My replacement for Copyright law (comments?)

[phrostbyte]

Have something called an "intellectual tax" which every person has to pay a certain amount of money to some central (non-governing) authority every year.

People then upload their works (software, music, books) to the central authority who then using an algorithm that the public knows and agrees on, dispenses the money generated in a fair manner.

The whole system would work with very little human intervention. As such, if you produce works, the quoted "intellectual tax" becomes instead a source of income (perhaps A LOT of income!) for you. People still then have the incentive to author things, and consumers can finally fill their 160 GB iPods without breaking the law. It also has the nice side effect of removing a lot of the leeches in the economy (people who make money on other people's work, and or making money doing nothing really productive).

[Namtabmai]

O.k. but how would I petition the government not to give money to artists I don't like? I mean for example, I think most "new metal" bands are talentless hacks and I refuse to buy their cd currently. With this "intellectual tax" how do I go about showing my lack of support for these bands? Or does this system give all artists an equal source of income thereby giving them no incentive to produce anything good, just to produce as much as they can?

[MaximusTG]

This economic system is also known as "communism". And it will fail just because of the reason Namtabmai gave. How would you 'appreciate' each work? Because if you give all works the same amount of money, everyone would produce a lot of " works". Which will mean that everyone will just get their own money back...

[LaRoza]

I mean for example, I think most "new metal" bands are talentless hacks and I refuse to buy their cd currently.

Do you mean "nu metal", or any type of metal that is new? I don't like nu metal either, and listen to Black Metal, the kind you can't get in stores.

[original_jamingrit]

Kind of a cool idea, but doesn't it kind of devalue art and music, since we have to pay a tax for it? If art is powered by government, we are giving other people the authority to tell us what art is.

A few basic flaws, but maybe they could be corrected somehow?

[phrostbyte]

O.k. but how would I petition the government not to give money to artists I don't like? I mean for example, I think most "new metal" bands are talentless hacks and I refuse to buy their cd currently. With this "intellectual tax" how do I go about showing my lack of support for these bands? Or does this system give all artists an equal source of income thereby giving them no incentive to produce anything good, just to produce as much as they can?

The algorithm should be as fair as possible, and should definitely account for popularity and general ratings.

[phrostbyte]

Kind of a cool idea, but doesn't it kind of devalue art and music, since we have to pay a tax for it? If art is powered by government, we are giving other people the authority to tell us what art is.

A few basic flaws, but maybe they could be corrected somehow?

The basic idea is the system should run with as little human intervention as possible. The authority of how funds get divided out depend on the algorithm used. An optimal algorithm would account for popularity and how well rated a specific thing is.

[Namtabmai]

Do you mean "nu metal", or any type of metal that is new? I don't like nu metal either, and listen to Black Metal, the kind you can't get in stores.

Sorry yes, "nu" metal, but that doesn't cover my dislike for other types of music that's under the current metal banner.

Anyway I'm a firm believe in showing support (and lack of it) through spending. It's one of the easy ways of showing your support of things now a days. I haven't brought a copy of Windows (and I don't use one either), I don't buy games that don't have a Linux port (that's a hard one), I don't buy DVD/go to the cinema for those numerous crappy sequels/remakes/etc that Hollywood churn out.

The thing about this idea is, that if it ever happened people would give up their day jobs and just crank out crappy "art" in what ever format because they know they'd get paid for it. The sadder thing is, in my opinion this is what's happening at the moment. Marketing/publicising can actually take something crap and make it profitable, and those talented people without that help fail. But that's a tirade for another time.

[Namtabmai]

The algorithm should be as fair as possible, and should definitely account for popularity and general ratings.

So the algorithm would also take into account how much art/media a person uses? So for example a person that doesn't listen to music would pay less than someone who does?

[phrostbyte]

dupe

[phrostbyte]

So the algorithm would also take into account how much art/media a person uses? So for example a person that doesn't listen to music would pay less than someone who does?

It could, but I don't think that is optimal. The idea is since copyright will not exist anymore, there will be nothing to stop people from sharing things with one another. Thus, it becomes difficult to verify who doesn't and does use certain things. Perhaps the tax can be tied into certain products, like computers, media players, paper, etc. I personally think a flat tax is better and easier to administer though.

[firedancer]

In old highly civilised cultures in Africa , Asia and even Europe long time ago (historians talk alot about stoneages and what they have found in my opinion)

The artists's name does not appear anywhere --->copyrights ?

so maybe we can learn from those cultures ,


cause i'm more concerned about the bad food additives and pollution , then copyrights





humbling , don't mind me :guitar:

[glupee]

In old highly civilised cultures in Africa , Asia and even Europe long time ago (historians talk alot about stoneages and what they have found in my opinion)

The artists's name does not appear anywhere --->copyrights ?

so maybe we can learn from those cultures ,


cause i'm more concerned about the bad food additives and pollution , then copyrights





humbling , don't mind me :guitar:
:lolflag:
+1

[phrostbyte]

In old highly civilised cultures in Africa , Asia and even Europe long time ago (historians talk alot about stoneages and what they have found in my opinion)

The artists's name does not appear anywhere --->copyrights ?

so maybe we can learn from those cultures ,


cause i'm more concerned about the bad food additives and pollution , then copyrights





humbling , don't mind me :guitar:

I agree with this. Putting your name on a work makes you feel like you have ownership over it. I found that the stuff I release with my name on it that I get worried when people are distributing it (even though I license typically using GPL or CC), but if I don't put my name on it, I end up really not caring. If I publish something that I want to be freely distributed I think it's better to avoid any attribution.

[Ireclan]

This seems to be a well thought out idea to me. I like it.

[phrostbyte]

The way I see it is we really need to reform copyright law. Right now copyright is law enabling RIAA/fascist like behavior and I don't think it will end until we put and end to the laws that allow it to happen in the first place. If we let this continue expect more intrusions to the common people's personal lives and dealings by the government and big business publishers.

[samjh]

Sounds far too communist for my liking.

How about just make copyright stick to the original creator of the work? In my view, the original creator should have the moral right to decide who and how the work can be used, regardless of whether the copyright is sold to a third-party.

At the moment, copyrights can be bought off by third-parties, such as record companies, and the original creator is stripped of their rights (different jurisdictions may vary in law). This doesn't seem fair or moral, IMHO.

Record companies should be controlled by music artists, not the other way around. Same with movies: the film industry should be controlled by the producers of the movies, not the publishers who scrounge off other people's talent and hard work.

If I create an artistic masterpiece, or a very important invention, I would like get proper credit for the work. I'm sure most people would agree.

[RAV TUX]

The algorithm should be as fair as possible, and should definitely account for popularity and general ratings.

Run by Google.

[thx11381974]

The problem with phrostbyte's plan is it replaces a fascist system with a communist one.
I believe copyright is immoral the idea that just because you thought of something you own it, to me at least is disgusting. My thought(I hereby release without any copyright what so ever) is copyright in all but commercial use should be illegal.
Meaning that an artist can control the commercial use of there work but not privet a person can then sing happy birthday to any one they choose, but they can't charge to sing you happy birthday. If a movie company wants to use some chicks song to make a crappy movie about a ship sinking into a big hit they can, but they'll have to pay. If you want give the song to your buddy to improve his chances of scoring with the girl he's going out with you can, and nobody's breaking the law. House wives don't get sued because their kids downloaded this that or what ever. No one gets called a Nazi, capitalism continues on as it should.

[phrostbyte]

The problem with phrostbyte's plan is it replaces a fascist system with a communist one.
I believe copyright is immoral the idea that just because you thought of something you own it, to me at least is disgusting. My thought(I hereby release without any copyright what so ever) is copyright in all but commercial use should be illegal.
Meaning that an artist can control the commercial use of there work but not privet a person can then sing happy birthday to any one they choose, but they can't charge to sing you happy birthday. If a movie company wants to use some chicks song to make a crappy movie about a ship sinking into a big hit they can, but they'll have to pay. If you want give the song to your buddy to improve his chances of scoring with the girl he's going out with you can, and nobody's breaking the law. House wives don't get sued because their kids downloaded this that or what ever. No one gets called a Nazi, capitalism continues on as it should.

The problem with that idea is that "non-commercial" uses of copyright are important sources of revenue for the publishing cartels and often individual authors as well. Such a system may discourage authorship of works which will primary be used for non-commercial purposes. It also changes the situation in regards to the legality and violation thereof very little.

[Tomosaur]

The idea is since copyright will not exist anymore, there will be nothing to stop people from sharing things with one another.

Hello corporate government, do you want me to bend over or kneel down?

People should be able to share whatever they feel like with whoever they feel like.

The current situation of intellectual property is morally and ethically wrong. It leads to ignorance, unfairness, and oppression. Many people have become very rich through the idea of intellectual property, but many more have suffered (and are suffering) due to the effects of such a system. It leads to a lack of competition. It means only the already wealthy can compete (they have to buy licenses and other such things to 'use something commercially'). It is just generally bad all around, and most people have been brainwashed into thinking that once an idea has been shared, it can still be owned.

If you don't want to share your ideas, then you shouldn't tell anybody them. It's very simple.

Most ideas are terrible anyway. Better NOT to reward those who come up with terrible ideas, methinks.

EDIT: I may have misunderstood what you were saying, but it sounded like you mean that people SHOULDN'T be able to share. In case you didn't mean that, then just ignore the above post. (An 'idea tax' is still a bad idea though :P)

[thx11381974]

The problem with that idea is that "non-commercial" uses of copyright are important sources of revenue for the publishing cartels and often individual authors as well. Such a system may discourage authorship of works which will primary be used for non-commercial purposes. It also changes the situation in regards to the legality and violation thereof very little.

Slavery was an important source of revenue for the Confederate States of America how many of us morn their passing?

Individual authors/artist can make money through performances, lectures, teaching, and or other real jobs. Linux seems to click along just fine. My idea is not far removed from GPL in function anyhow. I have to be fair here. I do not believe that intellectual property exist. I would prefer no copyright law at all. Currant copyright effectively makes everyone a criminal, any law that no one is willing to follow must be considered oppressive.
My idea is a compromise, Leave the law suits and who owes who what crap to the people trying to make money off it. Stop making criminals out of the general pubic, It only generates contempt for the law.