4 ms·

Copyright only exists because the government uses its monopoly on violence to protect it. Why should it not get a decent cut of the pie after a decade or so? T

Copyright only exists because the government uses its monopoly on violence to protect it. Why should it not get a decent cut of the pie after a decade or so? The average property tax is about 1%, so why should copyright be treated as something special? Especially, if the rent is collected by a third party that purchased the rights, their relationship to the creation of the underlying asset is no different to a landlord. I'd dispense with this self-valuation business though and just charge a 1% tax on net present value of the asset. If the copyright holder releases their claim early, then they'll get a tax refund for previous payments at the recalculated net present value.

missedthecue 5y ago
"Why should it not get a decent cut of the pie after a decade or so?" well i guess it depends on if you view the government as a profit seeking entity trying to maximally price its IP protection product, or if you view it as societal infrastructure.
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  Society works when people feel better off within than without, when that's not true, then people stop respecting laws and generally act asocial. Copyright holders get an excellent deal by living in a society that allows them to collect rents that can add up into the millions of even billions. But how about the work-a-day folks? What's in it for them? An abstract idea that allowing the descendants of creators to collect economic rents for generations after their death, might result in a greater throughput in creative works... somehow. No, for society to work, then rent seeking must be reigned in. A copyright wealth tax would still allow rights holders to become fabulously wealthy, but they'd have to give something back in return. Something more than normal income tax, because of the rent seeking nature of their enterprise.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    I'm not sure if I would call profiting off of an intangible invention or creation "rent". Is profiting by selling other property rent? Such as your labor? Or your used car? It's a lot easier to steal your music or your blueprints than it is to steal physical property, but that doesn't change the fact that it's all still property, at least in my mind. And society seems to work best when theft is at a minimum.
    - scoopertrooper 5y ago
      If I build a bridge across a river and setup a toll booth, then yes, I should expect a return that reflects the capital, time, and risk I took in constructing the bridge. However, when I abuse my monopoly over the bridge to extract a return in excess of that, then I'm seeking economic rent. Renting out a property is (by definition) a form of rent seeking, but it only becomes a problem when rent seekers have monopolistic market power as the rents they seek cannot be restrained by normal market forces. One only needs to look at the consolidation of the movie industry to see such power in action. I'm not defending intellectual property theft, I'm (quite modestly) suggesting that rights holders should pay a surcharge (similar to real property taxes) in return for the state allowing for them to extract monopolistic profits from their copyright holdings.

missedthecue 5y ago

"Why should it not get a decent cut of the pie after a decade or so?" well i guess it depends on if you view the government as a profit seeking entity trying to maximally price its IP protection product, or if you view it as societal infrastructure.

scoopertrooper 5y ago
Society works when people feel better off within than without, when that's not true, then people stop respecting laws and generally act asocial. Copyright holders get an excellent deal by living in a society that allows them to collect rents that can add up into the millions of even billions. But how about the work-a-day folks? What's in it for them? An abstract idea that allowing the descendants of creators to collect economic rents for generations after their death, might result in a greater throughput in creative works... somehow. No, for society to work, then rent seeking must be reigned in. A copyright wealth tax would still allow rights holders to become fabulously wealthy, but they'd have to give something back in return. Something more than normal income tax, because of the rent seeking nature of their enterprise.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  I'm not sure if I would call profiting off of an intangible invention or creation "rent". Is profiting by selling other property rent? Such as your labor? Or your used car? It's a lot easier to steal your music or your blueprints than it is to steal physical property, but that doesn't change the fact that it's all still property, at least in my mind. And society seems to work best when theft is at a minimum.
  - scoopertrooper 5y ago
    If I build a bridge across a river and setup a toll booth, then yes, I should expect a return that reflects the capital, time, and risk I took in constructing the bridge. However, when I abuse my monopoly over the bridge to extract a return in excess of that, then I'm seeking economic rent. Renting out a property is (by definition) a form of rent seeking, but it only becomes a problem when rent seekers have monopolistic market power as the rents they seek cannot be restrained by normal market forces. One only needs to look at the consolidation of the movie industry to see such power in action. I'm not defending intellectual property theft, I'm (quite modestly) suggesting that rights holders should pay a surcharge (similar to real property taxes) in return for the state allowing for them to extract monopolistic profits from their copyright holdings.