4 ms·

Pure Harberger taxes aren't a perfect fit for copyright--7 initial years free* is what one fan of the original paper proposed--but I can't see how, compared to

by khafra 5y ago

Pure Harberger taxes aren't a perfect fit for copyright--7 initial years free* is what one fan of the original paper proposed--but I can't see how, compared to existing copyright law, they encourage dishonesty, get messy, or require new industry (a sufficiently large IP company might shift some spending from lawyers to valuation and risk assessment). > A competitor to Disney could wait until they announce a new movie and then forcibly buy up enough rights to make the movie illegal to release. In a de novo work like Toy Story, or a fully licensed work like Wreck-It Ralph, Disney owns the rights and knows their value when they announce the upcoming film. The problem only occurs in cases like Lion King, where an existing folk story gets Disneyfied, with no compensation, and often no credit, to the cultural originator of the story. I'm ok with Disney needing to pay extra money while their competitors pay extra taxes, in cases like this. * https://ristret.com/s/ftmbkg/harberger_taxation_has_elegant https://ristret.com/s/ftmbkg/harberger_taxation_has_elegant

dahfizz 5y ago
> but I can't see how, compared to existing copyright law, they encourage dishonesty, get messy, or require new industry. The comparison was with OP's suggestion of replacing copyright with a simple tax, not with current copyright law. I agree Harberger taxes would be simpler than the existing system, though still not preferable. > In a de novo work like Toy Story, or a fully licensed work like Wreck-It Ralph, Disney owns the rights and knows their value when they announce the upcoming film. Sure, but a competitor could steal the rights out from under them in the time between announcing the film and the film hitting theaters. There's another issue with not-yet-profitable IP. With Harberger taxes you wouldn't be able to protect IP while you're still working to build products around it. This is another way that smaller / new players get screwed with this type of system. As I said, the forced buying / selling creates way more problems than it solves. All we are trying to do here is determine how high a tax should be. Inventing a scheme where people and companies can steal from each other (for a fee) is always going to have worse second order effects and be more complicated than just coming up with a price formula for the tax.
- khafra 5y ago
  The “initial duration X free” I mentioned solves all these problems without producing very onerous complications. Even if it didn’t, a small creator could get immediate cash infusions simply by pricing his newly created characters at a large multiple of what he thinks he could make off them—that way, Disney’s buyout is a providential windfall instead of legal thievery. I think you’re undercounting the benefits and overcounting the side effects of incentive compatible mechanisms!
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    > The “initial duration X free” I mentioned solves all these problems without producing very onerous complications. I guess that depends on how you define it. All the marvel characters and stories have existed for decades. The only thing new about the movies are the movies themselves > a small creator could get immediate cash infusions simply by pricing his newly created characters at a large multiple of what he thinks he could make off them—that way, Disney’s buyout is a providential windfall instead of legal thievery. Yeah, and run the risk of bankrupting themselves from the tax bill in the process.

by khafra 5y ago

dahfizz 5y ago

> but I can't see how, compared to existing copyright law, they encourage dishonesty, get messy, or require new industry. The comparison was with OP's suggestion of replacing copyright with a simple tax, not with current copyright law. I agree Harberger taxes would be simpler than the existing system, though still not preferable. > In a de novo work like Toy Story, or a fully licensed work like Wreck-It Ralph, Disney owns the rights and knows their value when they announce the upcoming film. Sure, but a competitor could steal the rights out from under them in the time between announcing the film and the film hitting theaters. There's another issue with not-yet-profitable IP. With Harberger taxes you wouldn't be able to protect IP while you're still working to build products around it. This is another way that smaller / new players get screwed with this type of system. As I said, the forced buying / selling creates way more problems than it solves. All we are trying to do here is determine how high a tax should be. Inventing a scheme where people and companies can steal from each other (for a fee) is always going to have worse second order effects and be more complicated than just coming up with a price formula for the tax.

khafra 5y ago
The “initial duration X free” I mentioned solves all these problems without producing very onerous complications. Even if it didn’t, a small creator could get immediate cash infusions simply by pricing his newly created characters at a large multiple of what he thinks he could make off them—that way, Disney’s buyout is a providential windfall instead of legal thievery. I think you’re undercounting the benefits and overcounting the side effects of incentive compatible mechanisms!
- dahfizz 5y ago
  > The “initial duration X free” I mentioned solves all these problems without producing very onerous complications. I guess that depends on how you define it. All the marvel characters and stories have existed for decades. The only thing new about the movies are the movies themselves > a small creator could get immediate cash infusions simply by pricing his newly created characters at a large multiple of what he thinks he could make off them—that way, Disney’s buyout is a providential windfall instead of legal thievery. Yeah, and run the risk of bankrupting themselves from the tax bill in the process.