3rd party system). This would require that they keep their ownership records up to date. * Penalties for false claims and should be severe. Akin to tax fraud. * The sale of any and all copyrights must be recorded in the system and the sale price should be recorded for tax purposes. No different than filing the sale of a home with your state/local authorities. Note: This isn't the same as selling licenses to said copyrights. We also need serious reform of statutory values for copyright violations. Copying a file (say, a song) is most definitely not worthy of a $750 punishment let alone $30,000 (the current statutory values for registered copyright violations). These values should also not compound based on the number of works that were copied. A single individual could copy (aka "distribute") 1000 books in a few seconds but there's no way that this is worth $750,000 (minimum) of damages to the owner of those copyrights.
- zdw 5y ago
  Agreed - I think using copyright fees to pay for these goals would be idea. Additionally, making sure that archival copies are kept when a copyright is registered, so we don't lose works over time would be a great idea. The US patent system previously required a working model and diagrams to be submitted to prevent knowledge loss - this would extend that to cultural works.
Mindwipe 5y ago
> Also, Mickey Mouse can be held in copyright for perpetuity, but Disney has to pay a lot for this right and continually increase the valuation/tax if someone wants to buy it from them. A quick reminder that the copyright in Mickey Mouse isn't worth much, even to Disney. Steamboat Willy MM looks nothing like his modern incarnation. And Disney would still have the registered trademark to Mickey Mouse, renewable at minimal cost in perpetuity.
mbg721 5y ago
I'd like to see a way out of the chilling-effect that current copyright law has. Maybe a strong safe-harbor provision for individuals acting as individuals?
freejazz 5y ago
Isn't any money flowing from a valuable IP already taxed? Also, your system is absurd if a copyright owner is forced to sell to the highest bidder when they didn't put anything up for sale.
albrewer 5y ago
I agree with point 1 and point 2 should really be to the end of the original author's lifetime, or 40 years if it's the work of a corporation i.e. a work for hire. Additionally, the renewal should cost (2 * i)^n dollars for each year beyond that, where i is the inflation adjustment and n is the number of years. You want to preserve your copyright for 10 years? Fine, it'll only cost you ~$2k. You want to extend it for 30 years? That'll be a billion dollars, please. The original author no longer cares, and their offspring have had their chance to profit from it and start to create something new. Having an idea first shouldn't grant you and your bloodline (or shareholders) exclusive right to it forever.

by zdw 5y ago

Zak 5y ago

That's an interesting way to do it. When you write "up to 10% of valuation yearly after 100 years", do you mean there should be a cap? I like the idea of no cap, and a fairly aggressive schedule that would make keeping a copyright longer than a human lifetime almost universally unprofitable.

iso1631 5y ago
Even without an escalating charge it's interesting - as if you put the value too high you're paying more than you want, put it low and a competitor will buy you out. Take the entire Star Wars canon for example, say they put the value at $10b, netflix could buy it relatively easily, but a 1% tax would mean Disney have to pay $1b a decade just to keep it registered. Bump that to $50b though and it will cost $5b a decade to register. Drop it to $100m and some individuals might buy it just for shits and giggles.

rileymat2 5y ago

If the tax is 10% of value, won’t it always be worth renewing as when it gets less valuable the tax goes down towards 0?

zdw 5y ago
Add in a minimum processing fee of $20, or a minimum valuation. The point is to make the cost of retaining a copyright over time non-zero and subject to tax, so people aren't incentivized to retain copyright on everything for no cost.
- rileymat2 5y ago
  Maybe, but it seems like these kind of things mutate into protection rackets for the big guys to get all benefit out of the system. By requiring a minimum for protection. Works at first then they shift the laws and make it legally complicated and require scale.

y7 5y ago

One problem with a tax (morally speaking, as the world continues to globalize) is that it mostly benefits citizens of the copyright holder's country of origin, whereas the value of the public domain is global (assuming copyright treaties). Also, buying out copyright against the valuation seems like a good market incentive to have an accurate valuation, but I'd argue that the original creator should at least retain some license (e.g. to create derived works).

zdw 5y ago
The valuation idea was to make implementation simple. Another option would be a revenue-based approach where any money earned through copyright ownership would be subject to a licensing tax. This could be more easily spread around to multiple countries taxing within their jurisdiction, but would also get into hairy issues when multiple copyright applied to a single piece of media - how would a movie or game full of 3rd party characters like Kingdom Hearts, Wreck it Ralph, or Ready Player One split the value of each individual IP works within it for tax purposes?
nybble41 5y ago
> I'd argue that the original creator should at least retain some license… I'd argue that the buyout should always be for the public domain. The buyer gets the right to use it (as a member of the public) but not exclusivity. Then again, I'd also argue that copyright should not be granted in the first place… It is important to note that buyout terms like this do not necessarily result in accurate valuations. Consider the chaos that would ensue if anyone could buy your home simply by paying the going rate for similar homes in your area—it may be just another house to them, but to you it's your home and an unplanned move would be a major inconvenience and expense, not to mention the emotional cost. People would naturally tend to set a buyout price well above the market price on their primary residence to avoid having their home bought out from under them, and to an extent the same would apply to other items such as copyright privileges. The end result is that 10% of the buyout price will generally be much more than 10% of the price the item would be likely to sell for on the open market, and may even exceed the market price of the good. You can compensate for that somewhat by lowering the tax rate, but since the degree of attachment varies from one individual to another it would be difficult to set a uniform rate that would be considered fair for everyone. There are good reasons why eminent domain is not an option available to just anyone, and in most cases is only used where there is an overriding public interest in that specific property such as being in the path of a road or other infrastructure project which cannot simply be diverted elsewhere. Even then I would disagree with it as applied to regular property where there are natural rights involved. Copyright is a different matter, however, as an artificial creation of government. They can revoke those privileges at any time, without giving any justification or compensation. The buyout option allows them to continue using copyright as an incentive while reducing the impact to the public—hopefully as a first step toward phasing it out altogether.

riskable 5y ago

To amend this a bit: * In order to sue for any copyright violation it must be both registered and the current owner kept up-to-date in a publicly-accessible registry. That way if you want to know who owns the copyright to any given thing you can do a quick search. Incorrect ownership records should result in the forfeit of the copyright. * Provide a central notification system for all copyright claims. So to file the equivalent of a DMCA takedown notice a copyright holder would have to file the claim in the government-run system (i.e. not some unregulated 3rd party system). This would require that they keep their ownership records up to date. * Penalties for false claims and should be severe. Akin to tax fraud. * The sale of any and all copyrights must be recorded in the system and the sale price should be recorded for tax purposes. No different than filing the sale of a home with your state/local authorities. Note: This isn't the same as selling licenses to said copyrights. We also need serious reform of statutory values for copyright violations. Copying a file (say, a song) is most definitely not worthy of a $750 punishment let alone $30,000 (the current statutory values for registered copyright violations). These values should also not compound based on the number of works that were copied. A single individual could copy (aka "distribute") 1000 books in a few seconds but there's no way that this is worth $750,000 (minimum) of damages to the owner of those copyrights.

zdw 5y ago
Agreed - I think using copyright fees to pay for these goals would be idea. Additionally, making sure that archival copies are kept when a copyright is registered, so we don't lose works over time would be a great idea. The US patent system previously required a working model and diagrams to be submitted to prevent knowledge loss - this would extend that to cultural works.

Mindwipe 5y ago

> Also, Mickey Mouse can be held in copyright for perpetuity, but Disney has to pay a lot for this right and continually increase the valuation/tax if someone wants to buy it from them. A quick reminder that the copyright in Mickey Mouse isn't worth much, even to Disney. Steamboat Willy MM looks nothing like his modern incarnation. And Disney would still have the registered trademark to Mickey Mouse, renewable at minimal cost in perpetuity.

mbg721 5y ago

I'd like to see a way out of the chilling-effect that current copyright law has. Maybe a strong safe-harbor provision for individuals acting as individuals?

freejazz 5y ago

Isn't any money flowing from a valuable IP already taxed? Also, your system is absurd if a copyright owner is forced to sell to the highest bidder when they didn't put anything up for sale.

albrewer 5y ago

I agree with point 1 and point 2 should really be to the end of the original author's lifetime, or 40 years if it's the work of a corporation i.e. a work for hire. Additionally, the renewal should cost (2 * i)^n dollars for each year beyond that, where i is the inflation adjustment and n is the number of years. You want to preserve your copyright for 10 years? Fine, it'll only cost you ~$2k. You want to extend it for 30 years? That'll be a billion dollars, please. The original author no longer cares, and their offspring have had their chance to profit from it and start to create something new. Having an idea first shouldn't grant you and your bloodline (or shareholders) exclusive right to it forever.