3 ms·

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,

by 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.
- cwkoss 5y ago
  Your analogy fails because copyright going to public domain doesn't deprive the original owner of it's uses, only from the monopoly on rent-seeking. Much more like "You have to pay 1% of the price of your house per year to prevent others from using the same blueprint to make an identical house" - you still can use your house, but others can utilize that information as well without your ability to stop that productivity.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    Perhaps you meant to respond to another comment, but I don't see any connection between your objection to my analogy and the original point. I did refer to housing but only as an example of a good where the market price for similar goods is not a perfect substitute for the original item from the owner's point of view, creating an incentive for the owner to set a higher buyout price. Losing the copyright doesn't mean losing access to the work, true—nothing like needing to find alternate shelter on short notice—but it does mean losing control and that would most likely lead many copyright holders to set a higher buyout price than the going market rate. This aspect is similar to the emotional investment in a home which makes it worth more to an owner (with no plans to sell) than it would be worth to a stranger evaluating it on purely financial grounds. Judging from your phrases "monopoly on rent-seeking" and "ability to stop that productivity", I suspect we're approaching this from similar mindsets. As I said before, if it were up to me I would not grant copyright in the first place. Requiring payment for copyright privileges and creating an option for the public to buy out the copyright holder are steps in the right direction. However, I wouldn't want to see the same eminent domain model applied to true property, such as real estate, under the mistaken assumption that it results in an accurate valuation for tax purposes.

by y7 5y ago

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.

cwkoss 5y ago
Your analogy fails because copyright going to public domain doesn't deprive the original owner of it's uses, only from the monopoly on rent-seeking. Much more like "You have to pay 1% of the price of your house per year to prevent others from using the same blueprint to make an identical house" - you still can use your house, but others can utilize that information as well without your ability to stop that productivity.
- nybble41 5y ago
  Perhaps you meant to respond to another comment, but I don't see any connection between your objection to my analogy and the original point. I did refer to housing but only as an example of a good where the market price for similar goods is not a perfect substitute for the original item from the owner's point of view, creating an incentive for the owner to set a higher buyout price. Losing the copyright doesn't mean losing access to the work, true—nothing like needing to find alternate shelter on short notice—but it does mean losing control and that would most likely lead many copyright holders to set a higher buyout price than the going market rate. This aspect is similar to the emotional investment in a home which makes it worth more to an owner (with no plans to sell) than it would be worth to a stranger evaluating it on purely financial grounds. Judging from your phrases "monopoly on rent-seeking" and "ability to stop that productivity", I suspect we're approaching this from similar mindsets. As I said before, if it were up to me I would not grant copyright in the first place. Requiring payment for copyright privileges and creating an option for the public to buy out the copyright holder are steps in the right direction. However, I wouldn't want to see the same eminent domain model applied to true property, such as real estate, under the mistaken assumption that it results in an accurate valuation for tax purposes.